Personalised Professional Development in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Abstract

Despite the affordances of professional development (PD) in teaching and learning in facilitating quality teaching and contributing to students’ learning outcomes, there is merit in exploring educators’ needs by enabling conditions to further develop their existing knowledge and practices. In fact, it is vital that PD in teaching and learning in higher education (HE) actively engages and meets instructor individual needs. This paper explores PD within the HE context and identifies corresponding categories common and in relation to quality teaching. Based on the review, most PD in teaching and learning could be identified within one of four categories that contribute to quality teaching: (1) assessment approaches; (2) instructional approaches; (3) communication and delivery approaches; and (4) affective responses. Equally important, instructor agency should be supported by encouraging instructors to identify and manage their PD needs via validated measures, which this review found lacking within the literature. With the expectation that such a measure would provide insights into the refinements of current PD in teaching and learning provisions, and enable HE institutions to facilitate PD in teaching and learning to better meet and fulfil instructor individual needs, it is recommended that such a measure be developed and deployed to identify instructors’ needs.

1. Introduction

Globally, higher education (HE) systems are undergoing continual transformations driven by a combination of factors, including shifts in student demographics, rapid technological advancements, and the emergence of new professions. These changes are manifested in various ways, such as a diversifying academic workforce, technology-enhanced pedagogical methods, and an increased emphasis on lifelong learning [1]. These developments, alongside a growing interest in continuing education, necessitate enhancements in learning and support structures within HE institutions. These enhancements include tailored course content and structures to accommodate the expanding diversification of student profiles, which now encompass an increasing number of adult learners [2]. Adult learners, often part-time students, voluntarily enrol in educational programmes while juggling full-time employment and family responsibilities. They bring a wealth of life and work experiences to the academic environment. Consequently, today’s HE landscape is marked by varying ages, backgrounds, and expectations among students.

As the complexity of academic work continues to evolve, university lecturers face an array of challenges related to subject delivery, appropriate pedagogical methods, and the growing diversity of their students [3]. This reality, and that quality teaching practice is perceived as a key institutional support structure [4], necessitate the diversification of pedagogical approaches when teaching adult learners within the HE context [5]. Further, the integration of new digital technologies (e.g., generative artificial intelligence) is reshaping teaching and learning environments. While these advancements, such as information and communication technologies (ICTs), offer technical support for innovative teaching [6,7], they pose significant challenges for faculty members [8,9]. For instance, to successfully implement and carry out technology utilisation during teaching, Christensen and Knezek [10] pointed out that teachers’ attitudes toward technology might influence their readiness for teaching and learning. Backfisch et al. [11] concurred and pointed out that teachers’ positive attitudes with technology use are associated with higher quality of usage. Research by Hew and Brush [12] further argued that negative attitudes can impede the use of technology in teaching. However, Belland [13] claimed that positive attitudes toward digital technology do not necessarily lead to more or better technology integration in the classroom. Given the varied viewpoints concerning teachers’ attitudes with technology, these complex relationships may require relevant PD processes that are essential to assist teachers with online learning environments to maximise teaching and learning for the purpose of optimising students’ learning outcomes.

In addition to challenges from digital technologies, COVID-19 poses further threat to HE with respect to teachers’ readiness to successfully plan, implement, and teach blended or online classes. Under the impacts of this turbulent context, HE institutions transition from traditional face-to-face teaching, for decades before the pandemic, to online as an alternative to accommodate educational needs and overcome this challenge [14]. As a result, the shift to E-learning becomes an effective mode of formal learning. For instance, the teaching and learning activities have been conducted via online tools such as Zoom. The pandemic challenge includes inadequate time to create online content; learning new delivery tools; and teachers’ understanding of online pedagogical strategies to address both asynchronous and synchronous teaching and learning. To function in a virtual context, technologically enhanced curriculum becomes a necessity. To provide faculty support, Carperter et al. [15] pointed out that centres for teaching and learning, instructional design centres, and other faculty development units sprang into action to support faculty moving into online learning environments. Together, during the crisis situation, educational developers, instructional designers, and PD professionals supported and encouraged teachers to use effective online pedagogy.

