Water specialist as andragogist: the application of learning theory in capacity development for improved water management

In this paper, we state that technical experts in the field of water, like in a knowledge institute such as Deltares, can improve the effectiveness of their capacity development activities with the application of good learning theory and practices. Although the need for institutional capacity building in international development is clear, its effective delivery is a well-reported challenge (World Bank, 2008; Vallejo & Wehn, 2016). These challenges range from human and budgetary resources, enabling environment, legislative frameworks, to transparency and good governance (Alaerts & Kaspersma, 2009). We believe, based on our collective experience of capacity building projects in developing countries, that the limited effectiveness of the uptake of skills and knowledge (i.e. the training element of capacity development) may be the result of the mismatch between intention and delivery, often due to inappropriate objective setting, lack of focus in training delivery, poor cultural awareness and a reliance on poorly defined buzzwords (such as ‘learning-by-doing’ or ‘knowledge transfer’) over effective practices and more regard for the content than for the actual learning needs. From over 20 years of collective experience in the sector, we have observed that typical donor funded capacity development projects often set ambitious learning objectives with limited resources. The result is training that skips vital precursor competencies and is simply delivered too fast, considering the skill level of the organisation's staff. In other cases, objectives are set in a considered way, but there is a disconnect between the objective, training method and what the learners actually do in their organisation. Within typical capacity development projects, the people delivering training are often technical specialists with no prior knowledge of adult learning principles, yet are expected to deliver training. Without this prior awareness, these technical experts are less able to reflect on what the learners' needs, their cultural and education backgrounds, and thus naturally gravitate to a subconscious model of teaching they are most familiar with. Often that is not the model that is most appropriate in the training courses that are needed. The result we observe is a one-way passive transmission of ‘know-how’ or ‘knowledge transfer’ that fails to recognise how adults learn. It is a model of the ‘assembly line worker’ in which the ‘expert does – the beneficiary receives’ thus a traditional passive didactic teaching approach (Plueddemann, 1986). A more collaborative and learner focused approach can help to define the learner's current situation and identify the learning methods that suit them best. This also relates to modern human resources approaches where staff development (learning) is enabled through ‘coaches’ and ‘mentors’ rather than directive ‘managers’ (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996).

Although adult learning theory is well known and established in education institutions, we argue that for capacity development in international water projects, it presents an important innovation. Such arguments for considered adult-orientated learning approaches have also been made before, for example Vallejo & Wehn (2016) referring to the extensive work of Tough (1971) on adult education in the work place, while this paper discusses their application. It is also recognised that ‘capacity development’ requires more than just ‘training’, although the terms are often used as synonyms, or are at least overlapping. Quoting the UNDP definitions (Wignaraja, 2009), we understand ‘training’ to be the ‘Systematic educative process by which one learns new skills’ and ‘capacity development’ the ‘continuous planning carried out to advance a person's career based on experience and on any training undertaken to upgrade qualifications or to acquire new ones’. We also understand that capacity development can refer to the development of capacities of organisations. In our understanding, capacity development always has at least some focus on individuals, and capacity development always contains ‘training’ whether formal and planned or a more informal ‘learning-by-doing’. This paper focuses on the training element of capacity development whether for individuals or part of a longer-term career and organisational learning trajectory.

There are many water management practitioners who do apply learning theories, but, overall, from our experience, we believe that too many do not. Moreover, we believe that there is a general unawareness in the water management profession of the practical use that can be made of those theories. Additionally, the number of academic studies addressing the usefulness of learning theories in capacity development is quite small, and studies on its effectiveness are even less. The reason for this might be the difficulty of rigorously testing a pre-conceived theoretical framework in the reality of training courses defined for projects. The intention of this paper is not to rigorously test theoretical frameworks, but to describe candid observations from actual implementation, presented as three case studies. Thus raising more general awareness among water professionals of the application of learning theories and showing where rigorous testing by researchers might be applied to strengthen the wider knowledge base. The Moldova–Kenya–Rwanda case reflects the internal learning trajectory of one of the authors as a water specialist working on international development projects aimed at capacity building. The Training of Trainers (TOT) in Bangladesh case was part of the Training and Transfer of Tools Work Package of the Joint Cooperation Programme Bangladesh – The Netherlands, in which the authors participated as employees of Deltares. The Deltares ‘Pizza course’ cases, on the design and delivery of technical training courses, were organised by the authors to train technical colleagues on andragogical principles and practice.

