A systems-thinking approach to evaluating a university professional development programme

ABSTRACT

Using social constructivist theories of adult learning, the Faculty Pedagogical Development (PD) Programme was designed to offer faculty a unique professional learning experience at one university in Qatar. This study reports on the evaluation of this PD programme that involved 24 participants from different colleges in its first round of implementation. Data collection methods included pre- and post-interview data and multiple journal entries submitted at specific intervals during the PD programme by participants. Through adopting a systems-thinking perspective, this study reveals participants’ perceptions of their professional learning, conceptualised as the change to student-centred beliefs and/or practices, as well as the factors that supported or hindered their learning and change within individual, socio-cultural and structural systems. The conclusion is drawn that PD efforts should consider the systems of influences on faculty professional learning, with implications for the design of PD programmes advocating student-centred approaches in higher education contexts, particularly those locked into traditional teaching approaches.

KEYWORDS:

• PD programme evaluation
• systems thinking
• belief change
• practice change
• systems

Introduction

Higher Education (HE) institutions are faced with compounding challenges, including rapid societal changes, quick technological developments, and global vocational shifts (Kálmán et al. 2020, Saroyan and Trigwell 2015). Increased participation rates in tertiary education have resulted in larger class sizes, a more diverse student body, and higher expectations for quality education (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015, van Schalkwyk et al. 2015). For the most part, faculty members are expected to navigate these changes and display high levels of professionalism, without necessarily being adequately prepared for their teaching roles or possessing sufficient knowledge of student-centred pedagogical practices (Amundsen and Wilson 2012). Further, most HE systems do not require formal teaching qualifications from faculty, and when balancing their competing obligations, faculty may feel more pressure to publish, than to improve their teaching practices (van Schalkwyk et al. 2015).

Accordingly, many HE systems have responded by offering professional development (PD) opportunities that commonly support the transformation of lecture-based teaching and prompt wider adoption of student-centred learning (SCL) in university classrooms (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015, Du et al. 2020, Saroyan and Trigwell 2015). As a teaching approach that gives students greater control over their learning, SCL has not received widespread acceptance among faculty in many HE institutions (Jordan et al. 2014, Børte et al. 2020). Several considerations may impede faculty adoption of SCL, including lack of professional learning opportunities, time constraints and limited resources, as well as concerns over student readiness and course coverage (Børte et al. 2020, Sabah and Du 2018). Further considerations may include an inherent critique of SCL approaches and questions over their effectiveness in preparing students for the workplace or their suitability for students with different prior skills and backgrounds (Jordan et al. 2014).

Within these institutions, faculty may benefit from non-traditional forms of PD, where they are given greater control over their teaching and supported throughout the process of change (Bond and Blevins 2020; Du et al. 2020). Several researchers have provided guidance on what works in regards to these PD activities (Amundsen and Wilson 2012, Bond and Blevins 2020), as well as the complex and contentious issues associated with implementation and evaluation procedures (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015, van Schalkwyk et al. 2015, Englund et al. 2018). However, even when well-designed PD opportunities that meet evidence-based criteria are adopted, the desired outcomes of improving university practices may be impeded (Amundsen and Wilson 2012). Concerns remain about the resistance of faculty to adopting student-centred approaches (Bond and Blevins 2020), as well as the quality and effectiveness of PD opportunities offered to faculty (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015).

Drawing on such work, this study documents the development and evaluation of a PD programme at one university in Qatar. Within this context, several PD initiatives have been available to facilitate improved teaching and learning practices among faculty, yet for the most part, these initiatives have been disseminated through a series of one-shot workshops with short-term goals. A recent evaluation study has shown the limitations of current forms of large-scale training activities, and suggested that to better support faculty to learn about SCL approaches, it is essential they experience the desired pedagogical methodology as learners through the PD activities they participate in (Sabah and Du 2018). One initiative that had long-term goals and supported faculty as change agents was the Faculty Pedagogical Development Programme (henceforth PD programme). Built on social constructivist theories of adult learning, the programme encouraged the co-creation of knowledge through interaction, collaboration, reflection, and authentic tasks. Accordingly, faculty were immersed within multiple socio-cultural contexts, where they took part in cognitive and behavioural activities that may have influenced not only what they learned, but how they engaged in learning processes. Similar to Boylan et al. (2017), we use the term PD programme to refer to activities or opportunities that may lead to faculty professional learning.

Inspiring evidence for the potential of PD activities have been well-documented in extant literature, including increased knowledge, changed beliefs, enhanced instructional practices, and improved academic achievement for students (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015, Saroyan and Trigwell 2015). When these desired outcomes are set aside inconclusive findings in other studies (Stes et al. 2010, Englund et al. 2018), these discrepancies become part of an ongoing debate which considers the evaluation of PD as a complex endeavour, yet one which requires the continued pursuit of empirical evidence on what PD opportunities have to offer (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015, van Schalkwyk et al. 2015).

This study engages in this debate and offers a different perspective to the evaluation of PD through a systems-thinking perspective. Specifically, it explores the influence of a PD programme on faculty professional learning, conceptualised as the change to student-centred beliefs and/or practices. Furthermore, it examines participants’ perceptions of the factors influencing their agency to change (or not) within nested systems, including individual, sociocultural and structural systems (van Schalkwyk et al. 2015, Englund et al. 2018). Accordingly, it offers insight in two main fields; the first encompasses a blueprint for the development of a PD programme using social constructivist theories of adult learning in a HE context, and the second provides empirical data on the evaluation of this PD programme, documenting the systems of influence on professional learning through the perceptions of participating faculty.

Evaluating PD programmes using systems-thinking perspectives

Faculty PD entails complex processes of change. Engaging in PD programmes, faculty are expected to be cognitively and emotionally involved in varying activities, both individual and collective. As agentive individuals, they are also expected to have the capacity and willingness to examine previously held beliefs about teaching and learning, evaluate their prior experiences, design improved practices, and sustain appropriate alternatives for transformative change (Taylor 2020). These processes of change do not emerge in vacuum, as HE structures and cultures, and general educational policy environments, some of which more conducive to learning than others, influence faculty engagement, motivation, and agency to enact anticipated change in mostly unpredictable ways (van Schalkwyk et al. 2015). This perspective towards PD recognises the futility of predicting the outcomes of PD programmes from initial conditions, and places more emphasis on emergence as an explicit characteristic of learning in complex systems (Mason 2008, Cochran-Smith et al. 2014).

