Applying what is learnt in one context in another context, i.e., the transfer of learning, is often taken for granted and little support is provided to this process across different settings, such as formal education, training, and workplace. Technology-enhanced learning research in formal education abounds, and workplace learning receives growing attention, but what is missing is a comprehensive perspective tracing transfer of learning across settings. Self-directed learning can be seen as a binding agent which supports and propels the transfer of learning. Thus, in this paper, a design-based research is presented, which focuses on self-directed learning at the workplace as a mechanism to support transfer of learning across settings. The potential outcome of the proposed research would be a framework of learning design principles and scaffolding technologies to support self-directed learning and thereby transfer.
As the shelf-life of knowledge and skills decreases, and
forms and settings of learning diversify, the need to
transfer knowledge and skills between different
contexts is expected to increase. Frequent job changes
as well as transformation of tasks in a job are
increasingly common, making the ability to adapt and
learn new skills sometimes even more important than
having specific skills [
However, ample research into transfer of learning
and training has established that applying knowledge
gained in one context (such as education or training)
in another context (such as workplace) is not as easy
as often assumed [
Technology provides flexibility, portability and
different modalities which allow to bring otherwise
distant contexts closer to each other. Thus, digital
technologies provide many opportunities for
facilitating transfer [
This research aims to address this gap by focusing
on self-directed learning (SDL) as a binding agent: SDL
plays an important role in the transfer process [
In this research, transfer is understood broadly as
applying something that is learnt in one context to
another context [
Some researchers have found either the notion of
transfer, or some of its definitions, problematic for
various reasons [
A more comprehensive view of transfer is
presented by Dohn and Markauskaite [
Therefore, as long as it is assumed that people
apply some of their previous experience in new
settings, there is also a point in talking about transfer.
The broad definition of transfer—applying something
that is learnt in one context in another context—allows
the researcher to consider different kinds of
knowledge traversing different situations, both the
simpler as well as the more complex ones. Salomon
and Perkins [
Several models have been developed to describe
the transfer process and the factors involved. In the
transfer of training field, research has been strongly
shaped by Baldwin and Ford’s [
In recent decades, research in the fields of SDL and
SRL have moved closer to each other. Garrison [
The role of self-directed learning in transfer is
manifold. Firstly, as noted above, SDL and transfer are
intertwined via the reliance on same self-regulatory
processes, as learners form intentions and set goals of
what they want to apply, attempt to apply it, and based
on the internal and external feedback decide the future
course of action (e.g., whether to continue to transfer,
modify or discard what was learnt in training) [
However, this larger autonomy over one’s learning is not always used effectively [18]. Thus, the potential of harnessing SDL to support transfer will go unused when this process is not supported across different major settings of learning—such as continuing education, training, and workplace.
Transfer of learning has not received much explicit attention in TEL research. However, a similar theme of learning across contexts has emerged in TEL now and again in relation to several interconnected concepts, such as seamless learning, ubiquitous learning, or personal learning environments.
Wong [19] describes seamless learning, or ‘mobileassisted seamless learning’ as a broad field that emphasizes the role of technological innovation in creating personalized learning across different settings. Research around the concept has focused on creating a continuity of learning experiences along several dimensions, such as formal and informal learning, personalized and social learning, learning across time or across different locations, learning across different devices etc. [19].
Ubiquitous learning is sometimes used synonymously with seamless learning, but it is more technology-oriented, focusing on how technology can provide timely and appropriate support to learners based on the demands of real word contexts [19]. Cárdenas-Robledo and Peña-Ayala [20] characterize ubiquitous learning as leveraging digital content, physical setting, mobile devices, pervasive components, and wireless communication to provide teaching–learning experiences to users whenever and wherever.
Dabbagh and Castaneda [21] describe personal learning environment (PLE) in the narrow sense as “a self-driven digital learning space”, composed of different digital artifacts, platforms, and tools; but more broadly, as an approach that assumes a personcentered view of lifelong learning in technologyinfused era. They find that PLE provides not so much an explanatory theory but rather a framework for analyzing learning conditions, resources, and opportunities in the digital realm from the ecological point of view. Similarly to seamless learning, the PLE framework emphasizes the integration of formal and informal learning experiences [21].
In all these three areas, SDL (including SRL) have been used as learning paradigms [19],[20],[21]. Supporting self-directed/regulated learning with technology is a well-investigated topic in TEL on its own as well. However, most of the tools and learning technologies for supporting SDL have been developed for formal education and based on the SRL framework [22].
According to Ley [23], technology- enhanced learning research has traditionally focused on formal education, though research into workplace learning has been increasing in the recent decades. Cattaneo and Barabasch [24] report an example of a learning technology solution aimed at facilitating transfer of learning across settings. They describe an online environment, mobile apps, and a learning scenario for helping the apprentices relate what they were learning at school with their experiences at the workplace. Here as well, SDL processes, especially reflection, were chosen as a mechanism to help to bridge the different settings, but the setting was limited to vocational school-workplace configuration.
