Train-the-Trainer: A Generic Offer-and-Use Model for the Development of Trainers
Saved in:
| Title: | Train-the-Trainer: A Generic Offer-and-Use Model for the Development of Trainers |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Susanne Wisshak (ORCID |
| Source: | International Journal of Training and Development. 2025 29(4):449-461. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Education Level: | Adult Education |
| Descriptors: | Trainers, Training, Teacher Education, Professional Continuing Education, Transfer of Training, Models, Training Methods, Program Evaluation |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ijtd.12370 |
| ISSN: | 1360-3736 1468-2419 |
| Abstract: | This article is based on the premise that the international scientific community needs a generic theoretical framework to explain the determinants and mechanisms associated with learning opportunities for trainers in the field of training and development. Therefore, we adapted offer-and-use models for the continuous training of schoolteachers to trainers. We also incorporated the concept of the transfer of training into the model. The transfer of acquired knowledge and skills from the learning context to the work context represents an important criterion for training effectiveness. Since train-the-trainer programmes should also adhere to this criterion, our proposed model incorporates theoretical and empirical findings regarding transfer-enhancing measures drawn from both general training and development and the continuous education of schoolteachers. The theoretical model includes external factors (the train-the-trainer programme); individual factors (the participating trainers); contextual factors (the trainers' workplaces); the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities; and learning processes of the trainers. These factors ultimately affect training outcomes at different levels (reactions, learning, transfer, and results). This model can be used to support long-needed scientific investigations of the determinants underlying train-the-trainer programmes as well as the quality of those qualifications. It also has considerable implications with respect to the conceptualisation and evaluation of such programmes in practice. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1488716 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF2tz3_mjbwVLzS22f8N6VoAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPdBLa_nWp1i27uu1wIBEICBm5UHdsUeU69t2jsmmRDZUumT4wQBeXRR47_rEf8DXZ0aZ4oqoaOLo6-oyara5On8Uc0FqnhYfqG7YMYURhsd59W6OKBRZ6wdaz89PJUbcGaXcFHGlTjeZw7WZjPQNivMoyw-PPV6z5P8M9bTpFFf0sOBiDx1T5cfkvHgFceuXGCz7cvkVB3c-7LgkZ8Y5-pl4xQAiYJzrb5Lh4Zk Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0189133090;bpu01dec.25;2025Nov10.01:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189133090-1">Train‐The‐Trainer: A Generic Offer‐And‐Use Model for the Development of Trainers </title> <p>This article is based on the premise that the international scientific community needs a generic theoretical framework to explain the determinants and mechanisms associated with learning opportunities for trainers in the field of training and development. Therefore, we adapted offer‐and‐use models for the continuous training of schoolteachers to trainers. We also incorporated the concept of the transfer of training into the model. The transfer of acquired knowledge and skills from the learning context to the work context represents an important criterion for training effectiveness. Since train‐the‐trainer programmes should also adhere to this criterion, our proposed model incorporates theoretical and empirical findings regarding transfer‐enhancing measures drawn from both general training and development and the continuous education of schoolteachers. The theoretical model includes external factors (the train‐the‐trainer programme); individual factors (the participating trainers); contextual factors (the trainers' workplaces); the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities; and learning processes of the trainers. These factors ultimately affect training outcomes at different levels (reactions, learning, transfer, and results). This model can be used to support long‐needed scientific investigations of the determinants underlying train‐the‐trainer programmes as well as the quality of those qualifications. It also has considerable implications with respect to the conceptualisation and evaluation of such programmes in practice.</p> <p>Keywords: conceptual framework; offer‐and‐use model; train‐the‐trainer; training and development of trainers; training effectiveness; transfer of training</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Training and development activities help individuals prepare for on‐the‐job challenges across many different occupations, ranging from nurses (Howard and Eddy‐Imishue [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref1">43</reflink>]) to teachers (Althauser [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]; Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]); they have also been shown to be beneficial with respect to organisational performance (Aguinis and Kraiger [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]; Yoo et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref5">87</reflink>]). The opportunity to engage in training and development is even more important against the backdrop of ongoing transformations such as technological and demographic changes and the resulting shortage of qualified workers (Beer and Mulder [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]; Lischewski et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref7">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hitherto, little attention has been given to the professionals who conceptualise and provide continuous vocational training. These so‐called trainers often work for several organisations as freelancers (Wisshak et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref8">85</reflink>]). In many countries, who can work as a trainer is not regulated by law, and little is known regarding the qualifications of trainers and how they acquire competence (Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]; Hutchins and Burke 2007; Weiß [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref10">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>This research gap is surprising since the qualifications of schoolteachers and how they acquire competence, as important prerequisites for teaching success, have been studied in depth for some time. Empirical educational research has proposed several offer‐and‐use models that recognise teachers either as influential variables with regard to teaching success (e.g., Helmke [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref11">41</reflink>]; Mischo [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref12">57</reflink>]) or, conversely, as the recipients of teacher training (Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref13">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref14">55</reflink>]). The latter type of offer‐and‐use models for the training and development of teachers is based on the constructivist premise that participating teachers—like other learners—decide how they interpret learning opportunities and the extent to which they take advantage of such opportunities (Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref15">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>No such generic theoretical framework has yet been developed to support the theoretical and empirical investigation of the professional development of trainers. Therefore, in this conceptual paper, we try to answer the following research question: How can a generic offer‐and‐use model for train‐the‐trainer programmes be conceptualised? We aim to develop a theoretical framework that proposes relevant factors for the effectiveness of train‐the‐trainer programmes as well as expected relationships between those factors. We intend this framework to support future investigations of the continuous education of trainers and their competence development.</p> <p>To answer our research question, we first provide an overview of the context of training, and we introduce the heterogeneous group of trainers. We then build on offer‐and‐use models pertaining to schoolteachers. Those models recognise the recipients of learning opportunities as autonomous subjects who determine whether to engage with such offers and to what extent they use them. In addition to those offer‐and‐use models, we draw from extensive research on the transfer of training. Transfer means that the knowledge, skills, attitudes and other relevant factors acquired during training are applied on the job (Baldwin and Ford [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]). In the context of train‐the‐trainer programmes, this means that the trainers not only acquire knowledge but effectively use what they have learned in their daily business and subsequently provide more effective training. Transfer is thus a central criterion for train‐the‐trainer programmes. We, therefore, incorporate findings regarding (a) transfer in general continuous training and development and (b) transfer in the continuous training of teachers in our proposed model. Finally, we discuss the adaptations that we made compared to previous models as well as the limitations and applicability of the proposed model.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-3">The Context of Training</hd> <p>As we use them in this article, the terms training and development are aimed at adult learners who have already participated in initial vocational training (either vocational education and training (VET) or higher education). Within the international scientific community, training and development are also known as continuous vocational education and training (CVET; Lischewski et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref17">56</reflink>]) or simply as training, and the investigation of the respective determinants and outcomes is often referred to as <emph>the science of training</emph> (Salas and Cannon‐Bowers [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref18">69</reflink>]). The general goals of training include improving individuals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and other work‐relevant characteristics and subsequently ensuring the current and future performance, innovation and competitiveness of individuals, organisations, and society (Aguinis and Kraiger [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Occasions for training can represent a matching problem between the education system and the employment system or new knowledge and skill requirements, for example, due to the emergence of technological innovations in the workplace (Beer and Mulder [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]). Another reason for individuals to participate in training is to obtain specific certificates that can enable them to obtain new career possibilities and higher wages within organisations (so‐called advanced training).</p> <p>Training success has been investigated for many decades. Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Kirkpatrick suggested four levels of evaluation regarding the outcomes of training (for a more recent version of this research, see Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>]): participants' reactions (Level 1), their learning progress (Level 2), their behaviour (Level 3) and measurable organisational results, such as higher sales rates (Level 4). Kirkpatrick's model was enhanced by Alliger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]), who subdivided some of the categories further. The level of reactions was divided into affective and utility reactions, while the level of learning was divided into immediate knowledge, knowledge retention, and immediate behaviour or skill demonstration. Alliger et al. emphasised the fact that Level 3 focuses on the transfer of training, which refers to participants' behaviour at their workplaces.