Weiterbildung an Hochschulen

Literatur

Bachmayer, B. & Faulstich, P. (2002). Zeit als Thema der Erwachsenenbildung. Hamburg: Lehrstuhl für Erwachsenenbildung.

Beck, U. & Bonß, W. (Hrsg.) (1989). Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung. Analysen zur Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp.

Dewe, B. (1986). Sozialwissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse und gesellschaftliche Praxis. Transformations- und Anwendungsprobleme der Sozialwissenschaften. Zeitschrift für internationale erziehungs- und sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, 3(2), 283–319.

Faulstich, P. (2015). Reflexive Handlungsfähigkeit vermitteln – Aufgaben der Wissenschaft in der Erwachsenenbildung. Hessische Blätter für Volksbildung, (65) 1, 8–16.

Haberzeth, E. (2009). Reflexive Wissensvermittlung. Umgangsstrategien mit wissenschaftlichem Wissen in der Seminarplanung und -durchführung. DGWF Hochschule & Weiterbildung, (1), 70–75.

Haberzeth, E. (2010). Thematisierungsstrategien im Vermittlungsprozess. Empirische Analysen zum Umgang mit Wissen im Planungsprozess von Weiterbildungsangeboten. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.

Heufers, P. & El-Mafaalani, A. (2011). Praxis- oder Wissenschaftsorientierung? Zur Steuerung der Wissensvermittlung in der universitären Weiterbildung. REPORT. Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung, 34 (3), 61–71.

Keiner, E. (1999). Erziehungswissenschaftliches Wissen im Kontext von Feldern. Methodologische Überlegungen zu Kennzeichen des Populären. In: Drerup, H. & Keiner, E. (Hrsg.). Popularisierung wissenschaftlichen Wissens in pädagogischen Feldern. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag, 51–64.

Vogel, P. (1999). Der Theorie-Praxis-Konflikt in der Pädagogik als Deutungsmuster im Studienalltag – oder: Was lernt man eigentlich im erziehungswissenschaftlichen Studium? Der pädagogische Blick, 7 (1), 34–40.

Wittpoth. J. (1990). Wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung als »Wissenstransfer«? Didaktische Überlegungen zu einer brisanten Denkfigur. In: Arbeitskreis Universitäre Erwachsenenbildung (Hrsg.). Hemmnisse und Desiderate bei der Realisierung wissenschaftlicher Weiterbildung durch die Hochschulen. Hannover: AUE, 25–32.

Wittpoth, J. (1997). Belastung und Ressource. Zum Stellenwert theoriegeleiteter Reflexionen für die Praxis der Weiterbildung. REPORT Literatur- und Forschungsreport Weiterbildung, (4), 57–65.

Wittpoth, J. (2005). Wissenschaft und Weiterbildung. In: Jütte, W. & Weber, K. (Hrsg.). Kontexte wissenschaftlicher Weiterbildung. Münster u. a.: Waxmann, 17–24.

Mònica Feixas and Franziska Zellweger Planning for Impact Critical Factors Influencing Transfer of Learning in Further Education
German Abstract

Die Zahl der an Universitäten angebotenen und besuchten Weiterbildungen ist groß. Sie reichen von kurzen Kursen bis zu postgradualen Master-Lehrgängen. Dennoch wird der Frage oft wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt, welche Transferresultate diese Weiterbildungen beabsichtigen und welche sie tatsächlich erzielen – zumal sich die Transferwirkung nur mit großem Aufwand erheben lässt. Eine wachsende Zahl an Publikationen zeigt allerdings, dass die Wirkung von Weiterbildungsangeboten erheblich von Faktoren abhängt, die den Lerntransfer beeinflussen. Damit Weiterbildungen möglichst große Wirkung erzielen, sind diese Faktoren zielgerichtet zu berücksichtigen. Dieser Beitrag stellt deshalb die in der Forschung eruierten Einflussfaktoren auf den Lerntransfer zusammen und argumentiert, dass die Transferwirkung einer Weiterbildung geplant werden kann und soll: Das didaktische Design sowie individuelle und organisationale Aspekte müssen aufeinander abgestimmt werden, damit die Vision von transferwirksamen Weiterbildungen Tatsache werden kann.

