This article focuses on researching the transfer of learned content from in-service teacher training to school practice. It includes the SDG goal 4c to expand the supply of qualified teachers which should be increasingly possible through modular training series.

The data in this regard is poor since evidence-based findings are largely lacking. There are some studies on the effectiveness of in-service teacher training but there are no findings in the German speaking world related to transfer (cf. Müller, Kemethofer, Andreitz, Nachbaur & Soukup-Altrichter 2019; Lipowsky & Rzejak 2021; Rzejak, Gröschner, Lipowsky, Richter & Calcagni 2023).

On the one hand in-service teacher training with a long-lasting impact demands a look at the conditions of the individual school (teaching, organizational and personnel development, see also Altrichter & Rolff 2000), whereby this project is particularly linked to the level of teaching development. On the other hand, however, it researches the conditions of the school system such as concept transfer. Furthermore the transfer of experience also plays an important role in sustainability, with teachers passing on their experiences to their colleagues. Ultimately the long-term goal should be the establishment of standards in schools for effective and sustainable in-service teacher training (cf. BMBWF 2021).

In-service teacher training primarily serves to professionalize teachers (cf. BMBWF 2019). One's own further training can be seen as a central request of every teacher. Numerous international studies show the positive effects of in-service teacher training on the teachers concerned (cf. Lipowsky 2014; Hattie 2015).

According to Zehetmeier (2017) a distinction between two types of effects can be mad: The effect immediately afterwards and the long-term effect. Fischer (2017) refers to this long-term effect as follow-up effectiveness, meaning a permanent, lasting success of measures. This concept of sustainable training is therefore included in the present study, with the sustainability of the modular training series being researched four to six months after the last input phase. The concept of sustainable in-service teacher training is understood as part of the concept of sustainable development (UNESCO 2014).

In-service teacher training measures can work on several levels. Lipowsky (2010) describes the following four levels of impact: (1) assessments and opinions of the participants, (2) knowledge of the participants, (3) concrete actions of the participants in the classroom and (4) performance of the students of the participating teachers. In the present study, the first two impact levels are recorded. In addition an attempt is made to record level three with the third measurement point.

Timperley et al. (2007) explored the impact of teacher training. Accordingly, training courses extending over a longer period of time and involving experts are particularly effective. In addition, the participants should be active during the learning process and given the opportunity to question their ideas about their own teaching.

It can be said that the following characteristics are consistently cited by several authors as conditions for the success of effective in-serve teacher training with a long lasting impact:

(1) the advanced training extends over a longer period of time, (2) experts are involved and feedback is provided, (3) a practical transfer is made possible, (4) the attitudes of the participating teachers are questioned or changed.

Based on these findings the research team developed a design that focuses precisely on these beneficial characteristics of sustainable in-service teacher training.

The aim of this project (2019-2024) is to research the effectiveness and sustainability and to develop modular in-service teacher training courses further. The following central research question is derived from this: How sustainable are the selected modular in-service teacher trainings at the University College of Teacher Education Vienna/Krems?

This study can be described as a multi-perspective and mixed methods design, focusing on 15 modular in-service teacher trainings. At the first point of measurement (t0), the time shortly before the modular in-service teacher training starts, those responsible for the training series were asked about different areas using semi-structured, guided interviews (qualitative). At the same time an online survey of the participants was carried out in a quantitative setting. They were asked about their motivation for attending this series, their previous experiences regarding content, their expectations and the hoped-for effects on educational activities. The opinion of the in-service teacher trainers was also collected in online survey to clarify the content and aims of the in-service teacher trainings, the differences between modular training and individual events, the skills of trainers and the design options for sustainable training. At the second measurement point the end of the training series (t1), the focus is on the effectiveness of the training series on the participants (online questionnaire). At the third measurement point (t2), the focus is on sustainability. For this purpose the experiences of the participants are finally collected again, about four to six months after the modular trainings using an online questionnaire. The survey instruments were based on empirical findings on research into the effectiveness and sustainability of teacher training (cf. Timperley et al. 2007; Nicodemus et al. 2010; Zehetmeier 2017; Lipowsky & Rzejak 2021) as well as through the expertise of the project members, who have been active in in-service teacher training for many years. The evaluation of the quantitative data is carried out in a descriptive- and inferential-statistical manner using the statistics program SPSS. The focus is on both, the overall results of all 15 in-service teacher trainings and the results of the individual modular trainings. The qualitative data is analyzed according to Kuckartz (2018) with MAXQDA. Aligned with the research question, the material is assigned to a deductive and inductive category scheme. Finally quantitative and qualitative data are combined (Kuckartz 2014; Mertens 2023). The responsibles (N=10) for the modular trainings have been interviewed and 31 in-service teacher trainers answered the questionnaire. The largest group of the sample are the participants (N t0 = 133, N t1 = 167, N t2 = 61) of the in-service teacher trainings.

