Next Article in Journal
Virtual Environment in Engineering Education: The Role of Guidance, Knowledge and Skills Development in Electronic Circuits Teaching
Previous Article in Journal
Prospective Teachers’ Self-Regulation: The History of Mathematics as a Tool for Perseverance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/educsci14121337
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring University Staff Views on Providing Continuing Education for Professional Engineers in Denmark: Using the Q Methodology

by
Bente Nørgaard
,
Juebei Chen
*,
Ida Korning
and
Xiangyun Du
Aalborg Centre for Problem Based Learning in Engineering Science and Sustainability under the Auspices of UNESCO—Department of Planning, Institute for Advanced Study in PBL, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(12), 1337; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121337
Submission received: 14 October 2024 / Revised: 24 November 2024 / Accepted: 4 December 2024 / Published: 6 December 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article reports on a study examining 28 university engineering educators’ viewpoints on how to provide continuing education for professional engineers in a Danish university context. The Q methodology was adopted to collect and analyze data qualitatively and quantitatively. Three significantly different viewpoints were identified, prioritizing (1) a continuing engineering education (CEE) business model as an institutional priority, (2) organizational structure, and (3) pedagogy inspired by problem-based learning (PBL). The study also captured consensus on the importance of identifying the industry’s need for CEE organizations. The results reveal that CEE development needs to address diverse voices from different stakeholders, including leadership, academic faculty, and administrators; thus, suggestions from an organizational change perspective are proposed in four key aspects of CE organizations.

1. Introduction

A global shift towards a knowledge-based society driven by digitization and artificial intelligence is reshaping the world. As one of the critical disciplines for addressing these challenges, engineering education plays a significant role in training practitioner engineers who are able to serve as specialized professionals and take leadership in economic, sociocultural, political, and environmental spheres of society [1]. In this era of change, to meet the new societal demands, professional engineers are expected to learn and stay updated on new competencies in their professional life, going beyond technical skills to include generic competencies such as sustainable skills, systematic thinking, leadership, and teamwork skills [2]. Thus, continuing education (CE) is emerging as a necessity to prepare the workforce to navigate this new landscape. Organizations, including universities, are embracing this paradigm shift, developing and adapting their offerings to new learning needs and redefining their roles as providers of skills and competencies through new approaches and forms of learning activities. The concept of CE has evolved over the decades, enhanced by initiatives such as the OECD’s Lifelong Learning for All approach [3] and the European Year of Lifelong Learning [4]. This increased focus on CE underscores its importance as a catalyst for individual growth and societal progress. In 2000, the European Council’s Lisbon strategy aimed to drive the EU to global competitiveness through a robust learning economy. This vision was promoted through strategic frameworks such as the Education and Training 2010 program and ET 2020, which emphasized cross-border educational cooperation and CE.
The European Year of Skills 2023 [5] is entering a new phase of development. By promoting lifelong learning, this initiative will enable individuals and businesses to embrace the challenges of sustainable and digital transitions, leverage innovation, and secure a competitive edge in the global arena. As the world transforms, so must our approach to supporting the professional learning of engineers to cope with emergencies and complexities, ensuring that knowledge remains our most powerful asset. Universities around the world are focusing on developing new CE methods to meet this transition. In Denmark, universities provide diverse CE activities for professional engineers, ranging from long-term to short-term, in various forms of workshops, seminars, courses, conferences, etc. In this context, this study takes special interest in CE within engineering fields, focusing on university engineering staff viewpoints on supportive components of successful CE for engineers. Using a holistic approach, the research question of this study is as follows: What are the university staff’s views on how best to provide CE for professional engineers in a Danish university? The objective of this study is to develop a holistic understanding of different viewpoints from leadership, academic staff, and administrative staff at the university on important aspects of CE implementation. The Q methodology was adapted to enable researchers to understand individual and collective subjectivity among a certain group [6]. The results of this study revealed three main viewpoints about the key supportive aspects of successful CE implementation. These findings underscore the diverse needs of university staff involved in designing and implementing CE, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing CE as an institutional strategy with a flexible organizational structure and clear pedagogical strategies. Recommendations and suggestions are proposed in the discussion to inspire future CE design and implementation strategies.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Continuing Education in Engineering

Continuing education is a complex concept that involves non-vocational, vocational, general, formal, and non-formal learning activities outside and within educational institutions to acquire new skills, competencies, and attributes to fulfill one’s potential [7,8]. In the field of engineering professions, which are characterized by “rigorous professional knowledge that changes rapidly with time” [9], p. 3, CE has been identified as of high importance at the institutional level to maintain engineers’ proficiency in responding to globalization, the emphasis on sustainability, and socio-political changes [2]. Within this context, the particular role of higher education engineering institutions is not only to train future engineering talents but also to educate practical engineers on cutting-edge technology and trends [10,11].
Within this context, CE scholars have explored various models for CE design and practices, from diverse perspectives on pedagogical design to individual development and institutional origination [10,12,13]. From the perspective of pedagogical design, several researchers have illustrated the importance and effectiveness of applying learning theories and theoretical frameworks to guide the design of CE activities, including facilitated work-based learning [12,14], the model of the Specialist Life Cycle [10], the open transdisciplinary framework [15], Kolb’s Learning Cycle [16], and self-determination theory [17]. With the guidance of learning theories and frameworks, various CE designs and practices have been reported, focusing on engineers’ individual development with specific learning objectives, such as improving engineers’ awareness of engineering ethics [18], technical skills [19], sustainable competence [2], and digital competence [20]. In addition to the perspective of individual development, the role of universities and institutional strategies for CE is under discussion. Successful CE programs not only equip engineers with the latest professional knowledge and skills but also inspire their motivation and agency for self-directed learning as life-long learners [18]. In order to achieve this goal, universities, as the providers of such training, need to take trainees’ characteristics and their working environment into consideration when designing CE activities to enable engineers to transfer their learning gains in CE to their working environment [11]. Baumeler et al. [21] highlighted three important aspects of facilitating CE at the university level: distinct organizational environments, organizational culture and policy, and knowledge domain and pedagogic agency.
However, although many universities have strategically propagandized these CE activities, various challenges related to time commitment, financial costs, quality of programs, and accreditation of universities have been reported [11,22]. To begin with, it is crucial for successful continuing education programs in STEM fields to design learning activities based on labor market needs and receive recognition from the industry [22]. This process requires universities to devote considerable attention to designing CE activities based on pedagogical guidance, evaluating the effectiveness of CE programs, and marketing the programs for accreditation [18,22]. Moreover, while long-term and progressive CE designs have been emphasized to benefit engineers in terms of motivation, agency, and competence development, the lack of learning platforms, shortages of continuous financial resources, and high effort costs present obstacles to fully developing sustainable CE designs to support educators’ continued professional learning after training as well as to building and maintaining learner profiles [22,23]. Given these challenges, more effort is needed from universities as CE providers to create a systemic and effective CE design for engineering education that will minimize the barriers to engineering educators’ participating in and benefiting from CE activities.