This section describes five principles for improving the capacity of government water agencies and knowledge organisations in developing countries. In several of these cases, the principles are founded on well-established learning theory applied in universities and human resources management, but are less well known in capacity development in the water sector. Moreover, quantitative research into their effectiveness has been performed in regard to their application in tertiary education and adult learning but not in the context of capacity development projects. Those principles are:

1. ‘the water specialist as andragogist’,

2. constructive alignment of learning,

3. active learning methods,

4. learning trajectories and

5. culturally appropriate learning methods.

The paper describes and evaluates three case studies of capacity building activities, where these principles were applied either in a deliberate structural approach or through happy accident.

The case studies are:

Case study 1: The Moldova–Kenya–Rwanda learning trajectory

Case study 2: TOT in Bangladesh

Case study 3: ‘Pizza’ courses in Deltares, the Netherlands

Adult education theory (andragogy) is not an area most water specialists are familiar with, but the subject provides an insight into why training approaches commonly fail. The authors observed that technical consultants on capacity development projects, who have a responsibility to achieve learning objectives, complain that ‘simple concepts’ are not grasped as if that is the fault of the learner. But technical consultants need to reflect on how adults learn and on the years of formal-training and self-learning that resulted in their own current skills and knowledge before trying to impart that knowledge. This will make it easier to identify key precursor knowledge and skills and thus build a realistic and step-wise learning programme. Knowledge of adult learning theory also empowers technical consultants to address the learners' motivations and needs in a more focused way. Six key assumptions, drawn from Knowles' theory on adult learning (Knowles, 1980), are:

• Need to know: To be motivated to learn, adults need to know the reason for learning something. Thus, in capacity building, the ‘why’ must be clearly described to the learner.

• Foundation on prior experience: Adults reflect on their earlier experience while learning. Thus, in capacity building, we must solicit this experience and build on it but never ignore it.

• Readiness: Adults are most interested in learning techniques and tools that have immediate relevance to their daily work. Therefore, the ‘why’ must be linked to the learner's immediate day-to-day needs in the work place.

• Self-concept: Adults feel the need to be responsible for decisions regarding their education, therefore when designing the learning objectives and curricula the learner should be involved in the process.

• Problem based orientation: Adult learning is often more successful if it presents a solution to problems the learners recognise rather than being content-orientated.

• Motivation: Adults respond better to internal as opposed to external motivators. The former is intrinsic to curious, self-directed learners who prefer to explore a subject than be told simply how to do something.

Knowles' principles provide an insight into the motivations of adult learners, especially how it relates to human resources development in the workplace, and thus a better approach to designing capacity development programmes.

A learning trajectory (Figure 1) plots the path an organisation takes in acquiring skills and knowledge and in many ways mirrors the curricula structuring of higher education course programmes with the identification of overarching learning objectives and the building blocks of learning activities necessary to attain the objectives. It is presented in the diagram as a smooth steady idealised curve, but the reality of adult learning in the workplace means it is often a more stop–start progress with some backwards steps. It is also very much dependent on the pace of each learner in an organisation, so each individual staff member and the organisation itself would have its own learning trajectory.

Tying into Knowles principles, the foundation of a learning trajectory in capacity development is the learners need to know, problem orientation and internal motivation. The learning process should be clearly and convincingly laid out in a coherent ‘story’ that learners can visualise and evaluate for themselves. If they see a real value in the trajectory, where their prior knowledge, day-to-day tasks and learning styles are taken into account then there is a better chance of success. One of the key aspects is active learning through practice. The implementation of it is easily overlooked but requires significant effort to create mid- to long-term opportunities for learners to practice. Built into those opportunities should be informal assessment by the learner where, with a coach, they are able to reflect on their own learning, identify what they need to do and how best to achieve it. The overall aim of the approach is that the learners become more independent and self-driven learners as they move through the process.

Constructive alignment is a practice from academic teaching proposed by Biggs (2003) which links constructivist theory of experiential learning and outcome-based evaluation of formal education. The practice (Figure 2) makes a clear link between:

• the teacher's intent for a training course (that is the ‘learning objective’),

• the learners' activity (that is the ‘doing’ or experiential part of the course) and

• the learners' assessment (that is the achievement of the learning objective).

