Enhancing Continuous Professional Development: Adaptive Learning Pathways for Teachers in Technical Universities

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Pei, L., Pessoa, M. P., Zievinger, D., & de Haan, M. (2025). Enhancing Continuous Professional Development: Adaptive Learning Pathways for Teachers in Technical Universities. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631295. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. ENHANCING CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: ADAPTIVE LEARNING PATHWAYS FOR ENGINEERING TEACHERS IN UNIVERSITIES L. Pei a,1, M.V. Pereira Pessoa b, M. de Haan , D.C. Zievinger a 0000-0002-3378-8194 b 0000-0002-1096-8344 Centre of expertise in learning and teaching, University of Twente, the Netherlands Conference Key Areas: Building the capacity and strengthening the educational competences of engineering educators Keywords: Professional development, Engineering teachers, adaptive, flexibility, institutional alignment ABSTRACT Continuous Professional Development is vital for maintaining teaching quality and fostering innovation in higher education. However, traditional CPD approaches often fail to meet the different needs from the diverse set of engineering teachers. This study proposes an adaptive CPD framework, emphasizing flexibility, contextual relevance, ongoing feedback, growth assessment, and institutional alignment. Developed through iterative stakeholder input and grounded in existing literature, the framework offers a structured yet personalized approach to professional development. Preliminary findings suggest that its adaptive design, such as modular content, flexible pathways, and strong contextualization, may enhance engineering teachers’ engagement by aligning closely with their specific needs and classroom realities. However, challenges such as long-term sustainability and institutional integration remain. Overall, the framework presents a promising model for higher education institutions aiming to improve professional development through flexible, personalized, and strategically aligned initiatives. 1 INTRODUCTION Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is internationally recognized as essential for maintaining effective teaching, ensuring educational quality, and fostering innovation in higher education (Ambon et al., 2024; European Commission, 2014). It enables teachers to adapt to evolving educational environments and align with institutional goals (Desimone, 2009). However, traditional CPD approaches often fail to meet the diverse needs of engineering teachers due to their standardized, "one-size-fits-all" design (Pei et al., 2025; Thomas et al., 2016). In such contexts, teachers must stay current on rapidly advancing technologies and juggle diverse responsibilities, including research, administrative tasks, and industry collaborations (Graham, 2018; Hazrat et al., 2023; MacPhail et al., 2019). Compounding this challenge is the limited institutional recognition of teaching innovation, which can discourage meaningful engagement in 1 Corresponding Author L.Pei, [email protected] their CPD (Graham, 2018; MacPhail et al., 2019). To address these gaps, this study introduces an ongoing educational intervention at the University of Twente. The objective is to develop an adaptive CPD framework that prioritizes flexibility, personalization, and sustainability, tailored to the needs of university engineering teachers. The paper will outline the framework’s literature background, design, implementation, and initial findings, offering a roadmap for enhancing CPD in similar contexts. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Effective CPD is grounded in models that connect teachers' learning experiences to tangible improvements in their teaching practices, ultimately enhancing student outcomes (Desimone, 2023). Desimone (2009) established a conceptual framework outlining essential components for effective CPD: content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. Expanding on this foundational framework, Sancar et al. (2021) introduced a comprehensive model that addresses multiple dimensions critical to successful CPD, including assessment, research scale, duration, comprehensiveness, dissemination, context, support, control, and collaboration. Their holistic approach underscores the importance of integrating both individual and collective factors to maximize the effectiveness of CPD. Pham (2021) specifically examined CPD within higher education contexts. He emphasized that effective CPD strategies should incorporate systemic institutional objectives. Additionally, Wall (2013) advocated for an integrated approach that incorporates both formal and informal CPD activities to support the diverse needs and complex realities of academic staff, emphasizing flexibility, pedagogical understanding, and the critical role of professional bodies in universities. Together, these frameworks illustrate a cohesive vision of CPD as a multifaceted and adaptable process. For technical universities, this requires adherence to some core principles: Flexibility ensures that professional development adapts to teachers’ unique schedules, goals, and career stages, making learning both accessible and relevant. Rigid structures with fixed schedules and standardized content often fail to meet diverse needs, reducing engagement and motivation (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). Flexible approaches, such as modular courses, self-paced digital resources, and blended learning, empower teachers by aligning with their specific requirements (Cleveland-Innes et al., 2024; Müller & Mildenberger, 2021; Ulanday et al., 2021). Contextual Relevance bridges