Produktivitätssteigerung in der Aus- und Weiterbildung durch Service Engineering (ProduSE)

  • Sharif Amrou
  • Philipp Bitzer
  • Tilo Böhmann
  • Eike M. Hirdes
  • Katja Lehmann
  • Jan Marco Leimeister
  • Martin Semmann
  • Frank Wortmann
  • Joachim Zülch
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

IT-gestützte Lerndienstleistungen (ITLDL) spielen eine zunehmend wichtige Rolle in der Lerndienstleistungsindustrie. Trotz der Tatsache, dass die Wichtigkeit einer ganzheitlichen Bewertung der Qualität der ITLDL in der Literatur betont wird, um übertragebare Forschungsergebnisse auf vielfache Dimensionen abzuleiten, wurde dies bisher nicht untersucht. Um diese Lücke zu bestimmen, wurden zuerst die bestehenden Erkenntnisse hinsichtlich Struktur, Empfänger-Prädisposition, Prozess und Ergebnisqualität von ITLDL dargestellt und ein umfassender Ansatz entwickelt, um die ITLDL-Qualität zu messen. Darauf aufbauend wurde das Forschungsmodell abgeleitet und die Wichtigkeit der verschiedenen Konstrukte der ITLDL-Qualität untersucht. Für die Entwicklung des ITLDL-Qualitätsmodells basieren die Ergebnisse auf dem Wissensbestand der Literatur, einem Fokusgruppen-Workshop und einem Item-basierten Konzept. Danach sind Angaben von 163 ITLDL Softwaretraining-Teilnehmern gesammelt wurden, um den Ansatz und das Forschungsmodell empirisch auszuwerten. Das Kernergebnis der Untersuchung ist das ITLDL-Qualitätsmodell, welches eine neu entwickelte ITLDL-Prozessdimension beinhaltet.

Literatur

Literatur zu Abschnitt 7.1

  1. [1]
    Alavi, M., und Dorothy E. Leidner. 2001. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly 25(1): 107–136.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Allen, I Elaine, und Jeff Seaman. 2006. Making the grade. Online education in the United States.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Amrou, Sharif, Martin Semmann, und Tilo Böhmann. 2013. Managing for Transfer of Training: Directions for the Evolution of Learning Management Systems.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Arbaugh, J.B. 2001. How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly 64(4): 42–54.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Arbaugh, J.B. 2000. An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student learning and class participation in an Internet-based MBA course. Management Learning 31(4): 503–519.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Arthur Jr, W., W. Bennett Jr, P.S. Edens, und S.T. Bell. 2003. Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 234.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Backhaus, Klaus, Ole Bröker, und Robert Wilken. 2011. Produktivitätsmessung von Dienstleistungen mit Hilfe von Varianten der DEA. In Dienstleistungsproduktivität, Hrsg. Manfred Bruhn, Karsten Hadwich, 225–245. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ball, Diane M., und Levy Yair. 2008. Emerging Educational Technology: Assessing the Factors that Influence Instructors’ Acceptance in Information Systems and Other Classrooms. Journal of Information Systems Education 19(4): 431–444.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bitzer, P., M. Soellner, und J.M. Leimeister. 2013. Evaluating the Quality of Technology-Mediated Learning Services. Milano: International Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Bitzer, P., R. Wegener, und J.M. Leimeister. 2010. Entwicklung eines Produktivitätsmodells zur Systematisierung von Lerndienstleistungen 40. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bitzer, Philipp, Katja Lehmann und Jan Marco Leimeister. 2012. A Literature Review on the Indicators for the Measurement of Technology Mediated Learning Productivity: 2000 to 2011. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Seattle, Washington, USA. Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Bolliger, D.U., S. Supanakorn, und C. Boggs. 2010. Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Computers & Education 55(2): 714–722.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cantoni, Virginio, Massimo Cellario, und Marco Porta. 2004. Perspectives and challenges in e-learning: towards natural interaction paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 15(5): 333–345.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Cenfetelli, Ronald T., und Geneviève Bassellier. 2009. Interpretation of Formative Measurement in Informations Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 33(4): 689–707.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Chin, W.W. 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods For Business Research, Hrsg. G.A. Marcoulides London: LEA.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Chin, W.W., und P.R. Newsted. 1999. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. Statistical strategies for small sample research, 307–341. doi:citeulike-article-id:7653251.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Choi, Duke Hyun, Kim Jeoungkun, und Kim Hie Soung. 