LERNLUST #7 // What are the Quality Criteria for Successful Learning?

People working in corporate learning often have particularly high quality standards for their own work. Perhaps this is because learning is not only important but also often underestimated in the corporate context. But what can actually be the criteria for effective learning?

tts employees addressed this question a long time ago. The tts quality criteria for good training are the answer. But time moves on. Do the criteria need to be updated or are they still as valid as they were more than 10 years ago? It is exciting when a company bases its standards on scientific findings for such a long time. And it is even more exciting to be able to critically question these findings time and again.

Shownotes

Host:
Susanne Dube, Teamlead Learning // LinkedIn

Guest:
Gabriele Schröter-Jank, Learning Manager // LinkedIn

The link to the basic literature...: https://www.cornelsen.de/produkte/praxisbuch-meyer-was-ist-guter-unterricht-15-auflage-buch-kartoniert-9783589220472

...and the tts quality criteria for successful learning: https://goto.tt-s.com/asset/la--qualitaetskriterien-fuer-gutes-lernen

Podcast on 11 theses on the development of learning in organizations with Johannes Starke and Claudia Schütze: https://lernlust-podcast.podigee.io/5-lerntrends

And here is a reference to the principles of neurodidactics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_neuroscience

tts - we empower people on LinkedIn

Lernlust, the podcast for everything related to corporate learning. We are Claudia Schütze and Susanne Dube and we are learning consultants at tts and we are the hosts of this podcast. Here we will exchange ideas about topics related to our work, in other words, everything concerning learning in organizations today and in the future. From time to time we will invite internal or external experts to join us.

And we're glad you're here with us.

[Susanne Dube]
The tts quality criteria for good training have now been around for over ten years. At the time, they were developed with a focus on face-to-face training. Since then, formats have changed.

Not only has e-learning been added, but also virtual classroom training and much more. The quality criteria have changed. At the moment, we are actually in a phase of change once again.

Learning is becoming even more self-organized, products are expected to be available even faster, learners are increasingly self-determining and can choose from a wide range of offers. Others are discovering that learning in companies is changing, which means that there are even more technologies, methods and formats. The learning offers will continue to change in the future and the issue of quality remains a central topic at tts.

With this in mind, I would like to talk about the tts quality criteria for good training. What are they? How did they come about? Have they been further developed? What significance do they have for the future? I am very happy that my esteemed colleague Gabriele Schröter-Jank has agreed to join me on the coffee kitchen sofa for this discussion.

Enjoy listening.

[Susanne Dube]
Hello dear Gaby and hello dear listeners, welcome to the current Lernlust podcast. Today's topic is quality criteria, for which I invited Gaby Schröter-Jank.

May I call you Gaby?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
How many years have we known each other?

[Susanne Dube]
Well, ten. OK, I'll be cheeky, Gaby. I'll describe you in terms of what you mean to me. At the end, tell me if you recognize yourself in my description.

Gabriele Schröter-Jank, who I have known for ten years now, is my personal knowledge pool. She is a systemic thinker and she is my straight-to-the-point person. She is a mathematician – which perhaps explains why she gets to the heart of so many issues. And the most important thing for today's appointment is that she is one of the creators of the tts quality criteria.

Dear Gaby, is that right, do you recognize yourself in my description?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, actually, because I have an affinity for these systemic topics and I still enjoy dealing with mathematical things. So I feel I am described to a certain extent. Of course, I can't judge what I am for you myself.

But if you say that I am the knowledge pool for you, then that's the way it is. I can certainly accept that, no question about it.

[Susanne Dube]
Very well. I just mentioned that you are one of the creators of the tts quality criteria. These will be our topic today.

What are these criteria actually? How did we come up with them and what do they mean today? Perhaps you can give us a little insight. When were the quality criteria developed and how did you come to deal with the topic?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
It was many years ago that we started looking into this. I wouldn't describe myself as the originator of it, we were a working group of four or five employees of tts at the time. We were thinking about how we could make our teaching more attractive when we were training customers on IT systems.

We were highly motivated to work in a methodically attractive way. At some point, however, I realized that simply selecting attractive, activating methods does not automatically make good teaching. There is more to it than that.

That was the trigger for us in the working group to start thinking about what else needs to be considered in this environment when methods alone do not make good teaching. For many years, I studied pedagogy with Hilbert Meyer. He is a school pedagogue in Oldenburg whom I hold in high regard. He had published a book about what good teaching is. In it, he evaluated several studies that were conducted in the context of the PISA crisis. At the time, it was said that teaching in schools was not good enough and that children were not learning enough.