In response to these challenges, faculty professional development (PD) has garnered significant attention from universities across the globe [16]. The primary objective of most PD provisions is to enhance students’ learning outcomes. Many HE institutions, including universities, have established centres, programmes, and alternative structures to organise and manage PD activities [17]. As a strategically crucial component of universities, PD plays a pivotal role in delivering quality teaching and fostering productive learning experiences, ultimately contributing to an institution’s reputation [18,19,20,21]. Indeed, it is essential to recognise that improving teacher quality directly correlates with enhancing student learning outcomes, thereby bolstering a nation’s economic competitiveness [22].

PD provisions are commonly delivered through short courses or face-to-face workshops, often followed by assessments [3]. To ensure the effectiveness of these programmes in meeting participants’ professional needs, Hiew and Murray [23] advocated for incorporating adult learning principles into the planning and design of educational objectives, and underscored the importance of identifying teachers’ professional needs to achieve favourable responses and outcomes from participants. Therefore, it is vital to tailor PD provisions to the specific needs of academics to prevent them from becoming extraneous [3].

Research conducted by [24] revealed that faculty apathy toward PD can be attributed to its perceived lack of relevance to their needs. The researchers recommended that a needs analysis be conducted before support is provided to academic staff, as with Korthagen’s [25] recommendation of focusing on teachers’ needs when designing the PD process. Further, Ben-Peretz [26] underscored the differences in needs between faculty in the early years of their careers and those in later stages. Early-career academics tend to focus primarily on student-related responsibilities and value feedback on their teaching, including innovative practices, as part of their professional development. In contrast, as academics gain experience, their roles expand to include coordinating, researching, and mentoring. Research-related professional development activities then become increasingly important to maintain high standards and deliver sufficient research outputs, especially for research-intensive HE institutions.

The above suggests that to effectively cater to academics’ needs, flexible PD in teaching and learning approach based on a thorough needs analysis is necessary to provide timely and appropriate support. As an example of a needs analysis, Wood et al. [27] conducted a collaborative research project aimed at improving the teaching of mathematics, focusing on enhancing students’ learning. Their research, based on data from a national survey conducted online, served as the foundation for developing a PD programme. This programme addressed various needs of academic staff, including leveraging technology to enhance the learning environment, developing communication skills, and refining approaches to teaching mathematics. Wood et al.’s [27] research aligns with Ferman’s [28] assertion that faculty agency should be supported by encouraging academics to identify and manage their PD needs.

Aside from the call for a needs analysis to support PD design, Sancar et al. [29] emphasised the need for more research to bring about changes in instructors’ professional teaching and learning lives. Exploring faculty needs and preferences is essential to enable the development of their existing knowledge and practices, which in turn will enhance student learning outcomes.

2. Literature Review

In the dynamic landscape of HE, PD stands as a cornerstone for academic excellence and pedagogical innovation. This review delves into the multifaceted nature of PD, exploring its definitions, forms, and intrinsic link to quality teaching via student evaluations of teaching, and through the lens of a learning needs perspectives.

2.1. Redefining PD: Contemporary PD Approaches

Enhancing the quality of education hinges on the continuous improvement of teachers’ skills and qualifications. To this end, countries worldwide allocate substantial resources annually to provide PD opportunities [29,30]. Supported by educational leaders, PD creates conditions for educators to access up-to-date expertise and explore new opportunities [29]. Through this process of continuous improvement, PD has the potential to augment educators’ existing knowledge and practices, eventually resulting in improved student learning outcomes. However, as noted by Evans [31], the existing literature often falls short of providing a clear and comprehensive definition of PD. Understanding the effectiveness of PD necessitates a clear conceptualisation of the term to guide research in this area. In line with Evans [31], Sancar et al. [29] stressed the importance of unpacking the multifaceted dimensions of PD to enhance our understanding of how individuals develop professionally.

