An adult person is defined as someone who is financially independent and responsible for their personal life (Chang, 2025). Teaching and learning activities aimed at them are called adult education, which includes various forms of learning and educational initiatives (basic education, training, continuing education, etc.) as well as approaches (professional, recreational, or informational) (Chang, 2025). In adult education and training for professional development, trainers from diverse fields teach content in their respective areas and facilitate training across different sectors. The scope covers any sector offering adult education and training activities, including companies, public, and private institutions (Chang, 2025). This type of adult education, which sometimes aligns with a broader lifespan approach, highlights the generally low participation rates of adults, especially vulnerable and marginalized groups who face various barriers (Belete et al., 2022). In practice, it often reduces education to international economic competition and labor market needs. This instrumental view has been criticized as narrow and driven by neoliberal discourses and practices (Duke, 2015).

In Africa, obtaining certificates does not necessarily reflect genuine commitment or interest and can give a false sense of security regarding the real impact of educational efforts. It is recommended that professional development should not only provide educational opportunities but also foster authentic interest and relevance to practitioners’ work for meaningful growth (Ndlovu et al., 2025). In Asia, some institutions view learning and community as an ongoing process where each person’s self is continually regenerated in relation to others, which promotes collaboration to build a new community (Duke, 2015). In Latin America, adult education discussions focus on processes involving observing, interacting, and engaging with others through social activities, highlighting daily events and emphasizing that teaching should consider characteristics like being self-directed, experiential, and transformative (Barrantes-Elizondo, 2022). Regardless of this or new approaches (whether spirituality, narrative, critical theory, postmodernism, feminist perspectives, or non-Western traditions), these frameworks recognize the complexities of adult identities and social contexts (Barrantes-Elizondo, 2022).

For organizations to remain competitive and relevant in today’s fast-paced society, employees rely on formal Continuing Education (CE) (Laal et al., 2014; Kaplan, 2016). Our Institution, a Mexican private university, offers various formal postgraduate CE options and recognizes adult learners who complete them by issuing certificates. It also offers workshops to facilitators (teachers) and course coordinators to develop skills in andragogy (this is an understanding of how and why adults learn).

One key workshop certifies facilitators in the INSPIRA andragogical model, implemented in 2016. The model is designed to foster long-term learning and professional impact, guided by the following core elements:

This model was designed to incorporate Marzano’s educational taxonomy (Marzano and Kendall, 2007), Knowles’ theory of self-directed learning (Knowles et al., 2020), the Kirkpatrick evaluation model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016), and results from research on neuroscience (Andreatta, 2019). Unlike these models, INSPIRA emphasizes practical application in the workplace, learner motivation, and the evaluation of job performance improvements. Its strength lies in contextualizing the social component in Latin America, including diagnosis of expectations, training practice-oriented modules (micro-modules), practical application in class (experiential phase and resources for practice), cases applied at work as challenges, pre- and post-feedback and evaluation, follow-up (continuous support), and mentoring.

Despite the implementation of the INSPIRA model by plenty of facilitators in Latin America, the effectiveness of the workshop has not been formally evaluated. Few studies have assessed facilitator education programs (instructors/trainers from diverse fields teaching content in their respective areas), their long-term impacts, and effectiveness (Finsterwald et al., 2013; Balwant, 2020). This gap underscores the need for comprehensive, context-sensitive evaluations that bridge the gap between theory and practice (Dixon et al., 2005).

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the INSPIRA workshops for facilitators and identify areas for improvement based on facilitator perceptions. Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

Addressing these objectives can provide insights to enhance professional development models for facilitators in CE.

Competency development is essential in professional training, aiming to effectively enhance teaching practices (Finsterwald et al., 2013). Facilitator training programs grounded in solid theoretical frameworks and evaluated using evidence-based criteria have a significant impact on the effectiveness of adult education (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Moreover, evaluating facilitator preparedness (through surveys, focus groups, and interviews) helps ensure competence. This is especially important in the rapidly growing adult-oriented online education contexts where facilitator preparedness is often insufficient (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Donavant, 2009; Florea, 2014). These considerations directly relate to the INSPIRA model’s goal of enhancing facilitator competencies for improved teaching effectiveness.