2007. ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: The flow theory perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65(3): 223–243.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Churchill Jr, und A. Gilbert Jr. et al, 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research, 64–73.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Colquitt, Jason A., Jeffrey A. LePine, und Raymond A. Noe. 2000. Toward an Integrative Theory of Training Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Path Analysis of 20 Years of Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(5): 678–707.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Delone, W.H., und E.R. McLean. 2003. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of management information systems 19(4): 9–30.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, und Judy A. Siguaw. 2006. Formative Versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration. British Journal of Management 17(4): 263–282. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Donabedian, Avedis 1980. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its assessment Health Administration, Bd. I. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Fischer, Frank, Johannes Bruhn, Cornelia Gräsel, und Heinz Mandl. 2000. Kooperatives Lernen mit Videokonferenzen: Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion und individueller Lernerfolg. Kognitionswissenschaft 9(1): 5–16.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Fitzsimmons, James A., und Mona J. Fitzsimmons. 2006. Service management: Operations, strategy, and information technology. New York.: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Fontana, Andrea, und James H Frey. 1994. Interviewing: The art of science.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Friday, E., S.S. Friday-Stroud, A.L. Green, und Y. Hill. et al, 2006. A multi-semester comparison of student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management courses. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 8(1): 66–81.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Gagné, Ellen D., Carol Walker Yekovich, und Frank R. Yekovich. 1993. The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins College.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Garrison, Randy D., und Heather Kanuka. 2004. Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education 7(2): 95–105.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Gartner. 2012a. ERP Training Best Practices.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Gartner. 2012b. Forecast: Enterprise Software Markets, Worldwide, 2011–2016, 2Q12 Update.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Graham, Charles R. 2006. Blended learning systems. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Gregor, Shirley 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. Mis Quarterly 30(3): 611–642.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Grönroos, Christian, und Katri Ojasalo. 2004. Service productivity: Towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services. Journal of Business Research 57(4): 414–423. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00275-8.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Gupta, Saurabh, Robert P. Bostrom, und Mark Huber. 2010. End-user training methods: what we know, need to know. ACM SIGMIS Database 41(4): 9–39.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Gupta, Saurabh, und Robert P. Bostrom. 2009. Technology-Mediated Learning: A Comprehensive Theoretical Model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(9): 686–714.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Hansen, D.E. 2008. Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Education 30(2): 93–105.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Herding, Daniel, Ulrik Schroeder, Patrick Stalljohann, und Mohamed Amine Chatti. 2012. Formatives Assessment in offenen, informellen vernetzten Lernszenarien. i-com 11(1): 19–21.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Heuer, Herbert, und Mathias Hegele. 2008. Adaptation to visuomotor rotations in younger and older adults. Psychology and aging 23(1): 190.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Hinkin, Timothy R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational research methods 1(1): 104–121.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Jacobs, Sue C., C. Sue, Steven K. Huprich, Catherine L. Grus, Evelyn A. Cage, Nancy S. Elman, Linda Forrest, Rebecca Schwartz-Mette, David S. Shen-Miller, Kristi S. Van Sickle, und Nadine J. Kaslow. 2011. Trainees with professional competency problems: Preparing trainers for difficult but necessary conversations. Training and Education in Professional Psychology 5(3): 175.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Johnson, R.D., H. Gueutal, und C.M. Falbe. 