Over the past decade, researchers such as Borko et al. [32] have emphasised the need to redefine PD with a focus on contemporary features. This paradigm of PD calls for a more practice-oriented approach that places content in the context of situated learning and centres on students’ learning. The contemporary PD approach engages teachers in inquiry-based learning activities and fosters a sense of community among educators [33]. This approach aligns with a constructivist view by emphasising educators’ self-directed professional growth [29]. Specifically, adults are self-directed learners motivated by experiences and relevance of knowledge when learning [34]. As Donaldson [35] affirms, effective PD is self-directed and draws from adult learning theory. Andragogy, pioneered by Knowles [36], underscores that adults are autonomous learners who prioritise goals and relevance drawing from their practical experiences. Thus, PD is an integral part of teachers’ lifelong learning influenced by social constructivist and inquiry-based approaches [37].

Further, Guskey [38] brought to focus the relatively more traditional approach to PD, which was primarily about enhancing teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge. He critiqued that such an approach would benefit some but not other institutions. As an example, schools in under-served regions may require teachers to teach beyond their subject expertise, and hence PD focussing on content and pedagogical knowledge would benefit such teachers. In the same vein, Opfer and Pedder [39] advocated moving beyond a more traditionally process–product PD model definition by considering the complex learning environment that facilitates professional growth. Other researchers have also underlined the importance of focusing on individual needs, characteristics, and competencies [40,41]. For example, Neil and Morgan [41] suggested adopting a situative perspective when defining PD, placing a stronger emphasis on the individual.

Table 1 summarises previous research on the definitions of PD. Evidently, there has been a shift in focus, from viewing PD as a process, to recognising its role in promoting lifelong learning for teachers as professionals. King [42] states that “Professional development for all elements of the academic role needs to be considered as a normal part of professional life for all academic staff” (p. 29).

Adding to the complex landscape surrounding the definitions attributed to PD, there is a variety of terminologies on how to name or refer to it. This lack of consensus contributes greatly to confusion and a variety of interpretations. To gain a comprehensive understanding of how PD is defined based on the ongoing discourse in HE, Belisle et al. [43] pointed out these general terms: educational development, continuing professional development, and professional learning. More specifically, some authors distinguish the terms “development” and “learning” [43]. Among these researchers, Belisle et al. [43] elaborated that the definitions given to “development” tend to overlook personal agency, value of experience, and reflection throughout the developmental process. Stewart [44] compared PD to passive and one-time experiences whereas professional learning (PL) was reflective learning. Within educational research, reflection has been considered an integral part of learning. For instance, Schön [45] highlighted the notion of reflection as central to professional practices. Wright [46] further added that the discourse of PD is focused on the development of professionals through programs delivering instead of understanding PL experience and ways to effectively enhance it. Although some definitions that use the notion of “development” continue to consider the individual aspects [47], others distinguish between the two terms, and switch to the concept of PL [48] not to undermine the role and agency of academics in the development process [49]. However, it is important to note that these terms, PD and PL, are used synonymously by some authors [50].

Table 1. Overview of the definitions of PD in traditional and contemporary approaches.

Author and Year of Publication	Definition
PD definitions based on a more traditional approach
[38]	PD is described as processes and activities arranged to improve teachers’ professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes to enhance students’ learning
[51]	PD is a process involving the interaction of teacher knowledge and beliefs, in-class teaching practices, and student learning outcomes
[52]	PD can be defined as an intentional process of constructing knowledge and abilities that enable people to be more productive at work and succeed in their professions
PD definitions based on a more contemporaneous approach
[32]	PD is a part of teachers’ lifelong learning influenced by social constructivist and inquiry-based approaches
[37]	PD focuses on “providing a long-term, inquiry or learner-centred structure that supports teachers as they collaboratively develop the professional knowledge they need to use in their own context” (p. 548)
[53]	PD is lifelong learning for professionals

Table 1. Overview of the definitions of PD in traditional and contemporary approaches.

