The systematic literature review examines the current state of research on dual vocational training as an option for university dropouts in Germany. Dropout is defined as definitely leaving the higher education system without obtaining an academic degree (Heublein 2014, 498). Understanding the interrelationships between university dropouts and dual vocational training is of central importance for recruiting dropouts for dual apprenticeships and integrating them as well as possible into the labour market and also socially.

This topic has been researched and politically addressed in Germany for some years, but a systematic review of the state of research is not yet available. Dropping out of university is an internationally relevant topic. The study can provide valuable information, particularly for countries with a dual system or endeavours in this direction.

From a theoretical perspective, dropping out of university leads to an unplanned transition, a break with the institutionalised “normal” course of life. Transitions are associated with the risk of not succeeding and therefore with uncertainty (Furlong/Cartmel 1997; Epp 2017, 55). One particular risk of dropping out of university is the attribution of failure by the social environment, the labour market and the dropouts themselves (Behr et al. 2020, 616 f.). However, it can also be an opportunity to achieve a better fit through reorientation (Schnepf 2017; Bergmann 2020, 49). In this sensitive phase, support programmes and viable options are needed to successfully manage the transition from school to work.

The question arises as to what extent dual vocational training represents such an option. In order to answer this, the initial situation must first be analysed: It is known that in most cases, complexes of causes, not just a single one, lead to dropouts (Behr et al. 2021, 335; Neugebauer et al. 2019, 1042 f). Thus, it must be considered first which combinations of dropout motives occur. The next step is to clarify what potential vocational training offers in comparison to other options and how attractive it is for dropouts. In this context, it is also relevant how attractive dropouts are as a target group for companies, i.e. how good their chances of finding an apprenticeship are. Finally, it needs to be determined what support is available for university dropouts in the transition to dual vocational training and for companies and whether there is a need for action here.

The aim of answering the questions described above is to systematise the current state of research, identify the need for further research and derive implications. The aim is not to analyse the process of dropping out as such or the intention or probability of dropping out.

University dropouts are a heterogeneous group who drop out for various reasons, usually different combinations of the following: lack of interest, unfulfilled expectations, performance problems and a desire for practical work, possibly supplemented by other reasons. The majority of reasons for dropping out can be linked to the process of study and career orientation. Dual vocational training is an attractive follow-up solution for dropouts. From a company perspective, they represent an attractive target group, although a target group-specific tailoring of dual vocational training programmes is viewed rather cautiously. As a group, university dropouts are characterised by great heterogeneity, which proves to be a challenge for advisory services. In particular, the importance of potential analyses, psycho-emotional strengthening and the promotion of reflection processes is emphasised. This coincides with the finding that dropping out of university is often related to suboptimal study and career orientation or is part of this process. The counselling landscape is also characterised by heterogeneity and requires better networking to complement each other and an overarching coordination.

The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Liberati et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021), whereby the studies analysed were identified using a defined inclusion and exclusion catalogue. Various databases were searched (cf. Beelmann 2014, 58). In addition to the global database Web of Science (precisely: Social Sciences Citation Index), relevant subject databases were searched that publish articles in recognised journals (FIS Bildung, via EBSCOhost: ERIC and PsychInfo) with German and English search strings. Only studies that related dropout motives to each other by calculating correlations or forming types or clusters were considered for analysis. The search results of all searches were recorded in a common Excel spreadsheet. Duplicate sources were deleted, as were ‘dossiers’, ‘special issues’ and obviously irrelevant sources (e.g. without author information). To pre-select the studies for a full-text analysis, 2 raters went through the study results found and assigned a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the individual sources. If no decision could be made based on the title, the abstract was used. If no decision could be made on the basis of the abstract, this was interpreted as a need for a more detailed review using the full text and therefore a ‘yes’ was awarded. Both raters scrutinised all researched sources, whereby all differences were discussed and translated into joint selection decisions. For the full-text review, n=92 studies remained, of which n=20 could be selected for the analysis after the review along the selection and exclusion criteria. The selected studies were entered into a coding matrix, which records the publication medium, the type of study, the aim of the study, the definition of dropouts, the study design, the sample size, the data collection method, the evaluation method, the results and the limitations. Systematic literature searches run the risk of being subject to publication bias (Beelmann 2014, 64; Cooper 2009, 84). In this respect, not only publications in high-ranking journals were considered and contributions to anthologies included. The quality of the selected, exclusively empirical studies was determined according to the Rost scheme (Rost et al. 2007; Rost 2013). No studies were excluded due to a low score.