2009. Technology, trainees, metacognitive activity and e-learning effectiveness. Journal of managerial psychology 24(6): 545–566.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Johnston, R., und P. Jones. 2004. Service productivity: towards understanding the relationship between operational and customer productivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53(3): 201–213.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Kerres, M. 2001. Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen, 2. Aufl., München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Kim, Jungjoo, Jungjoo, Yangyi Kwon, und Daeyeon Cho. 2011. Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education 57(2): 1512–1520.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Kolfschoten, G., R.O.G.-J. de Briggs Vreede, P.H.M. Jacobs, und J.H. Appelmann. 2006. Conceptual Foundation of the ThinkLet Concept for Collaboration Engineering. International Journal of Human Computer Science 64(7): 611–621.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Kremer, M. 2010. Kompetenzorientierung setzt valide Kompetenzmessung voraus. BWP Themenschwerpunktheft: Berufliche Kompetenzen messen 39(20155): 3.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Ladhari, Riadh 2009. A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research. International Journal of Quality and Service. Sciences 1(2): 172–198.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Landis, Richard J., und Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159–174.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Leimeister, Jan Marco 2012. Dienstleistungsengineering und- management. Springer.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Lin, Hsiu-Fen 2007. Measuring online learning systems success: Applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10(6): 817–820.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Liu, Tzu-Chien, Jen-Kai Liang, Hsue-Yie Wang, Tak-Wai Chan, und Li.-Hsing. Li.-Hsing Wei. 2003. Embedding educlick in classroom to enhance interaction. In Proceedings of international conference on computers in education (ICCE). Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Lowendahl, Jan-Martin 2012. Hype Cycle for Education, 2012. Stamford, Conn.: Gartner.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Ma, Qingxiong, J.Michael. Pearson, und Suresh Tadisina. 2005. An exploratory study into factors of service quality for application service providers. Information & Management 42(8): 1067–1080.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    Martens, Rob, Theo Bastiaens, und Paul A. Kirschner. 2007. New learning design in distance education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education 28(1): 81–93.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    McLaughlin, C.P., und S. Coffey. 1990. Measuring productivity in services. International Journal of Service Industry Management 1(1): 46–64.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Michel, L. 2011. Weiterbildung und Digitales Lernen heute und in drei Jahren: Mobile und vernetzte Szenarien im Aufwind Hrsg. MBB.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    Miles, Matthew B., und Michael Huberman. et al. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Moore, A., J.T. Masterson, D.M. Christophel, und K.A. Shea. 1996. College Teacher Immediacy and Student Ratings of Instruction. Communication Education 45(1): 29–39.Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    Moore, Gary C., und Izak Benbasat. 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research 2(3): 192–222.Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    Morgan, N., und J. Saxton. 1991. Teaching, questioning, and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Nachum, Lilach 1999. Measurement of productivity of professional services: Anillustration on Swedish management consulting firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19(9): 922–950.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Nahm, Abraham Y., Luis E. Solís-Galván, S. Subba Rao, und T.S. Ragu-Nathan. 2002. The Q-sort method: assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-testing stage. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 1(1): 114–125.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    Ozkan, Sevgi, und Refika Koseler. 2009. Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education 53(4): 1285–1296. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011.Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, und Leonard L. Berry. 1988. Servqual. Journal of retailing 64(1): 12–37.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Parasuraman, Arun 2000. Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research 2(4): 307–320.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    Parasuraman, Arun 2002. Service quality and productivity: a synergistic perspective. Managing Service Quality 12(1): 6–9.Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    Pintrich, Paul R., und Elisabeth V. De Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology 82(1): 33.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Lee Jeong-Yeon, und Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    Prokopenko, J. 1992. Productivity Management – A practical handbook. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Ringle, Marc Christian, Sven Wende, und S. Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg. http://www.smartpls.de Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Ringle, Christian, Marko Sarstedt, und Detmar Straub. 2012. A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly (MISQ) 36: 1.Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Schank, Roger C. 2005. Lessons in learning, e-learning, and training: Perspectives and guidance for the enlightened trainer. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Seidler, Rachael D. 2006. Differential effects of age on sequence learning and sensorimotor adaptation. Brain research bulletin 70(4): 337–346.Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    Seth, Nitin, S.G. Deshmukh, und Prem Vrat. 2005. Service quality models: a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22(9): 913–949.Google Scholar
  75. [75]
    Sharma, Rajeev, Philip Yetton, und Jeff Crawford. 2009. Estimating the Effect of Common Method Variance: The Method-Method Pair Technique with an Illustration from TAM Research. MIS Quarterly 33(3): 473–A413.Google Scholar
  76. [76]
    Siau, Keng, Hong Sheng, und F.F.-H. Nah. 2006. Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education 49(3): 398–403.Google Scholar
  77. [77]
    Stratmann, Jörg, Annabell Preussler, und Michael Kerres. 2009. Lernerfolg und Kompetenzen bewerten. Didaktische Potentiale von Portfolios in Lehr-/Lernkontext. Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung 18.Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    Straub, Detmar W. 1989. Validating instruments in MIS research. Mis Quarterly, 147–169.Google Scholar
  79. [79]
    Thurmond, V., und Karen Wambach. 2004. Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1: 1.Google Scholar
  80. [80]
    Van Der Rhee, Bo., Rohit Verma, Gerhard R. Plaschka, und Jill R. Kickul. 2007. Technology readiness, learning goals, and eLearning: Searching for synergy. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 5(1): 127–149.Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    Van Dyke, Thomas P., Leon A. Kappelman, und Victor R. Prybutok. 1997. Measuring information systems service quality: concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. Mis Quarterly, 195–208.Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    Vermunt, Jan D. 1998. The regulation of constructive learning processes. British journal of educational psychology 68(2): 149–171.Google Scholar
  83. [83]
    Vigliocco, Gabriella, David P. Vinson, Federica Paganelli, und Katharina Dworzynski. 2005. Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 134(4): 501.Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    Wang, Chuanmei, und Hengqing Tong. 2007. Best iterative initial values for PLS in a CSI model. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(3): 439–444.Google Scholar
  85. [85]
    Wang, Yi.-Shun., Hsiu-Yuan Wang, und Daniel Y. Shee. 2007. Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior 23(4): 1792–1808. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.006.Google Scholar
  86. [86]
    Zeithaml, V.A., A. Parasuraman, und L.L. Berry. 1985. Problems and strategies in services marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 33–46.Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, und Ananthanarayanan Parasuraman. 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. The. Journal of Marketing, 31–46.Google Scholar
  88. [88]
    Zolnowski, Andreas, Martin Semmann, Sharif Amrou, und Tilo Böhmann. 2012. Identifying opportunities for service productivity improvement using a business model lens. The Service Industries Journal, 1–17. ahead-of-print.Google Scholar
  89. [89]
    Zürich, Arbeitsstelle für Hochschuldidaktik der Universität. 2010. Dossier Unididaktik: Taxonomie-Matrix zur Analyse und Selbstevaluation von Hochschullehre (TAMAS).Google Scholar

Literatur zu Abschnitt 7.2

  1. [90]
    Ackerman, P.L., R. Kanfer, und M. Goff. 1995. Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1(4): 270.Google Scholar
  2. [91]
    Alavi, M., G.M. Marakas, und Y. Yoo. 2002. A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research 13(4): 404–415.Google Scholar
  3. [92]
    Alvarez, K., E. Salas, und C.M. Garofano. 2004. An integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review 3(4): 385–416.Google Scholar
  4. [93]
    Amrou, S., M. Semmann, und T. Böhmann. 2013. Managing for Transfer of Training: Directions for the Evolution of Learning Management Systems Google Scholar