Taking this systems-thinking approach to the evaluation of PD programmes thus allows for deeper understanding of the processes, people, cultures, resources, and external systems which interact to influence desired individual change (Bond and Blevins 2020). Individuals are thus considered key components of any organisational system, and finding ways to influence change often begins with considering individuals as complex systems themselves (Cochran-Smith et al. 2014). This means acknowledging individuals’ past and changing experiences, conceptions, agency, and practices (Davis and Sumara 2006). In the midst of such complexity, faculty react or adapt in their own self-organising ways in response to PD programmes, having their own unique perspectives and experiences regarding the nature and functioning of such systems.

For the most part, a process-product logic has dominated the literature on PD (Boylan et al. 2017, Taylor 2020). In response, Opfer and Pedder (2011) have accounted for the intricacies in PD processes by arguing that change occurs within ‘overlapping recursive systems’ (p. 384). More recently, Taylor (2020) suggested that PD ‘emerges unpredictably, through agency and intra-actions with others and within shared phenomena’ (p. 4, original emphasis). Similarly, several researchers have adopted this systems-thinking approach in HE, proposing that PD is influenced by a set of nested systems which interact in different ways and in different intensities at the micro, meso, and macro levels (Boylan et al. 2017, Englund et al. 2018), though their boundaries tend to be both fluid and overlapping (Davis and Sumara 2006). This perspective avoids causality and linearity, as ‘change occurs simultaneously at different levels and these changes work together to produce outcomes’ (Boylan et al. 2017, p. 132). Accordingly, research on PD should identify these ‘emergent patterns of interaction within and between levels of activity that would constitute an explanatory theory of [faculty] learning as a complex system’ (Opfer and Pedder 2011, p. 379).

Intended and unintended outcomes of PD programmes

In evaluating the outcomes of PD programmes, multiple considerations require careful decision making. Chalmers and Gardiner (2015) list these considerations as, ‘determining indicators of effectiveness, identifying what aspects to measure, how to measure them and how to interpret and respond to the results’ (p. 81). Accordingly, several studies provide evidence for the outcomes of PD programmes on faculty critical reflections (Du et al. 2020), conceptions of teaching and learning (Postareff et al. 2007), teaching skills and practices (Stes et al. 2010), and the scholarship of teaching and learning (Kálmán et al. 2020). Together, these studies confirm that it is both possible and necessary to evaluate PD programmes and evidence changes across multiple outcomes (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015). They also allude to the importance of collecting data longitudinally using a data-driven method and from multiple sources (Stes et al. 2010), as well as considering the broader organisational contexts or systems within which PD programmes are nested (Englund et al. 2018).

Despite mostly positive outcomes, several studies have also explored factors which hinder faculty change through formal PD activities (Englund et al. 2018). In practice, the relationship between PD activities and subsequent outcomes, such as changed beliefs or improved student-centred practices, is wrought with multiple challenges (Du et al. 2020, van Schalkwyk et al. 2015), and a range of factors may impede desired outcomes (Englund et al. 2018). For example, Du et al. 2020 discussed obstacles at three interrelated levels: systemic, individual, and cultural, following an intensive PBL-based PD programme in Qatar. These challenges included government policies for HE systems, rigid curricular standards, large class sizes, research commitments, examination requirements, and a lack of autonomy. Further, van Schalkwyk et al. (2015) revealed structural and cultural obstacles impeding faculty professional learning, specifically noting dominant discourses which place more value on research over teaching, and create tensions between institutional and individual values and goals.

Based on these considerations, this study explores the perceptions of faculty on their professional learning, conceptualised as the change to student-centred beliefs and/or practices, and the factors either supporting or hindering their professional learning within individual, socio-cultural and structural systems. Accordingly, the current study was guided by the following questions:

RQ1:

What perceptions of professional learning emerge from faculty participating in the PD programme?

RQ2:

Which individual, sociocultural and structural systems interact to influence faculty professional learning from the PD programme?

Context of the study

The PD programme under examination acknowledged the way knowledge is individually constructed and socially co-constructed through experiences, interactions, and relationships. Integral to social constructivist theories are the social-cultural contexts where learning and change take place. As a multi-tiered PD programme, several opportunities to experience learning and interact with peers, facilitators and coordinators became possible. The programme was divided into an initial preparation stage and the implementation stage in two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2).

During the one-semester preparation stage, we (the authors and the PD coordinators) obtained institutional support for the PD programme. We then examined the institutional priorities and goals in order to better align them with the programme’s intended outcomes, and consequently bring about desired individual and organisational change (see Appendix 1 for a list of the PD learning outcomes). Further preparation activities constituted designing learning activities and recruiting one facilitator from across the colleges housed in the university. A total of 12 college facilitators who met the selection criteria were recruited, including extensive experience at the college, reputation for quality teaching, participation in teaching and learning initiatives, and willingness to participate on a voluntary basis. Each facilitator became responsible for choosing two participants from within their colleges based on their interest in innovative teaching approaches and their willingness to participate in the programme for a total of 24 faculty members. These college facilitators were thus involved in the PD programme as change agents, facilitating participants’ learning and change within college-specific learning communities.

The implementation of the PD programme constituted two phases (phase 1 and 2) across the Spring and Fall semesters of 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, phase 1 of the programme shifted to an online format using Microsoft Teams as the platform for conducting synchronous meetings and discussions, while phase 2 was conducted in a face-to face mode. The two phases were differentiated through the activities and requirements of participation. In phase 1, participants were introduced to PD materials in the form of six recorded PowerPoint presentations and eight synchronous meetings, and were mainly required to redesign their course syllabi using principles of constructive alignment and student-centred approaches. In phase 2, participants were required to implement their new teaching designs and participate in four face-to-face meetings for discussion and reflection.

In effect, the PD was designed around four basic principles grounded in social constructivist theories of adult learning: (1) reflective practices, (2) facilitated discussions, (3) learning communities, and (4) authentic tasks. Thus, participants experienced SCL approaches firsthand as learners in this PD programme. A succinct description of how these four principles were operationalised in the PD programme is revealed in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the foundational principles of the PD programme.