theoretical knowledge with practical application, ensuring relevance to teachers’ disciplinary context. Embedding CPD within a teacher’s own teaching environment enhances pedagogical skills and ensures immediate applicability in the classroom (Guskey, 2024). Ongoing feedback reinforces learning and fosters continuous professional growth. When teachers receive diverse and structured feedback, from peers, educational advisors, and educational managers, they can refine their teaching strategies and sustain pedagogical improvements over time (Guskey, 2021). Reflective practice, structured observation, collaborative teaching teams, and professional learning communities have been identified as a crucial mechanism for enabling teachers to critically assess their practices (Gast et al., 2017; Linder et al., 2012). Growth Assessment Formative assessment emphasizes the developmental process of learning rather than summative evaluation (Klenowski et al., 2006). In engineering disciplines, CPD assessment can focus on tangible outcomes, such as course improvements, student evaluations, peer feedback, and input from educational managers. Recognizing and celebrating these achievements fosters a culture of continuous improvement and motivation (McMillan et al., 2016). Institutional alignment ensures CPD is sustainable and impactful by embedding it within leadership and HR structures (Graham, 2018). The success of CPD initiatives is not solely dependent on individual teacher engagement. Organizational factors, like the availability of institutional resources, leadership commitment, supportive infrastructure, and coherent policies, play an important mediating role in determining the effectiveness and sustainability of professional development efforts (Desimone & Sajjadi, 2025). 3 AN INTERVENTION AT A DUTCH UNIVERSITY: ADAPTIVE CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The adaptive CPD framework proposed here is grounded in existing literature. It is designed to uphold key principles—flexibility, contextual relevance, ongoing feedback, growth assessment, and institutional alignment—to foster teachers’ professional growth while addressing the challenges they face. The framework aims to be implemented at Centre of Expertise in Learning and Teaching (CELT), which serves as a hub for coordinating and supporting teacher professional development at the University of Twente. The designing of the framework follows a set of activities that aim to guarantee an evidence-based approach, which embeds a quality cycle by gathering extensive validation from relevant stakeholders (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). From the plan, activities 1 and 2 have already been executed and activities 3 and 4 are currently ongoing. 1. Develop a preliminary adaptive CPD framework, considering the findings from the literature (core principles) and seeking inspiration from what is being done by other Dutch universities. 2. Get feedback on the preliminary framework by presenting it to both internal (the teaching and learning unit) and external (members from the Dutch Network of Centres for Teaching and Learning) experts. 3. Based on the feedback received, update the framework through four targeted professional development topics: Blended Learning, Challenge-Based Learning, AI in Education, and Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion. 4. Have a second round of feedback with the various stakeholders. To date, the framework has been reviewed by faculty vice-deans of education (n=2), study program directors (n=3), HR staff (n=1), and educational policymakers (n=3). These discussions offered strategic perspectives on aligning CPD goals with institutional priorities and integrating the framework into academic structures. A diverse sample of teachers (n=10), including early-career, mid-career, and senior academics with varying levels of teaching expertise and research responsibilities, provided feedback as well. 5. Perform pilots, and collect third round feedback from stakeholders, including teachers and educational managers. This input is used to further refine the framework, ensuring its readiness for wider implementation across the institution. 4 THE PROPOSED ADAPTIVE CPD FRAMEWORK The adaptive CPD framework is structured around a five-stage process (Figure 1): (1) Intake, where teachers assess their learning needs and set professional development goals with guidance from an educational advisor, selecting relevant CPD topics (e.g., AI in education); (2) Self-Study, providing online resources targeted for specific CPD topics that allow exploration of pedagogical concepts at their own pace; (3) Teaching Practice, enabling teachers to apply newly acquired strategies in real classroom settings; (4) Assessment, offering structured feedback to evaluate progress and refine skills; and (5) Certification, recognizing achievements to enhance motivation and career alignment. Fig. 1. CPD process for teachers The key principles—flexibility, contextual relevance, ongoing feedback, growth assessment, and institutional alignment—are embedded at each stage of the adaptive CPD framework. Table 1 maps the elements of the adaptive CPD framework to its core principles, with each element outlined in sequential order. Table 1. Mapping between the key principles and the adaptive CPD framework CPD steps Principles Intake Self-study Teaching Practice Assessment Certifications Flexibility E1 E2 E6 Contextual Relevance E3, E4 E5, E9 Ongoing Feedback E5, E9 E5, E9 Growth Assessment E6 E7, E9 E6, E7 E8 Institutional Alignment E9, E10 E9 E9 E9, E10 E1. Personalized Learning Plans - During the intake phase (Fig. 1), teachers work with educational advisors to craft Individual