</p> <p>Since training aims to enable employees to cope with tasks at their workplaces, transfer is especially important; namely, that participants use the knowledge and skills they have acquired through training in their workplace (Baldwin and Ford [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]). Due to its relevance, the transfer of training has received extensive academic attention. The literature review conducted by Baldwin and Ford ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]) has often been viewed as a crucial catalyst for this development, and many related empirical studies have since been published (e.g., de Jong, Jansen in de Wal, Cornelissen, et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]; de Jong, Jansen in de Wal, Cornelissen, van der Lans, et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]; Quesada‐Pallarès, González‐Ortiz‐de‐Zárate, et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref27">62</reflink>]; Quesada‐Pallarès, Musso, et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref28">63</reflink>]). Based on their review, Baldwin and Ford ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]) identified three domains of transfer predictors: participants' characteristics (ability, personality and motivation), training design (principles of learning, sequencing and training content), and the work environment (support and opportunity to use). Although alternations and elaborations of the model developed by Baldwin and Ford have been proposed (e.g., Blume et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]; Burke and Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]), theoretical and empirical research is still broadly based on these categories (e.g., Blume et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; Wisshak [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref33">79</reflink>]). In 2008, Burke and Hutchins ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]) additionally identified trainer characteristics and the evaluation of transfer as important transfer factors. These authors further emphasised the importance of several stakeholders, such as peers, trainers, participants, supervisors, and the organisation, within the training and transfer process. Recent literature reviews have provided an overview of the state of transfer research (Ford et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]; Hamzah et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]; Wisshak [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref37">79</reflink>]). These reviews, however, have revealed that trainers remain underexplored.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-4">Trainers</hd> <p>Trainers are responsible for planning and conducting training (Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]; Wisshak and Hochholdinger [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref39">82</reflink>]). They coordinate the training requirements with the client organizations, prepare the training content, select suitable methods and implement them (Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref40">37</reflink>]; Röseler et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref41">66</reflink>]). They motivate learners, deal with group dynamics, provide feedback and often support the learning process beyond the training (Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref42">37</reflink>]). In addition, trainers are often expected to coordinate, market and evaluate training (Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]; Wisshak and Hochholdinger [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref44">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accordingly, trainers are expected to play an important role in transfer success (Burke and Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>]; Donovan and Darcy [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]). However, this occupational group remains under‐researched and very heterogeneous (Gauld and Miller [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref47">31</reflink>]; Hutchins and Burke [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]; Wisshak et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref49">85</reflink>]). According to a study that investigated 896 trainers from German‐speaking countries, 81% of the trainers were exclusively self‐employed (Wisshak et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref50">85</reflink>]). Only 11% were employed by a company, and 6% stated that they fell into both categories. Germany, like many other countries, does not stipulate a specific degree to become a trainer, which is why trainers' educational backgrounds are very diverse. While most trainers had an academic background (71%) according to Wisshak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref51">85</reflink>]), only a few of them possessed educational/pedagogical degrees (17%). Although Germany has a uniform and obligatory certificate for the persons in charge of apprenticeship training in companies (Deissinger [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>]), there is no equivalent for continuous training. Accordingly, many trainers participate in so‐called train‐the‐trainer programmes to acquire the pedagogical and instructional skills that they need (Wisshak et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref53">85</reflink>]).</p> <p>Internationally, there are standards for the training of trainers in some (e.g., the ASEAN countries; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GIZ GmbH [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]), but not all countries. In an Australian study of 303 trainers, 24% of the respondents possessed a university teaching qualification, e.g., Bachelor of Education. In the study conducted by Gauld and Miller ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]), 28% of the trainers held the accredited "Certificate IV in Assessment and Workplace Training", an Australian vocational‐level qualification (p. 15). In the United States, Hutchins and Burke ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]) surveyed 139 members of a regional chapter of the Association for Talent Development (ATD). The majority (90%) of the respondents had a college degree, and 55% of that group had completed a degree in training or workplace learning. Only a few respondents held a professional certification from the Society of Human Resource Management (9%) or the ATD (17%). In the German study conducted by Wisshak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref57">85</reflink>]), 58% of the trainers reported possessing a train‐the‐trainer certificate.</p> <p>In Germany, such programmes are not regulated by the state, and they are quite diverse in terms of their format and content (Wisshak &amp; Hochholdinger [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref58">81</reflink>]). Moreover, no generic conceptual framework has yet been developed that could be used to investigate such train‐the‐trainer programmes on a scholarly level, for example, by hypothesising relationships among relevant determinants or predicting their outcomes. Although there are some publications regarding train‐the‐trainer programmes from different countries, they refer to specific context‐dependent programmes. In the medical context, for example, local medical faculty, such as nurses and physicians, receive training that enables them to train colleagues in a specific content area (Feltes et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]). A recent literature review shows that such programmes are mostly evaluated on the learning but not the transfer level (Poitras et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref60">61</reflink>]). In 2011, Giménez Marín et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref61">37</reflink>]) described a more elaborate train‐the‐trainer programme that was developed for the Spanish construction industry. The programme is designed to prepare trainers for classroom‐based teaching as well as training management and evaluation, and it focuses on developing pedagogical/psychological competence. The programme leads to a postgraduate degree after 1 year and a Master's degree after 2 years. According to Giménez Marín et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref62">37</reflink>]), the evaluation of the programme showed that the transfer of the acquired knowledge and skills was limited. Therefore, future approaches need to focus on fostering transfer in such programmes.</p> <p>In sum, prior studies often feature context‐specific approaches and focus less on developing a generic offer‐and‐use model that can be used to investigate general transfer‐enhancing factors of train‐the‐trainer programmes. Since there are already offer‐and‐use models pertaining to the continuous education of schoolteachers, which partially consider the transfer of training, we propose to adopt those frameworks to suit the context of trainers.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-5">Offer‐And‐Use Models for the Continuous Training of Schoolteachers</hd> <p>In the context of teacher training, various models have been developed to describe the factors influencing training success. Offer‐and‐use models are grounded in a constructivist understanding, which postulates that learners are active (co‐)constructors of their own learning progress; hence, the effectiveness of this process depends on the interpretation and individual use of learning opportunities. The offer‐and‐use models regarding teacher training include a combination of the influences of the facilitators, the design of the training programmes, the participants' preconditions, and the participants' working environment. For these different areas, the offer‐and‐use models describe specific influencing factors.</p> <p>This article draws on the offer‐and‐use model for face‐to‐face and digital continuous training for teachers developed by Schäfer and van Waveren ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref63">70</reflink>]), which is based on the offer‐and‐use model for continuous teacher training proposed by Lipowsky and Rzejak ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref64">55</reflink>]). In accordance with the transfer model for continuous teacher training proposed by Vigerske ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref65">76</reflink>]), the complex relationships of the offer‐and‐use model are summed up in three categories: external (training‐related), individual (teacher‐related) and internal (school‐related) factors (Figure 1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01dec25/ijtd12370-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12370-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Offer‐and‐use model for face‐to‐face and digital teacher training (Schäfer and van Waveren [70])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>External factors include the characteristics and competencies of teacher trainers as well as the training design. Individual factors cover the characteristics of the participating teachers. Internal factors include the conditions at the schools. In addition to these influencing factors, the model includes the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities as well as the transfer process. Another aspect of the model is its focus on the four levels of training success, namely reactions, learning, behaviour, and results, regarding the participating teachers, the facilitators and the teaching/learning material.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-7">The Offer‐And‐Use Model for Trainers</hd> <p>In this section, we present our adapted model for the training and development of trainers (Figure 2). The model, based on the work of Baldwin and Ford ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]), Burke and Hutchins ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref67">14</reflink>]), Lipowsky and Rzejak ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref68">54</reflink>]), Schäfer and van Waveren ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref69">70</reflink>]), and Vigerske ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref70">76</reflink>]), includes the following domains: external factors (the training), individual factors (of the participating trainers), and contextual factors (trainers' workplaces). Since the professional environment of trainers is quite heterogeneous and very different from the working environment of schoolteachers, we chose the term contextual factors for the third domain (instead of internal factors, as suggested by Schäfer and van Waveren and Vigerske in their models). Each of these domains comprises groups of influencing factors that we identified based on the literature as relevant with regard to the transfer‐enhancing training of trainers. These domains are further connected to the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities by the participating trainers as well as their learning processes. Finally, we postulate that the four levels of training outcomes, which are based on the work of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref71">49</reflink>]) and Alliger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>]), pertain to trainers as well. We now elaborate on the different domains included in the model in further detail.