Principles	Activities
Reflective practices	- Participant reflections were embedded in the T&L portfolios, which were completed three time in phase 1 and twice in phase 2. - Participants were also prompted to reflect during the synchronous meetings in breakout rooms. - The reflections generally required participants to consider past and current experiences and share thoughts on student-centered practices.
Facilitated discussions	- During phase 1, participants discussed the material presented through recorded PowerPoints during the synchronous meetings and completed collaborative tasks. - During phase 2, participants were able to meet physically to discuss the implementation of their new teaching designs. - In parallel, participants’ discussions with their college facilitators offered space to explore different topics in depth, negotiate and co-create understandings, and exchange perspectives through social interactions.
Learning communities	- Participants took part in across-college communities, where they offered and received feedback during the facilitated discussions and during the implementation of their new teaching designs. - They also participated in college-specific communities. Two participants and the college facilitator reflected on program materials, discussed new teaching designs, and found solutions to emerging challenges. Participants could also receive specialised feedback on the implementation of their new teaching designs.
Authentic tasks	- During phase 1, participants engaged in collaborative tasks to solve issues concerning proposed change and employ skills, such as team building and problem-solving. - During phase 2, participants implemented their new teaching designs, considering issues and needs within their teaching contexts without necessarily following the same trajectory for change.

Method

Research design

According to Opfer and Pedder (2011), the multiplicity and complexity of the systems where PD activities are embedded create difficulties for understanding their influence on participants’ professional learning. To mitigate this limitation, they suggested collecting data from a range of sources, to allow for different components of the system to be captured and the generation of understandings from multiple perspectives. Accordingly, this study adopted a case study research design in which the sources of qualitative data were collected throughout the implementation of the PD programme. Two main sources of data were used, including five teaching and learning (T&L) portfolio entries and two semi-structured interviews conducted at the end of each phase of the PD programme.

Similar to Taylor (2020), the data collected sought ‘depth and detail, without placing unmanageable burdens on participants, keeping open possibilities for further material or interpretations to arise and be shared’ (p. 4). This structured approach to collecting and analysing data within systematic intervals of time provided useful evidence documenting the changes to participants’ learning, and hence their progress towards the PD programmes’ intended outcomes. It also allowed for a nuanced understanding of participants’ interactions within nested systems, and the factors influencing their professional learning.

Participants

A total of 24 faculty members chosen from the university’s 11 colleges and general studies programme, including 6 females and 18 males, participated in phase 1 of the PD programme. Participants held PhDs in various discipline areas (e.g. education, marketing, medicine, dentistry, and engineering). For various reasons, the number of participants dropped to 19 faculty in phase 2 of the programme. The data from the 5 participants who discontinued their participation were included in the analysis as they had completed more than half of the data collected from the other participants; that is three T&L portfolio entries and a semi-structured interview at the end of phase 1. Table 2 includes the demographic data of participants, excluding the specification of the participants’ colleges, majors and years of experience to maintain anonymity.

Table 2. Demographic data.

No.	Title	Gender	Participation
1	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
2	Lecturer	M	Phase 1 and 2
3	Associate Professor	F	Phase 1 and 2
4	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
5	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1
6	Associate Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
7	Professor	M	Phase 1
8	Professor	M	Phase 1
9	Assistant Professor	F	Phase 1 and 2
10	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1
11	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
12	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
13	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
14	Assistant Professor	F	Phase 1
15	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
16	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
17	Associate Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
18	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
19	Assistant Professor	F	Phase 1 and 2
20	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
21	Assistant Professor	F	Phase 1 and 2
22	Associate Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
23	Assistant Professor	M	Phase 1 and 2
24	Assistant Professor	F	Phase 1 and 2

Data collection

With the aim of gathering sufficient evidence for a detailed evaluation, we collected data from two main sources: T&L portfolios and semi-structured interviews, both detailed below. To triangulate the data from these main sources, we kept records of observational data, the small-group discussions with participants, and the new teaching design in the form of a course syllabus.

Teaching and learning (T&L) portfolios. Portfolios were used by participants to self-reflect and report evidence of their prior experiences, previous and changing beliefs and practices, and plans for new teaching designs. Using guiding questions, participants were asked about their teaching philosophies, understandings of SCL and challenges to implementing SCL, as well as their perceptions of learning from the PD programme. Participants completed their portfolios in English or Arabic according to their preferences. The T&L portfolio provided a progressive record of faculty professional learning, with each participant submitting their writing three times during phase 1 and twice in phase 2, for a total of five entries. Participants also received dialogic comments on their journal entries in the form of written conversations. They were invited to respond to this conversation by reflecting and revising their portfolio entries with further details.

Semi-structured interview. A main data source was the semi-structured interview which participants took part in at the end of phase 1 and 2 of the PD programme. The interviews sought higher degrees of trustworthiness and validity in the interpretation of participants’ perceptions as reported in the T&L portfolios. Several questions were used to probe into participants’ experiences throughout the programme, such as critical incidents, perceived professional learning, contextual hindrances and affordances, projections on new teaching design, and implementation. Interview procedures followed techniques suggested by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), and encouraged participants to suggest aspects of their participation without limiting the discussion to the interview questions. Interviews were conducted by a research assistant to give participants the freedom to discuss their perceptions freely in their preferred language without the PD coordinators. The research assistant was a fluent bilingual in Arabic and English, and participants were able to use either language according to preference. All interviews were recorded in the original language they were conducted, and then only the interviews conducted in Arabic were translated into English by the research assistant.

Data analysis

Data analysis began with the transcription of the interviews conducted at the end of phase 1 and 2 of the programme. We first analysed the interview data as a separate set, followed by the participants’ T&L portfolios. In the final stage, we used the data collected from our classroom observations, discussions with participants, and the course syllabi to confirm the emerging themes.

In analysing the two data sources, we used thematic analysis guidelines (Creswell and Plano 2007) to begin the process of reducing the large amount of data into a manageable undertaking. Beginning with the interview data, the first author used the guiding questions to classify transcripts into tables, as well as select and reduce any irrelevant information. Following this step, the three authors read the classified data several times, while taking notes and using codes guided by the research questions. In response to RQ1, we searched inductively for instances that indicated a clear change in beliefs and/or practices towards SCL. However, for RQ2, we used a conceptual framework inspired by systems-thinking perspectives that consisted of individual, socio-cultural and structural dimensions to deductively search for factors which supported or hindered faculty professional learning and change.