The key is that the stated verb in the learning objective (that is what are the learners expected to be able to DO) should be reflected in the learning activity and the assessment.

Simply put, if the trainer expects the learners to be able to DO something after the training, then that training must include the learner DOING that activity. Talking about it or demonstrating it is not sufficient. Although in capacity development of water agencies there is no examination in the traditional sense, we do need to assess whether the training has achieved the stated objectives. In its most basic form the assessment is: are the learners using the skills learned?

Active learning is a planned series of actions or events designed to provide the opportunity for participants to process, apply, interact and share experiences as part of an education process. It has been defined as follows: ‘learning takes place through the active behaviour of the student: it is what she/he does that she/he learns, not what the teacher does’. After Tyler (1949), Table 1 shows the often quoted and discussed figures associated with Dales' pyramid of learning (Letrud, 2012) that are commonly used to indicate the knowledge retention following a learning activity.

Such retention figures are well known in academia, and although they are challenged, our anecdotal experience confirms the ineffectiveness of ‘traditional’ lecturing and reading-based learning, so called passive methods. Therefore, organisational capacity building should apply well-aligned active learning activities. As a means of creating a ‘teaching others’ learning environment, the TOT approach and the sharing of existing local knowledge are very effective. The theory behind this is that if the learners teach the material, and thus have to explain it to others, they (have to) internalise it more than when ‘just’ understanding would be sufficient.

People learn differently, as is illustrated, for instance, by the different Kolb learning styles (Kolb, 1984). Another learning style differentiation is that of field-dependent and field-independent learners, as developed by Herman Witkin in 1954 (Witkin et al., 1977). Later, the term ‘field-dependent’ was replaced by the term ‘field-sensitive’. Where field-independent learners are good at abstract analytical thought and tend to be more individualistic, field-sensitive learners have a more global perception and are more sensitive and attuned to social environment, with highly developed social skills. Field-independent learners are more intrinsically motivated, whereas field-sensitive learners are more responsive to social reinforcement (Bennett, 1990).

Research suggests that learning style is related to world view that certain learning styles tend to be predominant in certain cultures (Bennett, 1990). Following Hofstede's cultural dynamics (Hofstede et al., 2010), one can expect that in cultures that score high on ‘power distance’ and low on ‘individualism’, many learners would prefer a ‘field-sensitive’ learning style, whereas in cultures with low scores on ‘power distance’ and especially with high scores on ‘individualism’, one can expect that many learners would prefer a field-independent learning style. Although there are, of course, individual differences, one would expect more ‘field-sensitive’ learners, for instance, in Asia than in Europe or North America, see Figure 3. In this figure, we see, for example, a low score on individualism for China (20) and Japan (46) and a high score for Germany (67) and USA (91).

For those technical experts that originate from cultures with dominant field-independent learning styles that train people from cultures with dominant field-sensitive learning styles, it is helpful to be aware of some field-sensitive behaviours which would help adjust training methods (after Bennett, 1990):

Field-sensitive learners:

• Like to work with others to achieve a common goal

• Like to assist others

• Are sensitive to feelings and opinions of others

• See the trainer's taste and personal experiences as leading

• Seek guidance and demonstration from a trainer

• Seek rewards which strengthen relationship with a trainer

A field-sensitive training:

• Makes purpose and main principles obvious, rules explicit

• Personalises the curriculum (related to interests and experience of learners)

• Humanises the curriculum: use of narration, humour and drama

• Encourages learning through modelling

• Encourages the cooperation and development of group feelings

• Includes informal class discussions

As a demonstration, we describe three case studies where the principles were applied either by design or by happy accident. The case studies are the reflections of the authors as the consultants implementing the capacity building activities.

The following case reflects the internal learning trajectory of one of the authors as a water specialist working on international development projects aimed at capacity building. The trajectory tracks the progress of the individual from a pure technical specialist to a ‘hydrologist as andragogist’ and how that was applied.