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01dec25/ijtd12370-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12370-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Generic offer‐and‐use model for train‐the‐trainer programmes." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133090-9">External Factors: The Training</hd> <p>We suggest that the external factors include three groups of influencing factors, namely, the facilitator's professional competence, the design and delivery of training, and the training evaluation.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-10">Professional Competence of the Facilitators</hd> <p>In the context of our proposed offer‐and‐use model for trainers, we refer to the person who conceptualises and conducts this kind of programme as a <emph>facilitator</emph> (Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref73">54</reflink>]). We thereby emphasise the fact that trainers are the recipients of training within our model. To avoid confusion, we, therefore, differentiate between the <emph>participating trainers</emph> and the <emph>facilitators</emph>. Nevertheless, we have to rely on the state of research with regard to trainers in this section because research with regard to persons who provide train‐the‐trainer programmes is even more scarce.</p> <p>The competence of facilitators has rarely been investigated. Several survey studies have suggested that facilitators are relevant to the success of transfer (Burke and Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref74">14</reflink>]; Donovan and Darcy [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>]), and some have investigated relevant facilitator characteristics (e.g., Gauld and Miller [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref76">31</reflink>]; Ghosh et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]). Building on this research, Wisshak and Hochholdinger ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref78">82</reflink>]) provided an overview of knowledge and skills that are relevant for successful facilitators. In their study, these authors asked 200 facilitators, 253 participants, and 93 human resource development practitioners to assess the relevance of 41 knowledge and skill facets drawn from the literature. According to this study, facilitators particularly require content knowledge. They also need pedagogical and psychological knowledge and skills, for example, regarding the management of groups, the methodological implementation of training, and general instructional principles. Facilitators also require content‐specific instructional skills (e.g., content‐specific training methods).</p> <p>Furthermore, knowledge of facilitators regarding the current state of training research may enhance their understanding of transfer processes (Hutchins and Burke [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref79">45</reflink>]; Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref80">55</reflink>]). Some findings concerning teacher training have even suggested that training focusing on teacher knowledge (content knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge) has stronger impacts on student learning than training focusing on teacher behaviour (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref81">18</reflink>]; Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref82">48</reflink>]). Wisshak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref83">84</reflink>]) conceptualised the construct of trainers' transfer knowledge, which includes evidence‐based knowledge concerning the determinants and promotion of transfer. This kind of knowledge is important for facilitators of train‐the‐trainer programmes as well.</p> <p>In addition to investigating facilitators' knowledge and skills, scholars have begun to investigate beliefs like their sense of responsibility for the promotion of transfer as another aspect of their professional competence (Burke and Saks [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref84">15</reflink>]; Wisshak and Barth [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref85">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>We expect the subdomain of the professional competence of the facilitator to affect (a) the design and delivery of training; and (b) the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-11">Training Design and Delivery</hd> <p>The second group of influencing factors concerns the design and delivery of training and includes four factors: the content of the train‐the‐trainer programme and its structural, didactic, and methodological features.</p> <p>The <emph>content</emph> depends on whether a train‐the‐trainer programme is generic or whether it aims at a specific training area, such as sales, leadership or medical training. Based on the broader categorisation of hard‐ and soft‐skills training, research has suggested that soft‐skills trainers might need different competencies than hard‐skills trainers; for example, soft‐skills trainers might need more and/or different transfer‐promoting strategies (Hamzah et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref86">40</reflink>]; Wisshak and Hochholdinger [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref87">83</reflink>]). In any case, train‐the‐trainer programmes should prepare trainers for the aforementioned core tasks of trainers, such as developing, planning, conducting and evaluating training and ensuring transfer (e.g., Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref88">37</reflink>]; Wisshak and Hochholdinger [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref89">82</reflink>]). An important difference between trainers and teachers is that teachers teach a fixed curriculum, while trainers are more strongly expected to adapt training content to organisational and individual needs. Therefore, train‐the‐trainer programmes could also consider covering the challenge of researching and processing high‐quality training content. As our model is generic and because it exceeds the scope of this paper, we do not go into further detail on different training contents.</p> <p>In terms of <emph>structural features</emph>, previous studies have made recommendations regarding the mode of training delivery. A meta‐analysis conducted by Lacerenza et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref90">51</reflink>]) suggested that for leadership training, training delivered by a facilitator is more effective than self‐administered training. Since train‐the‐trainer programmes also represent soft‐skills training that prepares trainers to engage in interactions with groups and communication processes, we argue that such programmes should be held—at least in part—in a face‐to‐face setting. Regardless of the mode of delivery of teacher training, clarity and structure have been identified as important determinants for its success (Fütterer et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref91">29</reflink>]). Another structural feature is the temporal delivery of training units. According to the meta‐analyses of Donovan and Radosevich ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref92">24</reflink>]) and Lacerenza et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref93">51</reflink>]), the inclusion of time intervals between practice (spaced practice) is preferable to continuous practice (massed practice). Meta‐analyses have revealed similar effects for teachers (Yoon et al. [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref94">88</reflink>]; Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref95">18</reflink>]; Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref96">48</reflink>]). Some scholars have recommended that additional learning opportunities should be provided after the main training, which are known as follow‐ups (Grossman and Salas [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>]). In terms of the duration of teacher training, two meta‐analyses concluded that the content and form of learning are more important than its duration (Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref98">48</reflink>]; Timperley et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref99">72</reflink>]). According to Lipowsky and Rzejak ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref100">54</reflink>]), the relationship between training duration and success is presumably not linear and depends on other factors.</p> <p>With regard to <emph>didactic features</emph>, training should first be relevant to the participants (Fütterer et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref101">29</reflink>]). With respect to teacher training, Lipowsky and Rzejak ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref102">54</reflink>]) reported that "the personal needs, interests, experiences, and goals of the participants should be taken into consideration" (p. 30). According to the meta‐analysis conducted by Taylor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref103">71</reflink>]), transfer is more likely when practice involves participant‐generated scenarios, and Garet et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>]) and Penuel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref105">60</reflink>]) were able to provide evidence concerning the influence of coherence, a form of practical relevance, on teachers' instruction. Furthermore, findings from three meta‐analyses regarding teachers have highlighted the importance of the content focus of training (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref106">18</reflink>]; Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref107">48</reflink>]; Timperley et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref108">72</reflink>]). According to Timperley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref109">72</reflink>]), the content focus of training is more relevant than are the training methods. Another didactic feature that was examined in meta‐analyses by Arthur et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref110">5</reflink>]) and Driskell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref111">26</reflink>]) is the concept of overlearning. Accordingly, transfer is more likely if one does not stop practising the training content after one has acquired the new skills, instead continuing to practice beyond that point. A further didactic feature suggested by several meta‐analyses indicates that feedback is an essential measure to foster transfer (Lacerenza et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref112">51</reflink>]; Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref113">71</reflink>]). The provision of continued support by facilitators after training represents another transfer‐enhancing didactic feature (Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref114">76</reflink>]). Encouragement in the form of technical support and the provision of equipment is significantly correlated with changes in teaching practice (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref115">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>The fourth factor of the design and delivery of training focuses on <emph>methodological features</emph>. Several meta‐analyses have suggested that training methods should be chosen depending on the training content and transfer goals (Wisshak [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref116">79</reflink>]). For instance, Arthur et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref117">4</reflink>]) stressed that lectures can effectively enhance transfer when cognitive skills are to be learned and applied. Another transfer‐enhancing training method, behaviour modelling training (BMT), is based on Bandura's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref118">7</reflink>]) theory of social learning. According