Educating the Educators: Initial Findings from a University CPD in Hungary

Abstract

Improving the quality of higher education (HE) is a global priority as universities strive to equip graduates with skills necessary for today’s dynamic world. Well-trained educators are key to fostering these skills and can best develop them by adopting active learning approaches that deepen student understanding. Educator training is thus vital. In 2022 Széchenyi István University (Hungary), launched a four-year Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme to upskill its academic staff. Given the traditional teaching culture in Hungarian HE, the CPD helps teachers adopt active learning practices to better prepare students for today’s world. This study explores the impact CPD has had on teaching practices thus far. Using a mixed-methods design, data were collected through questionnaires completed by 97 teachers (13% of staff) in 2022–2023 and follow-up group interviews with 13 teachers in 2025. Findings indicate that the CPD initiative has fostered professional growth to a certain extent, with teachers selectively experimenting with new methods, enhanced teacher motivation and increased student engagement. However thus far, systemic pedagogical change is limited, constrained by cultural and institutional barriers. The study highlights the importance of institutional support to achieve widespread pedagogical change in Hungarian higher education.

1. Introduction

Our world today faces a range of economic, social and environmental challenges that create a need for a workforce that is able to respond effectively. Higher education (HE) is increasingly recognised as playing a key role in preparing such a workforce. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in the Rome Communiqué (EHEA, 2020) outlined its 2030 vision for European HE, calling for universities to move from simply transmitting knowledge to actively facilitating learning. Teaching should be student-centred, innovative and inclusive, and students equipped with knowledge (e.g., digital knowledge), skills (e.g., critical thinking), competencies (e.g., intercultural competence) and attitudes (enterprising mind-sets) are more able to overcome global challenges.

Well-trained teachers are central to this vision. The Rome Communiqué emphasises the need for European universities to invest in teachers’ professional development to enable them to use innovative teaching practices critical to effective learning. This is supported by Gibbs and Coffey’s (2004) study across eight countries and twenty universities which concluded that teachers who completed training courses were more likely to adopt new teaching approaches than those who did not.

1.1. Continuous Professional Development

Continuous professional development (CPD) plays an important role in the upskilling of teachers (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). CPD involves the ongoing development of educators who after initial training are helped to stay up-to-date with teaching methods, with their subject knowledge and with current educational standards, expectations and guidelines (Dayagbil & Alda, 2024). CPD programmes are diverse and can include workshops, online modules, hybrid courses, mentoring schemes, and informal peer learning, among other elements (Sánchez-Tarazaga et al., 2022). CPD is well-established in English-speaking countries such as Canada, the UK, and the USA but less so in Europe (Fabriz et al., 2021). However, the Bologna Process in 2006, and the ensuing harmonisation of European HE has increased CPD initiatives in European HE, with many institutions now providing some form of training for their teaching staff (Zhang, 2025).

The benefits of CPD are well-documented. Teachers learn to, rather than simply imparting knowledge, adopt active learning approaches creating opportunities that foster communication and collaboration thus enabling learning to occur (Carwile, 2007). They learn to use student-centred methods that deepen and enhance student understanding, developing the critical thinking and problem solving skills essential in today’s world (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). Teacher flexibility increases so teachers can respond more easily to changing environments in and outside universities (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010). CPD positively influences teacher self-image (Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008), self-efficacy and perceptions of their professional knowledge (Fabriz et al., 2021) contributing to improved student satisfaction (Trigwell et al., 2012). It is important to note that successful CPD programmes tend to be more effective when they are lengthy rather than standalone workshops (Teräs, 2016). In addition, mentoring programmes are an increasingly popular CPD approach for beginner university teachers at the moment (Sánchez-Tarazaga et al., 2022), conceivably because mentors can provide more personalised support than that available on more structured training programmes.

We should, however, be discerning when to consider such benefits. Evidence on the lasting impact of CPD on teaching practice and student outcomes is limited. For example, Fabriz et al. (2021) found that a CPD programme in Germany improved teaching self-efficacy and teachers’ subject knowledge, but the long-term benefits on teaching or student learning were not explored. Likewise, Zwolińska-Glądys et al. (2024) reported positive feedback from an international CPD programme in Poland (on teaching methodology, project management, and academic English) but failed to assess the broader impact. Even when longer-term effects are considered, results may be inconclusive. Fernandes et al. (2023) evaluated a one-year CPD programme for 36 Portuguese teachers, and, while immediate post-course questionnaire feedback indicated high satisfaction (80–90%), six months later, a follow-up questionnaire showed minimal implementation of CPD content (20–30%).

