In teachers’ lifelong professionalization, informal learning represents a core aspect of continuous professional development in addition to organized in-service training. Informal learning opportunities that are usually initiated and controlled by the teachers themselves include, among other things, obtaining teaching-related feedback from students and colleagues, which is considered to be extremely effective for teachers’ learning (e.g., Hattie & Clarke, 2019; Ridge und Lavigne, 2020). In contrast to surveying the frequency of participation in continuing education and training courses, it has been difficult so far to measure the use of informal learning opportunities as comprehensively as possible, since many survey instruments list activities that are considered to be conducive to learning in a more or less random manner (Dobischat & Gnahs, 2008). For the teaching profession, Kwakman (2003) identified a variety of informal learning opportunities in a qualitative interview study, which in a multi-step process finally led to the development and validation of the Teachers’ Professional Development at Work (TPD) survey instrument (Evers et al., 2016) with the dimensions ‘Experimenting’, ‘Collaborating for School Development’, ‘Collaborating for Lessen Development’, ‘Keeping Up-to-date: Reading’, and ‘Reflecting and Asking for Feedback’. This study tests a German adaptation of this originally Dutch instrument and examines the relationships between the informal learning opportunity dimensions and exemplary demographic, dispositional, and job-related characteristics that are highly relevant for the use of learning opportunities (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Richter et al., 2011). The following research questions are addressed:

RQ1: Can the dimensions of the use of informal learning opportunities identified in Evers et al. (2016) be confirmed in a German translation of the instrument?

RQ2: How often do teachers in Germany use different dimensions of informal learning opportunities?

RQ3: To what extent do age, gender, the lack of a qualification for the teaching profession, general self-efficacy, and the takeover of tasks in the extended school leadership show effects on the frequency of using informal learning opportunities?

To answer the research questions, we used a quantitative online questionnaire survey. A representative sample with regard to age, gender and school type of N = 405 teachers from Germany was surveyed in fall 2019 by a German survey service provider. The online questionnaire was based on a German adaptation of the TPD (21 items, response scale 1 = never to 5 = always), supplemented by individual items to capture demographic and job-related characteristics. General self-efficacy expectancy was assessed by a scale from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999; 10 items, ω=.886). Regarding RQ1, we used confirmatory factor analyses, following the usual cut-off values for the fit statistics (CFI ≥ .95, SRMR ≤ .08, RMSEA ≤ .05; Kline, 2016). To address the second research question, we calculated scale means and standard deviations. Finally, to answer RQ3, we estimated a structural equation model in which the frequencies of use are predicted by the individual characteristics of the teachers, controlling for school characteristics. We conducted structural equation analyses using the R package lavaan.

Confirmatory analysis of the factor structure of the TPD indicated the necessity for modification of the dimensions found in Evers et al. (2016) (Χ2(179)=431.8, p<.001, RMSEA=.064, SRMR=.064, CFI=.892). Based on an analysis regarding model misspecification (Saris et al., 2009), three double-loading items were removed, and the reading-related dimension was split regarding print media and Internet information. The final model with the dimensions ‘reflection and feedback’ (M=3.45, SD=0.64), ‘informing online’ (M=3.40, SD=0.77), ‘cooperation for lesson development’ (M=3.16, SD=0.77), ‘innovating and testing’ (M=3.01, SD=0.62), ‘cooperation for school development’ (M=3.00, SD=0.72) and ‘reading print media’ (M=2.91, SD=0.85) shows a good fit (Χ2(118)=212.7, p<.001, RMSEA=.048, SRMR=.046, CFI=.951). Regression analysis revealed positive gender effects (gender: female) on the dimensions of innovating/testing (β=.17**), reflecting/feedback (β=.26***), and the forms of cooperation (school development: β=.15*; instructional development: β=.23***). In terms of age, there was a quadratic pattern for reading print media, indicating more frequent reception up to about age 50 with a subsequent decline (β=-.14*). Higher general self-efficacy expectancy exhibits positive effects on innovating (β=.21**) and school development-related cooperation (β=.19***). Our findings show that a translation of the TPD can be applied in German-speaking countries with some adaptations. In particular, the use of online information sources seems to be moving away from the items relating to paper-based information sources in the previously used reading dimension. Using a representative sample, the study provides an insight into the frequency of use of informal learning opportunities in Germany, according to which teachers often seem to reflect on their teaching, seek feedback, and prefer online resources. Teachers' age only appears relevant for reading print media. Female teachers seem to use most informal learning opportunities slightly more frequently than male. In the presentation, we will discuss the comparability with findings from other countries and practical implications.

Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I. & Orvis, K. A. (2018). Antecedents and Outcomes of Informal Learning Behaviors: a Meta-Analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9492-y Dobischat, R. & Gnahs, D. (2008). Methodische Reflexionen und Verbesserungsansätze zum BSW-AES. In Weiterbildungsverhalten in Deutschland. Band 2: Berichtskonzepte auf dem Prüfstand (pp. 219–229). Bielefeld: Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung. Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K. & van der Heijden, B. I. (2016). The design and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ professional development at work. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2015.1055465 Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Methodology in the social sciences. Guilford Press. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4 Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O. & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008 Ridge, B. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020). Improving instructional practice through peer observation and feedback: A review of the literature. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 61. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5023 Saris, W. E., Satorra, A. & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing Structural Equation Models or Detection of Misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433 Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen: Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Freie Universität Berlin. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/%7Ehealth/self/skalendoku_selbstwirksame_schulen.pdf