Professional Update annual evaluation 2023-24

Professional Update in general

Keeping informed

Respondents were asked ‘Which of the following, if any, have you used to keep informed about Professional Update and to what extent were they helpful? (please select all that apply)’. Graph 5 shows the distribution of answers (n=863) and graph 6 shows the degree to which respondents found them helpful. It should be noted that these represent answers across all three cohorts. The GTC Scotland website was the most used source of information and was found to be helpful or very helpful by 76% of respondents who used it. The next most helpful sources were a school/organisation briefing session (67%) and information materials from LA/school/college/organisation (65%). It is also important to note that ‘LA briefing session’ and ‘Scottish Council for Independent Schools or Educating through Care briefing session’ were not options for those completing a direct submission and that the responses here reflect the views of those in the reviewer and reviewee cohorts. It is also worth noting that 47% of respondents considered the GTC Scotland magazine not very helpful or not helpful at all.

Graph 5: Information used to keep informed about Professional Update

Graph 5: Horizontal bar chart showing number of respondents by information source—staff briefing (own organisation)=415, LA briefing session=248, SCIS/EtCS seminar=148, GTC Scotland presentation=228, GTC Scotland website=649, information from LA/School/College/Organisation=341, Teaching Scotland magazine=299, EIS seminar/journal=241, Other=171.

Graph 6: How helpful was the information?

Graph 6: Bar chart showing perceived helpfulness of information sources - Staff briefing: very helpful=17%, helpful=50%, not very helpful=18%, not helpful at all=14%; LA briefing: 9%, 42%, 23%, 25%; SCIS/EtCS: 7%, 22%, 24%, 47%; GTC presentation: 9%, 46%, 19%, 26%; GTC website: 15%, 61%, 16%, 9%; Info materials: 15%, 50%, 17%, 18%; Teaching Scotland magazine: 9%, 44%, 22%, 25%; EIS seminar/journal: 7%, 47%, 19%, 27%; Other: 21%, 26%, 13%, 40%

Systems used

Reviewees

Reviewees were asked ‘What system have you used to record your professional learning and evidence of impact of that professional learning?’ Graph 7 (n=440) shows that the majority (60%) used MyGTCS but a significant proportion (25%) used an alternative online system provided by their employer.

Graph 7: Systems used by reviewees

Graph 7: Pie chart showing method of submission—MyGTCS= 60%, LA/college/organisation online system= 25%, electronic document= 9%, paper only= 3%, other= 3%

Reviewees were also asked ‘To what extent did your system meet your needs for recording your professional learning, and evidence of impact of that professional learning?’ Graph 8 (n=429) shows the results broken down by the system used.

Graph 8: Did the system meet needs for recording?

Graph 8: Horizontal bar chart showing extent of use of different systems—LA/organisation online system: large extent=40%, some extent=45%, not very much=10%, not at all=5%; MyGTCS: 34%, 48%, 14%, 4%; Electronic document: 43%, 48%, 10%; Paper only: 42%, 58%.

The majority of respondents felt that the system they used met their needs to a large extent or to some extent. However, 15% of users of the employer’s online system and 18% of MyGTCS users did not think their needs were met for the recording of professional learning.

Respondents who offered additional comments noted that their organisation’s system for recording PL was ‘time-consuming’, ‘laborious’ and ‘repetitive’. MyGTCS users cited issues with unreliability and fear of losing data.

Reviewers

Reviewers were asked what system they used for the Professional Update process as a whole. This is shown in graph 9 (n=110). A larger majority (89%) of reviewer respondents used MyGTCS.

Graph 9: Systems used by reviewers

Graph 9: Pie chart showing method used—MyGTCS=89%, LA/college/organisation online system=6%, electronic document=4%, paper only=1%.

Respondents were further asked if the system they used met their requirements for both discussing evidence of impact of their professional learning and for Professional Update sign-off. Graphs 10 and 11 (n=110) show the results broken down by the system used.

Graph 10: Did the system meet needs for discussing impact of PL?

Graph 10: Horizontal bar chart showing extent of use of different systems—LA/organisation online system: large extent=29%, some extent=57%, not very much=14%; MyGTCS: 36%, 42%, 17%, 5%; Electronic document: 25%, 75%; Paper only: 100% large extent.

Graph 11: Did the system meet the needs for PU sign-off?

Graph 11: Horizontal bar chart showing extent of use of different systems—LA/organisation online system: large extent=29%, some extent=57%, not very much=14%; MyGTCS: 57%, 32%, 8%, 3%; Electronic document: 50%, 25%, 25%; Paper only: 100% large extent.

MyGTCS was reported to be more useful for the sign-off process (89%) than it was for the discussion of professional learning impact (78%).

Where additional comments were left by reviewers, these were not related to systems but the sign-off process itself. Respondents were concerned that there was not enough focus on the impact of professional learning and that PU could be considered a box-ticking exercise.

Direct submissions

Registrants who completed PU via the direct submission process were asked what system they had used to record their professional learning and evidence of its impact. They were also asked to what extent the system met their needs. Graph 12 (n=16) shows the system used and graph 13 (n=13) shows the extent to which it met their needs, broken down by the system used.

Graph 12: Systems used for direct submissions

Graph 12: Pie chart showing method used—MyGTCS=63%, organisation's online system=13%, electronic document=13%, paper only=6%, other=6%.

Graph 13: Did the system meet needs for recording?

Graph 13: Horizontal bar chart showing extent of use—MyGTCS: large extent=60%, some extent=30%, not very much=10%; Electronic document: 100% large extent; Paper only: 100% large extent.

A higher percentage of the direct submission group (13%) used an electronic document to record their professional learning and evidence of its impact, but it should be borne in mind that the number of direct submission respondents is low (n=16 for graph 12 and n=13 for graph 13) in comparison with the other cohorts and the results should therefore be treated with caution.