to this approach, participants are first prepared by learning points and examples. Then, they practice the training content and ultimately receive feedback. According to a meta‐analysis conducted by Taylor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref119">71</reflink>]), BMT can enhance transfer, particularly if participants are instructed to set their own goals and if they learn from both positive and negative models. BMT is often used in the contexts of communication and team training and could also be useful for train‐the‐trainer programmes. A meta‐analysis conducted by Keith and Frese ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref120">47</reflink>]) further suggested that error management training (EMT) is conducive to adaptive transfer in situations in which the skills to be acquired must be transferred to situations that differ strongly from the learning context. EMT involves active exploration of the training content as well as explicit encouragement for participants to make mistakes during training. This method could be used to practise unexpected situations during training. Another transfer‐enhancing method that fits the train‐the‐trainer context is simulations. The participating trainers can simulate training and thereby experience both the role of the trainer and the role of the learner. "To engage in the same learning activities, they are designing for their students", can represent a critical learning opportunity for teachers (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref121">18</reflink>], 8). Moreover, Gegenfurtner and Vauras ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref122">34</reflink>]) suggested that training programmes should offer the possibility of social interaction with peers because such measures can make learning emotionally meaningful and motivating (Vauras et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref123">74</reflink>]). Similarly, when teacher training provides the opportunity to collaborate, for example, through participation in a professional learning community, it has a positive impact on teaching (Ingvarson et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref124">46</reflink>]) and student learning (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref125">18</reflink>]; Fütterer et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref126">29</reflink>]; Timperley et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref127">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>We expect the design and delivery of training to affect (a) certain individual factors (e.g., motivation) and vice versa; (b) the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities and vice versa; and (c) learning processes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-12">Training Evaluation</hd> <p>The <emph>improvement hypothesis</emph> suggests that organizations that evaluate their training programmes have information that enables them to improve such programmes, thus, making their training more effective (Saks and Burke [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref128">67</reflink>]). Moreover, the findings reported by Saks and Burke ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref129">67</reflink>]) suggested that the frequency of training evaluation is positively related to transfer if the evaluation assesses behavioural changes or organisational results.</p> <p>Accordingly, we expect the subdimension of training evaluation to affect the design and delivery of training.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-13">Individual Factors: The Participating Trainers</hd> <p>Regarding the preconditions of participating trainers, we distinguish between those that are unlikely to be influenced and those that may be influenced by training. We suggest that both types of preconditions on the part of participating trainers are relevant with respect to the effectiveness of train‐the‐trainer programmes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-14">Preconditions That Are Unlikely to be Influenced by Training</hd> <p>A meta‐analysis by Blume et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref130">10</reflink>]) suggests that participants' general cognitive ability represents a predictor of transfer. However, this relationship exists only when closed skills (as opposed to open skills) are trained. Closed skills require participants to respond in one particular way in accordance with a set of rules (e.g., in the maintenance of machinery; Yelon and Ford [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref131">86</reflink>]). Since trainers predominantly need open skills, trainers' cognitive ability might not be as important with regard to transfer as it is in other work contexts.</p> <p>Another barely changeable precondition is the personality trait of conscientiousness, which has been reported to exhibit moderate correlations with transfer success in several meta‐analyses (Blume et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref132">10</reflink>]; Colquitt et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref133">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>A significant amount of research has investigated the preconditions of participation in continuous training. The private situation of teachers and other participants appears to be relevant in this context; for example, care work can hinder attendance (Beck et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref134">8</reflink>]; Lischewski et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref135">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-15">Preconditions That May Be Influenced by Training</hd> <p>The prior knowledge and skills of participants were included as preconditions in the model developed by Baldwin and Ford ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref136">6</reflink>]). Lipowsky and Rzejak ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref137">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref138">55</reflink>]) reported inconsistent findings regarding whether prior knowledge is conducive to transfer. On the one hand, more knowledge could provide fertile soil for new training content, but on the other hand, a ceiling effect could prevent further learning. In general, the consideration of prior knowledge supports the relevance of the tailoring of the train‐the‐trainer programme to the participating trainers' needs. If the trainers' prior knowledge is very heterogeneous, the train‐the‐trainer course could be preceded by optional self‐study material.</p> <p>Another essential prerequisite for transfer is motivation. Both motivation to learn and motivation to transfer have been reported to exhibit substantial correlations with transfer according to meta‐analyses (Gegenfurtner [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref139">32</reflink>]; Reinhold et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref140">64</reflink>]) and recent original studies (de Jong, Jansen in de Wal, Cornelissen, et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref141">19</reflink>]; de Jong, Jansen in de Wal, Cornelissen, van der Lans, et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref142">20</reflink>]). Similarly, Park et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref143">59</reflink>]) reported a moderate correlation between participants' perceptions of the need for development and their job performance. Fütterer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref144">29</reflink>]) demonstrated that a low level of initial participant motivation can be addressed by various external factors, such as collaboration, practical relevance, cognitive activation, and the clarity and structure of training.</p> <p>Researchers have also shown that self‐efficacy is significantly related to transfer (Gegenfurtner et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref145">35</reflink>]). Therefore, we argue that transfer‐related self‐efficacy should be promoted during training.</p> <p>Colquitt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]) found further evidence indicating that participants who have clear, specific plans for achieving career goals are more likely to accomplish transfer. A notion that is connected to Lischewski et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref147">56</reflink>]) understanding of participants' motives for attending training is the prospect of advancing one's career (Coldwell [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref148">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, we expect these individual factors to affect (a) the design and delivery of training and vice versa; (b) contextual factors and vice versa; (c) the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities and vice versa; and (d) learning processes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-16">Contextual Factors: The Workplace</hd> <p>Although we know very little about the professional situations of trainers, previous research has suggested that, at least in Germany, trainers are self‐employed more often than they are employed by a corporate firm or training provider (Wisshak et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref149">85</reflink>]). Furthermore, trainers' work contexts differ strongly from the school context. Therefore, most of the adaptations from the previous models that we made pertained to this domain of the model.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-17">Support From Persons Involved</hd> <p>A survey study conducted by Salamon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref150">68</reflink>]) suggested that participants' motivation to transfer increases as more coworkers participate in the training. In this way, participants can start supporting each other during training, for example, by offering each other feedback, and they can continue to do so during their transfer attempts once they return to the workplace. Similarly, in the meta‐analysis conducted by Taylor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref151">71</reflink>]), transfer was shown to be more likely when participants' supervisors were also trained. Several meta‐analyses have emphasised the fact that workplace support from supervisors and colleagues is positively correlated with transfer (Blume et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref152">10</reflink>]; Colquitt et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref153">17</reflink>]; Reinhold et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref154">64</reflink>]). A study conducted by Hughes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref155">44</reflink>]) further indicated that support from organizations, e.g., upper management, is also related to transfer. In addition, feedback and coaching in the workplace appear to be positively related to transfer (Reinhold et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref156">64</reflink>]). For teachers, collaboration enables changes in schools beyond the level of individual classes (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref157">18</reflink>]; Desimone and Garet [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref158">22</reflink>]; Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref159">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>With respect to general training research as well as research on teacher training, it is clear that the support provided by colleagues, supervisors, and entire organizations is crucial with regard to the promotion of transfer. However, in many cases, these findings cannot be transferred to train‐the‐trainer programmes without adjustments. If trainers are self‐employed, they often do not have any immediate colleagues or a supervisor who could support their transfer attempts. Such self‐employed trainers, however, might benefit from other forms of social learning and support. Van den Bossche and Segers ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref160">73</reflink>]), in their review of studies that have employed social network analysis, emphasised the fact that networks that extend beyond organizations can also be helpful. Therefore, trainers might benefit from trainer networks that enable them to share their transfer experiences during and after training. Peer dyads or networks could be established in the context of train‐the‐trainer programmes and should be perpetuated thereafter. Since research has also suggested that feedback in the workplace is important, trainers could ask their participants for feedback concerning their transfer attempts. Formal training evaluations could provide additional feedback. Train‐the‐trainer programmes might also consider providing additional coaching to participating trainers.