He evaluated these studies and used them to create a meta-study. From this, he ultimately derived ten criteria for good teaching. We examined these in the working group and looked at what could be transferred from the criteria intended for schools to the implementation and planning of face-to-face teaching in a corporate context. We ultimately identified six of the ten characteristics that were relevant to us at the time.

[Susanne Dube]
In the following, we can only look at the criteria in more detail that are relevant to the discussion. Perhaps you can name the six criteria that we thought were important at the time and also the four that we did not think were important and why exactly the decision was made.

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Of the ten criteria, the diversity of methods is one that played a role and was our starting point.

However, this also included a clear structuring of teaching. We considered this to be important and thought about how we could implement it in our context.

A climate that promotes learning was also an aspect. Hilbert Meyer called the content-related aspect 'Clarity of content' and we made it 'Fit for purpose', because what we teach must fit the target groups.

We always have to build on a good educational needs analysis and develop content that relates to the participants' work context. That is what we understand by fit for purpose. I have already mentioned a diversity of methods.

In addition, there is intelligent practice. This involves creating many opportunities for practice that are also very close to the participants' work context. Intelligent practice also means that we proceed in a methodically attractive and varied way. This allows the learner to try things out on the system, but also to talk about content. This enables very different approaches to the topics covered. The sixth criterion was transparent performance expectations.

With this in mind, we want to be able to give the participants a clear objective so that there is a sense of direction. We also want to link this to the change management that is necessary for large IT projects – because it changes the way we work. Ultimately, the aim of participating in training and engaging with the content is to be able to use the newly acquired tools to do one's work well in the company. This is not least an expectation which the company has of its employees.

This connection to aspects of change was also an important criterion for us.

[Susanne Dube]
Yes, these are exciting points. In the many years that I have worked for tts, I have repeatedly found that these criteria have always proved to be true. I have noticed that when a training course didn't appeal to me, either its structure didn't fit or it wasn't clear to me as a participant what was expected of me. In retrospect, something was usually missing in these cases.

You just mentioned an important point. You said that we are doing system training. Perhaps this is an important classification for the criteria – or would you say that they are actually universally valid?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
I think that they are generally valid. I think that they will be examined and balanced differently depending on the training content. But I also think that for other topics in the classroom, the content must be appropriate and the climate must be conducive to learning.

There needs to be a clear structure for how the course is run. Even if the methods may differ, there should be opportunities to offer practice situations and reflection.

The topics may differ and thus the criteria can be interpreted differently. But for me, the criteria themselves are still topic-independent.

[Susanne Dube]
Yes, that makes sense. Earlier we said that you had excluded four criteria. What were they and why? Perhaps there were reasons for that.

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, there were. You have to remember that this book by Hilbert was written with school teaching in mind. For example, there was a point in the book called 'prepared environment'. If I am a teacher at a school, I can of course design a classroom.

If I am a trainer in or for a commercial enterprise, I go to a large chemical company, for example. There I find a training room that has no windows, where the walls are gray, the tables are gray and the floor is dark gray, full of PCs and cables hanging around somewhere. I have few options for preparing the environment. On top of that, if you travel from place to place as a trainer, you only have a limited amount of equipment that you can take with you on your travels.

Sometimes you don't even know what the training room will look like. That's why we said that, while the point is important, it's something we have very little influence over. That's why we left it out.

We also left out the point of meaningful communication. I think it's extremely important, but we linked it to the diversity of methods. We said that the activating methods we developed lead to many opportunities for communication among the participants about what they have learned. And that's why we didn't adopt it as a separate criterion.

[Susanne Dube]
I'll jump in here because I think it's important. We have to keep in mind that methodological diversity does not mean playing random games with participants just for the sake of it. Instead, the methods should be aligned with the training objective or content. So, for example, I don't just do brainstorming because brainstorming is fun. Rather, I use the method if it is related to what we are learning in the training.

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Right. That's why the methods should offer participants the opportunity to exchange ideas about the course content. I think talking and communicating about what you learn is an important building block for internalizing information. This goes beyond just doing an exercise with your fingers on the keyboard, but also engaging in an exchange about it.

That's why it was so close to the variety of methods for us that we didn't include it as a separate point. Besides, ten criteria were too many for us. We want to slim it down a bit and focus on the essentials.

Individual support, for example, was also an issue that plays a different role in the school context. There you can work with students over a long period of time, over an entire school year. This way, you can and have to get to know the students differently. You recognize where there is a particular need for support, where someone needs special assistance. You can't reproduce that in a business context, where you have a one-day training session with eight adults. You don't get to develop extensive individual support options.

You go around and provide support where it's needed. You explain something more if it's necessary. But there is no aspect of developing individual support options to make learning easier for someone.

[Susanne Dube]
That's a very exciting point, I'll come back to that. But we haven't gone through all the criteria that you left out.