Using a similar approach, we classified and reduced the portfolio data to aid the process of identifying emerging themes. Beginning with the portfolio guiding questions, the first author classified participants’ responses into tables, while illuminating redundancies and irrelevant information. Following this step, the three authors read the responses and used codes to classify the data individually then collectively guided by the research questions. While an inductive approach was used in identifying emerging themes in response to RQ1, a deductive approach using the adopted conceptual framework was used to identify emerging themes in response to RQ2. The two sets of analyses were combined in the final stage through multiple rounds of discussions and consensus building deliberations.

Findings

In this section, we present the emerging themes guided by the research questions, pertaining to participants’ perceptions of their professional learning. In response to RQ1, we identified how participants perceived their learning and change towards SCL beliefs and/or practices. We delineated these perceived changes as an outcome of participating in this multi-tiered PD programme, which provided opportunity for social interactions among different change agents (e.g. peers, college facilitators and PD coordinators) and multiple learning opportunities as described in Table 1. For RQ2, we classified the factors supporting or hindering faculty professional learning into three systems, while realising the intricacies and interrelationships among them. Succinct summaries for RQ1 and RQ2 are presented in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.

Table 3. Emerging theme in response to research question 1.

Theme 1 Change to beliefs	Enhanced understanding	Understanding through practice	(sufficient) Prior understanding
	Participants 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20	Participants 21, 22, 23, 24	Participants 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 14
Theme 2 Change to practices	Proactive change	Experimental change	Minimal/ Superficial change	No change
	Participants 9, 11, 17, 18, 20	Participants 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 15, 16	Participants 13, 21, 22, 23, 24	Participants 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14

Table 4. Emerging themes in response to research question 2.

	Support	Hinderance
Individual system	Individual learning initiatives Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Regular reflections during implementation Participants 6, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20	Belief about inapplicable ideas in certain contexts Participants 2, 13, 15, 16
Socio-cultural system	Students’ acceptance of SCL Participants 11, 16, 17, 18, 20 Facilitator support Participants all except 5, 6, 7, 8	Students’ readiness and skills Participants 5, 6, 13, 16, 19, 22 Students’ attitudes and academic integrity Participants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19
Structural system	PD as a support system Participants 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23	Department concerns Participants 2, 13, 14, 20 Organizational micro-management Participants 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21 PD commitments Participants 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 21, 23, 24

RQ1-Theme 1: Changes to beliefs

Through the data analysis, participants expressed changes to beliefs which were categorised into three groups. The first two groups expressed belief change, either through thinking about and conceptualising SCL approaches, or through applying these approaches in action. A third group expressed no belief change due to sufficient prior knowledge of and readiness for SCL approaches.

Enhanced understandings. A number of participants (N = 13) explained how their beliefs became aligned with SCL approaches. According to these participants, the changes to their beliefs occurred through enhanced understandings about what SCL means and what it entails within their contexts. Prior to the PD programme, these participants had varying levels of understanding about SCL ranging from ‘limited knowledge about these approaches’ (P9) through to having a ‘solid foundation in educational psychology’ (P4). Yet, they all acknowledged a ‘refined understanding of SCL’ (P6), which is ‘more comprehensive’ (P15), ‘detailed’ (P16), and ‘immersed in the theories of SCL, like constructivism’ (P3). They disregarded their initial definitions of SCL as a ‘delivery method’ (P6) and associated it with students who will gain ‘higher levels of understanding and analysis’ (P17) and ‘deeper knowledge and skills than through conventional learning’ (P9).

Accordingly, they were “better able to define students’ roles” (P12), which constituted ‘having a voice in their learning’ (P11), ‘taking responsibility of their decisions and actions’ (P9), and ‘participating actively in constructing their knowledge’ (P15). These roles were contrasted with their ‘equally important roles as instructors’ (P16). Such that, ‘rather than someone who has a bag of knowledge to give to students’ (P17), their job is ‘to help them develop professional identities as students and future professionals, which means to start treating them as colleagues, not only as students’ (P11). Alternatively, a representative illustration of an instructor’s role was depicted in P19’s perception of her role as ‘a facilitator of the learning experience,’ and seeing herself as ‘meeting every student where they are’ and ‘making sure they have the tools they need to learn.’

Particularly, the advantage of the PD programme, according to P15 was in ‘the opportunity to assess [his] beliefs about teaching,’ while further prompting P17 “to question his previous beliefs about students’ abilities to learn independently and from each other.” The PD programme was also an opportunity for P18 to ‘have academic consciousness about SCL and the difficulties involved in adopting such approach,’ accordingly, ‘SCL is not a term, it’s not a definition … it’s in the beliefs and the culture of the department, college, and university.’

Understanding through practice. Other participants (N = 4), however, were already involved in a problem-based curriculum at their respective colleges, and instead of deepening their understandings of SCL through the PD programme only, their understandings and belief change were developed through their involvement in practice. As novices to the college and to problem-based learning (PBL), they were ‘simultaneously learning the theories and the practices’ (P21), and were able to ‘articulate [their] experiences using a solid theoretical and methodological thinking framework’ (P22). They further discussed their beliefs in practical terms, describing what they were learning through their engagement in the curriculum. According to P23, ‘students should think for themselves, analyse the problem themselves, go and research the problem, and have a dialogue between themselves.’ In agreement, P21 believed students ‘are the core of learning, and they should pave the way for their learning,’ while her role ‘is to direct them and keep the desire of learning always up.’

Despite these changes, they expressed critical views about the PBL curriculum at their college, and described remnants of their previously held beliefs. For instance, P24 explained how she ‘had used PBL before, but also other approaches,’ and believes the curriculum should be based on “an integrated methodology, maybe PBL and other teacher-centred methods, to maximise students’ learning.” P23 was also critical of the challenges for students in a PBL curriculum, and contemplated its advantages over the traditional lecture. Particularly, ‘a problem will take over 5 to 6 hours to really give justice to it,’ while ‘a traditional lecture for that particular topic will probably just take an hour of time.’