Development Plans, which outline personal goals, areas of interest, and preferred learning formats. The associated study program manager provides input to ensure teachers' CPD aligns with the program’s educational vision. HR advisors also participate, documenting the discussions and offering suggestions for potential career growth opportunities. E2. Modular Structure - Existing professional development topics offered by CELT were restructured into smaller, manageable units, each defined by three attributes: • Pedagogical Competence – designing, teaching, supervising, assessment and evaluation. These align with the foundational competencies outlined in the university’s teaching qualification framework (de Jong et al., 2013). • Practical Teaching Themes – Drawing from input by teachers and study program directors, these themes address common challenges in practical teaching. Examples include boosting student engagement, managing grading for large classes, and implementing inclusive teaching strategies. • Format – Units are designed for flexible delivery, available in both online and in-person formats. Asynchronous online resources—such as videos, readings, and interactive tools—provide accessible, foundational knowledge of pedagogical theories. This structure allows teachers to engage with the material at their own pace and convenience. E3. Practice-Oriented Formats • Workshops and Seminars: hands-on sessions engage teachers with tools, technologies, and teaching methods directly relevant to their fields. • Coaching and Peer Observation: structured peer observation allow teachers to observe each other’s classes, followed by collaborative discussions on effective practices and areas for improvement. • Practicums with Expert Feedback: teachers implement new strategies in their classrooms while being observed by educational advisors or experienced colleagues. • Action Research Projects: teachers engage in research projects by designing, implementing, and evaluating instructional interventions. E4. Extended Duration - The CPD is structured over multiple sessions with an across an extended period to fosters iterative cycles of design, implement, and refine strategies in real classroom. This allows teachers to test pedagogical methods in practice and align them with their disciplinary content. E5. Ongoing Feedback - Teachers benefit from multi-perspective feedback. • Educational Advisors provide specialized pedagogical insights and guidance, helping teachers align their instructional methods with established best practices. • Self-Reflection encourages teachers to evaluate and improve their own practices. • Peer Teaching Teams provide collaborative feedback and shared experiences for collective growth. • Education Managers ensure alignment with institutional goals and support professional development. • Professional Learning Communities encourage teachers to share experiences, tackle common challenges, and build a supportive professional network. E6. Formative Evaluations Completion of online self-study modules can generate certificates, providing teachers with immediate acknowledgment of their efforts and achievements. These certificates serve as evidence of foundational knowledge acquisition. E7. Evidence from Teaching Practice Teachers produce concrete artifacts, such as challenge-based learning modules, AI-integrated lesson plans, or Bended learning courses, as evidence of their professional development. E8. Stackable Certificates Teachers can combine various CPD topics to build focused educational profiles, such as: • Educational Explorer: Teachers engage in self-paced study or participate in workshops on specific CPD topics, with an impact on increasing their pedagogical knowledge and awareness of effective teaching practices. • Educational Practitioner: Teachers apply and refine teaching strategies in their own courses through hands-on activities and targeted projects (as described in E3), with an impact on improving course quality and student learning. • Educational Scholar: Teachers engage in research-based educational innovation and scholarship, with an impact on generating new insights that contribute to broader educational communities. • Educational Leader: Teachers take on leadership roles, driving curriculum development, policy changes, and institutional growth, impacting education at the institutional level and beyond. E9. Leadership Commitment Educational managers (e.g., program directors), play a key role by helping teachers in defining CPD goals during the intake, and providing ongoing feedback and input for teachers’ CPD assessment. E10. Human Resources (HR) Integration By aligning CPD initiatives with HR frameworks, institutions can integrate professional development into performance evaluations, promotions, and career advancement pathways. To guarantee that the proposed elements provide a concept map was created to visualize how the diverse elements support each other (Figure 2). One important insight from the map is that E2, E3 and E9 are key enabling elements to the framework. Fig. 2. Adaptive CPD Framework Elements To clarify, we offer one example on how we see the framework being used to accommodate a teacher’s immediate and long-term goals. A teacher struggling to engage students in a large engineering course might select the sub-topic "How to Engage Students?" from the Blended Learning CPD course and begin by exploring self-paced online resources, such as videos on interactive teaching techniques (E2). The CPD platform would then recommend next steps, such as systematically incorporating blended learning into their teaching practice. The teacher might choose to complete the Blended Learning online resources and obtain the Educational