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
The fourth criterion that we left out is a high proportion of real learning time. For us, this was also too closely related to the diversity of methods. We believe that a set of methods always has the goal of increasing real learning time. It's not about entertaining people, but about enabling a lot of learning.

[Susanne Dube]
How long did it take you? You seem to have dealt with it in great detail. How long did you deal with it before you said, these are the criteria that we really want to adopt?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
I don't remember exactly. We had meetings again and again, where the four of us sat together the whole day, reading, discussing, exchanging thoughts, having creative phases. We must have had six or seven such days in which we were able to deal with these topics.

[Susanne Dube]
In the last few months, I have the feeling that many developments are coming in rapid succession. Sometimes I think that I would like to take a step back and take time to think through something conceptually. And I think that is actually something that has had a lasting impact on my training. We will get to that in a bit more depth.

It's nice for me to see that you took the time for this and used a good foundation.

Gabriele Schröter-Jank:
Yes, I think when working on such fundamental topics, it is important to exchange ideas, to stimulate and to correct each other. If someone drifts off topic and it is not productive at that moment, it is valuable to have feedback and resonance.

It was really valuable. I don't think it was any different for the others who were involved. We had the feeling that we achieved more as a team than each of us could have created and thought of individually. That made us proud and connected us.

[Susanne Dube]
I find that a very nice thought. I'll just leave it at that because I like it so much. I heard something earlier that brings me to my next question.

You mentioned the point “individual support” earlier and said that we deliberately left it out because it cannot be implemented in classical training. In retrospect, I find it very exciting to look at it from this perspective, because that was always a point of criticism of the training. Today, however, it is seen differently.

In general, I would be interested to know how your view of learning and the quality criteria have changed over the last ten years. Would you still see everything the same way today as you did back then?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
I would still subscribe to what we did back then when it comes to conducting IT training in a business context and face-to-face training. Within this framework, it is still correct. But learning works differently today – it has developed strongly in the direction of integrating digital learning media into the design of learning processes.

As a result, in my opinion, other aspects that we had set aside at the time because they only seemed relevant for face-to-face teaching are coming to the fore. When you consider the use of learning programs or WBTs, for example, participants find themselves in a learning situation in which they usually go through a learning program alone. In my view, it is crucial to consider how meaningful communication – one of the criteria that we had left out at the time – can be integrated into learning with digital media.
The point is that learning should not take place in isolation, but in exchange with others. It is precisely here that I would say that the criterion that we set aside at the time because it only applied to face-to-face teaching suddenly takes on central importance in the context of digital learning media.

[Susanne Dube]
Yes, in face-to-face teaching, exchange through conversation automatically belongs to the variety of methods, as you said. But in self-learning, variety of methods doesn't necessarily mean that exchange with others takes place. And it is precisely this aspect that is often missing – a really important point that you raise.

One more thing comes to mind that we discussed in the preliminary talk. Back when I was diving into the topic of virtual classrooms, I took the liberty of adding a seventh criterion to the six quality criteria because I thought it was fitting. I called it “purposefully used technology.”

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Exactly, that has a little to do with the prepared environment I was talking about earlier – gray walls, gray tables and lots of cables in training rooms. When you train virtually, you can actively design the room, and that's where it suddenly becomes important.

The use of digital possibilities in learning brings some of these quality criteria back into focus.

[Susanne Dube]
Yes, especially when it comes to the targeted use of technology, I currently have the feeling that new technologies are constantly coming onto the market – with a wide range of functions that can be used both virtually and for self-learning. And that's exactly why I think it's so important to always keep this goal-oriented element in focus. Incidentally, that's not Hilbert Meyer, but Susanne Dube.

[Susanne Dube]
Yes, I have prepared another point. I have looked around a bit, because we are not the only ones working with quality criteria. Particularly in the context of agile work and increasingly self-organized learning, there are exciting approaches. Our esteemed colleague Johannes Starke, for example, has formulated his eleven theses on the future of learning. Then there are the twelve principles of learning derived from neurodidactics. I have the ones by Margret Arnold in front of me here, which in turn are based on the work of Renate Nummela Caine.

I have looked through the criteria in advance and would like to name three of them. You can then spontaneously say whether you can think of a suitable criterion from our quality criteria. Shall we give it a try?

Okay, here is the first one, a bit challenging: “Learning processes are more effective when the interests and ideas of learners are taken into account.”

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, that's the meaningful element, where the content has to be connected to the learners. My first association is not directly related to the ten criteria we talked about, but more to the motivation for learning. An important aspect here is that what I learn must be meaningful and relevant to me.

This is most closely related to the criterion of “fit for purpose” – the content I am dealing with must suit me and make sense to me. I need to feel that what I am learning will help me and contribute to my development. When you think about motivation, it is the meaning that I should recognize in it.

