Abstract
This chapter develops a theoretical framework for the concept of e-Competence, and it investigates the principles of the methodical design of competence development measures for faculty. e-Competence is grounded in the motivation and capability of faculty members to use information and communication technologies (ICT). A literature review extracts the key components of action competence and integrates them into a holistic model, which serves as a foundation for discussing e-Competence. The concept of e-Competence is introduced and specified by contextual factors that teachers face in e-Learning scenarios. The chapter finally discusses portfolio models for faculty development and presents findings of an international survey on e-Competence measures for faculty. It can be concluded that universities need to create portfolios for faculty development, which extend both the scope and the breadth of traditional training. Wider measures and incentives more efficiently suit the institutional goal of universities to increase the motivation of faculty to sustainably use learning technologies for their courses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation – five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2009.
Barrios, B., & Carstensen, D. (eds). (2004). Campus 2004 – Kommen die digitalen Medien an den Hochschulen in die Jahre? Münster: Waxmann.
Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change. strategies for college and university teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Boezerooij, P. (2006). E-learning strategies of higher education institutions. PhD Thesis. University of Twente.
Bremer, C., & Kohl, K. (eds). (2004). E-Learning-Strategien und E-Learning-Kompetenzen an Hochschulen. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 1–24.
Cook, R. G., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and Inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149–163.
Dejoux, C. (1996). Organisation qualifiante et maturité en gestion des compétences. Personnel, 369, 61–67.
Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., & Van Houweling, D. (2003). The development of institutional strategies. Educause Review, 38(3), 48–58.
Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovation. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23–27.
Enders, J. (2002). Governing the academic commons: about blurring boundaries, blistering organisations, and growing demands. In center for higher education policy studies inaugurals 2002, University of Twente: Enschede, (pp. 69–105).
Erpenbeck, J., & Heyse, V. (1999). Die Kompetenzbiographie – Strategien der Kompetenzentwicklung durch selbstorganisiertes Lernen und multimediale Kommunikation. Münster: Waxmann.
Euler, D., & Hahn, A. (2004). Wirtschaftsdidaktik. Bern: Haupt.
Euler, D., & Seufert, S. (2004). Nachhaltigkeit von eLearning-Innovationen – Ergebnisse einer Delphi-Studie (Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning Report 2). University of St. Gallen.
Hagner, P. R., & Schneebeck, C. A. (2001). Engaging the faculty. In C. A. Barone & P. R. Hagner (Eds.), Technology enhanced teaching and learning: leading and supporting the transformation on your campus (pp. 1–13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, D. F. (2003). Toward a Philosophy of Online Education. In D. G. Brown (Ed.), Developing faculty to use technology – programs and strategies to enhance teaching (pp. 9–12). Bolton: Anker Publishing.
Kerres, M., Euler, D. Seufert, S., Hasanbegovic, J., & Voss, B. (2005). Lehrkompetenz für eLearning-Innovationen in der Hochschule (Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning Report 6). University of St. Gallen.
Latchem, C., Jung, I., Aoki, K., & Ozkul, A. E. (2007). The tortoise and the hare enigma in e-transformation in Japanese and Korean higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 610–630.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
Light, D., Jr. (1974). Introduction: the structure of the academic professions. Sociology of Education, 47(1), 2–28.
Mayring, P., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2003). Die Praxis der Qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education. Malabar, FA: Open University Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Saks, A. M. (1997). Transfer of training and self-efficacy: what is the dilemma? Applied Psychology, 46(4), 365–370.
Salmon, G. (2004a). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
Schneckenberg, D. (2008). Educating tomorrow’s knowledge workers. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.
Schneckenberg, D. (2009). The tip of the iceberg – fundamental barriers for innovation in universities. Ninth EURAM Conference Proceedings. Liverpool: European Academy of Management.
Schneckenberg, D., & Wildt, J. (2006). Understanding the concept of eCompetence for academic staff. In I. Mac Labhrainn, C. McDonald Legg, D. Schneckenberg & J. Wildt (Eds.), The challenge of eCompetence in academic Staff development (pp. 29–35). Galway: NUI Galway.
Van der Blij, M. (2002). Van competenties naar proeven van bekwaamheid, een orientatie (Unpublished manuscript). University of Twente.
Viebahn, P. (2004). Hochschullehrerpsychologie – Theorie- und empiriebasierte Praxisanregungen für die Hochschullehre. Bielefeld: UVW.
vom Brocke, J. (2005). Organisationsgestaltung im E-Learning – Konzeption und Anwendung für die integrierte Prozessgestaltung an Großuniversitäten. In K. P. Jantke, K. P. Fähnrich & W. S. Wittig (Eds.), Marktplatz Internet: von E-Learning bis E-Payment (pp. 157–164). Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Weinert, F. E. (1999). Definition and selection of competencies – concepts of competence. Munich: Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research – design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004a). Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why? University of Pennsylvania: The Learning Alliance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schneckenberg, D. (2010). What is e-Competence? Conceptual Framework and Implications for Faculty Engagement. In: Ehlers, UD., Schneckenberg, D. (eds) Changing Cultures in Higher Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03581-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03582-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)