  5. [94]
    Axtell, C.M., S. Maitlis, und S.K. Yearta. 1997. Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review 26(3): 201–213.Google Scholar
  6. [95]
    Baldwin, T.T., und J.K. Ford. 1988. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. 41(1): 63–105.Google Scholar
  7. [96]
    Baldwin, T.T., J.K. Ford, und B.D. Blume. 2009. Transfer of training 1988–2008: an updated review and agenda for future research. International review of industrial and organizational psychology 24: 41–70.Google Scholar
  8. [97]
    Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  9. [98]
    Barrick, M.R., und M.K. Mount. 1993a. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 111.Google Scholar
  10. [99]
    Barrick, M.R., M.K. Mount, und J.P. Strauss. 1993b. Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(5): 715.Google Scholar
  11. [100]
    Bates, A. 2000. Managing technological change. Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  12. [101]
    Bates, A. 2005. Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  13. [102]
    Bates, R.A. 2003. Managers as transfer agents. In Improving learning transfer in organizations, Hrsg. E.F. Holton III, T.T. Baldwin, 243–270. Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  14. [103]
    Baumgärtner, M., und B. Bienzeisler. 2006. Dienstleistungsproduktivität: Konzeptionelle Grundlagen am Beispiel interaktiver Dienstleistungen. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-IRB-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. [104]
    Blume, B.D., J.K. Ford, T.T. Baldwin, und J.L. Huang. 2010. Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management 36(4): 1065–1105.Google Scholar
  16. [105]
    Bradstreet, D. 2012. 2012 Training Industrie Report USA. Training Magazin 49(6): 20–33. 01.11.2012.Google Scholar
  17. [106]
    Brinkerhoff, R.O., und M.U. Montesino. 1995. Partnerships for Training Transfer: Lessons from a Corporate Study. Human Resource Development Quarterly 6(3): 12.Google Scholar
  18. [107]
    Broad, M.L., und J.W. Newstrom. 2001. Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
  19. [108]
    Brown, T., und L. Morrissey. 2004. The effectiveness of verbal self‐guidance as a transfer of training intervention: its impact on presentation performance, self efficacy and anxiety 1. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41(3): 255–271.Google Scholar
  20. [109]
    Burke, L.A., und T.T. Baldwin. 1999. Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect of relapse prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management 38(3): 227–241.Google Scholar
  21. [110]
    Burke, L.A., und H.M. Hutchins. 2007. Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human resource development review 6(3): 263–296.Google Scholar
  22. [111]
    Chiaburu, D.S., und D.R. Lindsay. 2008. Can do or will do? The importance of self-efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resource Development International 11(2): 199–206.Google Scholar
  23. [112]
    Chiaburu, D.S., und S.V. Marinova. 2005. What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal orientation, training self‐efficacy and organizational supports. International Journal of Training and Development 9(2): 110–123.Google Scholar
  24. [113]
    Clarke, N. 2002. Job/Work Environment Factors Influencing Training Transfer within a Human Service Agency: Some Indicative Support for Baldwin and Ford’s Transfer Climate Construct. International Journal of Training and Development 6(3): 17.Google Scholar
  25. [114]
    Decker, P.J. 1982. The Enhancement of Behavior Modeling Training of Supervisory Skills by The Inclusion of Retention Processes. Personnel psychology 35(2): 323–332.Google Scholar
  26. [115]
    Development A.S.f.T. 2012. 2012 State of the Industry Report. ASTD Press.Google Scholar
  27. [116]
    Eurostat Europe in figures – Eurostat yearbook 2011: Education and training. 2011.Google Scholar
  28. [117]
    Facteau, J.D., G.H. Dobbins, J.E. Russell, R.T. Ladd, und J.D. Kudisch. 1995. The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of management 21(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  29. [118]
    Ford, J.K., M.A. Quiñones, D.J. Sego, und J.S. Sorra. 1992. Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology 45(3): 511–527.Google Scholar
  30. [119]
    Ford, J.K., und D.A. Weissbein. 2008. Transfer of training: An updated review and analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly 10(2): 22–41.Google Scholar
  31. [120]
    Frayne, C.A., und G.P. Latham. 1987. Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology 72(3): 387.Google Scholar
  32. [121]
    Georgenson, D.L. 1982. The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training & Development Journal.Google Scholar
  33. [122]
    Ghiselli, E.E. 1966. The validity of occupational aptitude tests. Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. [123]