From a job satisfaction perspective, employees who experience a sense of insignificance in their roles may become demotivated and dissatisfied (Scholten et al., 2022). Lencioni’s theory (2007) suggests that factors such as job satisfaction, motivation, and career development positively influence employee performance, whereas anonymity, irrelevance, and lack of measurement contribute to job dissatisfaction. Facilitator training addressing these factors can enhance employee engagement and reduce turnover, particularly in continuing education contexts (Safrit and Owen, 2010; Maity, 2019). Thus, evaluating job satisfaction through the INSPIRA model provides insights into facilitators’ professional motivation and engagement with the Institution.

This study followed a mixed-methods, empirical, and exploratory design. The approach aligns with naturalistic inquiry, emphasizing contextual and subjective insights from participants (Athens, 2010; Neuman, 1989). The research flow summary is illustrated in Figure 1.

A convenience sample from a single institution was selected due to ease of access and available time constraints. The total population consisted of 536 facilitators who had completed the INSPIRA workshop by April 2023. An anonymized dataset was extracted from institutional records showing facilitators’ teaching evaluations before and after the workshop. Of this group, 158 facilitators completed an online survey anonymously, and 16 accepted to participate in one of two focus groups (N₁ = 9, N₂ = 7). The demographic breakdown of survey and focus group participants is shown in Tables 1, 2.

A researcher-designed, five-part survey was administered using Google Forms over 3 weeks in April 2023 (see the Supplementary Material). It contained eight questions, combining Likert scale items, multiple choice, and one open-ended question. The five sections covered: (1) demographics; (2) perceptions of INSPIRA’s impact using a 12-item Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); (3) multiple-choice questions aligned with INSPIRA objectives and job satisfaction elements (Lencioni, 2007); (4) institutional impact based on a 4-item Likert scale (Scholten et al., 2022); and (5) an open-ended comment section.

All facilitators trained in INSPIRA were contacted via institutional e-mail with the invitation to participate in the survey, which contained a consent form. This consent form explained that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and without consequences for non-participation.

In the same e-mail, facilitators were also invited to participate in virtual focus groups. Two groups, comprising a total of 16 participants who agreed to participate, were formed and conducted based on availability. Sessions were conducted on Zoom and lasted approximately 1 h. Sessions included guided questions about INSPIRA’s impact on teaching practices, learning design, emotional connection, and perceived organizational support (Supplementary Material). Questions were adapted or rotated if redundancy and saturation of responses occurred. Discussions were recorded, transcribed in Spanish, anonymized, and translated into English for analysis.

Descriptive statistics and inferential tests were conducted using Excel and Jamovi. A Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess normality. Paired-sample t-tests were used to compare facilitators’ teaching evaluations before and after the workshop. ANOVA and Pearson correlations were used to explore the relationships between survey responses and demographic variables. Thematic analysis was applied to the open-ended survey responses and focus group transcripts, following the guidelines of Hennink et al. (2019). Manual codification involved three progressive rounds by two independent reviewers to ensure inter-coder reliability.

Informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality were upheld throughout the study. Participants could withdraw at any time without consequence. The study was reviewed and supported by the Vice Presidency for Lifelong Learning and Future Education.

Evaluation data from CE learners demonstrated a notable improvement in facilitators’ performance following attendance at the INSPIRA workshop. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, only 43.66% of facilitators received evaluations above nine before INSPIRA, but this number nearly doubled to 80.78% after the workshop.

Given the non-normal distribution (W = 0.915, p < 0.001), the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test confirmed a significant difference in evaluations (Kerby, 2014) with a significant effect size (Tak and Ercan, 2023). These findings (Table 4) suggest that the workshop had not only a statistically significant effect but also a practically meaningful impact on facilitator performance.

Of the 536 facilitators invited, 158 responded, yielding a response rate of 29.8%. Figure 3 illustrates the diverse backgrounds of respondents, including consultancy, education, and organizational fields, with the majority teaching in two of the four programs. Only 27% of teachers taught across all four delivery formats.