The author worked on a capacity building project in the Republic of Moldova for a period of 3 years (2011–2015), delivering a series of training courses for government institutions in technical matters concerning hydrology and water resources planning. They were technical topics and approached in a technical manner, structuring the activities as classroom activities followed by field or computer practicals, much as the author had been instructed at university. The experience made the author question why some learners progressed better than others. Subsequently, the author was involved in a capacity building project in Kenya for a technical university in the delivery of water-related education (2012–2016). The capacity building included the delivery of a condensed workshop, delivered by the IHE Institute for Water Education, on curricula development and pedagogical skills. Subjects that most water specialists are not exposed to. The author realised that many of the principles had, in fact, been applied in Moldova, but not consciously, and furthermore, it raised an interest in pedagogy and then eventually andragogy. Subsequently, this led to a more considered, structured and adult learning-orientated approach to capacity building in Rwanda for a government water agency (2015–2018).

The delivery of training in the Moldova project was distinctly focused on the technical topic of the project and was not learner-orientated. That is to say, the learning objectives did not utilise Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) in their formulation. Although this is a minor point it meant that inherently the ‘topic’ was the focus, whereas the focus should be on what the learners are to ‘do’. This misalignment was recognised in the Kenya project and subsequently addressed when designing capacity building curricula. The formulation of the learning objectives had to be more thoroughly discussed with the beneficiaries, to make sure the objectives matched the expectations, as well as truly represented the actual needs and more difficultly, matched the available resources. We realised that constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003) was needed, but the evaluation of the achievement of objectives remained a challenge as traditional university style exams are inappropriate and, although self-assessment has a value, it is not always objective. We found that the insertion of simple text questions (both formally and informally) into the learning trajectory to test understanding and skills attained is a useful way for the instructors to evaluate the achievement of learning objectives and adjust the trajectory accordingly. The testing of it was done by adapting Mazur's ConcepTest approach (Crouch & Mazur, 2001), originally developed and rigorously tested for evaluating the attainment of core understanding in university physics education. In the context of the capacity development in Kenya and Rwanda, they were applied as oral questions in the field or presented as classroom questions (see Figure 4). These ‘test questions’ focus on the core understanding needed to achieve the originally stated learning objective and also initiate self-assessment by the learner.

The trajectory through the three projects demonstrated that ‘active learning’ is not as simple as first thought. It's often treated as ‘learning-by-doing’, and interpreted as the simple process of ‘watch me, now you do it’, although technically ‘active’, the cognitive processes may be missing. Initially in Moldova, the ‘watch me, now you do it’ approach was used for most practical exercises. Almost immediately, it became apparent that some individuals could not critically evaluate what they were doing, nor self-identify where their mistakes were. The latter is a crucial skill in the workplace. At a certain point the learners began to discuss the problem among themselves, one individual started to go through the process they had just learned, describing it visually for their colleague, who quickly started to grasp the concept. The author initially assumed that it was simply a language barrier problem, but years later, courtesy of the Kenya project, realised that this ‘happy accident’ had been extensively documented in academic teaching practices as ‘peer-to-peer’ learning (Crouch & Mazur, 2001).

The idealised learning trajectory presented above (Russell, 2018) was a conscious effort applied in all the three projects to look at the learners as a group and as individuals, linking the learning objectives to a programme of adult-orientated active learning activities. The entirety of the curricula package was discussed with the water department to solicit feedback but also to empower them in directing their own learning. This approach led to some interesting findings. Firstly, senior government officials wished for a focus on sophisticated water modelling software, whereas the actual learners from the government departments were enthusiastic participants in a foundation course on the application MS Excel, a relatively simple but endlessly applicable software. They recognised a real value for their day-to-day jobs. This identification and delivery of training for foundation skills proved very effective and was borne out by feedback from participants.

The initial classroom and practical instruction included greater focus on skills and knowledge that the learners needed for the day-to-day jobs, and thus they themselves recognised as relevant. Opportunities were created to allow them to practise these skills, especially for field work and practical work, although much of the follow-up practice was with gradually reducing supervision. The technical consultants would return periodically to review progress and help with trouble shooting. Group discussion was encouraged, and there was a strong focus on explicitly asking the learners to reflect on their own learning, identifying how it fit with their prior knowledge and concepts and they were asked to describe what problems they encountered and how they addressed it. This was also used as opportunities to introduce ConcepTests^™ for self-assessment.