There is still a great need to investigate the transition from a discontinued course of study to an educational vocational training programme. Here, greater consideration should be given to the preconditions and previous biographical histories. University dropouts are a heterogeneous group who drop out for various reasons. Many of them catch up on their previously fragmentary career/study orientation during or after dropping out. This is where counselling and support services can come in. Dual vocational training programmes hold great potential for dropouts and offer security in a risky situation – not only because of the professional qualifications that can be used on the labour market and achieved comparatively quickly, but also because of the further training options and the design, which provides a higher degree of structure for the social and/or academic integration that fails in the case of dropouts (Tinto 1975). Thus, the majority of dropouts embark on vocational training programmes, the majority of them in the dual system. The training market offers them good employment opportunities. Particularly in the case of early dropouts from degree programmes that are not in the natural sciences or information technology, dual vocational training is proving to be a promising path worthy of support. Improving the options for crediting or shortening vocational training programmes should be approached with caution; it is not always expedient. The establishment of central, well-networked and independent coordination and counselling centres with a wide range of experts working cooperatively, who reach both dropouts and companies via different channels, could be one way of remedying the weaknesses in the counselling landscape.

Beelmann, A. (2014): Möglichkeiten und Grenzen systematischer Evidenzkumulation durch Forschungssynthesen in der Bildungsforschung. In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17 (4), 55–78. DOI: 10.1007/s11618-014-0509-2. Behr, A./Giese, M./Teguim Kamdjou, H. D./Theune, K. (2021): Motives for dropping out from higher education—An analysis of bachelor's degree students in Germany. In: European Journal of Education 56 (2), 325–343. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12433. Bergmann, D. (2020): Verwirklicht, Entwickelt, Diffus. Eine Biografische Analyse der beruflichen Entwicklung von Studienabbrecherinnen und -abbrechern. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Cooper, H. M. (2017): Research synthesis and meta-analysis. A step-by-step approach. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Epp, A. (2017): Von der Schule in die Berufsausbildung. Soziale Konstruktionen durch Lehrkräfte über ungünstige Faktoren in der Bildungsbiografie von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich. Furlong, A./Cartmel, F. (1997): Risk and uncertainty in the youth transition. In: YOUNG, 5 (1), 3-20. DOI: 10.1177/110330889700500102. Heublein, U. (2014): Student drop-out from German higher eduaction institutions. In: European Journal of Education 49 (4), 497–513. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12097. Heublein, U./Hutzsch, C./Schmelzer, R. (2022): Die Entwicklung der Studienabbruchquoten in Deutschland. In: DZHW Brief 05/2022, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.34878/2022.05.dzhw_brief; Stand: 17.01.2025. Liberati, A./Altman, D. G./Tetzlaff, J./Mulrow, C./Gøtzsche, P. C./Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2009): The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (10), 1–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. Neugebauer, M./Heublein, U./Daniel, A. (2019): Studienabbruch in Deutschland. Ausmaß, Ursachen, Folgen, Präventionsmöglichkeiten. In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 22 (5), 1025–1046. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11618-019-00904-1; Accessed: 17.01.2025. Page, M. J. /McKenzie, J. E. /Bossuyt, P. M./Boutron, I./Hoffmann, T. C. /Mulrow, C. D. (2021): The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. In: BMJ 2021, 1–9. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. Rost, D. H./Sparfeldt, J./Peipert, D. (2007): Die Beurteilung empirisch-pädagogischer Studien – eine Checkliste. In: Hellmich, Frank (Ed.): Lehr-Lernforschung und Grundschulpädagogik. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt, 169–186. Rost, D. H. (2013): Interpretation und Bewertung pädagogisch-psychologischer Studien. Eine Einführung. (3rd ed., first print 2005). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Schnepf, S. V. (2017): How do tertiary dropouts fare in the labour market? A comparison between EU countries. In: Higher Education Quarterly 71 (1), 75–96. DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12112. Tinto, V. (1975): Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. In: Review of Educational Research 45 (1), 89–125. DOI: 10.2307/1170024.