</p> <p>If trainers are employees in a training company or a corporate firm, transfer‐promoting measures are easier to apply to their situation. Trainers should receive support from colleagues, supervisors, and the organisation itself, including feedback, reinforcement, and coaching. In this case, measures that have proven to be effective in the contexts of general and teacher training, such as the training of entire teams and the participation of supervisors, can be implemented.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-18">Organisational Culture and Environment</hd> <p>Several meta‐analyses have indicated that transfer is more likely to occur if participation in training is voluntary (Blume et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref161">10</reflink>]; Gegenfurtner et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref162">33</reflink>]; Lacerenza et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref163">51</reflink>]). Teachers also identify with the training content more strongly if participation is voluntary (Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref164">48</reflink>]; Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref165">76</reflink>]). Another transfer‐enhancing factor is the possibility of applying the training content in the workplace. The longer skills are not used after training, the less those skills are retained (Arthur et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref166">5</reflink>]). Grossman and Salas ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref167">39</reflink>]) reported that opportunities for use also require appropriate resources in the workplace. Findings regarding opportunities to use have been replicated in the context of teachers (Lipowsky [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref168">53</reflink>]; Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref169">76</reflink>]). Finally, Blume et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref170">10</reflink>]) reported that the general transfer climate in organizations is related to transfer.</p> <p>These findings regarding a transfer‐enhancing organisational culture and environment are partly applicable to self‐employed trainers: participation in train‐the‐trainer programmes is naturally voluntary, and trainers should be encouraged during training to use the skills they have acquired shortly after participating in the programme. It is also plausible that the organisational culture and transfer climate of the companies for which trainers provide training can affect trainers' transfer success. If trainers are employees at a company, the advantages of training entire teams should be weighed against the advantages of voluntary participation since these factors can contradict each other. In any case, such employed trainers should be offered transfer opportunities and relevant resources such as time and material, and they should generally encounter a transfer‐supporting organisational culture.</p> <p>If trainers are self‐employed but regularly work for the same company, this company might consider implementing a common development strategy for its freelance trainers. Such measures could strengthen the aforementioned networking and social support and subsequently enhance transfer.</p> <p>We expect these contextual factors to affect (a) certain individual factors; (b) the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities; (c) learning processes; and (d) levels of training success.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-19">Perception, Interpretation and Use of Learning Opportunities</hd> <p>In line with the constructivist perspective in offer‐and‐use models, our model suggests that the effectiveness of train‐the‐trainer programmes does not depend solely on the aforementioned external, individual, and contextual factors. It is further influenced by the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities by the participating trainers (Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref171">54</reflink>]). The perception of learning opportunities refers to participants' observations during training, whereas interpretation represents their internal processing of what they see or experience. The use of learning opportunities is defined as the involvement of the participants in training, including thorough active participation in group activities or discussions.</p> <p>Colquitt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref172">17</reflink>]) reported that valence, that is, participants' beliefs regarding the desirability of training outcomes, is closely linked to the participants' motivation to learn, which in turn is linked to the participants' learning outcomes. For teachers, the perceived usefulness of training content is an important motivator with regard to the incorporation of new content into one's own teaching (Lipowsky [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref173">53</reflink>]; Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref174">76</reflink>]). Transfer is also enhanced if teachers identify with the content of the training that they attended (Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref175">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is clear that certain individual factors, such as self‐efficacy, learning motivation, and transfer motivation, are closely connected to the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities, and we expect these factors to interact with each other. Train‐the‐trainer programmes should try to keep the motivation and engagement of the participating trainers high, for example, by stressing how they can benefit from the learning content in their professional practice. Furthermore, the way in which the participating trainers react to training can influence the design and delivery of training. For example, training can be adapted if trainers report that the content is not relevant to them or if they express reluctance to participate in exercises.</p> <p>Therefore, we expect the perception, interpretation and use of learning opportunities to influence (a) individual factors and vice versa; (b) training design and delivery and vice versa; and (c) learning processes and vice versa.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-20">Learning Processes</hd> <p>The previous section focused on how trainers who participate in train‐the‐trainer programmes perceive learning opportunities and whether they decide to engage in them. To our understanding, the next steps involve internal learning processes. While other offer‐and‐use models have incorporated the factor <emph>transfer process</emph> (e.g., Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref176">54</reflink>]) at this point in the model, we want to highlight the importance of the proceeding step of learning processes. We hereby follow the suggestions of Baldwin and Ford ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref177">6</reflink>]), who differentiated between initial learning and retention on the one hand and generalisation and maintenance at the workplace on the other hand. To our understanding, during the train‐the‐trainer programme, learning must occur before the four levels of training outcomes can—or cannot—be observed, as depicted in the lower section of Figure 2. In the sense of Alliger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref178">2</reflink>]), Level 3 of training outcomes thus constitutes the transfer of the train‐the‐trainer programme.</p> <p>Therefore, we expect learning processes to affect the levels of training outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-21">Levels of Training Outcomes</hd> <p>We expect the aforementioned domains of the offer‐and‐use model to impact the four levels of training outcomes either directly or indirectly based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref179">49</reflink>]) and the meta‐analysis conducted by Alliger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref180">2</reflink>]). However, in our model, we understand those levels as training outcomes, not only in the sense of (methodological) evaluation levels. Although we employed Kirkpatrick's levels, we want to emphasise the existence of certain subfacets that must be considered, as suggested by Alliger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref181">2</reflink>]). On the other hand, an even broader distinction of transfer outcomes was suggested by Wang and Wilcox ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref182">77</reflink>]). These authors grouped reactions and learning into the category of short‐term outcomes, and they combined behaviour on the job and organisational impact into the category of long‐term outcomes. We included these broad categories in our model as proximal and distal outcomes since they have been highlighted by previous empirical studies (Grohmann and Kauffeld [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref183">38</reflink>]) and could be a useful taxonomy if outcomes cannot be investigated in a more differentiated manner.</p> <p>Since the proposed offer‐and‐use model focuses on the promotion of transfer, ultimately, the success of transfer (Level 3) should be evaluated. For this purpose, the participating trainers could be observed while conducting training sometime after the train‐the‐trainer programme. If transfer cannot be evaluated, the participating trainers should at least be asked about their utility reactions, i.e., the perceived usefulness of the training at Level 1. These judgements are correlated more strongly with transfer than affective reactions, such as whether participants liked the training (Alliger et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref184">2</reflink>]). Acquired knowledge and skills (Level 2) can be assessed via tests or training simulations at the end of the programme. At Level 4, the learning and transfer success of the trainees of the participating trainers should be assessed.</p> <p>Attention should also be given to whether a summative or formative evaluation is more beneficial. During the process of implementing newly designed train‐the‐trainer programmes, an initial formative evaluation is recommended so that the programme can be adapted if necessary. The Learning Transfer Systems Inventory (LTSI; Holton III et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref185">42</reflink>]) could be used for this purpose.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-22">Discussion</hd> <p>The central contribution of this article is its proposal of an offer‐and‐use model for the professional development of trainers that integrates factors that have been shown to be relevant for transfer. We therefore elaborate on previously developed offer‐and‐use models and transfer models pertaining to both training in general (Baldwin and Ford [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref186">6</reflink>]; Burke and Hutchins [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref187">14</reflink>]) and teacher training (Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref188">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref189">55</reflink>]; Schäfer and van Waveren [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref190">70</reflink>]; Vigerske [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref191">76</reflink>]). We discussed and integrated empirical findings drawn from the international and multidisciplinary science of training as well as from continuous teacher training. With our proposed model, we hope to advance the interdisciplinary understanding of the professional development of trainers.