The Context of Further Education

Given the ongoing process of globalisation, demographic shifts, and the rapid pace of technological advancement, universities in general and universities of applied sciences (UAS) in particular face a strategic imperative to broaden access to lifelong learning opportunities and to ensure that education and learning are available to a diverse student population. Broader access to higher education should not be reduced to the continuing professional development required by a fast-changing labour market, but it must also respond to a growing demand for personal development and cultural enrichment opportunities. »Nor is the role of Higher Education Institutions in promoting lifelong learning limited to what they offer students; they also make a vital contribution through initial and continuous training of teachers, research into lifelong learning, and the provision of community learning opportunities« (Yang, Schneller & Roche 2015, p. 9).

As interest to engage in lifelong learning increases, the idea of individuals participating in further education (FE)⁶ activities as part of their professional development offers an irrefutable benefit to workers’ learning, organisational development and societal advancement. Consequently, there are increasing concerns about the concept, form and provision of FE activities by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and also about the results and impact on the people’s performance and organisational culture.

Assessing the effects of FE impact on personal growth and on the workplace is essential to improve outcome and performance in the personal, professional and economic domains (Leberman, McDonald & Doyle 2006). By gathering evidence on the factors influencing the learning transfer, decisions can be taken with regard to how to improve FE designs and better monitor the implementation with the aim to increase the probability that participants transfer their learning to their working context. Our contribution reflects on this particular issue: the assessment of transfer of learning stemming from the FE activities provided by HEIs, and more precisely, the factors influencing transfer of FE programmes to the workplace.

The contribution is going to argue for planning for impact and aligning design factors, individual factors and organisational factors towards a vision of »transfer of learning«. To that end, the concept »transfer of learning« (chapter 2) and some assessment frameworks will be outlined (chapter 3). Then we suggest a more deliberate approach on how to plan FE activities for transfer taking into account critical transfer factors (chapter 4).

Transfer of Learning: A Challenging Concept

Samuel is a mechanical engineer by education. After four years at a high-tech textile company, he is looking for the next career step. He has agreed with Anna, his supervisor, to participate in a further education programme on project management to get ready to take on more responsibility in the future. He received financial support from his employer for attending the programme. In the programme, he got to know new software tools and some interesting methods to optimise routines in his company. He suggested to Peter, the project leader of a project Samuel was currently involved in, to try out a new method for cost control. Peter showed interest but answered that this is not the best moment to think of changes as other challenges are waiting ahead. Samuel was frustrated by this answer but he is hoping to get his own project soon. After four years, maybe it is time to change jobs anyway.

In this case example, there are clear difficulties to transfer the acquired learning. Which competences can Samuel transfer when he will only get the opportunity to apply it within his own project in an undetermined future? How can Samuel maintain the motivation to apply new competences when his colleagues at work show little interest in his new insights? What is the role of the supervisor beyond agreeing to the participation in an FE programme? Is FE about personal development or does it primarily serve the needs of the employer?

Transfer of learning, discussed in many different disciplines including education, psychology and management, has been defined in a number of ways:

The effective and continuing application to the job of knowledge and skills gained by trainees in training (both on and off the job) (Broad & Newstrom 1992).

The application of knowledge learned in one setting or for one purpose to another setting and/or purpose (Gagne et al. 1993).

The evidence that what was learned is being used on the job for which it was intended (Olsen 1998).

Although they have been often used synonymously (Cormier and Hagman 1987), transfer of learning (or learning transfer) and transfer of training (or training transfer) are different concepts. Training elicits thoughts of working on particular skills and can appear very task-focused, the outcome being, of course, learning. Learning, however, is a much broader term, encompassing not only specific skills but also socio-cultural, cognitive and behavioural characteristics.

In all cases, transfer of learning is best defined in terms of preparation for future learning because we trust that whatever is learned will be retained or remembered over time and used in appropriate situations. In Baldwin & Ford’s (1988) words, transfer cannot remain confined to applying learned skills to the job but it includes maintaining learned skills over time in the job.

The transfer process involves a number of participants (the learner, the educator or facilitator, the manager or supervisor and the colleagues or peers) and also needs to consider the conditions of transfer (resources, infrastructure, institutional resistances, policies, etc.). All aspects are critical in the various phases of the transfer process: before, during and after learning, and its success depends on a good alignment of them all.