Author and Year of Publication	Definition
PD definitions based on a more traditional approach
[38]	PD is described as processes and activities arranged to improve teachers’ professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes to enhance students’ learning
[51]	PD is a process involving the interaction of teacher knowledge and beliefs, in-class teaching practices, and student learning outcomes
[52]	PD can be defined as an intentional process of constructing knowledge and abilities that enable people to be more productive at work and succeed in their professions
PD definitions based on a more contemporaneous approach
[32]	PD is a part of teachers’ lifelong learning influenced by social constructivist and inquiry-based approaches
[37]	PD focuses on “providing a long-term, inquiry or learner-centred structure that supports teachers as they collaboratively develop the professional knowledge they need to use in their own context” (p. 548)
[53]	PD is lifelong learning for professionals

In view of the evolving nature of these terms, and varying degrees of diversification in individual teaching experiences, needs, and interests, more studies/scientific evidence are highly needed to fathom the pathways to PD that support quality teaching and learning. Consequently, the goal is to provide faculty with needed support for effective enhancement of quality teaching, student learning outcomes, and stay current with trends and practices in HE.

To gain a deeper understanding of how higher education institutions promote teachers’ professional growth, the next section explores the diverse approaches taken to support teacher training.

2.2. Forms of PD: Diverse and Customised Provisions

To examine PD provisions aimed at enhancing academic excellence in HE instruction, Jacob et al. [54] profiled eight universities and their respective programme approaches. Three examples are discussed here. First, the central PD organisation at the Australian National University focuses on improving teaching and learning through a mixed strategy. This strategy includes peer-to-peer faculty mentoring and a rigorous PD evaluation programme, with the view that peer-to-peer mentoring enhances teaching methods and creates a culture of shared learning. The evaluation programme employs a four-level model, starting from basic opinion questionnaires to advanced assessments of student outcomes (i.e., opinion questionnaire, anecdotal evidence, systemic in-class practices, and student outcomes). Regular meetings with university-wide faculty members are also conducted.

Second, at Carnegie Mellon University, the Eberly Center enhances faculty teaching through a learner-centered approach emphasising student learning at the core of teaching. Their educational approach provides teaching tips to faculty members. Collaboration between the Eberly Center and faculty members identifies strengths and weaknesses while giving constructive feedback. Data-driven practices collect information on teaching, and research-based methods apply research findings to teaching. One-on-one consultations, workshops, seminars, and regular surveys contribute to improving teaching quality.

Third, the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) in the University of Pennsylvania operates in a decentralised manner, offering tailored teaching programmes designed based on the needs of different schools. Specific schools can request training programmes to improve teaching quality, and CTL collaborates with the university library and technology office to identify appropriate technology applications. The centre conducts scenario-based training seminars and offers various services such as individual and group consultations, workshops, and seminars. Regular surveys and informal meetings with faculty members are conducted to gather feedback about the programmes.

While offering varying formats of PD provision, these universities present common characteristics including responsiveness, flexibility, and efficiency in meeting the diverse needs of their target audiences. Indeed, Jacob et al. [16,54] suggested that centres providing PD should consider faculty diversity and offer customised programmes for effective enhancement. Notably, Hung and Yeh [55] and Luo et al. [56] indicated a shift from one-off workshops to diverse forms of PD, such as peer coaching, self-study, and action research, as well as the use of social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter). Understanding current trends in PD can be crucial for HE institutions to empower faculty with up-to-date skills and knowledge to tackle new challenges.

2.3. PD and Quality Teaching: Students’ Evaluation of Teaching

From an HE perspective, enhancing the quality of education requires monitoring and improving university programmes and courses to raise institutional performance, ultimately benefiting students and meeting their expectations [57]. Similarly, teaching quality plays a fundamental role in students’ learning outcomes, with academics focusing on exploring factors like teacher preparation, assessment types, and clear communication [57]. To identify key categories related to quality teaching, PD provisions play a crucial role in fostering quality in teaching at multiple levels: institution-wide, programme-specific, and individual faculty. The institution-wide level provides projects and supports to an organisation and its internal systems. Programme-specific includes actions to measure and enhance the design and delivery of programmes. At the individual level, Marsh [58] identified nine dimensions related to students’ evaluations of teaching quality.

