JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Dent Educ. 70(9): 937-947 2006
© 2006 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hand, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hand, J. S.

Faculty Development

Identification of Competencies for Effective Dental Faculty

Jed S. Hand, D.D.S., M.H.S.A.

Key words: competencies, dental faculty, faculty development

Submitted for publication 03/22/06; accepted 05/29/06


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Future directions
 References
 
A faculty of sufficient size and possessing the appropriate skills is critical to dental education. Faculty shortages have been identified, but little has been written about the skills and abilities necessary for dental faculty to be effective. This project identified consensus lists of competencies in the areas of teaching and research. A panel of dental education experts used a web-based Delphi method to refine competency lists. The final lists of competency statements were organized into foundational competencies that applied to all areas and several areas of major competencies that were defined by supporting competencies. The panel rated the importance of each competency statement for each of three dental faculty categories: 1) clinical teachers, 2) clinical scholars, and 3) research-intensive scholars. The identification of a consensus list of competency statements for effective dental faculty will facilitate the development of programs for faculty to attain and maintain these competencies. ADEA could play a coordinating role in this faculty development effort.

The recruitment and retention of a high-quality faculty of sufficient size are critical to all dental education institutions and by extension to the future of the dental profession. As noted in a 1999 AADS report, "the availability of a sufficient number of faculty members possessing content knowledge, pedagogical expertise, sensitivity, and commitment will determine the quality of a student’s educational experience."1 How well the dental education community deals with the challenges to the recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty will determine not only the quality of oral health care providers of the future, but also the relationship of dental education institutions to their academic health center and university.

A number of studies have quantified the magnitude of the recent faculty shortages,2–6 mostly by counting vacant positions and the length of time the vacancies were open. The most recent ADEA data3 showed that an average of 4.9 faculty positions per dental school were vacant in 2004–05. Although the numbers of vacancies had decreased from previous years, thirty-one out of fifty-six dental schools reported that the number of vacant positions was considered above usual and normal for their school.

A number of factors contribute to the current and predicted future faculty shortage. The current dental faculty is aging. In 2004–05, almost 56 percent of current dental faculty were age fifty or older, and 25 percent were sixty or older. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of current faculty will retire in the next ten years.3,4

In addition, surveys of graduating students have demonstrated a lack of interest in an academic career among new graduates (less than 1 percent have immediate plans for academic careers). Financial considerations are thought to have a major impact on the career choices considered by new graduates. Increasing student debt (the average student debt for all schools was $129,639 in 2005)3 and the large disparity of earning potential between academic careers and private practice6 combine to lead new graduates away from an academic career.

Dental education institutions are looking to the practicing community as a major source for new faculty. Based on data from the 2004–05 ADEA Survey of Dental Educators, Chmar et al. reported that 61 percent of new dental faculty came from private practice, 16 percent from advanced education programs, 14 percent from another dental school, 7 percent from dental school graduation, and 2 percent from the uniformed services.3 These data demonstrated an increased reliance on private practice as a source for new faculty and a decrease in recruitment of faculty from other dental schools and employment of new graduates as sources for open faculty positions compared to the previous year.

Most of the recent discussion has been centered on the evidence for a looming shortage of sufficient numbers of faculty to fill vacancies in dental education. Less often discussed are the qualifications of new faculty and potential faculty recruits. ADEA policy calls for all dental education institutions and programs to "recruit faculty who have backgrounds in and current knowledge of the subject areas they are teaching and, where appropriate, educational theory and methodology, curriculum development, and test construction, measurement, and evaluation."7 However, the specific knowledge and skills necessary to meet this goal have not been identified.

The medical education literature contains a number of reports that address the skills necessary to succeed in teaching medical students and residents,8–11 but little has been written in the dental literature about the essential knowledge, skills, and other characteristics of high-quality dental faculty. There has been even less discussion of how new faculty or potential faculty, particularly the large number now coming from private practice, can acquire the important knowledge, skills, and abilities to qualify them as competent dental educators.

The knowledge, skills, behaviors, and values identified as necessary for successful functioning as a dental faculty member are defined as competencies. Competencies are demonstrated by the ability to take effective actions in specific situations. Acquiring or developing competence in any area is a continuous process that includes a progression from novice to expert and is based in real-world experience.12

To identify the competencies that dental faculty should possess, it is useful to examine the many roles that faculty must fulfill within the profession, the academic health center, the university, and the dental education institution. Figure 1Go depicts a model, adapted from an unpublished study by Nelson of competencies for vocational education trainers,13 of the roles filled by dental faculty and the personal characteristics, knowledge, skills, and competencies that form the building blocks that support these roles. The center section of Figure 1Go represents the unique combination of personal characteristics or traits that an individual brings to any interaction. The next ring represents the basic skills and knowledge that an individual is able to apply to activities. The personal characteristics and basic knowledge and skills contained in the two center rings provide the tools available for the individual to develop competencies. Boyer14 defines the broad range of the work of faculty in four overlapping functions: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. These four areas of scholarship support the specific roles that dental faculty must fulfill.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Developing a competency model

Adapted from: Nelson AJ. Using a modified Delphi methodology to develop a competency model for vet practitioners. Unpublished manuscript, December 24, 2002.

 
The objective of this project was to identify the competencies that characterize effective dental faculty. The project is intended to be the first step in the process of providing current and potential dental faculty with resources to continue to develop the competencies necessary to function as effective dental faculty members.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Future directions
 References
 
Boyer’s14 concept of scholarship was used to organize the approach to the identification of competencies for dental faculty. Due to time constraints, I decided to limit the initial competency identification to two of Boyer’s areas: the scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of discovery.