In the context of this chapter, transfer of learning is regarded as a concept that:

is controversial and complex,

implies the use of previous learning and the application of the new learning to similar and new situations,

asks for facilitating the positive acquisition and performance,

emphasizes the learner’s role in determining its success but also the working conditions of the organisational context,

if successfully applied, leads to an improvement in job performance and has a lasting effect.

Assessment of Learning: Understanding the Phenomenon

In this section, we introduce the frameworks of assessment of learning transfer that can help to understand the phenomenon and the elements a comprehensive framework of the transfer process should contemplate. We understand the assessment of transfer of learning as a formative process focused on finding out the repercussions that the assessment object (in our case an FE programme) has in the organisation in terms of qualitative, quantitative or economic benefits.

The increase of assessment models has led to the development of diverse approaches which differ from hierarchic ones to approaches of more qualitative and flexible nature (Baldwin & Ford 1988; Olsen 1998; Kirkpatrick 1998; Holton, Bates & Ruona 2000). In examining the existing body of research on the transfer and impact of FE activities in greater detail, we find two major trends (Pineda-Herrero & Quesada 2013):

a)research which has assessed effectiveness via a direct assessment approach, mainly by way of the four-level approach developed by Kirkpatrick (1998):

Level 1 – Reaction: It measures the degree to which participants react favourably to the learning event.

Level 2 – Learning: It measures the degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills and attitudes based on their participation in the learning event.

Level 3 – Behaviour: It measures the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job.

Level 4 – Results: It measures the degree to which outcomes occur as a result of learning event(s) and subsequent reinforcement.

To have a complete picture, all four levels need to be considered. Thus, the application of such an encompassing perspective is complex and costly.

b)an alternative type of assessment that uses an indirect assessment approach, in which the focus shifts from results to defining and measuring the process, with a particular emphasis on revealing the factors that influence transfer as a way of predicting whether transfer will happen (Holton, Bates & Ruona 2000; Blume et al., 2010; Pineda-Herrero & Quesada 2013). According to Holton et al. (2000), there are three primary outcomes of training:

Learning: Achievement of the learning outcomes desired by the training or intervention.

Individual performance: Change at the individual level as a result of learning being applied to the job.

Organisational results: Changes at the organisational level due to changes in individual performance.

Holton’s assessment model (2005, p. 237) is widely used to examine transfer because it »addresses one of the biggest risks of the four-level model, specifically, that any failure to achieve outcomes from an intervention would be attributed to the intervention itself when it could well be due to moderating variables«. For example, if the work climate is not supportive for transferring skills, it can be derived from Holton’s model that the training intervention does not need to be changed but rather organisational development would be needed.

To Kauffeld (2010, p. 130), who translated Holton’s evaluation model into German, the key elements of the transfer process that have an impact on the individual learning and organisational culture are represented by three groups of factors (related to the participant, the training and the environment). This is in line with other authors’ findings (Blume et al. 2010; De Rijdt et al. 2013; Feixas & Zellweger 2011). To illustrate the limitations of an exclusive direct approach, she refers to the example of a systematic assessment of training in which she was able to demonstrate that the trainer was key for satisfaction and learning in a seminar. However the impact of the trainer was towards zero in regard to transferring content of the training to the workplace. For this, amongst other factors, the perceived work-training consistency and supervisor’s support were more crucial.

Consequently, in this chapter, we focus on critical elements for a comprehensive perspective on the transfer process, namely the group of factors influencing transfer of learning to raise impact for individuals as well as for the organisation (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Factors influencing the transfer process (own elaboration)

Examining the transfer process implies focusing on the following elements: First, it is expected that a training programme influences learning by developing new knowledge, conceptions, competences and attitudes in the participant to meet his/her needs and those of the workplace. It is then important to monitor the training process to check whether the implementation of the training design fits the learners’ needs, as well as to assure that learning takes place. In addition to the design, the success of this process depends on many other variables such as individual factors (motivation, job attitude, capacity, self-efficacy, etc.) and environmental factors (supervisor support, peer support, resources and infrastructure, organisational culture, etc.). As these influences have been widely discussed in the pedagogical literature (Holton 2005; Kauffeld 2010; Blume et al. 2010; De Rijdt et al. 2013; Feixas & Zellweger 2011), our focus is less on the benefits of training but rather on the conditions for positive transfer of learning.