2.2. Understanding CE Through a Systemic Lens

To gain a structured understanding of CE designs and develop systemic CE programs, a scoping literature review was conducted on the important aspects of CE designs and practice at the university level. Significant themes related to CE were identified based on the literature review and the authors’ prior research, including marketing, economy, administration, institutional incentives, program organization, educators, and external collaboration.
Specifically, marketing refers to delivering information about CE programs to both companies and engineers to attract them to participate in professional development activities and give them access to various learning sources [22,24,25,26]. Especially in this era of digital learning, universities do well to value social media and online learning platforms with easily accessible CE resources and leverage them in effective CE marketing strategies for companies and engineers [22].
Economy means university financial strategies for organizing CE activities, encompassing CE costs, revenue, budget, and funding to support individual participation [24,27]. While universities shoulder the responsibility of continuously educating professional talents for society, financial factors also exert significant influence on sustaining universities’ CE activities [24,28]. Earning revenue could motivate some education departments to operate on a business model for CE organizations [29].
The third theme is administration, including CE organizational structure and administrative procedures at departmental, faculty, and university levels [27,30]. Universities should have a clear administrative structure for CE in terms of technology support for learning activities, admission requirements, assessment systems, credit transfer and accreditation, and learner profile management [21,22,27]. To support flexible CE, it is important for universities to streamline administrative systems at the departmental and institutional levels [27]. In addition, considering the comprehensive work entailed for the administration, universities should have administrative staff who specialize in CE management [25,30].
Institutional incentives refers to universities’ policies and strategies to motivate university staff to be involved in and support CE activities [1]. It is important for universities to develop an incentive system to prioritize CE as an institutional strategy, recognize staff CE work, and create a supportive institutional culture for CE development [1,24,27]. To attract individual interest and involvement in CE, universities need to develop and offer accreditation/qualifications or alternative certification options for participants [24], which also requires an effective quality assurance system for CE activities [27,31].
Another important theme is CE program organization, including learning design, delivery methods, and learning environment. Various pedagogical theories and theoretical frameworks have been adopted to guide CE organization, such as problem-based learning (PBL) [12,32], the student-centered approach [33,34,35], and facilitated work-based learning [14]. With the guidance of pedagogical theories, it is important for CE designers to link CE activities with participants’ working environments by encouraging them to work on real-life problems sourced from their own work environments [14,26,36] and develop CE activities tailored to meet specific requests [14]. Several researchers have pointed out the significance of highlighting cross-disciplinarity in CE activities to help participants improve their interdisciplinary skills [28,37]. Meanwhile, diverse learning resources such as videos, literature, laboratories, and other digital or physical resources [38,39] and learning approaches such as lectures, online courses, and workshops [10,26] are needed to provide more flexibility and support participants’ different learning preferences.
The theme of educators refers to university staff who organize and facilitate CE learning activities for participants, which requires them to be well-informed about CE strategies [12,40] and equipped with the pedagogical knowledge and skills to support participants in CE programs [1,27].
Last but not least, continuing engineering education is a comprehensive challenge that requires efforts from individuals, universities, industry, government, and other social organizations [41]; thus, it is important for universities to develop external collaboration, especially to create a community encompassing universities and industry partners [10,14]. Regular communication and forums for open dialogue between universities and industry are needed to identify labor market needs for CE, review CE processes, evaluate learning outcomes, and discuss directions for improvement [14,25,26]. Industry specialists should be invited to contribute to CE design and implementation to meet learning objectives and satisfy industry needs for continuous education [42]. While academic staff from universities can facilitate participants’ learning processes, industry specialists can guide the professional and technological aspects [14].
These key themes for successful CE implementation were identified and summarized from the literature review on CE. These seven aspects of CE served as an inspiration for Q concourse development in this study, emphasizing efforts from individuals and institutional settings to support CE in a sustainable way.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Context and Participants

The study was conducted in a leading Danish university whose curriculum design features PBL as the core learning approach. In order to follow this university’s outreach strategy and address general societal needs for more and better CE within the STEM area, this study identified 28 participants with experience in the field of CE and invited them to take part in this 2023 study. To develop a holistic understanding and explore potential different opinions from different groups regarding CE implementation, university staff in different positions were involved, including middle leadership, academic staff, and administrators.
The 28 participants signed consent forms following university guidelines, agreeing to participate and consenting to the use of their data for the research. The participants, 14 females and 14 males, with between 5 months and 24 years of employment with the university, served in different engineering disciplines within the university. Their roles included academic staff (e.g., associate professor and professor), leadership (e.g., department head, head of studies, and associate dean), and administrators working in CE-related areas. Table 1 provides the participants’ background information.

3.2. Research Design and Process

The study employed the Q methodology (hereafter Q), a set of procedures that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore subjectivity [6]. Through an abductive inquiry process and Q factor analysis, Q enables the analysis of participants’ values and beliefs, highlighting both shared perspectives and points of divergence. This approach facilitates a comprehensive overview of diverse viewpoints [43]. The Q methodology is also increasingly used as a pedagogical strategy in higher education, promoting individual reflection and group discussions on subjective perspectives related to important educational topics [44,45]. In this study, Q is appropriate due to its (1) offering a flexible and effective way for university staff to express their views on key aspects for successful CE implementation while maintaining anonymity [43] and (2) providing a useful approach to understanding both individual and collective viewpoints with consensus and difference.
In accordance with Q methodological specifications [43,46], the three steps of Q are elaborated below.

3.2.1. Step 1: Developing the Q Set Through Concourse Construction and Condensation

The first step for Q is to develop the concourse, which refers to a universe of statements related to a specific topic [43]. A concourse can be built from existing opinions and arguments through informal or formal investigations, including oral or written questions for _target participants’ opinions, expert interviews, researcher observations, and literature reviews [43,47]. In this study, an initial concourse comprising 43 statements was constructed based on a scoping literature review of research on continuing engineering education as well as the authors’ prior empirical studies on CE. The main themes identified via the literature review on CE inspired the structuring of the Q concourse. Based on the identified themes and inspired by the complex dynamism of CE, the concourse was further structured and revised to reduce overlapping meanings through two rounds of research group discussion. To ensure content validity, external experts from the university with rich experience in practicing CE were invited to review the concourse through interviews, where four statements were added. Combining inductive and deductive techniques, we kept in mind that the identified themes are interrelated and interact with each other. Following two rounds of piloting and research group discussion, the final concourse, which is called the Q set, comprised 32 statements, as illustrated in Table 2. The order of items was randomized to reduce potential response bias from participants’ detecting patterns or themes in the Q set.