In response to question 6, facilitators selected 3–4 positive impacts of INSPIRA on average (35%). Figure 4 shows that over 60% agreed that INSPIRA improved content clarity, dynamism, and relevance. Fewer respondents (below 50%) felt it improved their domain expertise or learners’ satisfaction. Approximately 65% agreed that INSPIRA enhanced the relevance of their work, but only 30% felt it increased their visibility or income.

Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.9729), confirming the reliability of Likert scale responses. As shown in Figure 5 and Table 5, the highest-rated items included session design, facilitator training, and perceptions of institutional support. Lower-rated items included NPS improvement and commitment to work.

Regarding the correlation with demographics, a Pearson correlation analysis (see Table A1) revealed limited relationships between the survey items and demographics. However, significant associations were found for facilitators teaching real-time virtual classes (VC). A Kruskal-Wallis test (W = 0.755, p < 0.001) revealed that facilitators with 31–100% VC teaching reported stronger perceptions of institutional support (p ≤ 0.05; Table 6), with a small to medium effect size (Saha and Paul, 2023). Figure A1 shows the dispersion of answers to the Likert scale, comparing the answers of three groups of facilitators who teach in VC, 0–10% of their time (N = 72); 11–30% of their time (N = 41); 31–100% of their teaching time (N = 45), over their perception regarding work commitment, institutional support and confidence in the institution.

The open-ended question “Please provide any additional comments about the INSPIRA workshop” was answered only by 95 facilitators. The top ten codes highlight key themes identified by participants: “Congratulations” (N = 13), followed by “Certification” (N = 9) and “Actualization” and “Unconformity” (N = 7 each). Other common themes included “Technology,” “Flexibility,” “Content,” and “Length” (N = 6 each), while “Accompaniment” and “Relevance” were mentioned less frequently (N = 4 each). These responses reflect a mix of positive feedback and constructive criticism regarding the training experience. Common themes included clarity, structure, and the need for customization. Suggestions included more flexibility, content updates, impact measurement, and technology support.

Themes for the Focus Group were categorized into three domains: Andragogy, Technology, and Stakeholders (see Table 7). The top codes included active learning, teaching strategies, feedback, and learner profiles. A 75% saturation rate was achieved in the first group, approaching the recommended 80% for small samples (Hennink et al., 2019).

Participants highlighted several strengths of the INSPIRA model, particularly its structured approach and its impact on both facilitators and learners. One facilitator noted:

Others emphasized the value of relevant and andragogically sound content, as reflected in the comment:

Increased learner engagement was also mentioned:

In addition, the importance of content mastery and delivery style was underscored:

At the same time, facilitators identified areas for improvement. Some expressed concern about the misalignment between participant needs and organizational expectations, stating:

Others highlighted the need for better customer service throughout the training process:

Finally, the potential of using perceptual learning assessments was mentioned to improve instructional design:

These reflections underscore both the positive outcomes of the INSPIRA model and the need for ongoing adaptation to enhance its effectiveness.

Figure 6 shows a summary of the results of this study.

The INSPIRA model shows promise in enhancing facilitators’ teaching competencies, as evidenced by the statistically significant improvement in facilitator evaluations following the workshop. The quantitative results indicated clear gains in learners’ perceptions, especially in content clarity, dynamism, and applicability. These align with qualitative insights from the focus groups and open-ended survey responses, in which facilitators emphasized improved structure, session design, and emotional connection with learners. As some facilitators indicated:

Facilitators reported benefits across various domains, including active learning, engagement strategies, and technology use. However, they also identified shortcomings in applying the final steps of the INSPIRA model, particularly in “Real Challenges” and “Advice.” This limitation may stem from the short duration of CE courses or varying organizational contexts. Other studies have similarly emphasized the importance of tailoring content to the specific needs of adult learners and organizations (Galehdar et al., 2020).

Survey data indicated that facilitators teaching in fully virtual (VC) environments found INSPIRA especially valuable. This was reinforced by focus group comments describing increased participant engagement and relevance of course design in online settings. Thus, INSPIRA’s model appears well-suited to address the complexities of online adult education (Mott, 2009).