1.2. CPD in Hungary

The teaching culture in Hungarian HE is still rather traditional. The predominant teaching approach is information transmission (OECD/European Union, 2017; Eurydice, 2022) where the teacher as expert imparts theoretical knowledge, which students somehow absorb and report back through summative assessment. This approach ‘leaves little space for experiential pedagogy, knowledge application and problem solving’ (OECD/European Union, 2017, p. 22; Horváth, 2021), implying that it is not conducive for the development of quality education as characterised in the Rome Communiqué (EHEA, 2020).

Professional development for university teachers has historically not been a priority in Hungary. Certified teaching qualifications or professional development for academic status is not required (Kálmán, 2018). Most HE educators are subject experts but lack formal pedagogical training in the skills to transform that expertise into effective teaching, something that conceivably contributes to the persistence of traditional lecture-based teaching methods. This gap highlights the importance of Shulman’s (1987) Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), the blend of subject expertise with pedagogical strategies to make subject matter understandable for students. For example, instead of lecturing about traffic flow theory, a transport engineering teacher might guide students to analyse local traffic data, build a flow–speed–density diagram to work out the theory for themselves. However this ‘know how’ is often missing. In Hungary, developing PCK through CPD is therefore essential for bridging the gap between content knowledge and classroom practice.

There is a growing commitment to enhancing educational quality in Hungarian HE. The number of CPD programmes at Hungarian HE institutions has drastically increased since 2010 (Fazekas et al., 2021; Dringó-Horváth, 2024). Also, the Hungarian Rectors’ Conference (the leading association of university leaders) has recently set up a working group to investigate methodological innovation in higher education institutions (Dringó-Horváth, 2024).

1.3. CPD at Széchenyi István University (SZE)

Building on these broader European trends, Széchenyi István University (SZE) has also launched a four-year CDP programme aimed at upskilling the university’s teachers. The CPD started in September 2022, will end in 2026, and is open to the 774 teachers employed in the university’s 9 faculties (agriculture, arts, economics, engineering, health, humanities, IT, law, and education). The teachers generally lack any formal training in methodology. The main aim is to encourage teachers to adopt practices that are active and student-centred and involve digital skills and pedagogical methods compatible with quality education. This CPD initiative is timely as it aligns with one of SZE’s current strategic goals of enhancing the university’s global visibility through participation in World University Rankings where a commitment to quality education is crucial and operationalized in rankings (Széchenyi István University, 2021). It is also hoped that by addressing quality education, the high student dropout rates of 35–50% in some disciplines (Kulcsár, 2021), will fall.

The CPD programme is designed to meet the specific needs of the university’s teachers. For this purpose teachers completed an online needs analysis questionnaire in the summer of 2022, which elicited information on teaching methods used, teachers’ perceptions of their own teacher effectiveness, their well-being and their perceived training needs. Three main findings emerged from the ninety-six respondent teachers (approximately 12% of the teaching staff). First, teachers overwhelmingly favoured lecture format to deliver content to students with only nineteen of the ninety-six attempting to activate student learning. Second, 53% of respondents called for some form of CPD to improve their teaching skills. In particular, they requested help in how to use student-centred approaches, particularly to meet the expectations of the current Generation Z cohort, and how to integrate technology into classroom practices (Kövecsesné Gősi et al., n.d.). Feedback from the needs analysis provided the basis for the CPD at SZE, described below.

The CPD programme combines a series of online MOOCs and face-to-face workshops on topics suggested by the university teachers. The face-to-face sessions are all day standalone workshops offered in January, May and August of each year. The MOOCs are offered continuously. The CPD programme is delivered through active learning methods, and participants are encouraged to participate in collaborative practical activities, reflect on them, and apply concepts in scenarios linked as much as possible to their own teaching contexts. Thus, participants are at the centre of the experience.

Table 1. Summary of CPD programme September 2022–January 2025.

Topic	Format
The interactive lecture	Online/face-to-face
Course design
The digital classroom (e.g., technological skills, use of apps, learning platforms, flipped classrooms, AI)
Active learning
Student-centred approaches
Project based learning
Internationalisation
Soft skills development (e.g., communication skills, resolving conflict)

summarises the areas covered.