Sufficient prior understandings. Yet a third group of participants (N = 6) believed to possess a clear understanding of SCL approaches prior to joining the PD programme. According to these participants, the programme did not lead to belief change nor further their understandings. According to P2, ‘the coordinators assumed that these concepts are new to the participants, and which in fact they aren’t,’ while P1 ‘already studied these concepts not only as part of [his] PhD in education, but also through the workshops [he] attended at the university.’ They also articulated similar beliefs to those of other participants, in that ‘SCL is a methodology where the student is at the centre, running the learning process, not only in the classroom, but also through curriculum design and assessment, and beyond to the job market’ (P14). One advantage offered by the PD programme was as ‘a good reminder of what [they] already knew’ (P5). Ultimately, five of these six participants concluded their participation in the PD programme by the end of phase 1.

RQ1-Theme 2: Changes to practices

While a major goal of the PD programme was to evidence changes in participants’ practices, particularly through the requirement of planning and implementing a new teaching design, yet such change was found to vary considerably among participants. On a continuum ranging from transformational change (N = 5), experimental change (N = 8), superficial change (N = 5), and no change (N = 6), participants planned for their new teaching designs and (in most cases) implemented such designs with significant differences.

Proactive change. Common to the five participants was the implementation of a uniquely redesigned course, which entailed different approaches to SCL. One participant ‘replaced the lectures with a Socratic method and flipped classroom approach’ (P11), while another ‘implemented Teams-based Learning in the lab sessions’ (P20), and three others implemented PBL ‘through a step-by-step process, gradually transferring the responsibility of learning to students’ (P18) and ‘not worrying about covering the content as before’ (P9). They added new components to their courses, such as ‘group assignments, reflection papers, and peer evaluations’ (P17), which they had never used before. Such proactive behaviours and actions became inherent in the participants’ complete buy-in of the ideas presented during the PD programme, with P20 describing his change as a ‘transformation.’ He articulated this notion clearly, commenting that:

In the first stages of that program, I was in denial, I didn’t want to accept most of these ideas … but then it made a transformation in the way I am teaching, which isn’t temporary, it will impact all my future work, and I will continue to learn and make further changes.

Experimental change. Participants in this group were more cautious in implementing the SCL approaches discussed during the PD programme. They ‘increased the use of practices which conform with SCL’ (P6), and ‘experimented with these methods to find out their effectiveness in practice’ (P15). P16 claimed to make ‘minor changes to the syllabus, such as including student-driven explanations and group activities … because the course had particular requirements for covering the content.’ He also ‘made sure groups were prepared ahead of the presentations in class, so that the other students received deep knowledge.’ All the while, they were cognisant of the challenges they faced, yet ‘developed a better appreciation for SCL, and a became more open to applying these changes in other courses’ (P19).

Minimal change. Those participants who were already engaged in a PBL-based curriculum found it difficult to make changes to their teaching. Not only were they ‘new to the college and trying to adapt to the new practices’ (P21), but also ‘the structure of the curriculum was not the same as other colleges, [they] didn’t have individual courses’ (P24). As a result, ‘participation in this program did not change the way [they] were teaching because [they] already adopt SCL’ (P21). Accordingly, they ‘decided to improve the rubric used for assessing student presentations’ (P22) at the medical college, as well as ‘adding some dental components to the PBL problems’ (P23) at the dental college. Notwithstanding the intricacies at these two colleges, P13 also made minimal changes to his course, by ‘increasing the number of case studies and giving the lectures through recorded videos,’ without making changes to assessment procedures.

RQ2-Theme 1: Factors within the individual system

Notwithstanding the nature of change to beliefs and/or practices, two factors influencing professional learning, conceptualised as the change to SCL approaches, at the individual level were supportive of change. These included individual learning initiatives and regular reflection. While the factor of managing inapplicable ideas to courses constituted a hindrance

Individual learning initiatives. On a constructive note, many participants (N = 18) engaged in a variety of individual learning activities to further their learning of SCL practices relevant to their contexts. While most (N = 10) focused on the resources disseminated throughout the PD programme, many others sought different sources, such as watching videos online (N = 2), browsing other university websites for information (N = 3), reading academic literature (N = 6), and attending PD activities offered through the university’s centre for teaching and learning excellence (N = 2). Individual learning preferences were thus revealed in their decisions to pursue learning in multiple ways. In P20’s words:

The PD program was implemented by focusing on different aspects, they didn’t cover all teaching methodologies, all ways of assessment, but they took into considerations the involvement of staff in teaching and research, there were selected topics for everyone to have that space and to learn on their own.

Regular reflection. In addition, several participants (N = 7) described their engagement in regular reflections during the implementation phase, which enabled them to monitor their progress and their students’ reactions, and make necessary adjustments to the new teaching design. For instance, P18 ‘met regularly with his colleague to reflect and look back on what they experienced, what worked and what did not, what needs to be changed.’ Similarly, P20 ‘adapted and changed aspects of the course every week … such as adding formative assessments to the TBL modules,’ which he ‘began with the MCQ at the level of knowledge, then making these assessments at a higher level, by adding a clinical component, and finally adding a presentation.’ These reflections further enabled these participants to evaluate their actions and make judgements about their efficiency. According to P17, his reflections led him to disproving certain aspects of his course, such as ‘giving students too much guidance’, and approving others, such as ‘peer evaluation and peer instruction’. In general, he expressed the ‘need to redesign the projects to give students more freedom to explore independently.’

Inapplicable ideas to courses. In contrast to the two supporting factors at the individual level, some participants (N = 4) believed the PD programme comprised ideas which were unsupported in their courses and contexts. According to P15, ‘the PD program advocated particular ideas that seemed to be challenging to implement in [his] context.’ He was further ‘afraid that applying such ideas in [his] courses might be at the expense of knowledge.’ In agreement, P16 was unable to implement PBL, because ‘this approach is not compatible with the nature of [his] course, and [he] was hesitating in some areas, in fear of losing the content and how it is transferred.’ Despite recalling the ‘warning against placing the content before the students,’ he was in favour of ‘having the flexibility to choose other approaches which work best for [his] students.’

RQ2-Theme 2: Factors within the socio-cultural system

In their interactions with students and colleagues, participants noted two hindering factors influencing their professional learning, as well as two supports to their learning.