The experience from Moldova, Kenya and Rwanda demonstrated that there are strong differences between the instructor (from western Europe) and the learners (from eastern Europe and East Africa). Culture is not simply an issue of religion, ethnic or language but almost a deep unconscious learning style, created by years of experience. Moldova was very much rooted in Soviet education systems, while Rwanda and Kenya produce graduates rooted in a didactic teaching system that traditionally does not create an environment where open critical evaluation is encouraged. Instructively in all three countries, learners at different times asked ‘so is this the ‘correct’ answer?’ without evaluating what might constitute a ‘correct’ answer in the realm of water management. The author found, for example in Kenya, that senior university lecturers and vocational educationalists found concepts such as ‘learners teaching others’ alien to their current practices. Therefore, it was crucial to introduce new learning methods iteratively and in small steps. A successful approach in Kenya was during the introduction of new pedagogical methods. The learners were given a strict assignment as follows:

‘In small groups (<5 people), select one of the following scientific papers for critical evaluation. You have 1 hour to read and review the paper, formulate a presentation of no more than 3 slides and present the paper in 3 minutes. The presentation shall include the title, brief description of the research hypothesis and research question and the results and your evaluation.’ (Russell & Paron, 2015). After completing the assignment, the participants had to (1) reverse engineer our learning objectives for their assignment and (2) identify what active learning methods they employed. The results produced a large amount of productive debate on what were culturally alien approaches such as learning-by-teaching and active learning. In the space of 2 h of contact time, the learners had a good understanding of these concepts and how to apply them in practice. Whereas when these concepts were previously presented as simple bullets in a presentation they had struggled to grasp them.

This TOT, in 2019, was part of the Training and Transfer of Tools Work Package of the Joint Cooperation Programme Bangladesh – The Netherlands (JCP). Participants were trained in the core concepts of capacity development within the context of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). The 18 participants of the TOT were all employees of the Bangladeshi research institutes (CEGIS and IWM) responsible for the training of different actors in the joint research projects. The objectives of the training were to (Ottow et al., 2019):

• Provide participants with the basic tools and knowledge to design, conduct, monitor and evaluate effective training within the context of IWRM and

• Support the participants in the development of a training plan for their own project.

Based on the course objectives, the learning objectives were specified for five specific aspects: Principles of IWRM and its application to Bangladesh; Training principles; Teaching methods; Training development; Presentation. Below are the specific learning objectives for the training principles and the training development aspects.

Training principles:

• Participants understand that for effective learning, we must focus on the active behaviour of the students, not that of the teacher.

• Participants understand the concept of learning style and its importance in relation to training design; they know their own preferred learning style and the possible consequences for their selection of teaching activities.

• Participants can identify the main actors in and around their projects that need to be trained.

• Participants can identify these actors' project-related training needs.

• Participants can translate these training needs into training objectives, formulated in actor behaviour.

Training development:

• Based on the identified training needs, the available time and resources and the general context of their project(s), participants can select/identify/formulate realistic training objectives.

• Participants can identify appropriate evaluation methods for the selected objectives.

• Participants can identify appropriate teaching methods related to these objectives and evaluation methods.

• Participants know the elements of effective presentations.

• Participants can make a realistic, coherent training plan.

During the training course, the participants worked on the development of training plans for the six projects within the JCP during the different learning activities (among which a serious game) and on the last day gave mini-lessons and presented draft training plans for their respective projects. Even though the assignments and presentations were in groups (varying from three to six members), and we could not evaluate for every participant, the participants clearly had added some andragogist skills. After an introduction on the first day, the participants identified their own experiences through a YES/NO psychological survey (Kolb test) and marked themselves to find their own learning approaches/mental models (metaphors) and learning styles. This identified the suitable metaphors/learning styles for the intended training within their projects. During the activities, the participants then related the different learning methods to the different learning styles. In their presentations of the training plans, three of the six groups also included the Kolb learning styles as an important ingredient for determining the appropriate learning methods.

The self-assessment scores of the TOT showed that the participants' knowledge of teaching had ‘much increased’. The aspect of learning style was mentioned several times in the self-assessment and four participants mentioned the learning styles/cycle of Kolb as having been most helpful in achieving the objectives of the TOT.