3.2.2. Step 2: Q Sorting and Post-Sorting Activities for Participants

In the Q sorting process, participants rank-order the listed statements to create a holistic presentation that represents their personal experiences and viewpoints [6]. In this study, the Q sorting and post-sorting activities were conducted individually. The participants received thorough guidance on how to complete the Q sorting. Throughout the process, they had the option to seek assistance if needed. Participants were asked to rank all 32 statements on a grid ranging from ‘most important’ (+4) to ‘least important’ (−4) (see Figure 1) based on the sorting question: Based on your understanding, what are the necessary aspects for supporting the implementation of continuing education? This process required a forced-choice distribution, and participants needed to compare statements and determine the place of each statement on the Q sort grid.
After the Q sorting, post-sorting activities were conducted via open-ended questions to collect participants’ demographic information (e.g., gender, position, and years of experience) and gather information about the reasons for their choices of most and least important statements. This information could guide the interpretation of the factor analysis results and the composite Q sort in each factor.

3.2.3. Step 3: Q Factor Analysis and Interpretation

The process of Q analysis involves the statistical calculation of the correlation matrix and factor analysis to “identify distinct regularities or patterns of similarity in the Q sort configurations produced and hence in the viewpoints” [43], p. 98. Unlike quantitative Likert-scale studies focusing on factors as variables, Q studies categorize the participants who share similar values as factors in a statistically meaningful way [46].
In this process, the raw data were first imported from their original paper-and-pencil format into an Excel sheet following the template used for the Q analysis software KADE v1.3.1. Then, KADE conducted the statistical analysis, using centroid factor analysis and varimax rotation [48]. To guide the decision on the factor solution, four principles combining statistical criteria and qualitative meaning were applied: (1) an eigenvalue > 1.00 and the related variance explained by the factor, in accordance with the idea that “the basic function of factor analysis is to account for as much of this study variance as is possible” [43], p. 98; (2) two or more significantly loaded participants in one factor; (3) the cross-product of the two highest loadings on one factor exceeding twice the standard error (1/√No. of items) [6,43]; and (4) qualitative and theoretical significance of results [6].
The research team compared and discussed factor solutions based on the factor analysis results. The four-and-above-factor solutions did not satisfy the second or third principles. A two-factor solution provided limited explained variance and relatively little theoretical significance, with more than half of the participants excluded. Thus, a three-factor solution that satisfied all four principles and was mostly informative was selected as the final solution. According to the cutting-score decision-making formula (2.58 * 1/√No. of items, p < 0.01; [6,43]), a value of 0.456 was applied for the selection of the significant loading. No significant factor intercorrelations were identified among the three factors.
A three-factor solution is consistent with the finding of Lundberg’s [46] systematic review that the identification of two to four factors is most commonly reported in Q studies in education research. The results of the factor analysis are shown in Table 2, including 20 of the 28 participants. One participant was confounded in loading on two factors significantly and was therefore removed from the factoring. Seven participants were not significantly loaded on any factors, indicating that their viewpoints were not considered to be significantly shared by the other participants. Table 3 provides an overview of the Q sorts, with the scores ascribed to statements associated with every factor in a list of z-score variances from lowest to highest, indicating greatest consensus to greatest disagreement. Table 4 provides an overview of the z-scores of statements.
Based on the Q factor analysis, KADE generated the composite factor array of every factor, which refers to a weighted average of the scores for each statement within a single factor, displayed in a visualized way, presenting composite factors to aid in the interpretation of the results and support the narratives associated with all the factors (shown in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
The results of the factor analysis were interpreted abductively, integrating the factor arrays and statistical results. The participants’ demographic information and post-sorting responses were used in qualitative quotes to support the interpretation and explanation of their ranking choices. Intrafactor and cross-factor comparison and interpretation were reported to elucidate agreement within one factor as well as consensus and differences between the factors.

4. Results

This section presents the results of the Q analysis, covering both points of differentiation and areas of consensus. Each factor is conveyed through a holistic narrative that integrates qualitative insights with quantitative data, representing a collective consensus among participants regarding their subjective perceptions of the Q sorting question. Three distinct factors (viewpoints) were identified among 28 participants. While demographic information of the participants (e.g., gender, position, and years of experience) was collected, the results did not show a clear pattern of viewpoints based on participants’ positions.
To support the storyline, each statement number is reported with a value alongside; for example, ‘#1/4’ refers to Statement 1 with the value of 4. A ‘D’ indicates a ‘distinguishing statement’ (p < 0.05), and a ‘D*’ indicates a ‘significantly distinguishing statement’ (p < 0.01), meaning a statement whose ranking differs significantly compared to other factors. Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 provide an overview of the results.

4.1. Factor 1: Business Model as an Institutional Priority

Seven participants, three females and four males, with 1–24 years of experience across different engineering disciplines and academic positions, loaded significantly on Factor 1, accounting for 15% of the explained variance. The Factor 1 participants collectively emphasized the importance of CE marketing strategies at both the institutional and individual levels.
These participants distinctively valued having a clear strategy for marketing CE activities (11/4D*) and building a CE business model as an institutional-level priority (12/4) to ensure revenue (22/3D*). Such strategies should _target both individual adult learners (10/1D*) and companies (2/3D) through collaborative work to identify company needs for CE (31/2) in general.
The post-survey responses confirmed these opinions. One participant wrote,
“It’s important to make CE part of the strategy and the general awareness and provide focus and research. Ensuring revenue may be very important for practical motivation”.
(F1-1, Head of Department)
Others echoed this:
“The decision is important strategically. The top leaders at the university have to decide that it is an important part of the economy in the future”.
(F1-4, Administrator)
“For us, CE is an important contributor to our research group and a main incentive for prioritizing our time against research and teaching”.
(F1-7, Professor)
In terms of the organization of CE, these participants considered it important to administrate CE activities at the university level (26/1D*) but not the departmental level (19/−2) and to ensure that CE activities are easily accessible through existing marketing platforms (3/1D*). Nevertheless, they did not prioritize having administrative staff who specialize in CE (28/−2) or providing physical facilities (e.g., laboratories) (14/−1D).
Curriculum-wise, they considered it important to develop CE activities tailored to meet specific requests (25/2) instead of using current degree program courses to support CE activities (32/−1D). Pedagogically, they disvalued designing CE activities using a lecture-based approach (#15/−3) and underlined the importance of designing CE activities using PBL principles (23/2) by encouraging CE participants to work on real-life problems sourced from their own work environments (9/2). They generally did not value using online learning and teaching as a primary format for CE activities (#27/−3).
As one participant elaborated:
“We need to have PBL as one of our competitive advantages. This would also make cross-department CE more realistic….online learning is not important for us in the short run as most of the learners currently would prefer physical teaching”.
(F1-2, Head of Studies)
These participants agreed that an institutional culture encouraging CE development (29/3) should be promoted through emphasis on overall strategies, collaboration with companies, and participant-centered pedagogical design. Nevertheless, enhancing institutional quality assurance systems (20/−4) was not considered urgent at this stage. As one participant wrote,
“In a prioritized order, it is important to first: strategically decide, then get the administration in order, then develop courses, and lastly, get the last of the administration work in order. (These items) are not unimportant—but last in order for me as a project leader”.
(F1-4, Strategic Advisor)

