This document summarizes the results of a needs analysis conducted as part of a project to develop flexible pathways for professional development in higher education. The analysis found that while many staff engage in informal, unstructured professional development activities like collaborating with peers, fewer participate in formal, accredited programs. Barriers to participation included lack of relevance, work commitments, and issues with location or employment terms. Motivators included recognition of informal learning, allocation of time, and valuing of professional development by the institution. Based on the needs analysis, the project team will conduct interviews and design workshops to inform the development of flexible, online/blended professional development opportunities that can be formally recognized.

1. A new frontier for
professional development:
developing flexible
pathways to recognition
for those who teach in
Higher Education
Dr Laura Costelloe
Dr Ide O’Sullivan

2. (National Forum, 2016)

3. National Professional Development Framework
(National Forum, 2016)

4. (National Forum, 2016)

5. What we did
Inter-institutional Collaboration (UL, MIC, LIT)
• Thematic analysis of data from the survey of programme participants produced and considered
• Collaborative module leaders (two from each institution) for TL5003 identified in light of the
relevant themes
• Students as partners approach in the identification of contemporary issues
RPL Guidelines Development
• Comprehensive scoping activity resulting in a draft of guidelines for consideration in such a
programme (review national policy, international practice)
• RPL onto the programme relates to identifying opportunity to approve an exemption based on
credit transfer
• RPEL to be scoped out in light of institutional , national and international practice in light of
governance of policy, appeals and professional judgement in advance of developing guidelines.
Shared Module Development, Delivery & Assessment
• TL5003 reviewed in light of pilot and participant feedback – redesign of content, delivery and
assessment aligning with the NPDF.
• Module leaders from each partner to worked collaboratively on module content development and
assessment structure using the NPDF as the lens for the module.
• Students as partners approach
• Academic identity
• Student engagement and retention
• Inclusivity

6. Extend PD and RPEL
through the design of
a unique flexible
pathways approach to
embed the NPDF in
Irish HE, IoT and
College contexts.
Design flexible
learning pathways for
all teaching staff that
will have applicability,
portability and
transferability at
national level.

7. Peer Partnerships
in T&L
Show and TEL Regional Writing Centre

8. STAGE 1 Needs
Analysis
STAGE 2
Review other
models & RPEL
Guidelines
STAGE 3
Increasing
accessibility of the
provision
STAGE 4
Developing a
mainstreaming
model
Institutional
needs analysis
Review intl models
Align needs with
informal learning
and RPEL
Incorporation of
non-formal
accredited flexible
pathways.
Online/blended
provision
Scalability to level
10
Evaluation &
National
Roadshows
How are we doing it?

9. Where we are…
Conducted a survey
Conducting interviews
with staff from all three
institutions (n=37)
Completed a desk review
of literature and practice
of flexible approaches to
professional
development;
Completed an
institutional analysis of
regulations and
procedures with regard
to RP(E)L and the
accumulation of credits
Engaged in a brainstorming and design
workshop with Dr Chrissi Nerantzi (Principal
Lecturer – Academic CPD, MMU), who also
hosted an open webinar on flexible PD

10. WP 1.1 Institutional Needs Analysis
• Profile of respondents
Institutes (n=366)
MIC 16.4%
UL 34.7%
LIT 49%
Role
Lecturer 47%
Senior Lecturer 10.7%
Prof services 9%
PT lecturer 7%
Discipline
Education 18%
Arts 16%
Business & admin 12%
ICT 9%
Length of service
>15 years 33%
0-3 Years 18%
12-15 years 17%

11. Engagement in PD
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Attend 'Conversations in the Consortium'
Delivered at 'Conversations in the Consortium'
Attend 'Lunch and Learn'
Delivered at 'Lunch and Learn'
Attend 'Show and TEL'
Facilitate/organised PD for staff
Share practice at 'Show and TEL'
Attended staff development days
Completed digital badge
Completed formal accredited programme in HE t&L
Blog
Engaged in Peer Observation
Completed teaching portfolio
Collaborated with peers on a T&L project
Count of Engaged in SETS
Experimental
Attended a NF SS
Which of the following PD activities have you engaged in? (n=185)
IOT Small College University Average
55% of staff had engaged in T&L PD events hosted by the SC