    Gist, M., A. Bavetta, und C. Stevens. 1990. Transfer Training Method: It‘s Influence on the Acquisition and Maintenance of Complex Interpersonal Skills. Personnel Psychology 44: 837–861.Google Scholar
  35. [124]
    Gist, M.E. 1989. The influence of training method on self‐efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel psychology 42(4): 787–805.Google Scholar
  36. [125]
    Gist, M.E., C.K. Stevens, und G. Bavetta. et al, 1991. Effects of self‐efficacy and post‐training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology 44(4): 837–861.Google Scholar
  37. [126]
    Grönroos, C., und K. Ojasalo. 2004. Service productivity: Towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services. Journal of Business Research 57(4): 414–423.Google Scholar
  38. [127]
    Hawley, J.D., und J.K. Barnard. 2005. Work environment characteristics and implications for training transfer: A case study of the nuclear power industry. Human resource development international 8(1): 65–80.Google Scholar
  39. [128]
    Herold, D.M., W. Davis, D.B. Fedor, und C.K. Parsons. 2006. Dispositional influences on transfer of learning in multistage training programs. Personnel Psychology 55(4): 851–869.Google Scholar
  40. [129]
    Hoic-Bozic, N., V. Mornar, und I. Boticki. 2009. A blended learning approach to course design and implementation. IEEE Transactions on Education 52(1): 19–30.Google Scholar
  41. [130]
    Holladay, C.L., und M.A. Quiñones. 2003. Practice variability and transfer of training: the role of self-efficacy generality. Journal of applied psychology 88(6): 1094.Google Scholar
  42. [131]
    Holton, E.F., R.A. Bates, und W.E.A. Ruona. 2000. Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly 11(4): 333–360.Google Scholar
  43. [132]
    Hutchins, H.M., und L.A. Burke. 2007a. Identifying trainers’ knowledge of training transfer research findings – closing the gap between research and practice. International Journal of Training and Development 11(4): 236–264.Google Scholar
  44. [133]
    Ivancic, I.V.K., und B. Hesketh. 2000. Learning from errors in a driving simulation: Effects on driving skill and self-confidence. Ergonomics 43(12): 1966–1984.Google Scholar
  45. [134]
    Jeung, C.-W., H.J. Yoon, S. Park, und S.J. Jo. 2011. The Contributions of Human Resource Development Research across Disciplines: A Citation and Content Analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22(1): 23.Google Scholar
  46. [135]
    Kontoghiorghes, C. 2003. Factors affecting training effectiveness in the context of the introduction of new technology—a US case study. International Journal of Training and Development 5(4): 248–260.Google Scholar
  47. [136]
    Kozlowski, S.W., und B.S. Bell. 2006. Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4): 900.Google Scholar
  48. [137]
    Latham, G.P., und G.H. Seijts. 1997. Overcoming Mental Models That Limit Research On Transfer of Training in Organisational Settings1. Applied Psychology 46(4): 371–375.Google Scholar
  49. [138]
    Lee, C.D., und W.M. Kahnweiler. 2000. The effect of a mastery learning technique on the performance of a transfer of training task. Performance Improvement Quarterly 13(3): 125–139.Google Scholar
  50. [139]
    Lim, D.H., und S.D. Johnson. 2002. Trainee perceptions of factors that influence learning transfer. International Journal of Training and Development 6(1): 36–48.Google Scholar
  51. [140]
    Lim, D.H., und M.L. Morris. 2006. Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly 17(1): 85–115.Google Scholar
  52. [141]
    Mathieu, J.E., S.I. Tannenbaum, und E. Salas. 1992. Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 35(4): 828–847.Google Scholar
  53. [142]
    McCormack, C., und D. Jones. 1997. Building a web-based education system. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  54. [143]
    McSherry, M., und P. Taylor. 1994. Supervisory support for the transfer of team-building training. International Journal of Human Resource Management 5(1): 107–119.Google Scholar
  55. [144]
    Parasuraman, A. 2010. Service productivity, quality and innovation: Implications for service-design practice and research. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 2(3): 277–286.Google Scholar
  56. [145]
    Pfeiffer, I., und S. Kaiser. 2009. Auswirkungen von demographischen Entwicklungen auf die berufliche Ausbildung. BMBF, Referat Grundsatzfragen der Beruflichen Bildung.Google Scholar
  57. [146]
    Phillips, J.M., und S.M. Gully. 1997. Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal--setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(5): 792.Google Scholar
  58. [147]
    Ree, M.J., T.R. Carretta, und M.S. Teachout. 1995. Role of ability and prior knowledge in complex training performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(6): 721.Google Scholar
  59. [148]
    Richman 2001. Posttraining interventions to enhance transfer: The moderating effects of work environments. Human Resource Development Quarterly 12(2): 105–120.Google Scholar