Siadaty, Gašević and Hatala [25] present another comprehensive application for supporting SDL, but focusing solely on workplace context. They describe Learn-B, an online environment providing technological scaffolding (e.g., usage information or recommendations) to micro-level processes of SDL (e.g., task analysis, strategy change, reflection). Trace data on users’ actions in Learn-B environment was analyzed to evaluate which technological scaffolding interventions were most effective in supporting users’ SDL.
To conclude, there is ample research in TEL research on supporting (self-directed) learning across settings, but this research tends to be more focused on formal education and little explicit attention is paid on transfer.
The problem this PhD research aims to address is the limited understanding regarding the effective support of self-directed workplace learning with technology. Specifically, the focus is on exploring how SDL can be facilitated across continuing education, training, and workplace context in a manner that promotes successful transfer of learning across these settings. Thus, this research aims to explore the ways in which learning technologies can shape learning practices and facilitate SDL in the workplace, and thereby facilitate transfer of learning across various contexts. To achieve that aim, we will seek to find answers to following questions: • RQ1: Which processes of self-directed learning at the workplace play the key role in transfer of learning from training and education to work? • RQ2: What is the role of continuing education institutions, employers, training companies in supporting professional learners’ self-directed learning? • RQ3: How do different learning technologies shape self-directed learning practices? • RQ4: What kind of effect the proposed interventions have on professional self-directed learning at work and transfer of learning from training or education to workplace?
The methodology of the proposed research is designbased research. McKenney and Reeves [26] describe design-based research as a type of research where scientific inquiry is embedded into iterative development of solutions to practical and complex problems. DBR focuses on both theory and practice and seeks to advance the design knowledge on the one hand and theoretical understanding on the other.
Several DBR cycles will be run in each of the planned research settings: a continuing education institution, a workplace, and a training company. In each setting, we will build on the relevant results and insights from previous settings. The DBR cycles in each setting will have some iterations running simultaneously, as depicted in Figure 1.
The continuous education setting will be represented by the University for Continuing Education Krems, Austria, where the first iteration has been already carried out. The learners investigated in this setting are enrolled in the MA curriculum of “eEducation”. They are professional learners, who hold a full-time job while studying and usually, expect their studies to be directly or indirectly relevant to their everyday jobs.
The workplace setting will be represented by an UX/IT company in Estonia. The company has a strong learning culture and they value employees’ autonomy and initiative, but they have difficulties transferring knowledge accumulated in numerous projects among the employees.
The training setting will be represented by a training company in Estonia, which provides digital skills training to organizations who want to train their employees. Their offering includes both online as well as face-to-face training. To date, the company has paid little attention to supporting the transfer process, especially after the training, and they feel the need to improve their service in this respect.
The first DBR cycle has already been conducted in the continuing education setting and will be described in the section 4. In the following, a summary of each DBR summary phase and the way how it will be conducted in this research is presented.
Design-based research models usually describe it as consisting of three, iterative and flexible phases. Here, the DBR framework by McKenney and Reeves[26] is used.
In the phase of exploration and analysis, the problem to be addressed is identified and investigated, and the existing situation is explored in the light of what is known [26]. In this research, exploration and analysis will include site visits, semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders/participants depending on the site (e.g., employees and managers at the workplace), analysis of the existing course and training designs and technological scaffolding provided. Literature review on transfer-related issues in similar contexts is conducted for each setting. The aim in this phase is to identify transfer-related challenges in each setting as well as to clarify initial design requirements and propositions for a transfersupporting learning design and corresponding technological scaffolding. This part of the DBR cycle in each setting contributes mostly to answering RQ1 and RQ2.
In the design and development phase of interventions, possible solutions to the problem are considered and documented, theoretical grounding of these solutions is established and the actual solution is iteratively developed [26].
In this research, this phase includes documenting design requirements and design propositions for transfer-supportive learning design for a given setting, based on the insights from the exploration and analysis. The learning design principles and technological scaffolding validated in previous settings are considered against the requirements of the setting and adapted or transformed as needed, setting-specific requirements are documented and accommodated. Initial learning design is described and feedback sought from stakeholders, adjustments made as needed. Based on the learning design, a course or training with appropriate technological scaffolding is created. This part of the DBR cycle in each setting contributes mostly to answering RQ2 and RQ3.
In the phase of evaluation and reflection, the created solution is tested empirically and evaluated in the light of the project's goals. Theoretical as well as practical insights from the project are considered, conclusions formed and redesign ideas formed [26].