12. Engagement in Professional Development
(types of activities, n=185)
49
41 39
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Engaged in SET Engaged in POT Collaborated
with peers on a
T&L initiative
Collaborative, non-accredited
(informal)
42
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Experimental (trying out
new ways of teaching)
Completed a teaching
portfolio
Unstructured, non-accredited
(non-formal)

13. Engagement in Professional Development
(types of activities, n=185)
62
48
38
35
22
15
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Attended
'Conversations in the
Consortium'
Attended National
Forum Seminar
Facilitated/organised
PD for staff
Attended 'Lunch and
Learn'
Delivered 'Conversation
in the Consortium'
Attended 'Show & TEL' Completed a digital
badge
Structured Non-Accredited (non formal)

14. PD Barriers
0.00%
0.00%
2.56%
0.68%
18.39%
21.05%
15.38%
17.81%
44.83%
47.37%
48.72%
45.89%
18.39%
15.79%
10.26%
15.75%
18.39%
15.79%
23.08%
19.18%
IOT Small College University Average
n=142
No benefit to PD Difficult to ID PD relevant to my needs
Work commitments PD not relevant to my needs
Other (please specify)

16. Over 19% of responded cited ‘other’ barriers as a problem, these
included:
• Location of events – Particularly those with distributed campus’ (7 participants). For example
one participant felt that
‘Working at, and living near, a remote campus I feel the effort involved in attending is not
worth it. There have been one or two sessions that are of interest to me but it's a whole day
out to attend what might be just a 1-2 hr session. I simply feel I can't "afford" that time given
other work commitments. There was one online offering in "online learning" but the proposed
content was something I felt I was already very familiar with.’
• Terms of employment – those on short term contracts or in casual employment felt they did
not qualify for professional development or they did not have the time (3 participants). For
example one participant stated that
‘I am a new part-time member of staff and due to exterior engagements I am sometimes
committed and unable [on short notice] to map-out the feasibility of attending such activities’.
Other Barriers

17. PD Motivators

18. Staff were could also enter ‘other’ motivators the main motivators
cited (in addition to the above) were:
• If time was allocated for professional development within their
institute (7) One participant highlighted the importance of taking
account of PD in workload allocation ‘Support from my institution
(e.g., department) through time allocation (taking time spend on
CPD activities taken into account in teaching load)’
• If it was valued by the organisation (3) for example ‘More time! Or
placing an emphasis on this within our institution - that it is part of
our work rather than something extra that we 'choose' to do’
Other Motivators

19. 4.26
4.67
3.52
3.31
2.49
3.47
3.68
4.12
3.34
4.25
2.61
3.87
3.68
4.40
3.51
3.26
2.99
3.75
3.88
4.40
3.46
3.61
2.70
3.69
PARTICIPATING IN
ONLINE/BL PROGRAMME
TAKING ONLINE/BL
MODULES
FORMAL RECOGNITION OF
INFORMAL PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
COUNT OF BEING PART OF
AN INFORMAL
COMMUNITY OF
PRACTICE (COP) IN
TEACHING AND LEARNING
DEVELOPING A
PORTFOLIO ON MY
TEACHING
VISITING OTHER HIGHER
EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS
REGARDING THEIR HE
TEACHING PRACTICES E.G.
ERASMUS +
PREFERRED MODE OF PD/INSTITUTE
N=238
IOT
Small College
University
Average
PD Preferences

20. WP 1.2 Interviews with Key Stakeholders

21. Project Team
Brainstorming
and Design
Workshop using
OOFAT Model
(Orr, Weller,
Farrow, 2018)

22. Where are we going from here?
Over to you…..
• What works and why in your institution?
• How can we recognise and reward those who engage in
professional development activities?
• How can we recognise and accredit informal/non-accredited PD
previously undertaken?
• How can we utilise flexible and online delivery modes to engage
academic staff in professional development opportunities?
• Evidencing practice; are portfolios the best way?
Please share any insights, examples or relevant resources to our
Padlet:
https://tinyurl.com/ye6fpbpl

23. Thank you
Laura.Costelloe@mic.ul.ie
@Lostelloe
Ide.Osullivan@ul.ie
@ideosullivan