Quality teaching is considered a process, outcome, or property and can be used by higher education institutions to complement their efforts [59]. Many universities rely on students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness to evaluate the quality of instruction. These evaluations aim to provide diagnostic feedback to faculties to enhance teaching and improve students’ learning experiences. They are also crucial for making decisions about faculty promotion [58]. Chen et al. [60] suggested that student evaluations help develop a teacher’s professionalism, encourage self-improvement, and enhance students’ overall experience. However, evaluating HE teaching performance is a complex task, leading HE institutions to increasingly rely on student evaluations to improve educational quality and teaching practices.

Common instruments for evaluating teaching quality include the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ), the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), and the Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET). Broadly used to describe teaching quality of higher education based on student evaluations, the SEEQ includes nine dimensions, such as learning/value, instructor enthusiasm, and group interaction; taking group interaction as an example, students are asked whether the instructor encourages class discussion. In the same vein, the CEQ focuses on scales such as good teaching and appropriate workload to assess student experiences and teaching quality, and presents a reliable and valid measure of student perceptions of academic quality [61]. Purported as essential for improving the teaching performance of individual teachers [62] and for enhancing students’ overall experience in courses [63], the SET serves the same purposes of the SEEQ and CEQ but it includes categories such as communication skills, content evaluation, and global assessment.

These dimensions of student evaluation from the SET, SEEQ and CEQ align with the views of Hativa et al. [64] by emphasising the importance of well-prepared and organised teachers who stimulate students’ interest and maintain a positive classroom environment. Additionally, Ginns et al. [65] identified five dimensions in the Student Course Experience Questionnaire (SCEQ), which accounted for students’ perceptions of teaching quality, focusing on factors like clear goals and standards, including appropriate assessment. The dimensions arising from these student-perceived evaluations of teaching quality suggest four main areas for PD in teaching and learning: (1) assessment approaches; (2) instructional methods; (3) communication and delivery; and (4) affective responses.

In addition to SEEQ, CEQ, and SET, other well-designed and validated instruments, include the recent Students’ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SETERS) [66], Teaching Behavior Checklist (TBC) [67,68], and SET37 questionnaire for student evaluation of teaching (SET 37) [69], are available as a measure of quality teaching by various HE institutions [70]. Briefly, SETERS consists of three factors such as instructor’s delivery of course information; teacher’s role in facilitating instructor/student interactions; and instructor’s role in regulating students’ learning. Similarly, TBC entails three measures: overall good teaching; caring and supportive; and professional competency and communication skills. SET37 is similar to SET except that two of its ten scales were revised, and two additional scales were introduced, resulting in 12 scales. These two newly added scales linked up with foreknowledge; and content validity of the examination(s). The two added scales consist of item sets relevant to measuring students’ attitudes towards various dimensions of teaching. These well-designed instruments provide detailed and applicable feedback to instructors with regard to how to become effective teachers [70]. Given that quality teaching as measured by students’ evaluation of instructional effectiveness is multidimensional in nature, inclusion of these instruments along with their factors could help to further substantiate the four dimensions in this paper: (1) assessment approaches; (2) instructional methods; (3) communication and delivery; and (4) affective responses as indicated for PD in teaching and learning. Nevertheless, this paper focuses on dimensions arising from SET, SEEQ, CEQ, and SCEQ as a basis for the development of quality teaching instruments.

Table 2. PD in teaching and learning categories in relation to quality teaching.