[Susanne Dube]
Then there's another thing that I found a bit easier: “Learning is improved when you have time to reflect.”

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, that's a lot of learning time. You need time to deal with the content, and above all the opportunity to deal with it autonomously and in a self-directed way. Having time and space for this is crucial. I think that's a very important aspect. Ultimately, it is often just different formulations or a slightly different way of looking at what is already contained in the ten criteria.

[Susanne Dube]
I think that's also the point that struck me when I read the twelve principles. By the way, they can easily be found on Wikipedia by searching for neurodidactics.

I don't want to go into this too deeply here, but my impression was that I often had the feeling that I don't constantly need something new, as long as I like what I already know. I'm rather conservative in that regard and had the feeling that many of the current developments I've read can be related to our quality criteria.

Of course, one could say that I'm trying to fit everything into it, but that's not the case. I really want to stay open. You mentioned another point earlier that deals with the motivation for learning. Would you maybe bring that up again in relation to the quality criteria?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, we can think about that again in a moment. I just have another important thought. These ten criteria that we have been working with and that come from Hilbert Meyer are ultimately only one approach. It is not the absolute truth.

It is not reality that is being described, but merely a model. It is intended to help me keep an eye on various aspects when preparing and conducting lessons and to bring clarity to my actions as a trainer.

In this respect, it is a tool that I – or others – can use. However, there are other models that attempt to explain how teaching and learning can be made successful. These are just as good and just as correct.

The real purpose of such models or lists of criteria for me is to encourage learners and teachers to reflect. If they help with that, then they have served their purpose.

[Susanne Dube]
Exactly, I completely agree with you. What occurs to me is that I have often used these criteria in my working life in order to apply them in a different context. For example, in virtual classroom training, I not only considered the part that takes place in the virtual classroom with me, but also the part that learners have in their self-learning phase.

And I would just like to say that if we want people to learn in a self-directed way, then we have to support them in applying these ten criteria independently and in a self-organized way. Because ultimately, it's like a kind of teaching that you design for yourself.

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, maybe it is exactly these ten criteria. Maybe they would be described a little differently, but it would still come down to considering what framework conditions are necessary. It is about what can happen in the setting and in the design of learning processes to make them helpful and supportive for learners.

Whether it is precisely these ten criteria or whether only three of them are particularly relevant is an open question. What is important is that they encourage trainers and those designing learning opportunities to think more broadly. It is not just a matter of didactically preparing content and providing it with an appropriate method, but rather, more is needed.

And it is precisely this “more to it”, this broader thinking and consideration of the framework conditions for a successful learning process that, for me, are supported by these quality criteria – or whatever you want to call them.

[Susanne Dube]
I think that's a great idea. I would like to ask you one last question. After that, we will slowly approach the end. From today's perspective, do you feel that a criterion is missing?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
I don't actually lack any criteria. But I think that I would set different priorities today. Especially in the context of the growing demand and desire for self-organized learning, as we see it in agile learning, where learners themselves should be able to decide on content, methods, objectives and time frames, one thing is particularly important to me: the connection to corporate strategy, to the objectives of a division and how this is linked to learning.

What was described as “transparent performance expectations” should be much more strongly integrated into communication, since it provides the contextual orientation framework that a company can set. I would place more focus on that today. Likewise, I would place a stronger emphasis on “meaningful communication”. Because learning always happens in exchange with others – be it with team leaders, learning guides, colleagues or other learners who share their own learning experiences and provide knowledge.

This exchange of knowledge in communities will be even more important in the future than it is today. Enabling, promoting and supporting meaningful communication would be a central focus for me today.

[Susanne Dube]
Great, that's actually a good outlook for our next podcast! We could focus on this one criterion and see what we can do with it in the context of self-organized learning. Would you like to do that?

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, we'd be happy to do that! I realize even now, as I talk to you about it, that there are so many exciting things to talk about and that really matter. And I think it's really nice to get into conversation again and to realize that there are a whole lot of thoughts that maybe haven't been expressed in a long time, but that are definitely worth expressing.

[Susanne Dube]
Exactly, that's why Claudia and I are offering this podcast. So, for today, I'd like to thank you for taking the time. It was very exciting to listen to you. Thank you very much and goodbye, see you next time.

[Gabriele Schröter-Jank]
Yes, thank you too, Susanne. Bye.

 

By the way, have you subscribed to us yet?

You can find us on iTunes, on Spotify, well, everywhere you want. The best thing is to type “Lernlust Podcast” into Google. Don't forget to rate us there too.

And if you want to leave comments, just use LinkedIn or Twitter. We're on there a lot. We look forward to seeing you.