</p> <p>Notably, the domain of internal factors/work environment, which was drawn from the aforementioned models, required extensive adaptation and was renamed to develop the domain of contextual factors. As trainers are often self‐employed (Giménez Marín et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref192">37</reflink>]; Wisshak et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref193">85</reflink>]), we believe that train‐the‐trainer programmes must be adapted to the two possible scenarios in this context. For trainers who are employed by a company or training provider, aspects such as social support, application opportunities, and a transfer‐promoting climate can be offered by those companies. Self‐employed trainers, on the other hand, are responsible for a large part of such transfer‐promoting measures themselves, which therefore require adaptations. We suggest that these trainers should seek support through different channels, such as from peer dyads or networks with colleagues. Such support systems can already be established during train‐the‐trainer programmes. Furthermore, transfer‐promoting resources for self‐employed trainers and in‐company trainers may include guidelines, checklists, apps, journals, or other tools that can remind them of their transfer goals and help them reflect on their transfer process (Koch and Wisshak [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref194">50</reflink>]). Such reminders can be used as tools for cognitive offloading and, with respect to the transfer of training, so‐called intention offloading (Risko and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref195">65</reflink>]). However, while research has suggested that cognitive offloading can promote learning, we know very little about the effect of intention offloading on the transfer of training.</p> <p>We made several more adaptations to our model. With regard to the model developed by Baldwin and Ford ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref196">6</reflink>]), we added the professional competence of the facilitators and the training evaluation, as proposed by Burke and Hutchins ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref197">14</reflink>]). These aspects are closely connected to the quality of the training design. The perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities are an element that we derived from offer‐and‐use models. To our understanding, this element constitutes a prerequisite for the respective learning processes. We postulate that the relevant domains affect the internal learning processes, which in turn affect the different levels of training outcomes, which we drew from the model of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref198">49</reflink>]) and from the training criteria proposed by Alliger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref199">2</reflink>]). However, learning and transfer can be viewed as alternating processes; successful transfer leads to further learning (Bransford and Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref200">13</reflink>]) and can be described as a dynamic process rather than a static outcome (Blume et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref201">11</reflink>]). This dynamic should also be considered when investigating train‐the‐trainer programmes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-23">Limitations</hd> <p>According to Box and Draper ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref202">12</reflink>]), "[...] all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. However, the approximate nature of the model must always be borne in mind" (p. 424). In this sense, we are aware that our proposed model does not depict reality but can rather serve only as a general approach that features a high level of abstraction. This study represents an initial suggestion that can prospectively be specified with regard to different training contexts. For example, research has suggested that trainers who teach different topics (i.e., hard skills vs. soft skills) might need different types of instructional knowledge and skills (Wisshak and Hochholdinger [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref203">83</reflink>]). Our proposed model is generic and, therefore, cannot address specific training content such as sales or medical training.</p> <p>The aim of our proposed model is to contribute to the theory‐ and evidence‐based investigation of train‐the‐trainer programmes and their effectiveness. Van Veen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref204">75</reflink>]) noted that investigations of effectiveness run the risk of limiting the discussion to technocratic assumptions. Similarly, Nuthall and Alton‐Lee ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref205">58</reflink>]) indicated that variables associated with teaching and learning do not necessarily exhibit a linear relationship. Lieberman and Grolnick ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref206">52</reflink>]) noted that an excessive or insufficient amount of a given factor may interfere with the learning process. Against this backdrop, it must be noted that most of the elements included in our model are based on meta‐analytical correlations, which can hardly reflect the complexity of pedagogical processes.</p> <p>Furthermore, while some factors included in our model are based on several meta‐analyses, other factors are informed by very few empirical findings, such as those regarding the positive relationship between evaluation and transfer. In any case, our model and the links we posit among the specific domains require empirical examination before they can be viewed as valid.</p> <p>Finally, our approach represents an initial attempt to synthesise research on different systems (training in general, the continuous training of teachers, and the training of trainers) that are intended to meet similar requirements but are nevertheless different. The transferability of research findings pertaining to schoolteachers to trainers is especially limited: For example, teachers must adhere to a given curriculum, while trainers must tailor training content to organisational and individual needs. While teachers are employed by an organisation on a long‐term basis, trainers are often self‐employed. We tried to consider those differences in our model. However, as trainers represent a very heterogeneous group in terms of their different educational backgrounds, professional backgrounds, and training topics, they are difficult to investigate empirically, and we know very little about them. The existence of national differences also makes it even more difficult to generalise the few existing findings concerning trainers.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-24">Implications for Future Research and Practice</hd> <p>Despite its limitations, our model is based on a broad foundation that combines substantial international research on the transfer of training with models and findings drawn from research on the continuous training of teachers. We particularly hope to present the idea of offer‐and‐use models—in general as well as in the specific context of training—to a broad and international audience.</p> <p>We suggest that our model can be utilised to support investigations of train‐the‐trainer programmes, for example, for empirical investigations of the relationships among specific factors and for efforts to predict their results. However, empirical studies are needed to investigate the model's validity. This need is especially critical given that some of the underlying models (Lipowsky and Rzejak [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref207">55</reflink>]; Schäfer and van Waveren [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref208">70</reflink>]) have not yet been empirically tested. Future studies could also examine whether this model meets the requirement of general applicability or whether adjustments must be made to address trainers in specific subject areas.</p> <p>In practice, this model can be used to conceptualise, evaluate, and reflect on the effectiveness of train‐the‐trainer programmes. In light of the relevance of training and development for our society, learning opportunities for this target group should be designed to be as conducive to learning and transfer as possible.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-25">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-26">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0189133090-27">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <ref id="AN0189133090-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aguinis, H., and K. Kraiger. 2009. " Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams, Organizations, and Society." Annual Review of Psychology 60 : 451 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alliger, G. M., S. I. Tannenbaum, W. Bennett, H. Traver, and A. Shotland. 1997. " A Meta‐Analysis of the Relations Among Training Criteria." Personnel Psychology 50, no. 2 : 341 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Althauser, K. 2015. " Job‐Embedded Professional Development: Its Impact on Teacher Self‐Efficacy and Student Performance." Teacher Development 19, no. 2 : 210 – 225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2015.1011346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref117" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arthur, W., W. Bennett, P. S. Edens, and S. T. Bell. 2003. " Effectiveness of Training in Organizations: A Meta‐Analysis of Design and Evaluation Features." Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 2 : 234 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref110" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arthur, W., W. Bennett, P. L. Stanush, and T. L. McNelly. 1998. " Factors That Influence Skill Decay and Retention: A Quantitative Review and Analysis." Human Performance 11, no. 1 : 57 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1101_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baldwin, T. T., and J. K. Ford. 1988. " Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research." Personnel Psychology 41, no. 1 : 63 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref118" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref134" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, C., H. Ullrich, and R. Schanz. 1995. Fort‐ und Weiterbildungsinteressen von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern in Rheinland‐Pfalz (59). Schriftenreihe des ILF Mainz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beer, P., and R. H. Mulder. 2020. " The Effects of Technological Developments on Work and Their Implications for Continuous Vocational Education and Training: A Systematic Review." Frontiers in Psychology 11 : 918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00918.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blume, B. D., J. K. Ford, T. T. Baldwin, and J. L. Huang. 2010. " Transfer of Training: A Meta‐Analytic Review." Journal of Management 36, no. 4 : 1065 – 1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blume, B. D., J. Kevin Ford, E. A. Surface, and J. Olenick. 2019. " A Dynamic Model of Training Transfer." Human Resource Management Review 29, no. 2 : 270 – 283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.11.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Box, G. E. P., and N. R. Draper. 1987. " Empirical Model‐building And Response Surfaces." In Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Applied Probability And Statistics. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bransford, J. D., and D. L. Schwartz. 1999. " Chapter 3: Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal With Multiple Implications." Review of Research in Education 24, no. 1 : 61 – 100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001061.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, L. A., and H. M. Hutchins. 2008. " A Study of Best Practices in Training Transfer and Proposed Model of Transfer." Human Resource Development Quarterly 19, no. 2 : 107 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1230.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, L. A., and A. M. Saks. 2009. " Accountability in Training Transfer: Adapting Schlenker's Model of Responsibility to a Persistent but Solvable Problem." Human Resource Development Review 8, no. 3 : 382 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309336732.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coldwell, M. 2017. " Exploring the Influence of Professional Development on Teacher Careers: A Path Model Approach." Teaching and Teacher Education 61 : 189 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colquitt, J. A., J. A. LePine, and R. 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, no. 5 : 678 – 707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L., M. E. Hyler, and M. Gardner. 