Professional Development Plan

This professional development plan follows Bryson's (2011) PDP Cycle, which conceptualises professional development as a continuous process of reviewing learning needs, preparing for action, undertaking learning activities, and evaluating outcomes. 

Part 1: Review

Where am I and what are my learning needs for the future?

Professional Context and Starting Point

I hold a dual appointment that positions me at the intersection of health policy and health professions education. As a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Health Professions Education at Stellenbosch University, I contribute to postgraduate teaching, curriculum development, and scholarly work. Concurrently, I serve as a Public Health Medicine Specialist with the Western Cape Government Health and Wellness Directorate, where my responsibilities span health information systems, policy development, and health service planning.

This dual positioning offers distinctive opportunities but also presents challenges. The policy environment requires rapid decision-making and pragmatic solutions, while academic work demands methodological rigour and theoretical grounding. Navigating these different professional cultures has sharpened my awareness of how context shapes communication and has revealed a recurring tendency to assume that colleagues from different backgrounds share my frame of reference.

My primary teaching responsibilities include the postgraduate Diploma in Healthcare Management, where I convene modules on Evidence and Information in Health Management. I also teach MBChB II students on topics including the Burden of Disease, and I supervise registrars in Public Health Medicine. My learners are typically mid-career health professionals with diverse clinical and managerial backgrounds.

My teaching approach draws on Design Science Research methodology from my PhD work on data visualisation and user experience. I favour iterative, feedback-responsive design and tend to incorporate digital tools into my sessions. However, as this year's reflections have revealed, my enthusiasm for technology and theory can sometimes overshadow attention to equity, accessibility, and the assumptions I make about learners' prior knowledge.

Initial Self-Assessment

At the start of this programme, I would have described myself as an enthusiastic educator rather than an experienced one. Compared to many of my MPhil HPE peers, I had relatively limited teaching experience. My confidence came not from theoretical grounding or extensive practice, but from a sense that teaching was "in my blood." Both my parents were teachers, my mother in primary education and my father in tertiary education, and I had grown up absorbing their approaches without necessarily understanding the pedagogical principles that underpinned them. I assumed that this inherited intuition, combined with my technical expertise in digital health and data visualisation, my flair for arts and entertainment, and my comfort with being authentic in the classroom, would be sufficient.

This assumption proved incomplete. The programme has revealed that enthusiasm and family background do not substitute for deliberate engagement with educational theory and reflective practice. My tendency to assume shared understanding, my inclination toward identifying gaps rather than strengths, and my reliance on digital tools all required examination. The theatre metaphor I developed at the programme's outset, positioning myself as a stage manager orchestrating conditions for learning, has proven apt in ways I did not anticipate. Like a stage manager, I have had to attend not only to the visible performance but to all the elements that make learning possible for diverse audiences.

Review of Learning Needs

This section synthesises learning needs identified through module reflections, feedback engagement, and pattern recognition across Year 1.

What the Modules Revealed

Teaching and Learning in HPE exposed gaps between my intentions and their implementation. While I designed an interactive session using digital tools, reflection revealed misalignment between teaching strategies and assessment, one-directional feedback practices, and inequitable access to technology. Feedback on my assignments highlighted that I assumed reader familiarity with learning theory and led with theory before ensuring accessibility.

Curriculum Development was my second attempt at the module following a period of ill health. Engaging with Kern's Six-Step Approach and the SPICES model revealed how demanding systematic curriculum analysis truly is. Examiner feedback consistently pointed to a significant blind spot: my assumption that readers would instinctively understand my choices without explicit justification. I also received feedback that my analytical approach focused heavily on identifying weaknesses without sufficiently acknowledging existing strengths.

Assessment in HPE built on insights from earlier modules while introducing new challenges around peer feedback management and visual representation. My use of infographics to communicate complex assessment concepts was well-received, affirming my instinct that visual approaches can make abstract ideas more accessible. The module reinforced the pattern of assuming shared understanding, particularly around assessment terminology and frameworks.

Research Methodology challenged me to articulate what I often take for granted. Feedback on my literature review revealed insufficient HPE literature and inadequate disciplinary positioning. The examiner's recommendation to include Mezirow as the primary author of transformative learning theory exposed my tendency to work with concepts at surface level rather than engaging with foundational texts.

Cross-Module Patterns

Reviewing learning needs across all four modules reveals recurring patterns:

• Assuming shared understanding: This pattern appeared in every module. I consistently overestimate the extent to which readers and learners share my frame of reference.