For successful assessment of transfer of learning a broad perspective acknowledging relevant influencing factors is critical:

Assessment of learning transfer is a challenging process which needs to consider a comprehensive framework of stages and factors.

Kirkpatrick’s model allows for an encompassing perspective on how to assess impact for legitimising FE. However, it is usually very difficult to measure the four levels.

Holton takes an alternative perspective by examining the factors that influence transfer as a way of predicting whether transfer will happen. His focus is on understanding transfer rather than on legitimising impact.

Kauffeld suggests integrating direct and indirect approaches to assess the process of learning transfer.

For an integrative perspective, we propose focusing on the training design, the teachers’ intervention, the learners’ learning and the environmental factors influencing the likelihood of individual and organisational impact.

Planning for Impact: Aligning Critical Transfer Factors Towards a Vision of Transfer of Learning

Lack of transfer is recognised as an important issue in the literature. One approach to overcoming this concern is planning for impact by means of developing a transfer plan that considers key transfer factors. A transfer plan can be expressed differently depending on the learners’ goals. When a person undertakes an FE programme for only personal reasons (an interest in specialising or learning a new field, the joy of learning, a will to change jobs, an interest in moving to a new professional field, to overcome unemployment, etc.), the transfer plan should take into account the training design and individual factors; whereas the transfer plan of an individual whose FE programme is linked to the workplace’s needs (and is perhaps financed by the organisation) should also have to take into account the organisational factors. In this section, we want to answer two key questions: How to design a training programme that impacts both the individual and the organisation? What would a plan for transfer of learning look like? To that end, we propose a four-step approach to planning for impact (adapted from McDonald 2014), as depicted in Figure 2. Each step takes into account the factors influencing the transfer of learning.

Figure 2: A four-step approach in a transfer plan (adapted from McDonald 2014)

Awareness of the Dimension of Transfer

The first phase entails examining the potential of transfer of the FE programme and identifying the conditions for a positive transfer of learning. Based on the LTSI (Learning Transfer System Inventory) from Holton et al. (2000), we take a look at a selection of relevant factors related to the transfer of learning: the learners’ transfer goals, the individual motivation and transfer capacity, the team and leadership’s support, as well as the organisational resources and overall willingness at the workplace for innovation and change. These factors have to be aligned and consistent with the learner’s training programme and design.

Firstly, it is important to explore the individual factors that influence learning transfer, at least the motivation to transfer and the personal organisation of work (time, priorities and resources) or transfer capacity because they are a key determinant for training effectiveness (Holton 2005).

Motivation to transfer: Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000) defined motivation to transfer as trainees’ desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in the training programme in their jobs. Motivation and job satisfaction is a subjective feeling about a job (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller 2012). That means that some learners are more motivated to use the learning of new skills on the job than others. If trainees feel that by transferring the acquired learning they can gain equity through pay, promotion or other kinds of rewards, they are more likely to engage in transfer. If they feel that by transferring learning they can achieve their personal goals, can become more efficient and can expect higher recognition, motivation to transfer is also higher.

Transfer capacity: An important bundle of factors to leverage transfer of what was learned into practice is the personal organisation of work and transfer capacity. It refers to the extent to which workload, time allotted, agenda, self-efficiency facilitate or hinder the application of new learning. This also includes energy and mental capacity required of participants to carry out the necessary changes (Yamkovenko & Holton 2010). At an academic development’s tracer study at a Swiss Teacher Education University (Zellweger & Feixas 2015), participants in a training course who were asked about barriers for transfer predominantly referred to a lack of time as the most pressing issue as the following quote illustrates: »TIME! But I can make adjustments and implementations in steps, year by year. That’s how I made my plan.« Even highly motivated workers must organise themselves such that they have the time and preparation necessary for transferring FE activities. The daily workload sometimes leaves limited personal capacity for transfer unless they organise themselves and establish transfer as a priority (Jenert, Zellweger, Dommen & Gebhardt 2009).