Students’ readiness and skills. For the most part participants discussed their concerns about students’ readiness and skills for SCL approaches (N = 6), which was a factor hindering their professional learning. Participants faced challenges with students who ‘didn’t read the material or come prepared to class’ (P11), or students who ‘were used to getting information from the instructor and memorising it’ (P4). According to P6, the challenge was in the novelty of the experience for students, who ‘had to put in extra effort, and this was not part of their culture, as they come from an environment where they are used to receiving information and not participating in its construction.’ The variation among students was another challenge for P13 who noticed that ‘despite the heterogeneous grouping of students, they still depend on other students, rather than do their work.’

Students’ attitudes and academic integrity. In addition to their skills, some participants (N = 11) expressed concern about students’ attitudes and academic integrity. While P3 could understand that ‘students are a little bit overwhelmed and overloaded,’ other participants were concerned about the way students were ‘grade-driven and uncommitted to learning’ (P19). In comparing his course with others, P13’s students were ‘resistant and questioned why they were different, and why they had to put in more effort.’ Additionally, a common perception among these participants was in line with P5’s comment, such that ‘when students are asked to research or write about a particular topic, they either copy/paste or ask someone to do it for them.’ For P4, ‘this issue gets better with years and maturity, but first year students remain a challenge.’

Students’ acceptance. Particularly at the end of phase 2, participants recounted their implementation of SCL, sometimes for the first time in their courses. For some participants (N = 5), students’ acceptance of these approaches allowed them to feel reassured that SCL was ‘beneficial and mandatory’ (P16) for their students. According to P11, the new teaching design ‘worked really well and students were participatory, active, engaged, and really prepared.’ P18 was also “happy with the students’ reactions,” and believed that they ‘found it relevant and important because this is happening outside the class, they saw other universities working like them, and everyone in the industries is following this way.’ Students’ acceptance was reason for P16 to ‘continue doing SCL because they considered the course a point of transformation in their learning, as it was the first time they were in charge.’ Among other benefits, P20 confirmed students’ ‘higher engagement levels’, as well as ‘becoming more independent and mature.’

Support from college facilitators. While participants focused mainly on students’ reactions towards their practices in phase 2, most participants (N = 20) responded favourably to the support from the college facilitators as an enabling and influential factor, specifically during the planning phase. According to these participants, the college facilitator played multiple roles, including ‘motivating them to attend the workshops’ (4), ‘keeping their morale high’ (P3), ‘clarifying some concepts’ (P16), and ‘giving them the ideas for change’ (P23). Specifically when the facilitators had undergone similar experiences, they were able to ‘share their experiences, resources and course material’ (P18). In some cases, the facilitator also ‘conducted classroom observations’ (P16), ‘provided feedback on their progress’ (P1), and ‘responded to their T&L portfolios’ (P13). In the case of P20, the college facilitator ‘made a big contribution, as she was the one who showed [him] that [he] must change and helped [him] in acquiring the learning outcomes which were stipulated for this program.’

RQ2-Theme 3: Factors within the structural system

Within the interplay between structure and agency, several participants noted a heightened awareness of several structural hindrances which had varying influences on their agency to enact change as advanced by the PD programme.

Little support from the department. Four participants (N = 4) illustrated their concerns about the support afforded by their departments to implement the new teaching designs. It had been common for the majority of participants to report support from direct managers, who in some cases were themselves ‘promoting experiential learning’ (P13) or ‘allowed complete freedom for change’ (P9). Yet, not all departments were equally supportive, as P20 explained:

everyone was completely against what I was proposing, and it was a very difficult experience to convince them about the changes I wanted to bring to the course. In the end, they accepted some changes, but they will take it gradually.

With this he ‘became determined to show them change and give them a success story.’ Though not with the same intensity, the other participants discussed the limitations for change due to ‘highly coordinated courses’ (P14), which ‘have to be aligned with colleagues teaching the same course, in terms of materials, weekly sessions, and assessments’ (P13). Particularly, the ability to adapt assessments and grade distribution was a hindrance for faculty who ‘lacked autonomy to implement PD in their classrooms in more meaningful ways’ (P2).

Organisational micro-management. Additional structural hindrances, as described by several participants (N = 10), were due to the organisational micro-management procedures imposed from senior leadership. Among these procedures, participants noted ‘having a heavy workload with large class sizes’ (P2), which hindered P1’s implementation of PBL in his course and ‘caused [him] a lot of distress.’ Notwithstanding the large class sizes, P3 described another challenge with time constraints, showing how ‘the session is only 50 minutes long, and there’s a need for more time especially if students are to debate, reflect and express their thoughts.’

Another common hindrance was ‘adhering to the assessment policy, which does not give instructors enough room for decisions’ (P10). In this respect, P12 elaborated on this note, indicating that university policies ‘dictate how many assessments instructors have to give, when they have to give them, and what percentage they have.’ With the freedom to choose the type of assessment, P14 noted how instructors resorted to MCQs on exams to avoid further restrictions on their time, indicating that ‘when instructors teach 150 students, it will be a challenge to correct this many answers.’ This exam-focused culture ‘does a lot of harm to learning,’ according to P10.

Another caveat was associated with the promotion policy, which according to P19, ‘instructors are evaluated on research and committees and services, but unfortunately not on their teaching.’

PD programme as a support system. Lastly, as a structural system in itself, the PD programme was perceived as a support system by many participants (N = 15). Several characteristics of the PD programme were praised by most participants, including the theory-practice connection, sharing knowledge, written reflections, exchanging experiences, individualised support, follow up and feedback. According to P6:

The seminars directed their work, and placed this work within a context. Without such discussions, agreements and disagreement, and bringing people together, then this program would not have continued.

Similar to several participants, for P9, it was ‘knowing about how things are done in different colleges’ which she found most useful, while P18 ‘learned a lot from the constructive feedback from very knowledgeable participants from different colleges.’ In agreement, P4 noted, ‘there will always be something to learn from the experiences of others.’

The role of the programme coordinators was also praised. P16 appreciated the fact that ‘they read the portfolio answers and responded to them, which reflected a lot of consideration and respect.’ P3 also found ‘the presence of the coordinators most useful, because sometimes instructors think they are doing the right thing, but they need experts in pedagogy to comment and share their ideas.’ P12 also ‘felt that some participants were really fighting some parts of the program, and the coordinators did a really good job, explaining it and kind of taking down some of the walls that people were putting up.’ According to P9, ‘change is a difficult thing for some people. it’s easy to put barriers up than to be open to it.’