Questionnaire Source	Assessment Approaches	Instructional Approaches	Communication and Delivery Mode	Affective Responses	Other Categories
[57]	Q2: The staff put a lot of time into commenting on my work	Q18: The staff made it clear right from the start what they expected from students	Q19: My lecturers were extremely good at explaining things	Q5: The teaching staff of this course motivated me to do my best work	Q11: The course developed my problem-solving skills; analytical skills; written communication skills
[71]	5. Rating of teacher and course: Rate the lecturer’s overall performance and the quality of the course on a general level	1. Planning and presentation: The lecturer is clearly structured	Not observed	2. Interaction with students: The lecturer seems to care about students’ learning success 3. Interestingness and relevance: The lecturer encourages my interest in the subject area; the lecturer makes the lecture interesting	4. Difficulty and complexity (this scale measures the perceived difficulty, scope and pace of the course)
[72]	Q7: Examination subject and means compatibility with course content and teaching Q10: fairness, impartiality of examination	Q1: Clarity of the course objectives Q11: Instructor’s course organisation	Q14: Instructor’s communicability	Q17: Consistency in teaching programme and availability in office hours Q16: Communication with students, encouragement of group interaction	Q20: Intellectual challenge and expansiveness to current scientific and actual trends Q21: Overall teaching/coursework evaluation
[73]	Q17: The evaluation system is consistent with the teaching methodology	Q13: Lessons are generally well prepared and structured Q18: Your lecturer has clearly indicated the course plan: time plan, learning objectives, bibliography, etc.	Q1: Your lecturer is skilled in transmitting his/her own knowledge) Q4: Your lecturer is precise when answering questions	Q9: Your lecturer is available for student counselling at specified times	Q28: Practical activities in this course are coherent with professional activities related to your degree
[74]	Q5: Fair and impartial grading	Q7: Presentations clarified material Q11: Presented clearly and summarised	Not observed	Q21: Concerned about student difficulties Q3: Listened and willing to help	Q8: Ability to analyse issues Q5: Understand advanced material
[65]	Q3: Teaching staff normally gave me helpful feedback on how I am going	Q25: The staff made it clear right from the start what they expected from students	Q19: My lecturers are extremely good at explaining things	Q16: The teaching staff make a real effort to understand difficulties I may be having with my work	Q23: My degree course has helped me to develop the ability to plan my own work
[75]	Q9: The teacher provided opportunities to assess my progress during the course (i.e., by welcoming questions, giving assignments or midterm exams, providing an online discussion forum)	Q1: The teacher makes clear what knowledge and skills I should acquire to pass this course Q3: The teaching method (i.e., lectures, assignments, usage of online learning environment) has helped me prepare for the course examination	Q8: The teacher communicates clearly about practical matters and course organisation	Q7: The teacher made efforts to make the course interesting	Q10: I am satisfied with the quality of teaching in this course
[76]	Q16: Rate how well tests and assignments assessed your understanding of topics	Q10: Rate the organisation of presentations and exercises by the instructor	Q1: Rate the instructor’s ability to communicate clearly in English	Q2: Rate the helpfulness of the instructor outside of class Q17: Rate the instructor’s effectiveness in encouraging students to learn from each other	Q3: Rate the instructor’s grading compared with other courses taken at GSB
[58]	7. Examination/ Grading (i.e., evaluation methods fair)	3. Organisation (i.e., clear instructor explanations) 6. Breath of coverage (i.e., instructor gave different points of view) 4. Group interaction (i.e., encouraged questions and answers, class discussions)	2. Enthusiasm (i.e., instructor enhanced presentations with humour; instructor was dynamic and energetic)	5. Individual rapport (i.e., instructor was friendly towards students; instructor welcomed seeking advice and was accessible to students)	9. Workload/Difficulty (i.e., course difficulty; course workload; course pace)
[77]	Q22: Formative examinations Q20: Authenticity of examinations	Q1: Clarity of objectives Q11: Harmony between organisation of course and learning process	Q9: Presentation skills	Q16: Help of the teacher during the learning process	Q18: Stimulation of the teacher in order to learn to be self-responsible
[78]	Q19: Appropriate assignment Q20: appropriate evaluation methods	Q22: Course organisation Q5: Comfortable learning atmosphere	Q2: Effective communication Q15: clear explanations	Q14: Concern about student learning Q11: Motivated students to do their best	Q6: Adapted to student needs Q10: Good sense of humour