  60. [149]
    Saks, A.M. 1995. Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of applied psychology 80(2): 211.Google Scholar
  61. [150]
    Saks, A.M. 2002. So what is a good transfer of training estimate? A reply to Fitzpatrick. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 39(3): 29–30.Google Scholar
  62. [151]
    Saks, A.M., R.R. Haccoun, und R. Haccoun. 2011. Managing performance through training and development. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  63. [152]
    Salas, E., D. Rozell, B. Mullen, und J.E. Driskell. 1999. The Effect of Team Building on Performance An Integration. Small Group Research 30(3): 309–329.Google Scholar
  64. [153]
    Semmann, M., S. Amrou, und T. Böhmann. 2012. Analysis of Learning Management Systems According to a Holistic View on Corporate Education Services Google Scholar
  65. [154]
    Silver, W.S., T.R. Mitchell, und M.E. Gist. 1995. Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62(3): 286–299.Google Scholar
  66. [155]
    Smith-Jentsch, K.A., F.G. Jentsch, S.C. Payne, und E. Salas. 1996. Can pretraining experiences explain individual differences in learning? Journal of applied psychology 81(1): 110.Google Scholar
  67. [156]
    Tannenbaum, S.I., J.E. Mathieu, E. Salas, und J.A. Cannon-Bowers. 1991. Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of applied psychology 76(6): 759.Google Scholar
  68. [157]
    Tracey, J.B., S.I. Tannenbaum, und M.J. Kavanagh. 1995. Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(2): 239.Google Scholar
  69. [158]
    Vargo, S.L., und R.F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 1–17.Google Scholar
  70. [159]
    Velada, R., A. Caetano, J.W. Michel, B.D. Lyons, und M.J. Kavanagh. 2007. The effects of training design, individual characteristics and work environment on transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development 11(4): 282–294.Google Scholar
  71. [160]
    Warr, P.B., und C. Allan. 1998. Learning strategies and occupational training. International Review of Industrial and Occupational Psychology 13: 38.Google Scholar
  72. [161]
    Webster, J., und R.T. Watson. 2002. ANALYZING THE PAST TO PREPARE Google Scholar
  73. [162]
    Yamnill, S., und G.N. McLean. 2005. Factors affecting transfer of training in Thailand. Human Resource Development Quarterly 16(3): 323–344.Google Scholar
  74. [163]
    Zolnowski, A., M. Semmann, S. Amrou, und T. Böhmann. 2012. Identifying opportunities for service productivity improvement using a business model lens. The Service Industries Journal, 1–17. ahead-of-print.Google Scholar

Literatur zu Abschnitt 7.3

  1. [164]
    Beyler, U. 2008. Traumberufe mit Fremdsprachen. Anforderungen für den Berufseinstieg. München: REDLINE Wirtschaft.Google Scholar
  2. [165]
    Bortz, J. 2005. Statistik. Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 6. Aufl., Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. [166]
    Brennecke, A., und H.A. Schumann. 2009. General Framework for Digital Game-Based Training Systems IADIS International Conference Game and Entertainment Technologies, Algarve, Portugal.Google Scholar
  4. [167]
    Bühner, M. 2011. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion, 3. Aufl., München: Pearson Studium.Google Scholar
  5. [168]
    Feustel, B., und I. Komarek. 2008. NLP-Trainingsprogramm. Coachen Sie sich selbst: bessere Kommunikation, effektives Selbstmanagement, optimale Persönlichkeitsentwicklung ; mit 50 Übungen, 2. Aufl., München: Südwest Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. [169]
    Gabriel, R., M. Gersch, und P. Weber. 2007. Mass Customization und Serviceplattformstrategien im Blended Learning Engineering – konzeptionelle Grundlagen und evaluationsgestützte Erfahrungen. In eOrganisation. Service-, Prozess-, Market-Engineering. Karlsruhe, Germany: Univ.-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. [170]
    Gagné, E.D., C.W. Yekovich, und F.R. Yekovich. 1993. The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  8. [171]
    Goertz, L. 2011. Einsatzmöglichkeiten für Serious Games in Unternehmen Personalführung, Bd. 2Google Scholar
  9. [172]
    Greitzer, F.L., O.A. Kuchar, und K. Huston. 2007. Cognitive science implications for enhancing training effectiveness in a serious gaming context. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing 7(3): 10.Google Scholar
  10. [173]
    Grießhaber, W. 1994. Neue Medien in der Lehre Google Scholar
  11. [174]
    Harteveld, C., und R. Guimarães. 2007. Balancing pedagogy, game and reality components within a unique serious game for training levee inspection. Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. [175]
    Helmerich, J., und J. Scherer. 2007. Interaktion zwischen Lehrenden und Lernenden in Medien unterstützten Veranstaltungen. Neue Trends im E-Learning, 197–210.Google Scholar