Also on a positive note, participants differentiated the structure of the PD program from other workshops they commonly attend at the university. For P20, ‘it was not like the one-time workshop which [they] attend and then forget it and nobody will follow up … [they] must show the changes to ensure things will happen.’

PD commitments as a hindrance. For some participants (N = 8), PD commitments came on top of their existing responsibilities. Whether ‘attending seminars, listening to the lectures, or reading,’ P8 found it ‘difficult to catch up and remain on task all the time.’ In agreement, P21 felt overwhelmed with ‘the amount of work which had no end, leaving no boundaries between work and home.’ Lastly, P13, who taught five courses at the time, felt the constraint of the PD programme on his time, indicating that ‘it was very intensive to do all the activities, the preparation and the implementation in a short time.’

Discussion and implications

The study aimed to evaluate the Faculty Pedagogical Development Program; a PD programme implemented at one university in Qatar over the duration of two semesters. Building on social constructivist theories of adult learning, the programme was designed around four basic principles: (1) reflective practices, (2) facilitated discussions, (3) learning communities, and (4) authentic tasks. These principles may provide a blueprint for HE institutions seeking to innovate in designing PD programmes that promote faculty adoption of SCL in a university context.

Specifically for HE institutions locked into traditional teaching methodology, we see value in breaking this cycle through engaging faculty as change agents in the design and implementation phases of PD programmes, as well as integrating a mixture of top-down support and bottom-up decision making. Noting this dissimilarity between the PD programme and traditional workshops, several participants also commended the theory-practice connection, sharing knowledge, written reflections, exchanging experiences, individualised support, follow up and feedback. These findings provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these characteristics, adding to what works in extant literature (Amundsen and Wilson 2012, Bond and Blevins 2020). Particularly in relation to the theory-practice connection, this study highlights the significance of this connection in supporting faculty to develop deeper understandings of the underlying principles that govern their teaching, and to apply this knowledge in improving their practices.

In this evaluation study, we further explored the influence of this PD programme on faculty’s perceived professional learning, conceptualised as the change to student-centred beliefs and/or practices. A total of twenty-four faculty from eleven colleges and the general studies programme joined phase 1 of the programme in Spring 2021, while nineteen participants moved on to phase 2 in Fall 2021. Using systems-thinking perspectives in analysing the data collected mainly from T&L portfolios and semi-structured interviews, we became interested not only in the different ways in which participants engaged in professional learning, but also in the systems of influence which may have supported or hindered their change efforts. We rationalised that understanding both content and processes of change are necessary for the future improvement of the PD programme, and other similarly designed programmes in a university context. The findings from this study revealed the intricacies associated with professional learning in a HE context, which conformed with previous studies (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015, van Schalkwyk et al. 2015, Englund et al. 2018). The way participants responded to the PD programme and their own professional learning within multiple systems provided evidence for the complexity of linking change initiatives to tangible outcomes (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015), while also underscoring the prospects of PD initiatives in HE systems (Saroyan and Trigwell 2015).

In response to the first research question, participants’ perceptions of change to SCL beliefs and/or practices were documented. Variations among participants were represented in three categories, ranging from perceptions of (1) enhanced understandings through thinking about and conceptualising SCL approaches, (2) understandings through applying these approaches in action, and (3) no belief change due to sufficient prior knowledge of and readiness for such approaches. While most participants documented changes to their beliefs compatible with SCL, they also alluded to source of such change that could not be attributed solely to the PD programme and its defining characteristics. Other participants considered their prior beliefs to be well-aligned to SCL approaches and excluded the need to change. The differences in belief change is a common finding in some studies which have examined belief change among faculty (Saroyan and Trigwell 2015). In-depth case studies of specific participants may further reveal which of the prerequisites for change were at play (or not), including for example, the acknowledgement of a gap in knowledge, the condition of value and relevance, the acquisition of practical skills, or the presence of motivation for change (e.g. Saroyan and Trigwell 2015).

Similar variations were also revealed in regards to participants’ perceptions of the change to practices. These variations could be represented on a continuum ranging from (1) proactive change, (2) experimental change, (3) superficial change, and (4) no change. Participants planned and implemented their new teaching designs in their courses under the influence of multiple considerations and intended outcomes. In short, changes to beliefs did not predict or follow from changes to practices, even though this relationship was not necessarily explored in this study. However, one observation which may apply to the way changes to beliefs and practices co-occurred is that they may be considered as ‘simultaneities,’ not ‘discontinuities,’ as ‘events or phenomena that exist or operate at the same time’ (Davis 2008, p. 51). Another important note on change was evident in the way participants used their agency to make decisions about engagement, to what extent they wanted to change their practices and in which direction. In some cases, participants opted out of change all together. Accordingly, PD providers may be alerted to the notion that change is a complex phenomenon that emerges organically within complex systems. Additionally, they may further consider the notion that change in beliefs and practices are not synonymous nor are they prerequisites of each other. Rather, concerted efforts should target changed beliefs and improved practices throughout the PD programme.

In response to the second research question, the individual, socio-cultural and structural systems of supports or hindrances were documented through participants’ perceptions. While the factors documented in this study were by no means exhaustive, they nonetheless reflected the interplay of diverse factors on the potential of faculty professional learning (van Schalkwyk et al. 2015). Within the individual system, participants reported individual learning and regular reflections as supporting their professional learning, while believing in the inapplicability of certain ideas hindered their learning. While influenced by other systems, as agentive participants, they were making intentional choices and decisions about their professional learning based on their personal priorities (van Schalkwyk et al. 2015), and for this, flexibility and autonomy should be encouraged in future iterations of this PD programme and other programmes in university contexts. For instance, according to Taylor (2020), there needs to be a distinction between participants’ experiences in PD initiatives and what they eventually learn, noting that ‘just as the English language does not permit us to learn others, so we cannot develop them, but others can be supported and guided to develop themselves’ (p. 8). To further support faculty agency, PD experiences should encourage participants to take an active role in their learning, through offering flexible and individualised support, encouraging goal setting, and recognising and rewarding their efforts.