illustrates components gathered from various research studies related to quality teaching and categorised into these key areas, explicated by sample questionnaire items in each study. By examining these dimensions, educational institutions can gain insights into the quality of teaching and make informed improvements to benefit both faculty and students. Briefly, the reviews were conducted in the following key steps: (1) identified relevant literature in relation to quality teaching, (2) selected research studies gathered from various databases, for instance, Web of Science, (3) mapped out the selected research studies by concepts related to quality teaching, (4) summarised and synthesised similar aspects of quality teaching from selected research studies, and (5) presented the results (see Table 2) in an integrative approach showing relationships in terms of key aspects of quality teaching.

Evidently, the use of student evaluations of teaching in HE institutions is a widespread practice all over the world. Table 2 suggests the multidimensionality of student evaluations, reflecting the absence of a fixed criterion for assessing teaching effectiveness as noted by Marsh [79]. While this is true, the information collected from student evaluations of teaching quality can serve multiple valuable purposes. For example, student evaluations can suggest, from the students’ perspectives, teaching quality areas that instructors could consider strengthening via PD provisions. However, it is important to note that the link between student evaluations and significant improvements in teaching quality has been questioned by some researchers as pointed out by Spooren et al. [77]. Clearly, instructors’ self-perceptions of their learning needs in terms of PD also matter and are valuable in corroborating what students perceive of their teaching. In this regard, relying on both student evaluations of teaching and a learning needs analysis of PD would strengthen the relevance of PD provisions and hence, support the development of teaching quality.

2.4. PD and Quality Teaching: A Learning Needs Perspective

As purported, aside from student evaluations of teaching, a learning needs analysis (LNA) of PD for instructors could contribute to learning outcomes intended for students in an HE institution. Drawing from how it is presented by Bee and Bee [80], an LNA would then be a critical process for instructors in an HE institution setting, as it serves multiple purposes that contribute to the development of quality teaching practices and the provision of targeted professional development. Within the context of an HE institution, an LNA can help in identifying the specific learning needs of instructors, which is essential for bridging skills gaps and developing PD in teaching and learning, as expected from quality teaching. This ensures that the curriculum and learning experiences are tailored to meet the actual needs of instructors. An LNA undertaken regularly can also provide a mechanism for PD in teaching and learning provision development and review and hence guide instructor PD by providing insights into the areas where instructors may need strengthening. By understanding instructors’ learning needs, HE institutions can offer targeted and relevant professional development opportunities that address these areas.

LNAs are conducted via four main methods (i.e., questionnaire, interviews, observation and desk research) with questionnaire being a very common method with many advantages [80]. Despite the criticality of PD in teaching and learning, its demonstrable impacts on teaching and learning [81] and a call to identify PD relevant for facultites, a review of the literature found only few published studies related to how tertiary education institutions identify instructors’ PD needs in areas related to teaching and learning via questionnaire instruments with sound psychometric properties. One such study of a university in Cyprus conducted by Elci and Yaratan [82] used a purpose-developed 44-item questionnaire on a six-point scale (i.e., ranging from 0 = no need to 5 = highest level of need) to identify clusters of faculty perceived needs. Upon exploratory factor analysis, six clusters of PD in teaching and learning emerged (i.e., curriculum, teaching and learning methods, instructional technology, teaching environment, assessment, and student support and guidance), though some of these clusters may not apply to sessional instructors who are normally engaged by institutions to teach, rather than develop curricula. Guneri et al. [83] also conducted a study to identify faculty perceived needs of PD in a Turkish university, though the instrument used was not validated psychometrically. Instead, 62 items were adapted and/or developed and clustered by professional judgement into six areas (i.e., teaching and learning, students, syllabus and curriculum design, assessment, instructional technology, and professional issues).

