{"id":4526,"date":"2026-07-06T13:49:49","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T12:49:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/microsites.ncl.ac.uk\/casestudies\/?p=4526"},"modified":"2026-07-06T13:49:49","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T12:49:49","slug":"professional-dialogue-for-fellowship-applications-provides-an-accessible-and-inclusive-assessment-option","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/microsites.ncl.ac.uk\/casestudies\/2026\/07\/06\/professional-dialogue-for-fellowship-applications-provides-an-accessible-and-inclusive-assessment-option\/","title":{"rendered":"Professional Dialogue for Fellowship applications provides an accessible and inclusive assessment option"},"content":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0<\/span>Dialogue option\u00a0<\/span>offers\u00a0<\/span>an alternative to\u00a0<\/span>a written application, enabling participants to\u00a0<\/span>demonstrate<\/span>\u00a0their evidence for Fellowship recognition in a\u00a0<\/span>mode<\/span>\u00a0that best suits\u00a0<\/span>their<\/span>\u00a0preferences and needs.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Our challenge \/ opportunity<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The PSF CPD Scheme is accredited by Advance HE to award Fellowship recognition against the\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Profe<\/span>ssional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education 2023<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0(the PSF).\u00a0<\/span>The scheme is open to colleagues and postgraduate research students who teach and\/or support <\/span>learning, and<\/span>\u00a0supports them to make a claim for recognition as Associate Fellow, Fellow, or Senior\u00a0<\/span>Fellow of the HEA. This includes applicants from the Evidencing Learning and Teaching Skills (ELTS) route for PGRs who teach, Newcastle Educational Practice Skills (NEPS) for colleagues new to\u00a0<\/span>HE teaching\/learning support, and the PSF Experiential Route for colleagues with existing HE <\/span>teaching\/learning<\/span>\u00a0support experience.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Our participants are very diverse, both in terms of their backgrounds and experiences, and their individual characteristics and needs. They include colleagues and PGR students from academic disciplines and professional services across the institution, with wide-ranging prior academic and professional experiences. Among them are participants who are non-native speakers of English, participants who have disabilities, and participants who are neurodivergent. The PSF CPD Scheme is very flexible, giving participants the freedom to decide on the time period when they will work on their applications, and when they will submit them.<\/p>\n

Given this diversity, to evaluate claims for Fellowship recognition equitably we need to give participants the opportunity to evidence how they meet the relevant PSF descriptor criteria in ways that suits their diverse experiences, needs and preferences.<\/p>\n

\n

Our solution (approach)<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

We offer participants a choice of two options to make their Fellowship application: they can either write a<\/span>\u00a0Documentary application, or they can\u00a0<\/span>engage in<\/span>\u00a0a Professional Dialogue.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Professional Dialogue is<\/span>\u00a0a discussion between the\u00a0<\/span>participant\u00a0<\/span>and two reviewers. The duration ranges from 20-25 minutes for Associate Fellowship, to<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>25<\/span>-35 minutes for Fellowship<\/span>,<\/span>\u00a0and<\/span>\u00a035-45 minutes for Senior Fellowship<\/span>, designed to allow time for participants to reflect on the<\/span>\u00a0relevant breadth and depth of experience<\/span>\u00a0needed to\u00a0<\/span>for each category.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Before the<\/span>ir<\/span> dialogue, participants\u00a0<\/span>who have chosen this option\u00a0<\/span>prepare supporting documents<\/span>,<\/span>\u00a0including a short overview of their professional practice in HE\u00a0<\/span>teaching\/learning<\/span>\u00a0support, and a summary table of the evidence they plan to reflect on in the dialogue<\/span>, together with the relevant supporting references for the category of Fellowship that they are applying for. Preparing these documents supports the participant to prepare for the dialogue<\/span>\u00a0by gathering their evidence<\/span>. The documents are submitted to a Canvas assignment in advance, allowing the reviewers to read and familiarise themselves with the participant\u2019s context and the evidence they will elaborate on during the dialogue.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