By January 2025, approximately 24% of the 774 university teachers had participated in face-to-face courses and 18% in the MOOCs. Participation is entirely voluntary; participants are motivated by a strong interest in improving professional practice, and many participants completed multiple sessions—more than three per teacher.

The small-scale study described in this paper explores the effectiveness of the CPD at SZE thus far.

2. Methodology

The overall aim of this study was to examine the impact of CPD on teaching practices, explored through two research questions.

• Research Question One (RQ1): What are teachers’ perceptions of quality education at Széchenyi István University?
• Research Question Two (RQ2): Do the university teachers feel that they benefit from this CPD programme? How?

We used a mixed method design to elicit the data required to address these two questions. We combined questionnaire data to form a general understanding of teachers’ perspectives, with qualitative semi-structured group interviews to gain deeper insight into teachers’ CPD experiences and practices.

2.1. Data Collection

As indicated in

Table 2. Data collection procedures.

Phase	Data Source	Date	Number of Participants
One	Questionnaire	Sept. 2022–Sept. 2023	97
Two	Group interviews	Feb. 2025–March 2025	13

, data were collected in two phases.

2.1.1. Phase One: Questionnaires

An online CPD evaluation questionnaire was administered in Hungarian to teachers whenever they completed an individual MOOC or workshop(s) between September 2022 and 2023. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) consisted of fifteen Likert-scale items plus four open-ended questions. The Likert-scale items were organised into four broad categories that gathered information on the perceived relevance and usability of the CPD sessions (items 1–3); perceived improvements in their own teaching ability, self-confidence and well-being (items 4–9); changes in student attitudes and behaviour (items 10–13); and teachers’ willingness to collaborate with colleagues (items 14–15). The four open-ended questions elicited slightly more qualitative insights into teachers’ understanding of quality education (item 16), improving educational standards (17), the teachers’ future training needs (18), and implementation of CPD content (19).

2.1.2. Phase Two: Focus Group Interviews

Two of the researchers worked independently to conduct five semi-structured online interviews, each involving two to three teachers. The interviews conducted lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and were guided by a set of questions (see Appendix B) with follow-up prompts to explore specific themes as they arose. Interviews were flexible, and participants were encouraged to provide detailed and reflective responses.

2.1.3. Timing of Data Collection

This two-phase design was deliberate. Data from the questionnaire (Phase One) was collected continuously from participants between September 2022 and September 2023, shortly after they had completed a MOOC or workshop. This captured teachers’ short-term experiences of the impact of CPD. In contrast, the teachers participating in the Phase Two interviews, had completed various CPD sessions fairly regularly from September 2022 to the last CPD block January 2025. The interviews in February and March 2025 occurred after the most recent workshop block. This enabled us to explore teachers’ longer term engagement with CPD content.

2.2. Participants

For Phase One, 97 teachers completed the questionnaire, representing 13% of the university’s 774 teaching staff. Respondents were drawn from across the university’s nine faculties and, to recap, most were subject experts without formal teachers training.

For Phase Two, thirteen teachers volunteered to participate in interviews. These teachers had completed Phase One’s questionnaire and had continuously participated in CPD until January 2025. Eleven of the thirteen were female, and all had 8–30 years’ experience in Hungarian HE, with most exceeding 15 years. Several teachers (T2, T7, T8, T10, and T12) held/had held senior management positions (e.g., Faculty Vice-Dean) at some point in their careers.

Table 3. Participants’ profile.

Teacher ID	Subject Specialism	Teaching Qualification
1	Agricultural engineering	No
2	Transport engineering	No
3	Economics	No
4	Education	Yes
5	Electrical engineering	No
6	Marketing	No
7	Environmental sciences	No
8	Physics	No
9	Education	Yes
10	Agricultural engineering	No
11	Transportation engineer	Yes
12	Agricultural engineering	No
13	Law	No

summarises participants’ information.

Participation in both Phases One and Two of this study was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from all participants who were free to withdraw from the study at any time, and their anonymity was strictly ensured.

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Questionnaire

Answers to the 15 Likert-scale items were analysed descriptively. The frequencies for each item were tallied manually by the researchers and then converted into percentages. Open-ended responses were coded thematically by two of the researchers, tallied, and then converted to percentages to identify common perspectives.