Unsurprisingly, there are considerable perils of not pursuing an LNA before PD in teaching and learning is provided for faculty, not to mention a psychometrically adequate PD needs analysis. While it may be assumed instructors being experts in their own right may know their PD needs, this lack of psychometrically sound measures revealed a mismatch between needs and provisions, in that PD in teaching and learning provisions offered may not be what instructors need. In their study of faculty in a university, Makunye and Pelser [24] found that reasons for faculty apathy toward PD included a lack of relevance to them and that the PD did not address their needs; they further recommended that a needs analysis be undertaken so that PD provision be more appealing and hence more effective.

In addition to the lack of psychometrically fit-for-purpose measures for LNA, it is noteworthy that barriers to LNA exist. For example, inadequate support, incentives, resources, the perceived lack of relevance and cultural barriers may in part de-emphasise how the benefits of an LNA can provide insights to ensure that educational programmes are responsive to the evolving needs of students, leading to more effective teaching and learning outcomes.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

This review aimed to provide an overview of PD in HE, offering insights and reflections that are both theoretically grounded and pragmatically applicable. It is intended to serve as a prelude to a deeper conversation about the role of PD in cultivating a culture of lifelong learning among academics and institutions alike through the means of a psychometrically sound and validated LNA.

The review synthesis unravelled the various interpretations of PD, acknowledging its evolution from traditional training to a more holistic, continuous process of learning and growth that considers contexts. Forms of PD shifting from formal workshops and seminars to informal learning communities and self-directed study were also explored, considering the diverse and customised nature of PD provisions within HE. As the driving force of HE, categories of quality teaching based on student evaluations of teaching were then reviewed, to provide a sense of how PD in teaching and learning could be categorised. Finally, the review posits a learning needs perspective, emphasising the importance of aligning PD initiatives with the specific needs of HE instructors.

In response to the evolving landscape of higher education, institutions have recognised the importance of PD programmes to enhance teaching quality and improve students’ learning experiences. The consensus in academia is that the rate of change driven by shifts in student demographics, rapid technological advancements, and emerging workplace demands is accelerating. HE institutions have, therefore, embraced the concept of lifelong learning to encourage educators to continually curate knowledge for students during information transmission. Lifelong learning signifies that faculty members need new skills beyond their initial training. Therefore, they are encouraged to foster a culture of ongoing professional development. The changing nature of student intake, technology, and pedagogy is profoundly influencing academic roles. Nevertheless, PD, through a process of continuous improvement, empowers educators by enriching their existing knowledge and practices.

Over the years, the definition of PD has evolved from explanations centred on being a process to a more contemporaneous understanding that underscores lifelong learning for professionals. As Friedman et al. [53] aptly put it, PD is lifelong learning for professionals. To sustain high-quality teaching practices, there is an imperative to consistently reinforce relevant knowledge with more effective programmes that cater to and fulfil participants’ professional needs. Therefore, it is important to, via robust measures as part of LNA, (1) identify the most up-to-date skills and knowledge that educators require, and (2) customise PD provisions that can meet the challenges of our rapidly changing educational landscape.

With regard to PD categories, four dimensions relevant to quality teaching, as reflected by student evaluation of teaching questionnaires were identified. These factors encompass (1) assessment approaches, (2) instructional approaches, (3) communication and delivery approaches, and (4) affective responses. In summary, (1) assessment approaches indicate that the evaluation system aligns with the teaching methodology. (2) Instructional approaches illustrate that clarity of course objectives and course organisation by instructors is pivotal. (3) Communication and delivery approaches delineate that effective communication and clear explanations play a significant role. Lastly, (4) affective responses reflect the lecturer’s interaction with students, demonstrating a genuine concern for their learning success.

This review also highlighted the importance of an LNA, and found a dearth of psychometrically validated questionnaires for this purpose, despite its affordance in corroborating student perceptions of teaching via student evaluations. Given these, it is recommended to establish a psychometrically evidenced PD needs analysis upon recommended practices for validation. This would enable this instrument to provide valid information for the refinement and/or revision of PD in teaching and learning provisions and better meet the needs of instructors in HE institutions.