2017. Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong, B., J. Jansen in de Wal, F. Cornelissen, and T. Peetsma. 2023. " Investigating Transfer Motivation Profiles, Their Antecedents and Transfer of Training." Education Sciences 13, no. 12 : 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121232.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong, B., J. Jansen in de Wal, F. Cornelissen, R. van der Lans, and T. Peetsma. 2023. " How to Predict Transfer of Training? Investigating the Application of the Unified Model of Task‐Specific Motivation." International Journal of Training and Development 27, no. 2 : 242 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deissinger, T. 2015. " The German Dual Vocational Education and Training System as 'Good Practice'? " Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 30, no. 5 : 557 – 567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094215589311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desimone, L. M., and M. S. Garet. 2015. " Best Practices in Teachers' Professional Development in the United States." Psychology, Society, &amp; Education 7, no. 3 : 252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. 2019. "Standard for In‐Company Trainers in ASEAN Countries: As endorsed by SOM‐ED and SLOM‐WG."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donovan, J. J., and D. J. Radosevich. 1999. " A Meta‐Analytic Review of the Distribution of Practice Effect: Now You See It, Now You Don't." Journal of Applied Psychology 84, no. 5 : 795 – 805. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.795.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donovan, P., and D. P. Darcy. 2011. " Learning Transfer: The Views of Practitioners in Ireland." International Journal of Training and Development 15, no. 2 : 121 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00374.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Driskell, J. E., R. P. Willis, and C. Copper. 1992. " Effect of Overlearning on Retention." Journal of Applied Psychology 77, no. 5 : 615 – 622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.615.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feltes, M., J. Becker, N. McCall, G. Mbanjumucyo, S. Sivasankar, and N. E. Wang. 2019. " Teaching How to Teach in a Train‐The‐Trainer Program." Journal of Graduate Medical Education 11, no. 4 Suppl : 202 – 204. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-18-01014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, J. K., T. T. Baldwin, and J. Prasad. 2018. " Transfer of Training: The Known and the Unknown." Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5, no. 1 : 201 – 225. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104443.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fütterer, T., E. Richter, and D. Richter. 2024. " Teachers' Engagement in Online Professional Development—The Interplay of Online Professional Development Quality and Teacher Motivation." Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft 27 : 739 – 768.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. " What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers." American Educational Research Journal 38, no. 4 : 915 – 945.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gauld, D., and P. Miller. 2004. " The Qualifications and Competencies Held By Effective Workplace Trainers." Journal of European Industrial Training 28, no. 1 : 8 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590410513866.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gegenfurtner, A. 2011. " Motivation and Transfer in Professional Training: A Meta‐Analysis of the Moderating Effects of Knowledge Type, Instruction, and Assessment Conditions." Educational Research Review 6, no. 3 : 153 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gegenfurtner, A., K. D. Könings, N. Kosmajac, and M. Gebhardt. 2016. " Voluntary or Mandatory Training Participation as a Moderator in the Relationship Between Goal Orientations and Transfer of Training." International Journal of Training and Development 20, no. 4 : 290 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12089.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gegenfurtner, A., and M. Vauras. 2012. " Age‐Related Differences in the Relation Between Motivation to Learn and Transfer of Training in Adult Continuing Education." Contemporary Educational Psychology 37, no. 1 : 33 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gegenfurtner, A., K. Veermans, and M. Vauras. 2013. " Effects of Computer Support, Collaboration, and Time Lag on Performance Self‐Efficacy and Transfer of Training: A Longitudinal Meta‐Analysis." Educational Research Review 8 : 75 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghosh, P., R. Satyawadi, J. Prasad Joshi, R. Ranjan, and P. Singh. 2012. " Towards More Effective Training Programmes: A Study of Trainer Attributes." Industrial and Commercial Training 44, no. 4 : 194 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851211231469.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giménez Marín, V., A. Navío Gámez, and J. L. García Molina. 2011. " Training of Trainers in the Spanish Construction Industry ‐ A Private‐Public Partnership Approach." In Vocational Education and Training: Research and Practice: Vol. 8. National Pathways and European Dimensions of Trainers' Professional Development, edited by S. R. Kirpal, 93 – 109. Peter Lang GmbH.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grohmann, A., and S. Kauffeld. 2013. " Evaluating Training Programs: Development and Correlates of the Questionnaire for Professional T Raining E Valuation." International Journal of Training and Development 17, no. 2 : 135 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, R., and E. Salas. 2011. " The Transfer of Training: What Really Matters." International Journal of Training and Development 15, no. 2 : 103 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamzah, H. A., A. J. Marcinko, B. Stephens, and M. Weick. 2024. " Making Soft Skills 'Stick': A Systematic Scoping Review and Integrated Training Transfer Framework Grounded in Behavioural Science." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 34 : 237 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2024.2376909.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helmke, A. 2012. Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts (4. Auflage). Schule weiterentwickeln – Unterricht verbessern. Klett Kallmeyer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holton, III, E. F., R. A. Bates, and W. E. A. Ruona. 2000. " Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory." Human Resource Development Quarterly 11, no. 4 : 333 – 360. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-1096(200024)11:4&lt;333::AID-HRDQ2&gt;3.0.CO;2-P.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, V., and G. K. Eddy‐Imishue. 2020. " Factors Influencing Adequate and Effective Clinical Supervision for Inpatient Mental Health Nurses' Personal and Professional Development: An Integrative Review." Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 27, no. 5 : 640 – 656. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, A. M., S. Zajac, A. L. Woods, and E. Salas. 2020. " The Role of Work Environment in Training Sustainment: A Meta‐Analysis." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 62, no. 1 : 166 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819845988.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins, H. M., and L. A. Burke. 2007. " Identifying Trainers' Knowledge of Training Transfer Research Findings – Closing the Gap between Research and Practice." International Journal of Training and Development 11, no. 4 : 236 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00288.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingvarson, L., M. Meiers, and A. Beavis. 2005. " Factors Affecting the Impact of Professional Development Programs on Teachers' Knowledge, Practice, Student Outcomes &amp; Efficacy." Education Policy Analysis Archives 13, no. 10 : 1 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keith, N., and M. Frese. 2008. " Effectiveness of Error Management Training: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 1 : 59 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, M. 1998. Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education (Research Monograph No. 13). National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin‐Madison.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkpatrick, J. D., and W. K. Kirkpatrick. 2016. Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation. ATD Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koch, A., and S. Wisshak. 2025. "Strengthening Trainers' Transfer Knowledge: An Intervention Study." International Journal of Training and Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacerenza, C. N., D. L. Reyes, S. L. Marlow, D. L. Joseph, and E. Salas. 2017. " Leadership Training Design, Delivery, and Implementation: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 102, no. 12 : 1686 – 1718. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieberman, A., and M. Grolnick. 1996. " Networks and Reform in American Education." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 98, no. 1 : 7 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819609800106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipowsky, F. 2014. " Theoretische Perspektiven und Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfort‐ und Weiterbildung." In Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (2., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, edited by E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, and M. Rothland, 511 – 541. Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipowsky, F., and D. Rzejak. 2015. " Key Features of Effective Professional Development Programmes for Teachers." Ricercazione 7, no. 2 : 27 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipowsky, F., and D. Rzejak. 2019. " Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Fortbildungen für Lehrkräfte." In Zur Wirksamkeit und Nachhaltigkeit von Lehrerfortbildung: Qualitätssicherung und Qualitätsentwicklung katholischer Lehrerfort‐ und ‐weiterbildung, edited by P. Platzbecker and B. Priebe, 34 – 74. Institut für Lehrerfortbildung.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lischewski, J., S. Seeber, E. Wuttke, and T. Rosemann. 2020. " What Influences Participation in Non‐Formal and Informal Modes of Continuous Vocational Education and Training? An Analysis of Individual and Institutional Influencing Factors." Frontiers in Psychology 11 : 534485. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.534485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mischo, C. 2014. " Discussion: Private Tutoring from Bronfenbrenner's Perspective." Journal for Educational Research Online 6, no. 1 : 114 – 123. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:8843.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuthall, G., and A. Alton‐Lee. 1993. " Predicting Learning from Student Experience of Teaching: A Theory of Student Knowledge Construction in Classrooms." American Educational Research Journal 30, no. 4 : 799 – 840. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, S., H.‐S. Kang, and E.‐J. Kim. 2018. " The Role of Supervisor Support on Employees' Training and Job Performance: An Empirical Study." European Journal of Training and Development 42, no. 1/2 : 57 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2017-0054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., B. J. Fishman, R. Yamaguchi, and L. P. Gallagher. 2007. " What Makes Professional Development Effective? Strategies That Foster Curriculum Implementation." American Educational Research Journal 44, no. 4 : 921 – 958. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poitras, M.‐E., E. Bélanger, V. T. Vaillancourt, et al. 2021. " Interventions to Improve Trainers' Learning and Behaviors for Educating Health Care Professionals Using Train‐The‐Trainer Method: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 41, no. 3 : 202 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000375.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quesada‐Pallarès, C., A. González‐Ortiz‐de‐Zárate, P. Pineda‐Herrero, and E. Cascallar. 