The participants showed an understanding of the importance of constructive alignment of learning. In developing the training plans for their respective projects, the participants first identified the main actors/stakeholders in their project and their training needs, then translated these into learning objectives, then the method of evaluation and then, finally the learning activities in line with the objectives and the evaluation method. In the self-assessment, the participants stated that their skills in drafting a training plan had ‘much increased’. Some indicated that although they drafted training plans before, they now have a more systematic way to do it.

The learning trajectory is the one aspect that was paid least attention to. The six groups identified the different target groups and their training needs quite well but translated all these into learning objectives and activities for one training event per target group, mostly consisting of 3 days and not (yet) in learning trajectories. After an introductory lecture on teaching/training methods, the participants identified in groups the suitability of different teaching/learning activities for learners with different learning styles. In their plans, they intentionally considered and included active learning activities.

Besides presenting the training plans on the final day, the groups also gave a short demonstration lesson on the subject matter. All six groups did that in a lively, original and activating way: discussion in small groups; assignment in small groups; test/game and a demonstration in a movie.

In the self-assessment, the participants indicate that their knowledge of teaching had ‘much increased’, while teaching skills, and especially the awareness of the need for it, had on average also ‘much increased’. Some participants indicated that they needed more practice, indicating the value of a ‘learning trajectory’ over one-off training.

In the design and delivery of the TOT itself, we tried to include many different types of learning activities that would cater to different learning styles and certainly also to field-sensitive learners. There were interactive lectures, group assignments, presentations, tests, a serious game and the assignments to design a lesson plan and design and deliver an interactive learning activity.

Even if in 4 days the participants did not learn all the necessary insights and skills about learning and teaching for effective training courses, we do believe that this relatively short training of trainers gave a big boost to their understanding of the necessity to apply good learning theory and gave them ideas and already a little practice on how to apply those.

Deltares, as a knowledge institute for water and sub-surface, has always implemented internal training courses. Sessions are typically from 4 pm till 8 pm and when these courses started years ago, pizza was ordered and delivered for the participants. The intention of the courses is to train other colleagues in new water management software and techniques, thus ensuring that the organisation is abreast of the latest developments in the subject. Participation is mainly in staff member's own time and thus completely based on their intrinsic motivation and daily job needs, thus linking back to Knowles' principles of adult learning (Knowles, 1980).

Deltares is also required to share this knowledge and skills with external water agencies both in the Netherlands and internationally. So often, these internal courses form the basis of capacity strengthening activities for other organisations. Given the demand for such courses, technical specialists expressed interest in improving training methods, and thus the authors have regularly advised on the design and delivery of training courses organised by technical colleagues for international projects. Based on the remarks we received from those technical colleagues (i.e. ‘more people should know this’), we initiated pizza courses on ‘effective design of training courses in international projects’. That is effectively ‘training the trainers’ but also addressing an organisational need for more water specialists acting as andragogists.

Since 2014, we organised four pizza courses on effective training design, with an average number of 15 participants. Most of these pizza courses consisted of two sessions of 4 h each. In the first sessions, most of the educational principles were presented, tests (Kolb learning style) and short small group exercises done. In between the two sessions, the participants designed their own training programme, either individually or in duos. These were presented and discussed in the second session, in which also the cross-cultural aspects were introduced.

In the pizza courses, the main emphasis was on good learning theory and the application of it in the training courses. The participants were challenged to design an effective curriculum for their anticipated training courses and thus to think clearly about training needs (what their students should be able to do after the training, building on their existing knowledge and skills), learning styles, learning objectives and appropriately aligned learning activities. This included theory and tests on learning styles (such as Kolb below) to become aware of one's own preferred learning style and of the existence of different ones and the implications of it for learning/teaching activities.

Figure 5 shows the outcome of a Kolb learning style self-assessment. At the top of each ‘kite’, the score for ‘activist’ learning style is, at the right: ‘thinker’, at the bottom: ‘theorist’ and at the left: ‘pragmatist’. The index refers to the number of questions answered in one of the four categories. These four ‘kites’ show the different preferred learning styles of these four people: the top-left ‘kite’ shows a preference for ‘pragmatist’, the top right one for ‘activist’, the bottom right one for ‘thinker’ and the bottom left one for ‘theorist’. The application of this kind of test at the very preliminary stage of a capacity building project would help inform a more appropriate training programme.