4.2. Factor 2: Organizational Structure

Seven participants, three females and four males, along with five academic staff and one administrative officer, with 6 months to 14 years of experience across different engineering disciplines, loaded significantly on Factor 2, accounting for 11% of the explained variance. In contrast to Factor 1, the Factor 2 participants highlighted the importance of providing institutional conditions for administration and physical facilities.
These participants, although in line with the Factor 1 participants on prioritizing CE as an institutional strategy (12/4) and company collaboration (31/3), disagreed with Factor 1 by accentuating the importance of CE administration. Concretely, they emphasized organizational aspects, such as having administrative staff who specialize in CE (28/4D*), creating administrative structures to support flexible CE (1/3D), and streamlining administrative procedures (5/1). For these purposes, one participant noted that it would be helpful to
“have a central rope holder with an overview and knowledge center”.
(F2-7, Senior Researcher)
Although for them it did not matter whether CE administration was at the university level (26/−2D) or the departmental level (19/−1), they considered it important to have simple CE budgeting procedures (e.g., templates and tools) (24/2D*). As one elaborated,
“The administrative setup must be easy and well-functioning; otherwise, it takes too much time and hassle”.
(F2-6, Associate Professor)
Another one commented,
“Administrating CE at the university level is not so important. The offered programs should, of course, be coordinated at this level, but this development, implementation, and day-to-day administration should be carried out at the department level to ensure flexibility and fast adaptability to the needs of the customers”.
(F2-3, Senior Researcher)
In addition, unlike Factor 1 participants, they considered it important to provide physical facilities (e.g., laboratories) (14/3D*) and the necessary digital resources (8/2). Consequently, they agreed with Factor 1 participants in not considering it important to use online learning and teaching as a primary format for CE activities (#27/−3D).
“Adult further education has adults as customers. Education must be able to compete with courses that are typically supplemented with lunch, coffee, and cake, as well as good physical facilities. It is important that education be competitive in relation to facilities and quality of teaching”.
(F2-7, Senior Researcher)
Curriculum-wise, unlike Factor 1 participants, these participants considered it unproblematic to use current degree program courses to support CE activities (32/1). Generally, they did not value either interdisciplinarity in CE activities (6/−4D*) or alternative certification options (e.g., documentation of attendance) (21/−3D*). As one explained,
“The focus of the CE students is on gaining knowledge to master certain tasks and not necessarily on getting a diploma for their CV”.
(F2-3, Senior Researcher)
Pedagogical considerations were not particularly emphasized by these participants. Unlike Factor 1 participants, they did not consider it important to design CE activities using PBL principles (23/−2D*).

4.3. Factor 3: PBL-Inspired Pedagogical Approach

Six participants, three females and three males, with 5–20 years of experience across different engineering disciplines and academic positions, loaded significantly on Factor 3, accounting for 13% of the explained variance. Compared to the Factor 1 and Factor 2 participants, these participants regarded the PBL-inspired pedagogical approach to CE organization as paramount.
Specifically, in line with Factor 1 and contrasting with Factor 2, the Factor 3 participants prioritized designing CE activities using PBL principles (23/4D*) and encouraging CE participants to work on real-life problems sourced from their own work environments (9/4D*) instead of using a lecture-based approach (15/−3). In their post-survey responses, they collectively reflected on their pride in having PBL as the university signature. As one wrote,
“PBL is our DNA. We can and are obliged to do it as nobody would be able to do it”.
(F3-3, Professor)
Highlighting participant-centeredness, they also emphasized providing diverse formats for CE (e.g., micro-credentials and MOOCs) (4/3D*) and CE activities tailored to meet specific requests (25/3D), while not prioritizing a digitally supported system for the assessment of applicants at enrolment (18/−4D*). As one explained,
“More focus on CE being used in companies (real-life problems). Make it more attractive since it is the companies that pay”.
(F3-2, Administrator)
Another supported this by writing,
“Many SMEs lack the skills to respond to demands (sustainability/SDG). We can help them best by taking a point of departure from their own situation”.
(F3-1, Associate Professor)
To address such pedagogical considerations, it was also considered important to empower CE educators with the pedagogical skills to support learners in the CE environment (13/2D*).
“My perspective is educational and pedagogical. I think it is important that AAU also work with PBL in continued education and that we support teachers with the pedagogical skills it requires to run a successful CE programme”.
(F3-6, Professor and Director)
While in line with the other factors on promoting an institutional culture of encouraging CE development (29/2) by prioritizing it as an institutional strategy (12/2), these participants contrasted with Factor 1 participants in not ranking marketing strategies highly (11/−2D*). Specifically, they prioritized neither marketing to companies (2/−1D*) to ensure revenue (22/−3D) nor accessibility through existing marketing platforms (3/−1). Yet they considered it important to develop alternative certification options (21/1D) and to administrate CE activities at the departmental level (19/1D*) so that flexibility could be adopted in the CE design and organization. As one wrote,
“It is important that we adapt modules so that they fit the participants’ ability to participate. It is important that within our subject areas, we deliver something that the participants immediately find useful”.
(F3-7, Head of Studies)
Regarding administration, it was considered important to have the necessary administrative structures to support flexible CE (1/2). However, in contrast to Factor 2 participants, Factor 3 participants did not emphasize administration in other respects, such as having administrative staff who specialize in CE (28/−2) or simple CE budgeting procedures (24/−1). As one explained,
“The administration might work on some aspects, but on a day-to-day level, it might not be able to respond to the types and needs of CE in different fields”.
(F3-6, Professor and Director)
In line with the Factor 1 perspective, these participants did not prioritize enhancing institutional quality assurance systems (20/−4), which they believed to be already in existence, as highlighted by one (F3-7) and further elaborated on by another:
“The quality system is fine for ordinary studies but should not affect new concepts of continuing education. For classical continuing learning the quality system is already in action and is working just fine”.
(F3-5, Associate Professor)
Another explanation was that
“By implementing all kinds of quality assurance systems, it becomes far too bureaucratic. It will not necessarily improve the CE”.
(F3-1, Associate Professor)

4.4. Consensus Across All Three Factors

All participants agreed on the importance of collaborating with companies to identify their needs for CE (31/2, 3, 3). As one explained,
“It is through the companies that we capture more participants. This can possibly be done via current collaboration with companies”.
(F3-2, Administrator)
On a negative note, all participants considered it relatively unimportant for university staff to be well-informed about strategies for CE (7/−2, −1, 0). They also collectively considered it less important to employ external staff from the industry to teach CE activities (30/−3, −3, −2). One explanation provided was that
“CE at university is about research-based learning. Employees in companies cannot deliver research-based teaching. Our own activities are most important”.
(F2-1, Administrator)
In addition, they strongly agreed that it was least important to exchange CE experiences with other universities (16/−4, −4, −3). This may be related to the uniqueness of the study’s university context with respect to PBL principles and pedagogical approach, which laid a foundation for the self-perceived appropriateness of teaching methods for CE:
“Think our own teachers/researchers are the best in their field to teach [including] CE. Participants benefit from our method (PBL) and the experienced teachers”.
(F3-1, Associate Professor)