2022. " Intention to Transfer and Transfer Following elearning in Spain." Vocations and Learning 15, no. 2 : 359 – 385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-022-09292-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quesada‐Pallarès, C., M. F. Musso, A. Ciraso‐Calí, and E. Cascallar. 2022. " The Well‐Fit for the FET Model: Understanding Training Transfer Factors in Spain." EDUCAR 58, no. 1 : 103 – 121. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.1327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinhold, S., A. Gegenfurtner, and D. Lewalter. 2018. " Social Support and Motivation to Transfer As Predictors of Training Transfer: Testing Full and Partial Mediation Using Meta‐Analytic Structural Equation Modelling." International Journal of Training and Development 22, no. 1 : 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risko, E. F., and S. J. Gilbert. 2016. " Cognitive Offloading." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20, no. 9 : 676 – 688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Röseler, S., M. Hilbert, G. Hertel, and M. T. Thielsch. 2024. " Getting the Most out of Every Training Day: The Influence of Instructors on Self‐Regulated Learning During Firefighter Leadership Courses." International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 15, no. 3 : 332 – 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00560-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saks, A. M., and L. A. Burke. 2012. " An Investigation Into the Relationship Between Training Evaluation and the Transfer of Training." International Journal of Training and Development 16, no. 2 : 118 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00397.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salamon, J., B. D. Blume, G. Orosz, and T. Nagy. 2023. " The Moderating Effect of Coworkers' Training Participation on the Influence of Peer Support in the Transfer Process." European Journal of Training and Development 47, no. 10 : 155366. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2021-0102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas, E., and J. A. Cannon‐Bowers. 2001. " The Science of Training: A Decade of Progress." Annual Review of Psychology 52 : 471 – 499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schäfer, P., and L. van Waveren. 2025. " Online und Prä‐senzfortbildungen für Lehrpersonen ‐ ein Modell zum gelingenden Transfer [Online and face‐to‐face professional development for teachers ‐ a model for successful transfer]." BzL ‐ Beiträge Zur Lehrerinnen- Und Lehrerbildung 43, no. 1 : 120 – 135. https://doi.org/10.36950/bzl.43.1.2025.10392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, P. J., D. F. Russ‐Eft, and D. W. L. Chan. 2005. " A Meta‐Analytic Review of Behavior Modeling Training." Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 4 : 692 – 709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timperley, H., A. Wilson, H. Barrar, and I. Fung. 2007. Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Education Counts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Bossche, P., and M. Segers. 2013. " Transfer of Training: Adding Insight Through Social Network Analysis." Educational Research Review 8 : 37 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.08.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vauras, M., P. Salonen, and R. Kinnunen. 2008. " Influences of Group Processes and Interpersonal Regulation on Motivation, Affect And Achievement." In Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 15. Social Psychological Perspectives, edited by M. L. Maehr, 15, 1. ed., 275 – 314. Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-7423(08)15009-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veen, K., R. C. Zwart, and J. Meirink. 2012. " What Makes Teacher Professional Development Effective? A Literature Review." In Teacher Learning That Matters: International Perspectives, edited by M. Kooy and K. van Veen, 3 – 21. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vigerske, S. 2017. Transfer von Lehrerfortbildungsinhalten in die Praxis: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Transferqualität und zu Einflussfaktoren. Springer VS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, G. G., and D. Wilcox. 2006. " Training Evaluation: Knowing More Than Is Practiced." Advances in Developing Human Resources 8, no. 4 : 528 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306293007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiß, S. 2011. " Trainer Academies, Coaches For Apprentices And Round Table Discussions ‐ Innovations in "Train The Trainers" in Austria." In Vocational Education and Training: Research and Practice: Vol. 8. National Pathways and European Dimensions of Trainers' Professional Development, edited by S. R. Kirpal, 173 – 187. Peter Lang GmbH.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S. 2022. " Transfer in Der Berufsbezogenen Weiterbildung: Systematisches Literaturreview Und Synthese Mit Blick Auf Die Handlungsmöglichkeiten Der Lehrenden [Transfer In Job‐Related Continuing Education: Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis Regarding Possible Actions of Trainers]." Zeitschrift Für Weiterbildungsforschung ‐ Report 45, no. 1 : 69 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40955-022-00204-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S., and D. Barth. 2022. " Perceptions of Accountability for the Transfer of Training by Leadership Trainers." International Journal of Training and Development 26, no. 2 : 209 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S., and S. Hochholdinger. 2015. " "Zaubern" Lernen – Welche Pädagogischen Inhalte Umfassen Sogenannte Trainerausbildungen? [Learning "To Do Magic" – What Pedagogical Content Do So‐Called Train‐The‐Trainer Programs Include?]." Zeitschrift Für Weiterbildungsforschung ‐ Report 38, no. 1 : 113 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40955-015-0012-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S., and S. Hochholdinger. 2018. " Trainers' Knowledge and Skills From the Perspective of Trainers, Trainees and Human Resource Development Practitioners." International Journal of Training Research 16, no. 3 : 218 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2018.1576327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S., and S. Hochholdinger. 2020. " Perceived Instructional Requirements of Soft‐Skills Trainers and Hard‐Skills Trainers." Journal of Workplace Learning 32, no. 6 : 405 – 416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-02-2020-0029.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S., A. Naumann, A. Koch, and C. Spener. 2025. " Trainers' Knowledge of Training Transfer: Exploration of a Crucial Yet Uncharted Concept." Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-025-01318-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wisshak, S., C. Bonnes, I. Keller, D. Barth, and S. Hochholdinger. 2020. " Qualifikationen Von Lehrenden In Der Beruflich‐Betrieblichen Weiterbildung [Qualifications of Trainers in Continuing Vocational Training]." Zeitschrift Für Bildungsforschung 10, no. 1 : 103 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-020-00262-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yelon, S. L., and J. K. Ford. 1999. " Pursuing a Multidimensional View of Transfer." Performance Improvement Quarterly 12, no. 3 : 58 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1999.tb00138.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoo, S., S. Lee, S. Kim, S. Jang, and D. Cho. 2021. " Training and Development Investment and Financial Performance: The Bidirectional Relationship and the Moderating Effect of Financial Slack." Human Resource Development Quarterly 33, no. 2 : 115 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, S. W.‐Y. Lee, B. Scarloss, and K. L. Shapley. 2007. Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement (Issues &amp; Answers Report REL 2007‐No. 033). U.S : Department of Education, Institute of Educational Science, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susanne Wisshak; Pia Schäfer and Leo van Waveren</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref206"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1488716 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Train-the-Trainer: A Generic Offer-and-Use Model for the Development of Trainers – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susanne+Wisshak%22">Susanne Wisshak</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7664-0253">0000-0002-7664-0253</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pia+Schäfer%22">Pia Schäfer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4759-7740">0000-0003-4759-7740</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leo+van+Waveren%22">Leo van Waveren</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3817-8109">0000-0002-3817-8109</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Training+and+Development%22"><i>International Journal of Training and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 29(4):449-461. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 13 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trainers%22">Trainers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Continuing+Education%22">Professional Continuing Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transfer+of+Training%22">Transfer of Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training+Methods%22">Training Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1111/ijtd.12370 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1360-3736<br />1468-2419 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This article is based on the premise that the international scientific community needs a generic theoretical framework to explain the determinants and mechanisms associated with learning opportunities for trainers in the field of training and development. Therefore, we adapted offer-and-use models for the continuous training of schoolteachers to trainers. We also incorporated the concept of the transfer of training into the model. The transfer of acquired knowledge and skills from the learning context to the work context represents an important criterion for training effectiveness. Since train-the-trainer programmes should also adhere to this criterion, our proposed model incorporates theoretical and empirical findings regarding transfer-enhancing measures drawn from both general training and development and the continuous education of schoolteachers. The theoretical model includes external factors (the train-the-trainer programme); individual factors (the participating trainers); contextual factors (the trainers' workplaces); the perception, interpretation, and use of learning opportunities; and learning processes of the trainers. These factors ultimately affect training outcomes at different levels (reactions, learning, transfer, and results). This model can be used to support long-needed scientific investigations of the determinants underlying train-the-trainer programmes as well as the quality of those qualifications. It also has considerable implications with respect to the conceptualisation and evaluation of such programmes in practice. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1488716 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1488716 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/ijtd.12370 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 StartPage: 449 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Trainers Type: general – SubjectFull: Training Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Professional Continuing Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Transfer of Training Type: general – SubjectFull: Models Type: general – SubjectFull: Training Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Train-the-Trainer: A Generic Offer-and-Use Model for the Development of Trainers Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Susanne Wisshak – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Pia Schäfer – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Leo van Waveren IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1360-3736 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1468-2419 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 29 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: International Journal of Training and Development Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