The main focus in the discussion of the participants' training plans was on the consistency between overall purpose, learning objectives, learning activities and evaluation. Although we did mention the importance of active learning methods, especially for certain types of learning styles, we did not spend time to practise or discuss in depth. In most cases, our colleagues had a single training event as case, not a whole learning trajectory. By discussing the different target groups, their characteristics and their training need; however, we did touch on the necessity to look at the trajectory as a whole.

Besides the learning styles theory and test, we also presented theories on cultural differences, with a cultural values test (see Figure 6) to make participants more aware of the potential cultural differences in their trainees. Results shown are for a person characterised as more ‘event-orientated’ than ‘time-orientated’ (Figure 6, top left), more ‘person-orientated’ than ‘task-orientated’ (Figure 6, top right), more ‘holistic thinking’ than ‘dichotomistic thinking’ (Figure 6, bottom left) and more ‘achievement-focused’ than ‘status-focused’ (Figure 6, bottom right). As a group we discussed the implications that this could have for capacity development. What does it mean for your capacity development activity, for instance, when your learners are more event-orientated than time-orientated? Or more person-orientated than task-orientated? One can expect that they will less respect deadlines for a given assignment and that the relationship between learners and trainer becomes very important. Also, what does it mean for your learning activity if you as the trainer have the opposite values?

Although the degree in which the insight and skills were obtained differs per participant, and we have not systematically evaluated the transfer after the pizza courses, we could see from the results of the assignments that the approximately 60 colleagues had applied improved andragogical skills.

In our own practice and in the experiences we obtained in training technical experts as trainers, we found that it is possible in a relatively short time to help them realise the importance of andragogical principles and to apply those to their technical training activities (Ottow et al., 2019). We also found that once the attention and time is there, they are tremendously creative in developing appropriate, active, learning activities. Yet there remain profound challenges that are not necessarily remedied by the application of adult learning practices. Nor are they possible for capacity building consultants to directly resolve. These include the often very short timeframes for capacity development under international development projects. Additionally, water institutions in developing countries still have limited resources and are thus losing well-qualified (even newly trained) staff to the private sector.

There are challenges that can be influenced, and therefore we encourage the international donors, who formulate capacity development projects to recognise the importance of adult learning theory and (cultural) differences in learning styles when formulating project terms of reference, and that the scoring of proposals rewards better approaches, such as those outlined here.

A further challenge is the rigorous assessment of the approaches described in this paper. The authors acknowledge that the anecdotal evidence presented here needs to be substantiated through further research. Such research, the authors argue, should focus on actual capacity building projects for water agencies, with a carefully considered monitoring and evaluation framework. Although the monitoring and evaluation of capacity development remains a well-documented challenge in itself (World Bank, 2008; Watson, 2010; Vallejo & Wehn, 2016), there is a wealth of knowledge on approaches to appropriately assess the achievement of capacity development objectives. Furthermore, the authors recognise that they were not impartial observers of the process but active participants; therefore, rigorous assessment needs a more independent perspective.

The authors recognise that the approaches they applied are not necessarily the most complete suite of learning approaches. There are other adult learning approaches such as micro-learning. Leong et al. (2020) presents micro-learning as a growing approach with the following key benefits: better retention of concepts, better engagement for learners, improving learners' motivation, engaging in collaborative learning and improving learning ability and performance. Micro-learning is also presented as a suitable means for continuous professional development within organisations via e-learning platforms (Buchem & Hamelmann, 2010). Given both the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, capacity development is changing rapidly and the combined micro-learning/e-learning approach may become a widely applied adult learning approach for the modern time/attention poor work environment. This has the added advantage of the learning material being available to the organisation long after a capacity development project has ended. This may present the new frontier in the adult learning/capacity development paradigm.

In conclusion, the principles applied in the three case studies point to a way forward in capacity development, connecting the worlds of learning theory and consultant water specialists. Although there remain many challenges, the authors pose the following:

• 1.

  That those responsible for the preparation of capacity development projects for water management institutes in developing countries create terms of reference with realistic objectives.

• 2.

  That capacity development projects for water management institutes monitor achievement of learning objectives through constructively aligned indicators.

• 3.

  That the same experimental research rigour is applied to capacity development and achievement of learning objectives, as it is for university education and adult learning methods.

• 4.

  That institutions that are active in developing technical capacity stimulate their technical staff to develop their andragogical skills.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.