It is important to highlight that in the job satisfaction sphere, we only used four items on the Likert scale, not based on works that had covered this dimension (i.e., Spector, 2022; University of Minnesota, 2025). However, some facilitators acknowledge how they feel to be part of something big after being trained in the INSPIRA model:

What are the indicators of INSPIRA’s effectiveness and opportunity areas? The primary indicator of INSPIRA’s effectiveness was the statistically significant increase in facilitators’ teaching evaluations following completion of the workshop. This was supported by improvements in content clarity, relevance, and teaching dynamism. Opportunity areas included the limited application of the final steps of the model, due to time constraints, organizational diversity, and a lack of contextual data. Facilitators also expressed a need for updated content and more flexibility in the model’s design.

Unlike traditional training program evaluations that often exclude the perspectives of those implementing instruction, this research centers on the lived experience of facilitators and is analyzed from the practitioners’ perspective (de Jong and Emmelkamp, 2000). The findings suggest that institutions aiming to improve facilitator effectiveness, especially in adult and continuing education, may adopt training models that integrate neuroscience, andragogy, and practical applications, such as INSPIRA. Emphasizing emotional connection, structured learning cycles, and relevance to learners’ real-world challenges appears to benefit facilitator performance significantly.

To improve implementation, institutions could consider offering differentiated versions of the INSPIRA workshop tailored to specific program modalities (e.g., in-person, virtual) and content types. Further, integrating learner profile assessments at the course design stage may enhance the applicability of INSPIRA’s final stages. Formal certification mechanisms and ongoing support would also incentivize facilitator engagement, aligning with recommendations in recent literature (Yaqub et al., 2021; Via et al., 2019; Mott, 2009).

This work can serve as a brief communication of possible benefits of the INSPIRA workshop for facilitators, but requires replication with larger samples to generalize the benefits. Thus, the conclusions of this study must be interpreted in light of the following methodological limitations. First, the small size and uneven participation in focus groups (16 participants total) may not capture the full diversity of experiences. Additionally, the absence of longitudinal follow-up restricts insight into the workshop’s long-term effects on teaching performance and learner outcomes. Future studies should incorporate longitudinal designs to assess the retention and transfer of competencies over time. Another limitation is that the reliance on self-reported data introduces the risk of social desirability bias, and this work is also subject to the no-response bias.

Some areas of social sciences struggle to achieve adequate response rates for participating in studies. Most have a response % of 10 to 35%, while others, such as Organizational Research or Entrepreneurship, have percentages of 48% or 39%, respectively (Scheaf et al., 2023). Nonresponse bias limits the generalizability of results and biases relationships among variables. Factors linked to nonresponse may be falsely correlated with key variables, leading to inaccurate estimates of means or correlations (Scheaf et al., 2023).

In our work, we had a response % of 29.48%. Some reasons that may have contributed to this are an inadequate perception of the study, a lack of time or access to technology to complete the survey online, and an incorrect mailing address, among others. Using Slovin’s formula (Adhikari, 2021), with this percentage, it is estimated that with a 95% confidence level, the margin of error of the results can vary ±7%, which increases to ±9% if we use a 99% confidence level.

Although for standardized mean differences in the answers between groups, the nonresponse bias does not affect so much (Scheaf et al., 2023), in our case, we propose to do cross-sectional studies with a larger population, in which it is possible to measure the aspects that were relevant in this explorative study, which are the organizational factors of commitment, support and confidence. Additionally, the factor of time elapsed since the facilitator’s training in the INSPIRA model should be considered in future work to ensure internal validity.

On the other hand, in the case of social desirability bias, participants in focus groups might feel pressured to respond positively, especially in interviewer-led studies where social desirability demands are more evident (Oceno, 2025). Consequently, and as we based our work on a single institution (without controlling other institutional factors, i.e., taking other training or getting more experience), our following studies will employ a survey approach that operationalizes the qualitative findings of this study and covers other regions in Latin America to strengthen external validity. A strategy using randomized incentives could potentially be employed (Dutz et al., 2021).

As higher education systems adapt to the demands of LLL, green and digital transitions (UNESCO, 2023), initiatives like INSPIRA offer a valuable model for enhancing facilitator effectiveness. Looking forward, integrating artificial intelligence, adaptive learning tools, and participant feedback loops will be essential to maintaining the model’s relevance and reach across national and Latin American contexts.