2.3.2. Interviews

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, the two researchers worked independently, conducting inductive analysis on their own transcripts, which allowed themes to emerge from the data. Then the researchers compared and crosschecked themes to ensure consistency. Five broad themes emerged that to a large extent aligned with the four broad questionnaire categories to capture teachers’ perspectives about the CPD. The five interview themes were as follows:

• Theme 1—Implementing CPD: teachers’ use of CPD content in their teaching;
• Theme 2—Teacher competence: improvements in teaching skills, confidence, motivation, and well-being;
• Theme 3—Impact on student behaviour: changes in student motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes;
• Theme 4—Collaboration: impact of CPD on professional collaboration;
• Theme 5—Challenges, needs, and recommendations: barriers teachers face in using CPD content; their priorities for future CPD; and the university’s role in quality education.

3. Findings

This section directly addresses the two research questions.

3.1. RQ1: What Are Teachers’ Perceptions of Quality Education at Széchenyi István University?

Table 4. Perceptions of quality education.

Perceptions of Quality Education	Perceptions of Quality Education
Motivate students	54%
Link theory to practice	45%
Use context-appropriate methods	24%
Switch from information transmission to facilitating student learning	21%

summarises information from questionnaire item 16: ‘What does quality education mean to you?’

Questionnaire findings clearly equate quality education with quality teachers, particularly concerning the ability to motivate (indicated by 54% of teachers) and help students to use taught knowledge in practice (45% of teachers). They highlighted the importance of illustrating key concepts with examples when delivering content or providing students with opportunities for practice. In contrast, using context-appropriate, student-centred methods received low scores (24% and 21%, respectively).

The interviews conducted one year later elaborated on these patterns. All thirteen interviewees characterised quality education in terms of motivating students through ‘new’ methods, with ten teachers noting that practical tasks increased student engagement. For example, one agricultural engineer (T1) replaced her usual lecture on feed preservation by asking students to measure preservation rates using sour cream, grass, and airtight containers. She remarked that ‘They completed the activity, measured the results, and were eager to continue experimenting.’

Overall, teachers’ perceptions align with principles of quality education outlined in the Rome Communiqué, emphasising the central role of student-centred learning and practical engagement. The next section addresses RQ2, examining the extent to which CPD at SZE supported teachers in achieving quality education.

3.2. RQ2: Do the University Teachers Feel They Benefit from This CPD Programme? How?

Table 5. Benefits of the CPD programme.

Aspect	% of 97 Respondent Teachers Who Mentioned This
Implementing CPD content in teaching	82%
Improved teaching competence	36%
Impact on student behaviour	33%
Increase in professional collaboration	91%

presents a summary of questionnaire findings on the perceived benefits of the CPD programme. These results are then elaborated through a discussion of the five interview themes. This structure allows for an analysis that combines initial and longer-term insights from both questionnaire and interview data.

Responses from 97 teachers indicate that teachers perceived CPD to be relatively beneficial, although the impact varied across different categories. Most teachers (82%) did use techniques and methods learnt during CPD in their own teaching, and 91% were more willing post-CPD to share knowledge with colleagues than pre-CPD. However, the impact on teaching and student learning seemed low. Only 36% of respondents rated themselves as better teachers as a result of CPD, and only 33% reported that student interaction had significantly improved in class. This points to an initial uptake of new methods but limited perception of deeper change in teaching quality or student learning.

3.2.1. Theme 1: Implementing CPD

Eleven of the thirteen interviewees reported using some ‘new’ methods learnt from their CPD sessions. They mentioned cooperative techniques—‘I use the Hand Brainstorm where they draw the hand and for each finger answer a question like What do I know?’ (T2)—and digital tools and platforms such as Wakelet and Jamboard. Teachers also experimented with flipped classroom approaches (T1, T6, T7, and T8), project-based learning (T10, T11, and T13), and conflict management role play (T4). Significantly, teachers also emphasised how they adapted what they had learnt to their own classrooms, indicating an emergent PCK: ‘I am trying Flipped Classroom but modified for me’ explained T8. Also, some teachers did report use of more student-centred teaching: ‘I reduced frontal teaching to a minimum. Where it used to be 60% theory, now it’s 30%’ (T9).

It seems therefore that CDP is starting to have an impact on classroom practice, with several of these motivated teachers experimenting with and modifying new methods.