• Leading with theory before accessibility: Across modules, feedback noted that while my theoretical engagement was strong, I often failed to ensure ideas were digestible before introducing complexity.

• Tendency toward deficit-focused analysis: My natural inclination to identify gaps sometimes overshadows recognition of existing strengths, making my analysis less constructive than it could be.

• Under-grounded visual and design approaches: While I draw on visual communication and Design Science Research methodology effectively, I have not yet grounded these approaches in educational design literature.

Part 2: Prepare for Action

Working out what to do to meet my learning needs

Professional Development Goals

Rather than attempting to address every learning need simultaneously, I have identified three priority areas for Year 1. These goals emerged directly from the patterns identified in my reflections and are shaped by realistic assessment of what is achievable alongside dissertation work and my professional responsibilities.

Goal 1: Developing More Explicit Communication

The recurring feedback about assuming shared understanding points to a fundamental aspect of my practice that needs attention. This is not simply about adding definitions to my writing; it reflects a deeper need to develop awareness of when I am making assumptions and to build habits of checking those assumptions.

What I intend to do: When preparing teaching sessions or written work, I will build in a deliberate step where I identify the theoretical concepts or disciplinary terms I am using and consider whether my audience is likely to share my understanding. For at least one teaching session this year, I will pilot an approach where I explicitly introduce key concepts before applying them, using accessible language and checking for understanding before proceeding.

How I will know if this is working: I will gather informal feedback from students about whether concepts were clearly explained. More importantly, I will reflect on whether this deliberate attention to assumptions is becoming more habitual in my practice.

Why this matters: This goal addresses the most consistent pattern across all my module feedback. If I can develop greater awareness of my assumptions, it will improve not only my teaching but also my academic writing and my ability to communicate across the disciplinary boundaries that characterise my dual professional context.

Realistic timeframe: I will pilot this approach in one teaching block during 2026 and evaluate at mid-year. This is achievable because it builds on existing teaching commitments rather than adding new activities.

Goal 2: Engaging with Foundational Theoretical Sources

The omission of Mezirow from my research protocol troubled me on reflection. It revealed a tendency to work with concepts at surface level, relying on secondary sources rather than engaging with foundational texts. This has implications for both my dissertation and my development as a scholarly educator.

What I intend to do: I will read Mezirow's Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning (1991) and maintain annotated notes that connect his framework to my research question about faculty experiences with AI integration. This is a specific, bounded commitment rather than a vague intention to "read more theory."

How I will know if this is working: The test will be whether I can articulate Mezirow's framework in my own words and apply it meaningfully to my dissertation work. I will aim to integrate at least one substantive engagement with this primary source into my theoretical framework.

Why this matters: Engaging with foundational sources strengthens the theoretical grounding of my research and models the kind of scholarly practice I want to demonstrate in my ePortfolio. It also addresses the examiner feedback directly.

Realistic timeframe: I will complete this reading by the end of the first semester of 2026. This is achievable because it involves one specific text rather than an ambitious reading programme.

Goal 3: Applying Learning Through DSR Short Course Development

I am currently developing a formal short course in Design Science Research for Public Health on Stellenbosch University's short course portal. This course will be structured toward becoming a masters-level module, with the intention of offering it as an optional methodological stream for relevant MSc and MPhil programmes in our faculty, as well as to international students at other universities.

This project provides a concrete vehicle for applying the lessons from all four Year 1 modules. It requires me to design curriculum systematically (drawing on Kern and SPICES), consider assessment alignment, attend to feedback processes, and communicate clearly to audiences who may not share my assumptions about DSR methodology.

What I intend to do: As I develop the short course materials, I will deliberately apply the insights from my module reflections. This includes: explicitly contextualising why DSR is valuable for public health researchers (addressing my assumption pattern); ensuring learning outcomes, teaching activities, and assessments are aligned (applying Teaching and Learning insights); balancing discussion of DSR's potential with honest acknowledgment of its challenges (addressing my deficit-focused tendency); and building in mechanisms for iterative feedback from pilot participants.

How I will know if this is working: The short course will undergo institutional review processes that will test whether my curriculum design is coherent and well-justified. Feedback from early participants will reveal whether I have successfully communicated DSR concepts to audiences unfamiliar with the methodology. I will also reflect on the development process itself as evidence of applying my MPhil learning.

Why this matters: This goal transforms abstract development needs into concrete practice. Rather than artificially separating "professional development" from "professional work," it recognises that developing the DSR course is itself a site for applying and demonstrating my learning as a health professions educator.

