Open Access

Der Beitrag basiert auf den Erfahrungen aus einem Drittmittelprojekt, das den Aufbau innovativer Lehr- und Lernstrukturen für interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit zum Ziel hatte. An dem Projekt beteiligt waren Lehrende und Studierende aus fünf Fachrichtungen der Hochschule Hannover. Die Lehrenden haben gemeinsam mit einer Hochschuldidaktikerin ein neues Lehr-Lernangebot entwickelt, in dessen Mittelpunkt die Bearbeitung von Fragestellungen nachhaltiger Entwicklung in interdisziplinären Teams stand. Dabei hat sich gezeigt, wie vielfältig die Perspektiven auf das Thema und die Zusammenarbeit sind, wie unterschiedlich die fachspezifische Sprache ist und wie sehr sich die generellen Denk- und Arbeitsweisen der Disziplinen unterscheiden. Für das Gelingen der Zusammenarbeit trotz Heterogenität, sind Mut, Geduld und Offenheit nötig, um sich auf das Fremde einzulassen. Gleichzeitig ist es elementar, eine gemeinsame ‚Sprache‘ zu finden, damit Verständigung über Disziplingrenzen hinweg möglich ist.

Der Beitrag untersucht aus fallrekonstruktiver Forschungsperspektive zum einen, wie Schule im gesellschaftlichen Diskurs während des pandemiebedingten Ausfalls des Präsenzunterrichts konstruiert wurde und welche Narrative deren Funktion begründen. Anhand zweier Online-Petitionen wird zum anderen exemplarisch untersucht, wie Schülerinnen und Schüler sowie Eltern sich gegenüber den bildungspolitischen Maßnahmen und der pandemiebedingten Praxis positionieren. Dabei zeigt sich in der gleichzeitigen Übernahme und Zurückweisungen der bildungspolitischen Adressierungen auch auf Seiten dieser beiden Akteursgruppen ein starker Bezug auf die Wissens- und Selektionsfunktion von Schule - über die auch die Trennung der diffundierenden Lebenswelten Familie und Schule symbolisch weiterhin aufrechterhalten werden kann.

In the last decade, educational neuroscience has become increasingly important in the context of instruction, and its applications have been transformed into new teaching methods. Although teachers are interested in educational neuroscience, communication between scientists and teachers is not always straightforward. Thus, misunderstandings of neuroscientific research results can evolve into so-called neuromyths. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of such music-related neuromyths among music teachers and music students. Based on an extensive literature research, 26 theses were compiled and subsequently evaluated by four experts. Fourteen theses were selected, of which seven were designated as scientifically substantiated and seven as scientifically unsubstantiated (hereafter labeled as “neuromyths”). One group of adult music teachers (n = 91) and one group of music education students (n = 125) evaluated the theses (forced-choice discrimination task) in two separate online surveys. Additionally, in both surveys person-characteristic variables were gathered to determine possible predictors for the discrimination performance. As a result, identification rates of the seven scientifically substantiated theses were similar for teachers (76%) and students (78%). Teachers and students correctly rejected 60 and 59%, respectively, of the seven neuromyths as scientifically unsubstantiated statements. Sensitivity analysis by signal detection theory revealed a discrimination performance of d' = 1.25 (SD = 1.12) for the group of teachers and d' = 1.48 (SD = 1.22) for the students. Both groups showed a general tendency to evaluate the theses as scientifically substantiated (teachers: c = −0.35, students: c = −0.41). Specifically, buzz words such as “brain hemisphere” or “cognitive enhancement” were often classified as correct. For the group of teachers, the best predictor of discrimination performance was having read a large number of media about educational neuroscience and related topics (R2 = 0.06). For the group of students, the best predictors for discrimination performance were a high number of read media and the hitherto completed number of semesters (R2 = 0.14). Our findings make clear that both teachers and students are far from being experts on topics related to educational neuroscience in music and would therefore benefit from current education-related research in psychology and neuroscience.

As predicted by Holbrook and Schindler (1989) in a seminal study, popular music from the charts released when a person is roughly 23.47 years old (so-called Song-Specific Age, SSA) has a particularly positive impact on that person’s song evaluations decades later. In our replication study, N = 162 participants (M age = 59.1 years, SD = 17.3) indicated their preferences for 18 song excerpts randomly selected from a corpus of 87 German Top 10 chart hits, released between 1930 and 2017. The fitting of a quadratic curve (as in the original study) to the aggregated ratings revealed a much earlier overall SSA peak at 14.16 years (R 2 = .184). The best approximation to the original SSA peak of 23.47 years was found only for the elderly subgroup of participants aged 50+ years with an SSA value of 22.63 years, however, with a relatively low goodness-of-fit (R 2 = .225). To summarize, the original finding of an SSA peak in the phase of early adulthood (23.47 years) could not be confirmed in terms of a point estimate. Instead, various subgroups showed various SSA peaks. The decomposition of ratings on the song level by latent profile analysis revealed four basic rating patterns (constantly high, constantly low, increasing, and decreasing over time) that might explain the different findings of the overall course of SSA regression curves within our subgroups without reference to the concept of SSA. Results are discussed in favor of current dynamic models of lifelong changes in musical preferences. We conclude that today, the SSA proposition – at least in its original form – seems to be of only limited validity for the explanation of musical preferences.

Background: In Germany, hospice and palliative care is well covered through inpatient, outpatient, and home-based care services. It is unknown if, and to what extent, there is a need for additional day care services to meet the specific needs of patients and caregivers. Methods: Two day hospices and two palliative day care clinics were selected. In the first step, two managers from each facility (n = 8) were interviewed by telephone, using a semi-structured interview guide. In the second step, four focus groups were conducted, each with three to seven representatives of hospice and palliative care from the facilities’ hospice and palliative care networks. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: The interviewed experts perceived day care services as providing additional patient and caregiver benefits. Specifically, the services were perceived to meet patient needs for social interaction and bundled treatments, especially for patients who did not fit into inpatient settings (due to, e.g., their young age or a lack of desire for inpatient admission). The services were also perceived to meet caregiver needs for support, providing short-term relief for the home care situation. Conclusions: The results suggest that inpatient, outpatient, and home-based hospice and palliative care services do not meet the palliative care needs of all patients. Although the population that is most likely to benefit from day care services is assumed to be relatively small, such services may meet the needs of certain patient groups more effectively than other forms of care.