3.2.2. Theme 2: Teacher Competence

To recap, only 36% of questionnaire respondents reported perceived improvements in their own teaching ability, confidence, and well-being, and this fairly low trend is confirmed in interview data collected one year later.

All thirteen teachers spoke about the affective benefits of CPD, such as increased motivation (‘Trainings inspired me’, T11), confidence (‘it gave me positive feedback that what I am doing is good’, T4), and well-being (‘teaching makes me happy’, T3). Seven teachers reported a change in professional identity and began seeing themselves more as facilitators of learning rather than knowledge transmitters: ‘It (the CPD) helped me to treat them more as partners and try to involve them in classroom activities’ (T11). Given that these interviewees had themselves been shaped by a lecture-based culture, this is a significant shift, as T10 wryly reflects: ‘I think back to myself and how I started… with that style today, goodness, the students would run away from me!’

However, all thirteen teachers emphasised how time-consuming and challenging it was to use ‘new’ methods, claiming ‘It takes time and extra effort to implement these techniques into my daily practice’ (T5) and ‘I can’t use them often’ (T1). As a result, although teachers used new methods, they use them selectively rather than making fundamental changes to their teaching approaches.

Thus a slightly mixed picture emerged concerning improvements in teaching competence: CPD does appear to foster professional growth, but the extra work demanded limits widespread adoption.

3.2.3. Theme 3: Impact on Student Behaviour

Furthermore, 33% of questionnaire respondents reported improvements in student interaction and engagement, and three points emerge as significant from interviews. First, all thirteen interviewees highlighted how traditional lecture-style teaching is less effective with Generation Z who need more interactive learning experiences: ‘this generation is absolutely different. So I have to do things or methods to make them fresh’ explains T8. Second, many of the teachers found students initially resistant to student-centred methods, as T6 complained: ‘some of the students really hate group works’. Teachers attributed this behaviour to the traditional Hungarian educational culture: ‘They come out of secondary school where they’re used to sitting in class, watching what the teacher is talking about’ (T12). As a result, some interviewees abandoned attempts to use teaching strategies learnt from CPD.

Third, teachers were tentative about equating engagement with learning gains. Some believed students did indeed learn more effectively when engaged: ‘Learn better? Yes, because they have to work on the lessons, have to write something’ (T2), but others were more cautious, as T3 pondered: ‘It’s maybe not really about the learning when doing interactive stuff, but about the adventure we give them. They feel better or have a good memory but better learning???’

3.2.4. Theme 4: Collaboration

Questionnaire data indicated that 91% of respondents felt that CPD fostered professional collaboration, and this was echoed in interview data.

Ten of the thirteen interviewees expressed how cooperation with colleagues had increased because of attending CPD. T6 described how she and colleagues ‘split up who goes to which CPD and we discuss what we learned’, and T8 describes that she shares CPD experiences during departmental meetings. Furthermore, some observed how enlightening it was to work in interdisciplinary teams on the CPD programmes. T3, an economist, and T8, a physicist, commented that discussing educational issues with colleagues from disciplines, such as engineering and law, pushed them to question their own assumptions about, for example, the best way to assess students learning, thus fostering professional growth. Some cross-faculty collaboration also emerged: T4 (from Education) described also teaching part-time in the Faculty of Engineering as a result of collaborating professionally with T2 (from Engineering) on CPD programmes. This collaboration suggests a gradual change towards a more cooperative environment.

3.2.5. Theme 5: Challenges, Needs, and Recommendations

Challenges

Teachers agreed that a shift toward student-centred teaching was underway but despite their motivation for new teaching practices, progress was slow. Practical challenges, such as the extra preparation required for innovative methods, were widely noted: ‘Good teaching takes a crazy amount of prep’ (T3). In addition, using context appropriate, student-centred methods requires flexible thinking, a range of teaching strategies, plus the unlearning of established teaching beliefs and adopting new ones, which can be challenging. Consequently, teachers may need time to fully appreciate and use these activities in practice.

Cultural norms also held back impact with, as discussed earlier, resistance from students and also even colleagues: ‘They (my colleagues) just don’t get why I go to these trainings’ observed T7. At an institutional level, teachers felt that the university should do more to recognise pedagogical innovation; otherwise. ‘What’s the point?’ (T5). As T6 elaborates, ‘You are great if you publish, not if you teach well’.