Realistic timeframe: Course development will progress through 2026 alongside my dissertation work. Key milestones include completing the course outline and submitting for institutional approval by mid-2026, with piloting to follow subject to approval timelines.

Strategies and Support

Each goal involves embedding new practices into existing work rather than taking on additional commitments. This approach recognises the constraints of completing a masters programme alongside professional responsibilities.

For Goal 1 (Explicit Communication): The key strategy is building reflection on assumptions into my preparation process. I will add a simple question to my session planning: "What am I assuming my audience already knows?" Support needed includes willingness to receive honest feedback from students and colleagues about clarity.

For Goal 2 (Foundational Sources): The strategy is protected reading time, even if modest. Two hours per week dedicated to Mezirow is more realistic than ambitious plans that will not survive contact with competing demands. Support needed includes library access and potentially discussion with my supervisor about how transformative learning theory connects to my research.

For Goal 3 (DSR Short Course): The strategy is to treat the course development as applied learning rather than a separate workstream. Each design decision becomes an opportunity to practice explicit contextualisation and balanced analysis. Support needed includes guidance from the university's short course office on approval processes, and potentially peer review of course materials from colleagues in both HPE and public health.

Potential Barriers

The most significant barrier is time. Dissertation work, teaching responsibilities, and government duties all compete for attention. The goals above are deliberately modest to increase the likelihood of achievement.

A second barrier is habit. The patterns identified in my reflections are deeply ingrained. Changing them requires sustained attention rather than one-off efforts. Building new practices into existing routines is more likely to succeed than adding separate development activities.

Part 3: Action

Undertaking a range of learning activities

Progress Monitoring

Following Tasker's (2015) guidance that planning and evaluating learning should be a continual process, I will monitor progress at natural points in the academic year rather than creating separate review activities.

Review Points

End of first teaching block (approximately April 2026): Review Goal 1. Did I pilot the explicit communication approach? What did I learn? What adjustments are needed?

Mid-year (June 2026): Review all goals. Have I completed the Mezirow reading? What progress has been made on the DSR short course development? What has worked and what needs adjustment for the second half of the year?

Year-end (December 2026): Formal evaluation in preparation for Year 2 PDP. This will feed into the required ePortfolio reflection on professional development.

Evidence of Progress

Evidence will emerge from existing programme activities rather than separate documentation:

• Reflections on teaching sessions (Goal 1)

• Annotated reading notes and dissertation theoretical framework (Goal 2)

• DSR short course materials, approval documentation, and development reflections (Goal 3)

• This PDP itself, updated with reflections on progress

Part 4: Outcome

Showing how what you have achieved benefits you and others

Year-End Evaluation Framework

At the year-end review, I will address the following questions for each goal:

1. What progress was made? If the goal was not fully achieved, what was accomplished and what remains?

2. What did I learn from attempting this goal, including unexpected insights?

3. How has this goal contributed to my development as a reflective educator?

4. What should continue into Year 2, and what new priorities have emerged?

Connection to Year 2

The Year 1 PDP establishes foundations that Year 2 will build upon. If Goal 1 is successful, attention to assumptions should become more habitual, allowing Year 2 to focus on more advanced aspects of teaching development. The foundational reading in Goal 2 will support dissertation work and may reveal additional theoretical sources worth engaging. Goal 3's DSR short course development will likely extend into Year 2, with piloting and refinement based on participant feedback providing further opportunities for applied learning.

The DSR course also creates potential for scholarly output. Reflecting on the course development process through the lens of HPE scholarship could generate a case study or methods paper, connecting my teaching development work to broader conversations about research methodology education in health professions contexts.

Year 2 may also need to address literature gaps not resolved in Year 1, particularly around visual pedagogy and design thinking in education. The theatre metaphor that frames my teaching philosophy may benefit from theoretical grounding in performance studies literature, which could become a Year 2 development focus if time permits.

Adaptation Principles

Following Tasker's (2015) observation that circumstances change and plans may need modification, I acknowledge that:

• Some goals may prove more or less challenging than anticipated

• New learning needs may emerge through module engagement or feedback

• The dissertation phase will create additional demands that may require reprioritisation

• Professional context changes may require goal adjustment

The mid-year review provides an opportunity to make necessary adjustments while maintaining overall direction toward becoming a more reflective, theoretically grounded, and effective educator.

FOUNDATIONAL READING

• Bryson, D. (2011). The personal development planning cycle. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 34(4), 177-182.

• Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

• Tasker, F. (2015). How to prepare a personal development plan. BMJ, 351, h4603.