Within the socio-cultural systems, participants’ interactions with students and college facilitators were seen as influencing their professional learning. While some participants may have been encouraged by students’ acceptance of SCL, others were disheartened by their students’ readiness and skills on one hand, and their attitudes and academic integrity on the other. Implementing SCL approaches places more emphasis on students’ academic integrity, as students have more agency to make choices and decisions on their learning, which requires careful deliberations among faculty and students. This discrepancy creates a dilemma for faculty who adopt SCL approaches, as students’ reactions, including reluctance, stress, and academic honesty may discourage continued change among faculty (Du et al. 2020, Seidel and Tanner 2013). Students’ negative attitudes towards certain approaches may be attributed to their lack of understanding of their benefits, or to prior negative experiences with their peers or their instructors (Du et al. 2020, Seidel and Tanner 2013). This identified dilemma was also found in a recent study among engineering students’ first encounter with PBL courses in Qatar (Du et al. 2019). While students actively engaged in PBL activities, they also experienced insecurity and fear from innovative teaching practices, and consequently preferred lecture-based methods over continued SCL approaches. These findings emphasise the contexts and systems where innovative approaches begin to substitute the more traditional practices, and which may present challenges that further influence faculty’s engagement (Du et al. 2020). Therefore, in adopting SCL, faculty may need to become aware of the need to establish clear expectations and guidelines for academic integrity, including educating their students on what constitutes misconduct such as plagiarism, cheating and fabrication of data. These issues should be addressed in future iterations of this PD programme, as well as other programmes that promote SCL approaches in university contexts.

Furthermore, the fact that college facilitators were considered drivers of change consolidates the need for an embedded mentoring component as a key feature of effective PD programmes (Taylor 2020). Studies have also reported the significance of discipline-related networks as playing an important role in faculty professional learning (e.g. Kálmán et al. 2020), similar to the perceptions of our participants. For the most part, these empowering relationships were perceived to be influential in leading change in a similar direction to that of the PD programme, thus adding further momentum to change. The complimentary roles played by the college facilitators corroborated with those identified in extant literature (e.g. Margalef and Pareja Roblin 2016), and provide reason for investing in further research into this understudied area.

Lastly, the structural system emerged as a powerful influencer of change. Notwithstanding the PD programme as a support system, participants were perhaps more concerned with the factors interacting in their departments and those at the organisational level, specifically organisational micro-management procedures. Particularly at this research-led organisation, participants perceived the need to value research over teaching, which in another study has been considered as residing ‘structurally and culturally in a contested and unequal space’ (van Schalkwyk et al. 2015, p. 6). Generally, faculty may only invest in activities which will lead to recognition and promotion opportunities, and unless teaching is on this list, then they will continue to privilege research activities. Additionally, the professional learning context, which interacted with participants’ decisions and actions, was replete with procedures that micro-managed faculty work, including heavy workloads, large class sizes, and a debilitating assessment culture. Similar to findings from other studies (Kálmán et al. 2020), these factors worked against participants’ agentive abilities to enact certain practices as desired. Nonetheless, these structural properties can only impede or facilitate change mediated by the way faculty respond to them.

According to Archer (2012), ‘for anything to exert the contingent power of a constraint or an enablement, it has to stand in a relationship such that it obstructs or aids the achievement of some specific agential enterprise’ (p. 6). Commonly debated is this agency-structure dilemma, such that when faculty are subjected to structural control and supervision, they may be discouraged from exploring new ideas or taking risks in their teaching. Within similar contexts, PD providers do well in obtaining top-down support for their programmes ahead of the implementation phase. Open lines of communication, clear expectations and building trust among different stakeholders may work to navigate the micro-management policies.

Compounding these hindrances, several participants considered the PD programme as a strain on their time and energy, and causing more tension on their already existing responsibilities. Accordingly, a supportive and collaborative professional culture within the structural system may mitigate this hindrance and ensure the sustainability of change (Kálmán et al. 2020). The incentives for faculty to participate in PD programmes should also be considered, including rewards, reduced teaching loads, and recognition.

Limitations and conclusion

One limitation of this study pertains to its context. As it was carried out at one university in Qatar, it was therefore explicated primarily within a Gulf context. However, the findings and emergent themes reveal several supports and hindrances of faculty professional learning which may be commonly shared in HE systems, and thus have wider implications. We further emphasise that the findings of this study provide empirical evidence for the multiplicity of factors that need to be taken into consideration when designing and implementing PD programmes and achieving intended outcomes. This study thus provides an overall illustration of such factors for HE institutions seeking to create effective PD programmes that support faculty in adopting SCL approaches. Additionally, while the range of participants’ backgrounds and majors added to the diversity of perceptions and experiences documented in a single study, however single case studies of selected participant’s experiences may further show the individuality of perceptions more wholistically and could be potential for further analysis and reporting in future studies. Lastly, we acknowledge that the interactions among the larger and smaller learning communities were not examined carefully, which may have influenced participants’ professional learning in interesting ways. In future studies, it may be possible to examine the role of these learning communities, specifically that of the college facilitator, in shaping faculty’s experiences and behaviours. We further recommend delving more carefully into the sources of changed beliefs and practices to reveal which design principle influenced faculty professional learning most prominently.

Despite these limitations, the study reports the outcome of addressing the highly complex and contentious matter of evaluating the effectiveness of PD programmes (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015). During the design phase, an initial step may include gathering evidence from effectiveness studies which highlight their essential features and what works in regards to PD activities (Amundsen and Wilson 2012, Bond and Blevins 2020). However, as this study has shown, it is a necessary yet insufficient step for achieving the intended outcomes of any PD programme. Our findings support the need to examine the interrelatedness and intricacies of factors which may influence professional learning at any one time, and may render the experiences of participants in the same PD programme both diverse and complex.

Consent to publish

The authors give their consent for the publication of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.

Appendix 1:

PD programme learning outcomes

By the end of the programme, participants are expected to acquire the ability to:

1. develop understanding of university teaching based on innovative pedagogies that integrate student-centred learning, following university overall strategies;

2. design student-centred learning strategies appropriate for certain disciplinary and interdisciplinary contexts;

3. create new assessment methods that support student-centred learning in a given context;

4. implement classroom activities and assessments that integrate technology effectively with the goal of enhancing student learning;

5. evaluate the effectiveness of changed teaching strategies, assessment methods and technology integration, and document outcomes in the given context;

6. engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning through a research-based approach to pedagogical change.