In this research, the evaluation and reflection phase includes implementing the learning design created with the target group of the particular setting (students in continuing education, employees at an ITcompany, trainees in the training company). Data from assignments submitted by learners, learners’ replies to various free-text prompts, applications used during learning (e.g., LMS) and interviews with learners and other stakeholders (e.g., managers in a company) are used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on learners’ self-directed learning behavior and transfer. The results are analyzed and conclusions are drawn for each iteration and each setting separately, but also common patterns sought across settings both in terms of learning design principles as well as technological scaffolding.
The first iteration of the DBR cycle in the first setting, continuing education, was carried out roughly in the fall semester 2022/2023 and is reported in detail in [27].
In the first cycle, we aimed to find out which learning design elements and learning technologies support continuing education students in transferring learning to their work context.
We devised and implemented a learning design with appropriate learning technologies in two courses with continuing education students (N=11) in the MA curriculum of e-Education. The design aimed to guide the learners through several stages of forming transfer intentions, planning, attempting transfer and evaluating/reflecting on their attempt.
The technologies used in this first iteration were simple: for example, free text forms in Google Forms were used to guide students in forming transfer intentions and reflecting on transfer attempts.
The students participating in the research were professional learners who worked full-time in fields related to their studies (e.g., teachers in formal education, trainers or learning content creators in the private sector, human resources specialists).
Throughout the course, the students worked on their transfer projects, where they proposed a solution for a course-relevant problem in their own context (e.g., implementing VR for onboarding; equipping classrooms for hybrid learning). Students’ transfer projects and submissions of free text forms were analyzed to investigate if there is evidence for transfer, what learning design elements supported transfer, and what barriers to transfer the students experienced, and how these could be addressed in learning design.
The results suggested that the proposed learning design was conducive to transfer and the activities and technologies helped to guide the students through the phases of transfer. However, several points of improvement and redesign were also identified. For example, students’ reflection on the transfer attempts remained superficial – a possible solution to address this might be redesigning reflection tasks into more interactive format (e.g., guided by a conversational agent).
The expected outcome of this research is a framework of learning design principles and potential technological scaffolding for realizing these principles. The framework could be adapted in different settings to support learners’ self-directed learning in the transfer process. Such a framework would be useful both for designing future research interventions as well as for practitioners to create transfer-supportive training and education programs with technological scaffolding.
The framework itself, and learning designs and design principles described in the framework would serve as a design contribution of design-based research. The grounding of these design principles in the insights about self-directed learning practices in the transfer process, supported by technological scaffolding, would make up the theoretical contribution of this research. In addition, implementation strategies would be provided on how to use the proposed learning designs, practices and tools continuing education, training, and workplace settings to facilitate transfer across these settings. Organisations, 25 (2011) 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777281111159375 [18] B.S. Bell, Strategies for Supporting Self-Regulation during Self-Directed Learning in the Workplace, in: J.E. Ellingson, R.A. Noe, (Eds.), Autonomous Learning in the Workplace, Routledge, New York, NY, 2017, pp. 117–134. [19] L.-H. Wong, A Brief History of Mobile Seamless Learning, in: L.-H. Wong, M. Milrad, M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless Learning in the Age of Mobile Connectivity, Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2015, pp. 3–40. [20] L. A. Cárdenas-Robledo, A. Peña-Ayala, Ubiquitous learning: A systematic review, Telematics and Informatics, 35.5 (2018): 1097– 1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.009 [21] N. Dabbagh, L. Castaneda, The PLE as a framework for developing agency in lifelong learning, Educational Technology Research and Development. 68 (2020): 3041–3055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09831-z [22] R. Perez-Alvarez, I. Jivet, M. Perez-Sanagustin, M.
Scheffel, K. Verbert, Tools Designed to Support Self-Regulated Learning in Online Learning Environments: A Systematic Review, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15.4 (2022): 508 – 522. [23] T. Ley, Knowledge structures for integrating working and learning: A reflection on a decade of learning technology research for workplace learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 51.2 (2020): 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12835 [24] A. Cattaneo, A. Barabasch, Technologies in VET: Bridging learning between school and workplace – the “Erfahrraum Model”, Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 33 (2017) 1–17. [25] M. Siadaty, D. Gašević, M. Hatala, Measuring the impact of technological scaffolding interventions on micro-level processes of self-regulated workplace learning, Computers in Human Behavior, 59 (2016) 469–482. [26] S. McKenney, T.C. Reeves, Conducting Educational Design Research, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, 2019. [27] J. Hirv-Biene, G. Pishtari, M. Wagner, E. M.
Sarmiento-Márquez, T. Ley, A Learning Design to Support Transfer of Training in Continuing Education, in: O. Viberg, I. Jivet, P.J. MuñozMerino, M. Perifanou, T. Papathoma (Eds.), Responsive and Sustainable Educational Futures, 18th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2023, Aveiro, Portugal, September 4-8, 2023, Proceedings. Springer, 2023, pp. 89–103.