Since our faculty and especially our matriculation takes almost all modules with a digital version, we can compare Prof. Kornhuber's teaching very well with other plans and processes.
 
I think the use of MS Teams is particularly noticeable, which makes the process much more relaxed for us, as files can be easily exchanged, lectures can be designed with interactivity and students can also create their own groups.
This is a welcome change, as only one tool really needs to be used for the lecture and not countless different ones such as Webex, BBB, filr, OPAL, etc.
 
Interactivity was also the right keyword here, as Prof. Kornhuber values student participation like no other professor. In the high-voltage engineering module, for example, the original plan was to create posters and associated lectures on various topics. However, we now did these almost unchanged in teams, which took some getting used to, but for me, for example, was very instructive for future work in the company.
 
Prof. Kornhuber also "enforces" questions among the students, which in turn are used to generate the examination questions. This makes the synergy between professor and students really pleasant, as the whole subject is more like a large group of experts, in which Prof. Kornhuber imparts the most knowledge.
 
In addition, only High Voltage Engineering has succeeded in carrying out the numerous practical courses digitally (in preparation for the upcoming face-to-face courses) together with the other lecturers.
 
Overall, it is the very extensive feedback from discussions on questions that Prof. Kornhuber obtains that sets him apart from the other lecturers. In summary, it simply feels most like a conventional face-to-face course with a lot of student involvement.

I have deliberately omitted the professor from the question, as my points do not relate directly to Prof. Kornhuber, but to digital teaching in general.
 
For me, the interaction between lecturers and students is particularly important, which sometimes feels strange in online teaching, as it is possible to simply remain silent, which is not possible in a face-to-face course.
 
In addition, the pace is often too fast in all courses, as the professors cannot check whether the students are still writing or similar, but most of them also get feedback on this.
 

For me, the strengths of the course include 5 points:

• The proactivity, we had an almost seamless transition of the course from classroom teaching to online teaching. Communication always took place with enough advance notice in the lecture and only if absolutely necessary by e-mail and was to the point.
• The dynamic and interaction with the students is often encouraged even before the actual course, through the obligation to send in 3 questions for the topic to be discussed together. If the dynamic breaks down in a normal lecture without a group discussion, Professor Kornhuber reacts flexibly and gives the students time to let the content sink in for 5 minutes and then ask questions.
• The feedback culture and appreciative communication at eye level, combined with binding persistence in the event of feedback from students that is obviously too brief. Sharing one's own screen in seminars is permitted if the solutions to tasks are unclear.
• Goal- and practice-oriented didactics through self-delivered expert lectures with subsequent binding discussion. Professor Kornhuber also relies on the MS Teams software, which is already used by many dual students in the company. The familiarization phase was correspondingly short and there were no foreseeable capacity-related lecture cancellations, as was the case in other lectures at the beginning of the semester.
• He sees himself as a facilitator and moderator in the organization of his course. The transfer of responsibility and the achievement of joint solutions is brought about by his moderation and not by decree, but in such a way that the best joint solution prevails and is also supported by the students.