In short, a range of challenges limits teachers’ attempts at professional growth.

Table 6. Teachers’ future needs.

Training Needs	% of 97 Respondent Teachers Who Mentioned This
Sharing best practice	97%
Technology input	66%
Developing soft skills	63%
Methodological input	36%

summarises questionnaire responses on what teachers want from future CPD sessions. When combined with interview data, three features warrant attention.

First nearly all questionnaire respondents (97%) expressed a desire for even more collaboration to learn about tried and tested teaching methods from their own colleagues. Interviews reinforce this with ten out of thirteen teachers suggesting as solutions peer observations, mentorship programmes or departmental discussions. As T8 explained, ‘Once a month we could discuss what new ideas I found and whether they were effective in teaching’. However, teachers acknowledged that introducing such initiatives might be difficult, given that collaborative practices are not the norm in Hungary’s academic culture.

Second, a contrast emerged between questionnaire and interview data concerning methodological input. While only 36% of questionnaire respondents asked for additional input indicating methodology is a minor concern, most interviewees called for additional subject-specific methodological training such as how to teach traffic flow theory through project-based learning (T2). This indicates a gap in teachers’ PCK and the need for more support in linking subject expertise to teaching strategies.

The third feature concerns the need for ongoing support, and, while questionnaire data did not reveal a strong demand for support, eight interviewees did. They suggested multiple workshops exploring a single topic, as T12 explained: ‘Not only one day with the same topic. I hear once, I can forget it. Last time, I learned about sociometry, but I have already forgotten it.’ Others called for appointing a designated contact person for guidance, for instance, on how to use a particular application such as the SPSS data analysis software.

Table 7. University role in quality education.

University Management Should	% of 97 Respondent Teachers Who Mentioned This
Provide opportunities for CDP	48%
Modify curricular	21%
Improve infrastructure	18%
Recognise achievements of academics	9%

presents an overview of questionnaire responses to ‘How can educational standards be improved at the university?’ and highlights the central role of university management. The institution should increase opportunities for CPD (48%); modify curricula (21%) to introduce new subjects and assessment systems conducive to active learning; improve the university infrastructure (18%); and formally recognise teaching achievements (9%).

The striking feature that emerged from the interviews was just how critical strong institutional support is; no matter how accessible and interesting CPD programmes are for individuals, broader pedagogical change will not happen without support. For example, while only 9% of questionnaire respondents mentioned recognition for teaching, all thirteen interviewees emphasised that its absence discourages participation: ‘the same people come. Those who most need it don’t attend’ (T12). In other words, CPD tends to attract already motivated teachers, and the lack of institutional recognition contributes to this pattern, limiting its wider impact on the teaching community. Suggestions interviewees made concerning recognition of teaching included establishing teaching excellence awards; incorporating teaching performance into criteria for promotion; offering funding for pedagogic training as well as research funding; and establishing clear pathways for professional growth based on teaching achievements not just on research output.

One recent initiative and the introduction of compulsory project-based teaching in selected faculties was identified by interviewees as a potential catalyst for change. Teachers will have to adopt student-centred approaches and so will be more likely (according to the interviewees) to actively seek support from CPD. As T10 noted, ‘the university has started quite decisively to implement this project-based education. Then we will need more and more colleagues to get involved in this (CPD) in some form.’

To sum up, the findings highlight the following key points:

• Teachers’ perceptions of quality education broadly align with accepted European definitions.
• Participating in CPD contributes to teachers’ drive towards quality education.
• CPD brings methodological and affective benefits, teachers are more able to engage students. However, teachers are cautious in claims of learning gains.
• CPD fosters collaboration within and across faculties contributing to a more cooperative academic culture.
• Cultural norms, workloads, and uneven participation in CPD reduce overall impact.
• University management should proactively create conditions conducive for large-scale pedagogical change. Individual teacher motivation alone is insufficient.

4. Discussion

CPD is widely acknowledged as an important but challenging approach to raising educational standards (Dent et al., 2008). The CPD initiative at Széchenyi István University faces particular challenges, given the educational culture where content delivery is emphasised rather than learner engagement (OECD/European Union, 2017; Horváth, 2021) and certified teaching qualifications are not required (Kálmán, 2018; Dósa et al., 2020). Participation in any CPD is voluntary and tends to attract only those already motivated and open to pedagogical change. The programme itself is long-term (2022–2026) and combines online and face-to-face formats, reflecting teachers’ needs while aiming to foster long-term pedagogical development in line with broader trends in Hungarian HE (Fazekas et al., 2021; Dringó-Horváth, 2024).