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Employing the Q methodology, the study explored the perceptions of 28 university staff, including middle leadership, academic staff, and administrators, on how to provide continuing education for professional engineers in a Danish university. The results of this study provided a holistic understanding of the university staff’s diverse perspectives on important aspects of successful CE implementation, respectively prioritizing (1) a CE business model as an institutional priority, (2) the organizational structure, and (3) a PBL-inspired pedagogical approach. These insights underscore the importance of considering the unique needs and expectations of individuals from various backgrounds, experiences, and positions. Addressing these varied viewpoints could contribute to fostering inclusive and effective CE, and the proposed framework with seven themes shall provide inspiration for CE design and organization. Based on the results, recommendations are outlined below to improve future CE design and implementation.
Factor 1 and Factor 2 participants highlighted the importance of prioritizing CE as an institutional strategy and developing universities’ CE marketing strategies. More distinctively, Factor 1 participants focused on financial perspectives, such as building a business model for CE and guaranteeing university revenue, and Factor 2 participants emphasized institutional administration at the individual, departmental, and university levels. Both Factor 1 and Factor 3 participants emphasized marketing CE to professional engineers and industry and agreed that pedagogical foundations and effective learning approaches play a significant role in CE organization [1,27]. Perhaps particularly because of their systemic PBL environment, the university staff in this study prioritized PBL principles and approaches for CE designs and valued the benefits of working on real-life problems sourced from professional engineers’ work environments [14,36].
While different viewpoints were identified among the participants, consensus was also captured regarding the importance of collaboration with industry, especially with respect to identifying industry needs regarding CE, a finding consistent with prior studies [14,22]. Participants across all three factors also agreed on the lesser importance of employing external staff from industry to teach CE activities or exchanging CE experiences with other universities. This perspective may have been shaped by their unique university environment, with its systemic implementation of PBL, their associated beliefs and agency concerning PBL principles, and their distinctive pedagogical approach to CE. Moreover, although prior studies emphasized the importance for universities of developing effective assessment systems to ensure CE quality and offering accreditation or alternative certification options for professional engineers to motivate their engagement [24,31], enhancing institutional quality assurance systems was not considered urgent at this stage by the participants in this study, nor was developing alternative certification options.
The overall results of this study reveal that CE development needs to address diverse voices from different stakeholders, including leadership, academic faculty, and administrators. Considering CE as a complex dynamic system that requires organizational changes, the recommendations of this study were inspired by the Leavitt–Ry model for organizational change [49,50]. The Leavitt–Ry model provides a structured understanding of complex organizational systems and identifies the core elements of organizational changes, including the four original dimensions of institutional structure, technology, actors, and tasks [49], as well as four environmental components (vision, reward systems, physical environment, and culture) added by Ry Nielsen et al. [50] in follow-up studies. The results of this study highlight several of the above dimensions to support future CE implementation, including institutional structure, technology, actors, and environmental components.
The first central element of a successful CE program is the support of a flexible institutional structure. This includes streamlined administrative systems to support diverse needs for CE [25,26], specific procedures to address various voices from different CE stakeholders [25,30], and an enhanced incentive system that encourages university staff to keep themselves well-informed about institutional strategies for CE and share common goals for CE development [12,27]. In addition, it is important to have clear marketing structures for CE and positive economic strategies to ensure revenue from CE organizations, which could have a positive impact on universities providing CE for professional engineers [27].
A second core aspect of a successful CE program is technology [49]. This refers to the digital, physical, and pedagogical technology that supports decision making and enables university staff to take on tasks [49]. Such technology contributes to a coherent overview and arrangement of the change process across all parts of the organization [51]. In this study, digital resources were identified as medium-level important aspects by Factors 1 and 2, and Factor 3 highlighted the significant importance of pedagogical technology. Based on the results, universities should use technology to provide various learning resources (e.g., videos, literature, laboratories, and other digital or physical resources) for both university staff and professional engineers [20,38,39]. In the field of continuing education, technology also includes the pedagogical rationale guiding CE course development [51]. In other words, this study also highlights the necessity of pedagogical theories and learning principles to guide the design of CE programs. While the participants in this study likely agreed on the priority of the PBL approach for CE due to their unique systemic PBL university environment, this result also provides inspiration for other types of universities to design and organize CE using PBL principles, such as identifying real-life problems related to professional working environments to motivate engineers’ engagement [14,36], encouraging collaboration with corporations [27], and highlighting interdisciplinarity training for innovation in CE activities [28,37].
A third notable consideration is that academic faculty, as one group of key stakeholders in CE, take the role of providing and facilitating CE learning activities for engineers, which requires them to be well-informed on institutional CE learning strategies and pedagogical competencies [1,12]. Thus, academic faculty should receive pedagogical development training, complete with learning theories and principles that equip them to optimize their CE practices [32,34,52].
Finally, all participants in this study highlighted the importance of prioritizing CE at the institutional level, recognizing staff’s CE work, and creating an institutional culture among leadership, academic faculty, and administrators featuring common goals and strategies to support CE organizations. The literature has also called for attention to these aspects [1,27,53]. Both university staff and professional engineers need to be aware of the benefits of CE. In a successful CE setting, universities might benefit from CE organization by receiving additional revenue; academic faculty can gain familiarity with practical problems and transfer their knowledge from the university environment to companies; industry and companies could obtain solutions to practical problems; and professional engineers could improve their professional and generic competence, improving their employability [14,15,24]. Since successful CE does not occur automatically, efforts from all CE stakeholders are needed in the above respects.