Explorer for Blended Learning certificate (E6,E8). Additionally, they would be encouraged to schedule an intake meeting with an educational advisor to align these strategies with their career goals and teaching context (E1). After implementing the strategies in his/her own course (E3,E4) and receiving feedback (E5), the teacher could earn the Educational Practitioner certification (E7,E8). They might also choose to further develop their profile, working toward recognition as an Educational Scholar or Educational Leader (E8, E9, E10). Due to the CPD framework’s emphasis on addressing the diverse needs and contexts of participating teachers, a tailored approach was adopted instead of prescribing a uniform structure or fixed time commitment (Figure 1). As an indication of the time invested, teachers participating in the Educational Practitioner for Blended Learning pilot typically dedicated between 12 and 28 hours, depending on their individual goals and the level of support requested. 5 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS The ongoing implementation of the adaptive CPD framework has yielded preliminary insights from interviews with teachers, program directors and vice-deans of education across different faculties (section 3, activity 4 from the framework implementation). Flexibility and Contextualization Both teachers and program directors appreciated the CPD’s flexibility and its ability to be contextualized to the specific needs. They emphasized that this approach is more sustainable, as it considers the reality of their workloads and the practical demands of teaching. One teacher noted, “It does not work if we are learning things about teaching, but the focus of the training is not on the classroom.” This shows the importance of ensuring that CPD is directly relevant to classroom practice and tailored to the contexts in which educator work (Guskey, 2021). Centralized vs. Decentralized Educational Support Program directors particularly valued the decentralized nature of the adaptive CPD. They highlighted that CPD should not be isolated from the primary teaching and learning processes but rather integrated into the daily realities of faculty work. This aligns with earlier research indicating a tension between centralized departments and faculties (Pei et al., 2021). If this tension is not addressed, the support for teacher professional development cannot be effective. The decentralized approach of the adaptive framework appears to mitigate this issue by empowering faculties to take ownership of their CPD initiatives while maintaining alignment with broader institutional goals. Recognition and Rewarding Teaching Excellence Teachers and program directors also appreciated the framework's emphasis on recognizing and rewarding teaching excellence. They empathized that embedding CPD into institutional recognition and reward systems is critical for its success (Desimone & Sajjadi, 2025) They expressed that this aspect is currently underdeveloped in Dutch universities. One program director stated, “Promoting teaching excellence requires more than just training; it needs to be embedded in how we recognize and reward our teachers.” Challenges Despite the enthusiasm for the adaptive CPD framework, participants raised concerns about its long-term sustainability and integration into institutional structures. While interviewees were optimistic about the framework's potential, they questioned whether it would be fully embedded into university systems. Challenges such as time constraints (Pei et al., 2025), varying levels of institutional support, and the need for ongoing training were identified as potential barriers to implementation. One teacher remarked, “We are excited about this approach, but will it really become part of how our institution operates?” CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The preliminary findings from this adaptive CPD initiative suggest that a flexible, context-based approach can address the diverse needs of university engineering teachers. By emphasizing practical relevance, decentralized support, and recognition for teaching excellence, the framework offers a possible sustainable model. However, challenges remain, particularly around long-term sustainability and institutional embedding. Time constraints, inconsistent support, and the need for robust reward systems pose risks to full integration. While the framework is practiceoriented and tailored, its success depends on overcoming these barriers. Building on these insights, the next phase involves defining topic-specific modules and piloting them across different faculties. This step will provide further evidence of the framework’s scalability and effectiveness. Moreover, given the adaptive nature of the framework, its design explicitly anticipates iterative refinement across diverse institutional settings. Future phases can involve piloting the framework across multiple institutions, enabling comparative studies that will inform further generalization and scalability. Ultimately, refining and institutionalizing the adaptive CPD approach could serve as a model for other higher education contexts aiming to provide flexibility, depth, and meaningful support for teaching excellence. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We gratefully acknowledge our colleagues from CELT for their invaluable contributions to the N-Pulse Flexible Learning trajectory work package: Chrissa M. Manoli, MSc; Robert Middelburg, MSc; Adina Imanbayeva, MSc; Peter C. A. Hagenaars, MEd; Francesca M. Frittella, PhD; Raisa N. van der Vegt, MSc; and Robin H. M. van Emmerloot, BSc. This work is partially funded by the Dutch Npuls CTL grant, project number CTL230024.