Second, it is about examining the organisational conditions under which positive transfer of learning can take place. The organisational environment is a determining factor in transfer. Some of the most relevant elements related to the workplace that influence transfer include leadership support, peer support and team working culture, resources to transfer, willingness to change and institutional recognition.

Leadership support: Support from the leadership is a key factor that contributes to the implementation of innovations (Ramsden 1993). This factor defines the extent to which the managers or supervisors support the transfer of learning and whether they encourage, show interest in, offer support for and monitor the transfer activities (Smith-Jentsch, Salas & Brannick 2001).

Team’s working culture: The team’s working culture is another critical factor and it refers to the support provided by peers and colleagues working together which enables new learning to be applied. It includes a positive climate and a collaborative culture based on peer review, the exchange of experiences or resources, the creation of joint practices, etc. (Chiaburu & Marinova 2005).

Willingness to change: Related to the team’s working culture is the perception of the willingness (or resistances) to change in the mediate and immediate context (group, unit, department, institution). This factor is understood as the degree to which the existence of group norms is perceived by trainees as either discouraging or facilitating the transfer of learning. This includes the groups’ willingness to either strive for or resist change and the degree of support for people using the knowledge and skills learnt in FE programmes or activities (Holton et al. 2000).

Institutional resources: A lack of infrastructure or material resources can limit the possibilities of applying learnt knowledge and skills (Biggs 1999). This factor refers to resources provided by the institution, including time, adequate human and financial resources, the resources needed to use new skills (equipment, information, materials, infrastructure), and the opportunities offered to workers to apply new learning (Clarke 2002).

Institutional recognition: Workers expect that changes would be recognised and valued by the institution (Holton et al. 2000), thus it is also important that leaders and the institution as a whole appreciate and support the effort undertaken by workers going through FE.

Finally, selected factors of the training design have an influence on the transfer of learning. »Good« courses in the eyes of participants do not necessarily result in transfer. We already know that some learning principles and instructional strategies are assumed to have an effect on the transfer of learning. To mention some: the use of multiple instructional technologies and advance organisers, feedback during the training, considering cognitive load, presenting stimuli in different contexts, active learning, instructor’s modeling intervention and teaching general rules (Baldwin & Ford 1988; Burke & Hutchins 2007).

Transfer occurs when the learner learns strategies that apply in a certain situation such that they are enabled to do the same thing in another situation when they realise that the second situation resembles the first (Marton 2006). In other words, the instructional methods should teach participants to detect similarities and differences between previous tasks and the new ones before attempting to solve a new situation by visualising the workplace tasks and problems.

According to Merriam & Leahy (2005), there are other factors of training design that also have an influence on training transfer: needs analysis, stating learning goals, content relevance, technological support, post-training relapse prevention and coaching after training. The coherence between the course content, instructional methods, the instructor’s modeling skills and the participants’ capacities is named content validity and must be very high. In the context of academic development, research has found that transfer-oriented training design was the strongest facilitator for transfer, since it improved the participants’ self-efficacy (Feixas et al. 2013).

An analysis of the situation at Samuel’s workplace before undergoing training can give important information on the positive development of transfer.

Samuel undergoes training to gain new knowledge and skills on project management to help him advance in his career (undertake more responsibilities in the future) and widen his perspective on how to manage projects. Anna, his supervisor, sees in this training the possibility to innovate processes and products, increase efficiency and possibly productivity and competitiveness in the long run. With Samuel she also envisions the possibility to consolidate and transmit the company’s values, culture and mission. However, some factors can act as constraints.

Some of the critical factors that affect the likelihood to transfer learning rest on Samuel’s skills and attitudes (individual factors) and some depend on the workplace (organisational factors). We assume that Samuel is motivated to apply what has been learnt, provided it is relevant for managing a project. We also assume his self-efficacy and capacity to do so. But possibilities to apply learning are rare in the given context. Having Samuel undergo training was important for Anna, his supervisor, but less relevant for Peter, the project leader. Despite learning having occurred and individual factors being positively contemplated, in this case, organisational constraints are likely to limit transfer of learning.

To what extent can FE providers influence the factors mentioned above in order to foster transfer of learning?