This study has the following limitations, which future research may address. First, the research took place within a single institution. While the characteristics of the institutional context, such as its unique PBL pedagogical approach, were taken into consideration, the results of the study still have limited generalizability. Further research may be conducted comparing multiple universities to explore the effect of institutional culture on continuing education development. The Q sample developed in this study may be further adapted in other societal and educational contexts. Second, this study focused on supportive aspects of successful CE implementation. Due to the limitation of the Q methodology, where only one question could be asked for participants to conduct Q sorting, this study did not focus on challenges and constraints, and the authors acknowledge that understanding various challenges for CE implementation is also important to develop a broader overview of this topic. More effort is needed to explore different CE stakeholders’ perspectives on diverse challenges for CE implementation, using multiple research methods such as the Q methodology, qualitative interviews, and quantitative surveys. Third, the population of the study was small, although it was somewhat larger than those in studies employing other qualitative approaches, such as interviews. While 20 of the 28 participants’ opinions were classified into three significantly different groups, the confounded participant’s opinions may have been included in the factors, and the remaining seven participants’ voices could have been further explored through follow-up interviews. Future studies may compare our results with those from other data sources, including narratives and Likert-scale research. Last but not least, the study only recruited university staff, which provided a partial picture of the whole story of continual education. Future studies should take into account a wider spectrum of views on CE to provide a more rounded depiction of stakeholders’ perspectives, including industries, companies, and engineers as participants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.N., I.K. and X.D.; methodology, validation, and formal analysis, B.N., I.K., J.C. and X.D.; writing—original draft preparation, B.N., J.C. and X.D.; writing—review and editing, B.N., J.C. and X.D.; project administration, B.N. and X.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Aalborg University (ID: 2023-505-00133, approved by 17-01-2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to privacy and ethical restrictions, supporting data is not available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pérez-Foguet, A.; Lazzarini, B.; Giné, R.; Velo, E.; Boni, A.; Sierra, M.; Zolezzi, G.; Trimingham, R. Promoting Sustainable Human Development in Engineering: Assessment of Online Courses within Continuing Professional Development Strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4286–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Baukal, C.E., Jr. A Strategy for Sourcing Continuing Engineering Education. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2012, 16, 284–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. OECD. Results from the ALL: Learning a Living; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada; OECD: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cresson, E. The European Year of Lifelong Learning. Adults Learn. 1996, 7, 215–218. [Google Scholar]
  5. European Commission. The European Year of Skills 2023. 2023. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-year-skills-2023_en (accessed on 15 June 2024).
  6. Brown, S.R. Q Methodology in Research on Political Decision Making. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. OECD. Lifelong Learning as an Affordable Investment; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada; OECD: Paris, France, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  8. Powell, R.; Smith, R.; Reakes, A. Research into Adult and Continuing Education; NFER: Slough, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  10. Glotova, T.; Deev, M.; Krevskiy, I.; Matukin, S.; Sheremeteva, E.; Shlenov, Y.; Shlenova, M. Models of Supporting Continuing Education of Specialists for High-tech Sector. In Proceedings of the Knowledge-Based Software Engineering: 11th Joint Conference, JCKBSE 2014, Volgograd, Russia, 17–20 September 2014; Proceedings 11: 100–112. Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nutwell, E.; Christy, A.D. The University’s Role in Professional Development for Computer-Aided Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 16–19 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fink, F.K. From On-campus Project Organised Problem Based Learning to Facilitated Work Based Learning in Industry. In Proceedings of the Information Systems: 4th International Conference, ADVIS 2006, Izmir, Turkey, 18–20 October 2006; Proceedings 4: 23–33. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  13. Springer, M.; Schuver, M.T. Engineers and Technologists—From Titles to Roles to Continuing Education. J. Eng. Technol. 2015, 32, 42. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nørgaard, B. Implications of Facilitated Work-Based Learning Implemented as an Approach to Continuing Engineering Education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2019, 44, 629–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Salīte, I.; Drelinga, E.; Iliško, D.; Oļehnoviča, E.; Zariņa, S. Sustainability from the transdisciplinary perspective: An action research strategy for continuing education program development. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 2016, 18, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Henning, K.; Bornefeld, G.; Brall, S. Mechanical Engineering at RWTH Aachen University: Professional Curriculum Development and Teacher Training. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2007, 32, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bouwma-Gearhart, J. Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 558–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Downing, C.G. Responding to the Call: Extending the University Relationship via Continuing Education. In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–13 June 2012; Volume 25, p. 1124. [Google Scholar]
  19. Yukselturk, E.; Altiok, S. An investigation of the effects of programming with Scratch on the preservice IT teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 48, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Uhomoibhi, J.; Ross, M. Globalisation and E-Learning: Integrating University and Professional Qualifications for Employability and Lifelong Learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on E-Learning; Book Series: Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Learning; Ivala: Cape Town, South Africa, 2013; pp. 404–408. [Google Scholar]
  21. Baumeler, C.; Engelage, S.; Hämmerli, C.; Salzmann, P. Recognition of Prior Learning in Professional Education from an Organisational Perspective. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2023, 42, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cunha, M.M.; Putnik, G.D. A Changed Economy with Unchanged Universities? A Contribution to the University of the Future. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol. (IJDET) 2007, 5, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marlor, L.K.; Amelink, C.T. Board 134: The Development of a Context-based Summer Research Program for Community College Faculty in Science and Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 24–27 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bagwell, S. Marketing Continuing Vocational Education to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Key Issues for Higher Education Institutions. Innov. Educ. Train. Int. 1998, 35, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Elliott, C.S. JACME2T: An Industry-Academic Consortia to Enhance Continuing Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the FIE 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Tempe, AZ, USA, 4–7 November 1998; Volume 3, p. 1261. [Google Scholar]