  13. [176]
    Hirdes, E.M., und J.M. Leimeister. 2013. A Modeling Language to Describe Reusable Learning Processes to Achieve Educational Objectives in Serious Games 8th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Paphos, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  14. [177]
    Hirdes, E.M., und N. Thillainathan. 2012. Leimeister JM Towards Modeling Educational Objectives in Serious Games. In Pedagogically-driven Serious Games. Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  15. [178]
    Jedelsky, E. 2010. Heimhilfe. Praxisleitfaden für die mobile Betreuung zuhause, 2. Aufl., Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. [179]
    Lienert, G.A., und U. Raatz. 1998. Testaufbau und Testanalyse, 6. Aufl., Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, Psychologie Verl.-Union.Google Scholar
  17. [180]
    Liu, T.C., J.K. Liang, H.Y. Wang, T.W. Chan, und L.H. Wei. 2003. Embedding educlick in classroom to enhance interaction. 117–125.Google Scholar
  18. [181]
    Michael, D., und S. Chen. 2005. Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Thomson Course Technology PTR.Google Scholar
  19. [182]
    Moore, M.G. 1989. Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education 3(2): 1–7.Google Scholar
  20. [183]
    Morgan, N., und J. Saxton. 1991. Teaching, questioning, and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. [184]
    O’Connor, J., und J. Seymour. 2001. Neurolinguistisches Programmieren. Gelungene Kommunikation und persönliche Entfaltung, 11. Aufl., Kirchzarten bei Freiburg: VAK-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. [185]
    Oliva, A., M.L. Mack, und M. Shrestha. 2004. Peeper A Identifying the perceptual dimensions of visual complexity of scenes. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cogn. Sci. Soc. Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  23. [186]
    Picciano, A.G. 2002. Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks 6(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
  24. [187]
    Pivec, M. 2007. Editorial: Play and learn: potentials of game-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(3): 387–393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00722.x.Google Scholar
  25. [188]
    Prensky, M. 2001. Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. [189]
    Roth, W.M., M.K. McGinn, C. Woszczyna, und S. Boutonne. 1999. Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences 8(3-4): 293–347.Google Scholar
  27. [190]
    Scheele, N., A. Wessels, und W. Effelsberg. 2004. Die interaktive Vorlesung in der Praxis. 72–80.Google Scholar
  28. [191]
    Schrader, J. 2008. Lerntypen bei Erwachsenen. Empirische Analysen zum Lernen und Lehren in der beruflichen Weiterbildung, 2. Aufl., Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  29. [192]
    Seyda, S., und D. Werner. 2012. IW-Weiterbildungserhebung 2011 – Gestiegenes Weiterbildungsvolumen bei konstanten Kosten. iw—Trends 1.Google Scholar
  30. [193]
    Siau, K., H. Sheng, und F. Fui-Hoon Nah. 2006. Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education 49(3): 398–403.Google Scholar
  31. [194]
    Sims, R. 2003. Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education 24(1): 87–103.Google Scholar
  32. [195]
    Smith, B. 2001. Just give us the right answer. Lecturing Case studies, experience and practice, 123–129.Google Scholar
  33. [196]
    Stockwell, T. 2007. Was für ein Lerntyp sind Sie? Das NeulandMAGAZIN 34.Google Scholar
  34. [197]
    Thillainathan, N.A. 2013. Model Driven Development Framework for Serious Games. In Informatik 2013. Koblenz, Germany.Google Scholar
  35. [198]
    VanDeGrift, T., S.A. Wolfman, K. Yasuhara, und R.J. Anderson. 2002. Promoting interaction in large classes with a computer-mediated feedback system Paper presented at the Computer Science Department and Microsoft Research, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  36. [199]
    Vester, F. 2001. Denken, Lernen, Vergessen. Was geht in unserem Kopf vor, wie lernt das Gehirn und wann läßt es uns im Stich? München, Germany: Dt. Taschenbuch-Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. [200]
    Yigitbasioglu, O.M., und O. Velcu. 2011. A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems.Google Scholar
  38. [201]
    Zyda, M. 2005. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer (September): 25–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharif Amrou
    • 2
  • Philipp Bitzer
    • 1
  • Tilo Böhmann
    • 2
  • Eike M. Hirdes
    • 1
  • Katja Lehmann
    • 1
  • Jan Marco Leimeister
    • 1
  • Martin Semmann
    • 2
  • Frank Wortmann
    • 3
  • Joachim Zülch
    • 3
  1. 1.Fachgebiet WirtschaftsinformatikUniversität KasselKasselDeutschland
  2. 2.ITMC – IT-Management und -Consulting, Universität HamburgHamburgDeutschland
  3. 3.Lehrstuhl für Industrial Sales EngineeringRuhr-Universität BochumBochumDeutschland

Personalised recommendations