All participants have support to prepare their Fellowship application from either the Academic Practice Team (ELTS participants) or a PSF mentor (NEPS and Experiential Route participants). Mentors review draft application documents and provide formative feedback, and offer participants the opportunity for a mock dialogue. Written guidance for dialogue participants is available in the Canvas course for each route, as well as recordings of example successful dialogues (made available with permission from the participant in each case).<\/p>\n

The Academic Practice Team schedule each dialogue, based on availability of the participant and two reviewers. Dialogue reviewers are all members of the 70 strong PSF mentoring team, including colleagues from across academic disciplines and professional services who have Fellowship or Senior Fellowship themselves. Mentors complete initial training and engage with regular mentor development and calibration workshops to keep their reviewing practice up to date, and they are supported with structured guidance and resources in a dedicated Canvas course.<\/p>\n

The majority of<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Dialogue<\/span>s take place online in MS Teams,<\/span>\u00a0while some participants choose an\u00a0<\/span>in person<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>This flexibility enables participants to choose an environment and mode of\u00a0<\/span>participating<\/span>\u00a0in the\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>\u00a0that suits their\u00a0<\/span>needs and preferences.\u00a0<\/span>For online\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>s it is not compulsory for the participant to have their camera on<\/span>; for in person\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>s adjustments<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>to accommodate any accessibility needs can be made\u00a0<\/span>when arranging the venue.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Although the application documents are submitted in advance, the dialogue itself is the primary means by which they are reviewed against their chosen PSF Descriptor. To help participants know what to expect and to feel at ease at the start of the\u202fdialogue, we\u202fuse a standard starting prompt question for each category, which is provided to the\u202fparticipant\u202fin advance.<\/p>\n

Reviewers ask further questions during the dialogue to prompt the participant and give them the opportunity to\u00a0demonstrate\u00a0that they meet the relevant Descriptor criteria. Example prompt questions relevant to each category are provided for reviewers, and a list of example areas of focus for the discussion is provided for participants in advance. The further questions are not prescribed, to give the reviewers scope to prompt the participant in ways that are relevant to their individual experience, informed by the information in the application documents.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To make\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>s as inclusive as\u00a0<\/span>possible participants<\/span>\u00a0are welcome to write down the question, to pause to think before they answer, and to bring documents or notes into the\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>\u00a0which they can refer to. Reviewers are provided with guidance about asking accessible questions (e.g. keeping them short or making clear where a question has multiple parts, being open to repeating,\u00a0<\/span>explaining<\/span>\u00a0or rewording questions when needed)<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To support quality assurance of Fellowship applications all\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>s are recorded using MS Teams (whether they take place online or in person)<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>After each\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>\u00a0the recording files are automatically made available in the MS Teams meeting space and are accessible to everyone who attended the meeting.\u00a0<\/span>The team administrator<\/span>\u00a0manually moves the recording to a secure\u00a0<\/span>Sharepoint<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>folder,\u00a0<\/span>and<\/span> edits the settings to remove the default expiry date. Sample recordings are shared with the\u00a0 moderators and External Reviewer<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>All\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>\u00a0recordings are saved securely for 3 years, and then manual<\/span>ly\u00a0<\/span>dele<\/span>ted<\/span>.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The impact (results)<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Typically between 20-30% of participants choose the Professional Dialogue option. The proportion of Associate Fellowship applicants who choose a dialogue is relatively small (usually fewer than 5%), while between 15-25% of Fellowship applicants choose a dialogue, and the proportion of Senior Fellowship applicants choosing dialogue is much higher (generally between 70-80%).<\/p>\n

The success rate on first submission is slightly higher for dialogues than for documentary applications<\/span>. This\u00a0<\/span>is attributed to the fact that the \u2018claim\u2019 for recognition is shaped\u00a0<\/span>during the dialogue itself<\/span> in contrast to the static nature of a written submission. \u00a0In the context of a dialogue, if evidence for an aspect of the PSF criteria is not fully evidenced initially the reviewers are able to ask a question that can prompt the participant to elaborate on their evidence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reviewers\u00a0and participants both report that they enjoy the discursive nature of Professional\u00a0Dialogues, and\u00a0find\u00a0participating\u00a0in them a rewarding experience.\u00a0For\u00a0example\u00a0one participant commented<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u201cI found my dialogue to be constructive and a friendly experience that was an assessment but didn’t feel like it at the time.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Another explained:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u00a0felt this approach\u00a0was more interactive and gave me the opportunity to clarify and highlight my work effectively, rather than relying solely on written evidence. It also felt more personal and engaging, making it easier to\u00a0showcase\u00a0the impact of my teaching and leadership\u201d.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