  26. Munukutla, L.; Popovich, C.; McGrane, J. Universities Collaborate with Industry to Fill Need for Hands-On Workshops. In Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 22–25 June 2008; Volume 13, p. 1317. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nørgaard, B.; Korning, I.M.L.; Bárcena-Caballero, L.; Caratozzolo, P. Practices and Trends in Continuing Engineering Education at Scandinavian and Mexican Universities. In Transforming Engineering Education 2023; Guerra, A., Chen, J., Lavi, R., Bertel, L.B., Lindsay, E., Eds.; Aalborg Universitetsforlag: Aalborg, Denmark, 2023; pp. 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chakrabarti, S.; Gredlics, Z.; Curry, K.; Lynch, K.D. Sustaining Successful Continuing Professional Engineering Education Programs by Systematic Assessment of the Key Performance Results. In Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA, USA, 23–26 June 2013; Volume 23, p. 1124. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bowl, M. University Continuing Education in a Neoliberal Landscape: Developments in England and Aotearoa New Zealand. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2010, 29, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schultz, C. Learning is Change: Creating an Environment for Sustainable Organizational Change in Continuing and Higher Education. Can. J. Univ. Contin. Educ. 2014, 40, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Eligar, S.; Iyer, N.; Shettar, A.; Acharya, K.N.S.; Desai, B.L.; Tewari, P.; Mudenagudi, U.; Sahay, S. An Innovative Approach to Provide Continuing Education for Industry Employees at Undergraduate Level of Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), Madrid, Spain, 15–18 November 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen, J.; Kolmos, A.; Guerra, A.; Zhou, C. Aalborg UNESCO Certificate: Staff Development and Challenges in PBL Training Programme. J. Eng. Educ. Transform. 2019, 33, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen, J.; Kolmos, A.; Du, X. The Role of Teamwork on Students’ Engineering Professional Identity Development in the AAU PBL Model: From the Perspectives of International Engineering Students. In 8th International Research Symposium on PBL; Aalborg Universitetsforlag: Aalborg, Denmark, 2020; pp. 405–413. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chen, J.; Hasan, M.A.; Du, X.; Kolmos, A. Exploring students’ perception of the influence of PBL elements on the development of engineering identity. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2023, 66, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nørgaard, B.; Chen, J.; Smink, C.K.; Guerra, A.; Du, X. Engineering educators’ professional learning for educational change in a PBL-base and cross-institutional programme in Africa: A Q-study. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2024, 49, 236–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Anwar, S.; Curley, W.G. Partnering with Industry to Provide Continuing and Distance Education Programs in Engineering & Technology: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2000 Annual ASEE Conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, 18 June 2000; pp. 4651–4659. [Google Scholar]
  37. Block, B. Innovation in Continuing Engineering Education with Focus on Gender and Non-traditional Students’ Pathways. In Proceedings of the 45th SEFI Conference, Azores, Portugal, 18–21 September 2017; pp. 276–283. [Google Scholar]
  38. Buus, L.; Georgsen, M. ALearning Design Methodology for Developing Short Learning Programmes in Further and Continuing Education. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2018, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shen, Y. Application of Internet of Things in Online Teaching of Adult Education Based on Android Voice Assistant. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tobias, R. Continuing Professional Education and Professionalization: Travelling without a Map or Compass? Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2003, 22, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Soeiro, A.; Grange, E.L.; Smith, A. Continuing Engineering Education and Sustainability: IACEE Contribution with SERINA and Porto Declaration. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 24–26 October 2018; pp. 515–520. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jirasko, J.; Hynek, M. Support for Lifelong Learning at the University of West Bohemia. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on e-Learning; Idrus, R.M., Zainuddin, N., Eds.; Academic Conferences International Limited: South Oxfordshire, UK, 2016; pp. 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  43. Watts, S.; Stenner, P. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rieber, L.P. Q pedagogy: Bringing students’ subjectivity into the design of instruction. Int. J. Des. Learn. 2023, 14, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, J.; Du, X.; Guerra, A.; da Silva, F.M.F.; Chaaban, Y. Sources contributing to engineering students’ academic well-being: An exploration using the Q methodology. J. Eng. Educ. 2024, 14, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lundberg, A.; de Leeuw, R.; Aliani, R. Using Q Methodology: Sorting Out Subjectivity in Educational Research. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. McKeown, B.; Thomas, D.B. Q Methodology; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; Volume 66. [Google Scholar]
  48. Banasick, S. KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leavitt, H.J. Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological and Humanistic Approaches. In Handbook of Organizations; March, J.G., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1965; pp. 1144–1170. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ry Nielsen, J.C.; Ry, M.; Andersen, P.A. Organisational Change, Elected Leaders and Selected Managers: An Explorative Study of a Danish Trade Union 1981–2002. In Proceedings of the Leadership Workshop, Oxford, UK, 16–17 December 2002. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hassan, N.; Razak, N.A.; Mojolou, D.N.; Aziz, R.A.; Ali, S. Critical Factors in Organizational Change and Employee Performance. In Proceedings of the Colloquium on Administrative Science and Technology: CoAST 2013; Springer: Singapore, 2013; pp. 51–59. [Google Scholar]
  52. Du, X.; Chaaban, Y.; Al-Thani, H.; Lundberg, A. University Teachers’ Professional Learning for Academic Development: Q Methodology Research. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2023, 29, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Johnston, R. Opening Up: A Case Study of Change in Continuing Higher Education. J. Furth. High. Educ. 1994, 18, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 01337 g001
Figure 1. An example of a Q sort grid.
Figure 1. An example of a Q sort grid.
Education 14 01337 g001
Education 14 01337 g002
Figure 2. Composite Q sort for Factor 1.
Figure 2. Composite Q sort for Factor 1.
Education 14 01337 g002
Education 14 01337 g003
Figure 3. Composite Q sort for Factor 2.
Figure 3. Composite Q sort for Factor 2.
Education 14 01337 g003
Education 14 01337 g004
Figure 4. Composite Q sort for Factor 3.
Figure 4. Composite Q sort for Factor 3.
Education 14 01337 g004
Table 1. Background information of the participants.
Table 1. Background information of the participants.
VariableNo.
GenderFemale14
Male14
PositionHead of studies/department9
Prof./assoc. prof.10
Administrative officer9
Years of experience<11
1–54
6–106
11–157
16–204
>205
Prefer not to say1
Table 2. Q set for this study.
Table 2. Q set for this study.
Q Questions: Based on Your Understanding, What Are the Necessary Aspects for Supporting the Implementation of Continuing Education?
ThemeStatementSources
Marketing2. Marketing to companies(Cunha and Putnik 2007; Elliott 1998)
Qualitative data
3. Ensuring that CE activities are easily accessible through existing marketing platforms(Cunha and Putnik 2007)
10. Marketing to individual adult learners(Bagwell 1998; Cunha and Putnik 2007)
11. Having a clear strategy when marketing CE activities(Cunha and Putnik 2007; Munukutla et al. 2008)
Economy22. Ensuring revenue by offering CE(Bagwell 1998; Bowl 2010; Nørgaard et al. 2023)
24. Having simple CE budgeting procedures (e.g., templates and tools)Expert consultation for content validation
Administration1. Having the necessary administrative structures to support flexible CE(Baumeler et al. 2023; Nørgaard et al. 2023) Qualitative data
5. Streamlining administrative procedures regarding CE(Nørgaard et al. 2023)
18. Developing a digitally supported system for the assessment of applicants at enrolment(Baumeler et al. 2023; Cunha and Putnik 2007)
19. Administrating CE activities at the departmental level(Nørgaard et al. 2023; Schultz 2013)
26. Administrating CE activities at the university level(Nørgaard et al. 2023; Schultz 2013)
28. Having administrative staff who specialize in CE(Elliott 1998; Schultz 2013)