The majority of the trainers has practical experiences. They bring this knowledge to their training courses. The participants appreciate this practical approach. At t0 they show a high level of self-motivation and great interest in attending modular formats. Results at the end of the modular trainings (t1) show that more than 80 % are very satisfied with the support provided by those responsible, with the motivation of the trainers and the opportunity for collegial exchange. Over 90 % are satisfied with the opportunity to discuss their own school experiences; almost three quarters of those surveyed are very motivated to implement the content of the training; for 70 %, a new network opened up outside the modular trainings, and there was an increase in knowledge for over 90 %. In terms of personal added value in practice 92 % state that they have gained new approaches to implementing their ideas in the classroom as a result of the training series four to six months after the training (t2). 84 % reflect on their actions and 80 % reflect more on their attitude in the classroom. 92 % state that they have extended their skills. 67 % state that they have noticed a strengthening of self-confidence and self-efficiency and more commitment and joy among their pupils. The assumption that a modular training format influences the sustainability of what has been learned in terms of lifelong learning is confirmed by these results. In any case, the responses of the in-service teacher trainers and participants seem to confirm the added value of the content learned through longer-term formats. These conclusions will be incorporated into the future development of further in-service teacher training formats. Thus a high-quality qualification of teachers can be ensured and sustainable education (see SDG 4) in the sense of lifelong learning can be achieved.

Altrichter, H. & Rolff, H.-G. (2000). Theorie und Forschung in der Schulentwicklung. Journal für Schulentwicklung 4, 4–99. BMBWF (2019). Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung für LehrerInnen an berufsbildenden Schulen. https://bit.ly/2UXuLWY BMBWF (2021). Bundesqualitätsrahmen für Fort- und Weiterbildung & Schulentwicklungsberatung an den Pädagogischen Hochschulen. https://bit.ly/3sYMX4b Farmer, J., Gerretson, H. & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331–360. Fischer, A. (2006). Offenbar schöpfen wir Wasser mit einem Siebe. Paradigma, 1, 6–10. Hattie, J. (2015). Lernen sichtbar machen. Schneider. Hawley, W. D. & Valli, L. (1999). The Essentials of Effective Professional Development: A New Consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & Gary Sykes (Hrsg.), Teaching as the Learning Profession (S. 127–150). Jossey-Bass. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed Methods. Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Springer VS. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa. Lipowsky, F. (2010). Die Wirksamkeit von Lehrer/innenfortbildung. Berufliches Lernen von Lehrerinnen/Lehrern im Rahmen von Weiterbildungsangeboten. news & science. Begabtenförderung und Begabungsforschung, 25 (2), 5–8. https://bit.ly/39eIGyV Lipowsky, F. (2014). Theoretische Perspektiven und empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfort- und -weiterbildung. In E. Terhard, H. Bennewitz & M. Rothland (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (S. 511–541). Waxmann. Lipowsky, F. & Rzejak, D. (2021). Fortbildungen für Lehrpersonen wirksam gestalten. Ein praxisorientierter und forschungsgestützter Leitfaden. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://bit.ly/39ML6rs Mertens, D. (2023). Mixed methods research: research methods. Bloomsbury Academic. Müller, F. H., Kemethofer, D., Andreitz, I., Nachbaur, G. & Soukup-Altrichter, K. (2019). Lehrerfortbildung und Lehrerweiterbildung. In S. Breit, F. Eder, K. Krainer, C. Schreiner, A. Seel & C. Spiel (Hrsg.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2018. Fokussierte Analysen und Zukunftsperspektiven für das Bildungswesen (S. 99–142). Leykam-Verlag. https://goo.gl/ghPqGJ Nicodemus, D., Jäger, R. S. & Bodensohn, R. (2010). Effekte von Fort- und Weiterbildung in Mathematik: Dem Phänomen des Autobahnkreuzes auf der Spur! Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand 3 (2), 217–233. Rzejak, D., Gröschner, A., Lipowsky, F., Richter, D., Calcagni, E. (2023). Qualität von Lehrkräftefortbildungen einschätzen. Ein Arbeitsbuch aus dem Projekt IMPRESS. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:26502 Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H.& Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Ministry of Education. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/48727127.pdf UNESCO (2014). UNESCO Roadmap zur Umsetzung des Weltaktionsprogramms „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung”. https://bit.ly/2YmGGoV Zehetmeier, S. (2017). Theoretische und empirische Grundlagen für eine innovative und nachhaltige Lehrer/innenfortbildung. In I. Kreis & D. Unterköfler-Klatzer (Hrsg.), Fortbildung Kompakt. Wissenschaftstheoretische und praktische Modelle zur wirksamen Lehrer/innen-fortbildung (S. 80–102). Studien-Verlag.