F<\/span>eedback from several neurodivergent participants<\/span>\u00a0highlights that they<\/span>\u00a0found the\u00a0<\/span>option<\/span>\u00a0of a\u00a0<\/span>d<\/span>ialogue<\/span>\u00a0as an alternative to a written submission was\u00a0<\/span>more accessible to them<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>As one participant put it:\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201c<\/span><\/span>I found it much more comfortable, as someone with a hidden disability, to present myself in oral formats.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Another\u00a0<\/span>participant who has\u00a0<\/span>dyslexia\u00a0<\/span>commented that the\u00a0<\/span>dialogue<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>option<\/span>\u00a0had enabled them to\u00a0<\/span>apply for\u00a0<\/span>Senior Fellowship recognition<\/span>,<\/span>\u00a0which they had previously\u00a0<\/span>been put off<\/span>\u00a0from doing<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>by<\/span>\u00a0the\u00a0<\/span>amount of writing\u00a0<\/span>required<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>for a Documentary application.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Lessons learned<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Some participants talk at length in response to the starting prompt question, making it difficult for the reviewers to interject and ask questions on other aspects of the criteria. Encouraging all participants to make use of the example dialogue recordings and take up the opportunity of a practice dialogue helps to address this.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There is significant cognitive load on reviewers during a dialogue, as they have multiple documents to refer to (including the applicant\u2019s submission documents,<\/span>\u00a0and the PSF descriptor criteria and dimensions), whilst also listening to the participant\u2019s answers, and considering what further prompt questions to ask.\u00a0<\/span>To help with this as well as the reviewer guidance with example prompt questions,\u00a0<\/span>the 2 reviewers are advised to<\/span>\u00a0set up a short pre-meeting to decide on potential areas for discussion based on the criteria and the information in\u00a0<\/span>the application documents. There is also an induction process for new mentors to begin reviewing dialogues, t<\/span>o help them develop the skills and confidence to review dialogues effectively.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Tips for colleagues<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

To help new mentors prepare to start reviewing dialogues they\u00a0<\/span>have the opportunity to<\/span>\u00a0shadow one or two dialogues before starting to review them, and for at least the first 3 dialogues they review they will act as second reviewer paired with a more experienced first reviewer.<\/span>\u00a0All reviewers also engage with regular marking standardisation for both documentary and dialogue\u00a0<\/span>applications, and<\/span>\u00a0have access to example dialogue recordings (with consent of the participants).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>he practicalities of managing dialogue assessments are complex, and careful consideration and planning is needed before implementing this type of assessment.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In terms of scheduling, between 20-40\u00a0dialogue\u00a0applications are reviewed over a\u00a02 week\u00a0period following each of 3 submission deadlines every year. To manage scheduling we plan a series of\u00a0dialogue\u00a0slots (up to 60 minutes each) during the\u00a0dialogue\u00a0period, and\u00a0use MS Forms for reviewers and participants to provide their availability. The team manually plan the schedule using this data.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Getting to grips with the functionality for recording dialogues in Teams<\/span>, and then for storing them securely,<\/span>\u00a0took some time<\/span>. W<\/span>e sought advice from the Digital Adoption team in NUIT to help get things working <\/span>smoothly<\/span>, and<\/span>\u00a0did some testing before using this approach for the first time<\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0Their advice and support with queries\u00a0<\/span>has<\/span>\u00a0been invaluable \u2013 and our team are also\u00a0<\/span><\/span>happy to answer questions or discuss with colleagues considering how to implement similar approaches.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Education for Life Strategy<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

This case study reflects the following aims of the Education for Life strategy<\/a>:<\/p>\n