Institutional incentive
/policy		12. Prioritizing CE as an institutional strategy(Pérez-Foguet and Lazzarini 2019)
20. Enhancing institutional quality assurance systems(Eligar et al. 2021; Nørgaard et al. 2023)
21. Developing alternative certification options (e.g., documentation of attendance)(Bagwell 1998)
29. Promoting an institutional culture which encourages CE development(Bagwell 1998; Nørgaard et al. 2023; Pérez-Foguet and Lazzarini 2019)
CE Programme organization (design, delivery, and environment)23. Designing CE activities using PBL principles(Fink 2006; Nørgaard 2019)
9. Encouraging CE participants to work on real-life problems sourced from their own work environments(Anwar and Curley 2000; Fink 2006; Nørgaard 2019)
4. Providing diverse formats for CE (e.g., micro-credentials and MOOCs)(Buus and Georgsen 2018; Shen 2022; Uhomoibhi and Ross 2013)
6. Highlighting interdisciplinarity in CE activities(Block 2017; Chakrabarti et al. 2013)
8. Providing the necessary digital resources(Buus and Georgsen 2018; Shen 2022)
14. Providing the necessary physical facilities (e.g., laboratories)(Fink 2006; Glotova et al. 2014; Munukutla et al. 2008; Yükseltürk et al. 2010)
15. Designing CE activities using a lecture-based approach(Fink 2006; Glotova et al. 2014; Munukutla et al. 2008; Yükseltürk et al. 2010)
25. Developing CE activities tailored to meet specific requests(Nørgaard 2019)
27. Using online learning and teaching as a primary format for CE activities(Buus and Georgsen 2018; Shen 2022; Uhomoibhi and Ross 2013)
32. Using current degree programme courses to support CE activitiesExpert consultation for content validation
CE educators7. Keeping university staff well-informed about strategies for CE(Fink 2006; Tobias 2003)
13. Supporting CE educators with the pedagogical skills to support learners in the CE environment(Fink 2006; Nørgaard et al. 2023; Pérez-Foguet and Lazzarini 2019)
Connection and collaboration with partners beyond the university16. Exchanging CE experiences with other universitiesExpert consultation for content validation
17. Enabling mutual learning between CE participants and university academics (e.g., teachers, students, and researchers)Expert consultation for content validation
30. Employing external staff from industry to teach CE activities(Jirasko and Hynek 2016; Nørgaard 2019)
31. Collaborating with companies to identify their needs for CE(Elliott 1998; Munukutla et al. 2008; Nørgaard 2019)
Table 3. Q factor loading results with demographic information.
Table 3. Q factor loading results with demographic information.
Part. No.Factor
Group		Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3GenderPositionYears of
Experience
US2F1-10.81000.12700.2180MManagement20+
US8F1-20.7003−0.08770.0936MManagement1
US17F1-30.6598−0.06250.2814FAcademic staff10+
US28F1-40.64870.3257−0.0004FAdministrative staff2
US16F1-50.55870.14200.2411FAdministrative staff7
US7F1-60.47760.3407−0.0894FAdministrative staff6
US13F1-70.46390.02070.2687MAcademic staff24
US4F2-10.39240.66470.0042FAdministrative staff14
US11F2-20.01990.65140.3822MAcademic staff5
US21F2-30.01990.65140.3822MAcademic staff9
US20F2-40.13030.6194−0.0496FAdministrative staff3
US25F2-50.37660.4756−0.1319FAdministrative staff1
US23F2-60.00800.46540.1526MAcademic staff12
US19F2-70.01530.45620.0288MAcademic staff13
US15F3-10.3856−0.02620.7000FAcademic staff15
US3F3-20.23260.35080.6635FAdministrative staff20+
US18F3-30.0056−0.06170.6493FAcademic staff15+
US24F3-50.05790.00850.5982FAcademic staff8
US27F3-60.35550.07040.5380MManagement15
US14F3-70.42280.09990.4656MManagement10
Confounded or Insignificant Loading
US12F1-80.42170.22640.0592MManagement23
US6F2-80.04410.38970.0398FAdministrative staff17
US26F3-40.5276−0.13580.6232MManagement5
US22F3-80.22380.16940.3627MAcademic staff20
US5F3-90.11270.3252−0.3451FManagement12
US9F3-100.03530.19750.3318MAcademic staff17
US10F3-110.10620.15960.2499FAdministrative staff25
US1F3-120.00420.18890.2108MManagement10
Table 4. Q factor loading results.
Table 4. Q factor loading results.
No.StatementFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3
Z-ScoreRankZ-ScoreRankZ-ScoreRank
1Having the necessary administrative structures to support flexible CE0.24141.1250.498
2Marketing to companies1.3630.88−0.4322
3Ensuring that CE activities are easily accessible through existing marketing platforms0.6012−0.4521−0.4221
4Providing diverse formats for CE (e.g., micro-credentials, MOOCs)−0.24180.50131.375
5Streamlining the administrative procedures regarding CE0.17150.6610−0.1617
6Highlighting interdisciplinarity in CE activities−0.9727−1.7231−0.3119
7Keeping university staff well-informed about strategies for CE−0.7424−0.5523−0.1718
8Providing the necessary digital resources0.71110.966−0.0614
9Encouraging CE participants to work on real-life problems sourced from their own work environments0.8980.24162.181
10Marketing to individual adult learners0.7310−0.5724−0.1116
11Having a clear strategy when marketing CE activities1.8710.5312−0.6925
12Prioritizing CE as an institutional strategy1.7121.6210.429
13Supporting CE educators with the pedagogical skills to support learners in the CE environment−0.15170.08170.946
14Providing the necessary physical facilities (e.g., laboratories)−0.65221.423−0.0815
15Designing CE activities using a lecture-based approach−1.53300.4115−1.2929
16Exchanging CE experiences with other universities−1.5931−1.9732−1.3730
17Enabling mutual learning between the CE participants and university academics (e.g., teachers, students, and researchers)−0.66230.6990.4010
18Developing a digitally supported system for the assessment of applicants at enrolment−0.49200.4214−1.8732
19Administrating CE activities at the departmental level−0.8325−0.4200.3411
20Enhancing institutional quality assurance systems−1.7132−0.7925−1.4531
21Developing alternative certification options (e.g., documentation of attendance)−0.4719−1.41290.1712
22Ensuring revenue by offering CE1.065−0.5522−1.1128
23Designing CE activities using PBL principles0.849−0.84261.852
24Having simple CE budgeting procedures (e.g., templates and tools)0.02160.927−0.3520
25Developing CE activities tailored to meet specific requests0.967−0.23191.584
26Administrating CE activities at the university level0.513−1.0227−0.4323
27Using online learning and teaching as a primary format for CE activities−1.0728−1.5930−0.8527
28Having administrative staff who specialize in CE−0.94261.432−0.5024
29Promoting an institutional culture which encourages CE development 1.124−0.18180.897
30Employing external staff from industry to teach CE activities−1.1729−1.3428−0.7426
31Collaborating with companies to identify their needs for CE1.0461.2841.693
32Using current degree programme courses to support CE activities−0.62210.55110.0413
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nørgaard, B.; Chen, J.; Korning, I.; Du, X. Exploring University Staff Views on Providing Continuing Education for Professional Engineers in Denmark: Using the Q Methodology. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1337. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121337

AMA Style

Nørgaard B, Chen J, Korning I, Du X. Exploring University Staff Views on Providing Continuing Education for Professional Engineers in Denmark: Using the Q Methodology. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(12):1337. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121337

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nørgaard, Bente, Juebei Chen, Ida Korning, and Xiangyun Du. 2024. "Exploring University Staff Views on Providing Continuing Education for Professional Engineers in Denmark: Using the Q Methodology" Education Sciences 14, no. 12: 1337. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121337

APA Style

Nørgaard, B., Chen, J., Korning, I., & Du, X. (2024). Exploring University Staff Views on Providing Continuing Education for Professional Engineers in Denmark: Using the Q Methodology. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1337. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121337

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop
  NODES
3d 9
Association 2
coding 2
Community 2
Frameworks 4
games 2
games 2
Idea 3
idea 3
innovation 5
inspiration 3
Interesting 2
Intern 40
iOS 4
Javascript 2
languages 2
mac 25
Note 11
OOP 1
os 154
text 14
Theorie 6
Training 8
twitter 1
visual 1
web 2