Digitalisation constitutes a central driver of contemporary processes of transformation and fundamentally reshapes how knowledge is produced, transmitted and acquired. Professional learning is likewise increasingly taking place under digital conditions, which further enhances the relevance of informal forms of learning. In educational research, it is frequently emphasised that formal, non-formal and informal learning are closely intertwined. However, how this entanglement is concretely configured and how it shapes professional practice has so far been insufficiently explored both theoretically and empirically.

Against this background, the paper addresses the question of how different forms of learning are interrelated in professional learning and, additionally, what effects these different forms of learning have. When professionals decide to engage in continuing professional development, the different forms of learning should aim at the deliberate further development of professional knowledge, skills and competences, or professional habitus. Whether these objectives are achieved can be assessed by examining the output and outcomes of a learning experience (cf. Echarti, Reichart & Gerhards, 2021). Whereas output refers to the immediate results of an educational measure, outcomes relate to the more sustainable effects on participants’ professional or personal practice.

Empirically, the paper draws on data from a standardized survey conducted in 2025 among professionals in social work regarding their continuing education and train-ing behaviour with respect to social media as a subject of learning and professional practice. The survey was conducted over a period of six weeks using the tools Unipark and SoSci Survey. Of the N = 1.436 participants, N = 109 had to be exclud-ed during data cleaning due to conspicuous or implausible values, resulting in a cleaned sample of N = 1.327. The majority of respondents were female (78%), fol-lowed by male participants (22%), and a small number of individuals who identified as diverse (less than 1%). Respondents’ ages ranged from 22 to 66 years, with a mean age of M = 41.24 years (SD = 10.63). Most participants were employed by public providers (56%), while 44% worked for non-profit or independent providers. The average workload fell within the 61–70% range, whereas the most common employment level was 41–50%. Based on correlation and regression analyses, the study examines how social work professionals acquire knowledge and competences, how they combine different forms of learning and how these learning processes are related to professional practice. To analyse a metrically scaled dependent variable linear regression was applied. Linear regression makes it possible to quantify the influence of individual independent variables on the dependent variable. A regression equation is esti-mated to predict the dependent variable as accurately as possible on the basis of the predictors. Because one dependent variable was dichotomous, logistic regres-sion analyses were conducted. This method has proven particularly useful for the analysis of categorical outcome variables. The results of the analyses are reported as odds ratios (OR). The aim is to make visible and analytically capture the dynamics between formal qualification programmes, non-formal continuing education formats and informal learning processes, and to examine the effects of these different forms of learning in terms of both output and outcome.

In doing so, the paper contributes to current debates on the conditions and poten-tials of knowledge production and acquisition in the context of digital transformation. At the same time, it speaks directly to the guiding questions of ECER 2026 by demonstrating how professional learning processes are changing within a polycri-sis-shaped and digitally mediated knowledge ecology. In the professional development of practitioners, informal learning predominates as the central form of individual professionalization: practitioners primarily acquire competencies through personal experiences of use and collegial exchange. (Non-)formal continuing education formats are used significantly less frequently. With regard to continuing professional education and the perception of social me-dia, complex interrelations emerge that do not allow for clear-cut effects. Informal as well as (non-)formal learning opportunities appear to fulfill different functions with respect to professional practice. While (non-)formal continuing education does not seem to be significantly associated with attitudes or perceived competence, it corre-lates with the decision of whether social media are used in work with young people. Informal learning, by contrast, correlates positively with the development of attitudes and perceived competence, but has no direct influence on the actual use of social media in professional practice with children and adolescents. This distinction points to the need to examine the effects of continuing education longitudinally in order to assess both its output and its outcome. A theoretical framework that takes these differences into account also seems meaningful for scholarly discourse in light of the present findings. Moreover, against the background of this study’s results, it is problematic that infor-mal learning is often treated in a generalized manner in academic discourse. The findings suggest the need for a differentiated typology of informal learning in order to do justice to its actual impact on individual professionalization processes.

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual terrain. A consultation report. University of Leeds, Lifelong Learning In-stitute. http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm Czerkawski, B. (2016). Blending formal and informal learning networks for online learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2344 Johnson, M., & Majewska, D. (2022). Formal, non-formal, and informal learning: What are they, and how can we research them? Cambridge University Press. Karhapää, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Pöysä-Tarhonen, J. (2025). Digital work practices that promote informal workplace learning: Digital ethnography in a knowledge work context. Studies in Continuing Education, 47(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2023.2274596 Rogers, A. (2014). The base of the iceberg: Informal learning and its impact on for-mal and non-formal learning. Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:14844