In recent decades, the quality of teaching and learning in the university has received a lot ofattention (Biggs, 2003). in line with this concern units and programmes have been created for the teacher training of the lecturing staff, which has become a majorinstitutionalchallenge. Taking into account the investment that has been made, during a period of growing attention towardsmaking things accountable and the reduction of budgets, we ask questions about the impact of lecturer training initiatives. We ask the training if their activities for improving teaching and learning are having good results (Brew, 2007) and, to date, despite the growing importance oflecturer training, the evaluations have generally been limited to participants’ levels of satisfaction: little is known about the impact of daily teaching practice (Eison & Stevens, 1995; Norton, Richardson , Hartley, Newstead & Mayes, 2005; Wilson and de Berna, 1999). What lecturers learn continues to be unclear (Fishman, Marx, Best & Tal, 2003). Gibbs and Coffey (2000) conclude that there is still little evidence that teacher training for university lecturers makes a difference whereit does exist it is not substantiated conceptually or ethologically The lack of systematic evaluation is a constant concern in the literature on teacher training (Gibbs and Coffey, 2004; Ho, 1998; Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne & Nevgi, 2007; Rust, 1998; Stes, 2009). The evidence ofthe effects of training is necessary to both orientate the trainers in designing their activities (Gilbert & Gibbs, 1999), and promoting the work of an emerging group of trainersas a field of erudition or scholarship (Taylor & Rege Colet, at press).
The work presented here was carried out in a three-yearprojecton University Learning Cultures, directed by Dieter Euler ofthe Institute for Educational Management and Business Education inthe University of St. Gallen (Switzerland).
Its objective was to identify personal and contextual factorsthat influence learning transfer in an initial teacher training programme in practice in the classroom. In particular, it aims to find out whether there are differences between the teaching focuses and competences that predominate before and after the initial training programme and the contextual elements of the working environment of the lecturer that either facilitate putting into practice what has been learned on the programme or make it more difficult.
A longitudinal study was carried out which measure at three different points (September 2009, May 2010 and May 2011) the teaching focuses of the lecturers (Approaches to Teaching de K. Trigwell and M. Prosser), teaching competences (University Lecturer Competences by O. Mas) and the contextual and personal elements influencing learning transfer (Learning Transfer System Inventory by E. Holton). The information obtained was complemented bu in-depth interviews with the participants of the training programme.
The results of the research serve to:
- describe the change of conceptions and teaching competences that may arise as a result of a teacher training programme;
- identify the elements of most relevance in the impact of teacher training for improving student learning;
- analyse the organisational aspects of the working environment of lecturers that influence the decision to transfer learning in practice;
- validate the Learning Transfer System Inventory of E. Holton for the context of higher education;
- propose a set of general and specific measures that contribute to improving the training of university lecturers