The following discussion is structured around three key themes and brings together the ideas and findings on the overall impact of CPD.

4.1. Limits of Individual Participation in CPD

CPD supports individual growth, but the impact of individual-level participation on long-term teaching practice and student learning was modest. Many participants attended multiple workshops voluntarily, experimented with new methods, collaborated with colleagues, and all reported improvements in self-confidence and professional identity. However, even after repeated attendance over two years, these gains did not result in long-lasting changes in classroom practice or student outcomes. This is consistent with other studies which argue that meaningful pedagogical change is gradual, requiring significant shifts in professional identity and mind-set (Saloviita, 2022; Fabriz et al., 2021; Fernandes et al., 2023; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2008). Such change is most likely to occur and be sustained when underpinned by strong institutional support and a positive educational culture (Zwolińska-Glądys et al., 2024; Vreekamp et al., 2024).

4.2. Institutional and Cultural Barriers to Pedagogical Change

Teachers highlighted workload, student resistance to unfamiliar methods, and limited institutional recognition for teaching as barriers to pedagogical innovation. In interviews, teachers emphasised that quality education also depends on institutional support and the need to signal that teaching excellence is genuinely valued within the institution. These findings mirror broader trends across European HE, where research consistently shows that improvements in educational quality cannot rely just on individual teacher capability; robust institutional support is essential for meaningful and sustained pedagogical change (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010; Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Zhang, 2025; Belisle et al., 2024).

4.3. Collaboration and Communities of Practice

Collaboration emerged as an important theme in supporting CPD impact. Increased peer interaction and the sharing of experiences, plus interdisciplinary discussions, fostered their professional growth. Feedback from the Phase One CPD evaluation questionnaire directly informed several teacher-led initiatives. These include a mentoring scheme to support beginner teachers, a collection of 104 good-practice videos showcasing classroom activities across disciplines, and a methodology handbook written by teachers which one participant, T2, described as ‘my bible’.

These initiatives illustrate the role of communities of practice in professional growth, characterised by groups of individuals with shared interests and concerns who deepen their expertise through collaboration (Wenger, 1998, p. 4). By sharing their expertise and supporting one another through, for instance, video sharing, such communities can extend the benefits of CPD beyond one-off workshops to help themselves overcome challenges and implement pedagogic change (Vreekamp et al., 2024).

5. Conclusions: Contributions, Limitations, and Future Directions

This paper contributes to the growing body of research on CPD in HE by offering insights from Hungary, a context that is still underrepresented in the European CPD literature. The findings highlight the potential and the limitations of CPD, especially in contexts where broader institutional support is limited. Findings revealed that this long-term CPD initiative, positively influenced teaching practices, encouraging teachers to try out student-centred methods, fostering affective growth, and promoting collaboration. These changes were also linked to increased student engagement. One promising feature was the emergence of collaboration such as sharing of good practice, which further supported professional development.

The study also reinforces the view that effective CPD is influenced by a combination of individual engagement and institutional conditions (Zwolińska-Glądys et al., 2024). Findings revealed that although individual participation did indeed nurture growth, systemic challenges, such as limited recognition of teaching, hindered wider application of CPD content into sustained classroom change.

We believe these findings can offer practical guidance to other Hungarian and Central European HE institutions seeking to improve teaching quality and student outcomes through similar CPD initiatives. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. We recognise that the questionnaire response rate, at 13% of total teaching staff, was low, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Also, the interviews were conducted with just 13 teachers, again limiting generalizability. Moreover, the study captures short- to medium-term perspectives concerning CPD impact, without exploring any long-term effects on teaching or student learning outcomes. Finally, participants in this CPD and the study were highly motivated. Less-engaged teachers were not included, so our findings do not reflect their experiences. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into what is needed for meaningful pedagogical change in Hungarian HE.

Although we did not initially aim to examine the long-term effects of CPD on teaching practices and learning outcomes, we became increasingly aware that this information is crucial. Future research should therefore address this gap. Longitudinal studies could provide deeper insight into how CPD contributes to professional development and student learning outcomes over time. By pursuing these directions, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms through which CPD fosters meaningful pedagogical transformation.