I identified a preliminary list of competencies in the areas of teaching and discovery from the literature.8–11 The original competency lists were organized into core knowledge competencies that applied to both areas, major competency areas that represented the major components of teaching and research, and supporting competencies that represented the specific knowledge and skills needed in each major area. The initial list for the scholarship of teaching included four core knowledge competencies that applied to all areas of teaching, seven major competencies, and between four and nine supporting competencies for each major competency. The initial list of competencies for the scholarship of discovery included nine major competencies and between two and thirteen supporting competencies for each major competency.

A group of thirty-four dental education experts drawn from dental school deans and faculty development officers; officers of the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Council of Faculties, Council of Sections, and Council of Students; domain experts; and staff from the American Dental Association and ADEA were invited to participate on a panel to identify competencies that characterize effective dental faculty. Eight did not respond to the invitation, while twenty-four (70.5 percent) indicated they were willing to participate, and two additional participants were suggested. The final panel consisted of twenty-six members.

A modified Delphi technique13,15 using web-based communication was selected as the most practical method to seek consensus among a group of extremely busy and geographically distributed people. As called for by the Delphi method, I served as facilitator to organize suggestions, opinions, or judgments contributed from geographically and temporally dispersed experts through multiple rounds of questionnaires.16

A web-based questionnaire was developed that presented the preliminary competency lists to the panel. Each of the major, core, and supporting competencies was presented on a separate page. Participants were asked to suggest modifications, additions, or deletions to the initial competency lists in a text box on each page. There was no limit on the amount of text that could be entered. The questionnaire was pre-tested with a small number of faculty from the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and staff from the ADEA Center for Educational Policy and Research.

Panel members were sent an email that included instructions for the completion of the questionnaire and a link to the web-based questionnaire. The panel was informed that their individual responses would be tracked. A follow-up email was sent to nonrespondents three weeks after the original email.

I reviewed all submitted suggestions and comments, identified common themes, and reorganized and revised the initial competency lists. A number of panel members pointed out that individual faculty roles differed considerably and not all faculty members needed to possess all competencies. Therefore, three categories of faculty were defined for the second round:

Clinical Teacher—non-tenure track; expected to teach in a variety of settings and supervise students in the clinic. Concentrates on teaching and service, but may participate in research projects, mainly as a clinician. May publish, but not a major expectation for promotion.

Clinical Scholar—tenure track; expected to participate in teaching, research, and service. Expected to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Not expected to secure NIH-level research support.

Research-Intensive Scholar—tenure track; expected to teach, often with an emphasis on graduate students. Concentrates on development of a research focus and securing NIH-level grant funding (including salary support). Expected to publish results of research in highly ranked journals.

The revised competency lists, along with a copy of the individual panel member’s responses to the first questionnaire were resubmitted to the panel in text form as an email attachment. A link to a new questionnaire requesting modifications, additions, or deletions of the revised lists was included. The new questionnaire included a section for the panel to rate the importance of each competency statement for each of the three categories of dental faculty using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1-Not Needed, 2-Perhaps Useful, 3-Useful, 4-Valuable, 5-Essential). Three weeks after the original email, nonresponders received an email urging response and another link to the questionnaire.

I compiled the final competency lists from the panel members’ suggestions. Mean importance ratings were computed for each competency statement for each of the three categories of dental faculty. Competency statements that were rated as "Essential" or "Valuable" by at least 80 percent of the panel were identified.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Future directions
 References
 
Twenty-two of the panel (84.6 percent) responded to the original questionnaire. Although not all of the panel reported the time spent completing the questionnaire, most of the panel reported that it took between thirty minutes and one hour. Two panel members devoted more than one hour to their responses. There was substantial variation in the amount of modification suggested by each panel member. Most panel members contributed extensive suggestions for modification of the original competency lists. Suggestions ranged from clarification of wording to the addition of a number of new competency statements in each area. In addition, some panel members posed questions that challenged the structure and organization of the lists. Several members pointed out that no single faculty member was likely to possess all of the competencies listed, but that the faculty as a group at each dental education institution needed to offer the full range of competencies.

Twenty members of the panel (77 percent) responded to the second round questionnaire that included the reorganized and modified competency lists and a rating of each competency statement. There were only a few new suggestions for further modification of the lists. Twenty-five members of the original panel (96 percent) responded to at least one of the questionnaires. At the end of the second round, the panel members were in substantial agreement on the content of the competency statements. As depicted in Figure 2Go, competency statements are organized into Foundational Competencies, Major Competencies, and Supporting Competencies.


Figure 2
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Organization of competency statements

 
Table 1Go presents the final version of the competency list for the scholarship of teaching and learning. These foundational competencies represent knowledge and skills that are applicable in any teaching setting. The major competencies represent categories or settings for teaching, and the supporting competencies are the individual skills applicable to that category or setting. The mean of the panel members’ rating of the importance of each competency for each of three categories of dental faculty is also presented in Table 1Go. Two new competency statements, "provide a safe learning environment" and "regularly solicit student evaluation and input," were added as a result of suggestions made during round two and therefore were not rated. Competency statements rated as either "Valuable" or "Essential" by at least 80 percent of the panel are identified by an asterisk. The panel’s ratings of the importance of these teaching competencies were very similar for the clinical teacher and the clinical scholar, with almost all competencies having a mean rating between "Essential" and "Valuable." The ratings of teaching competencies for the research-intensive scholar were slightly lower, but overall were rated as quite important for this category of faculty. Of the eighty-one competency statements rated, fifty-nine were judged to be "Valuable" or "Essential" by at least 80 percent of the panel members for clinical teachers; fifty-seven were rated that highly for clinical scholars; and fourteen for research-intensive scholars.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Competencies for the scholarship of teaching and learning
Importance of Teaching Competencies for Three Faculty Types
 
Table 2Go presents the final version of the competency list for the scholarship of discovery. The foundational competencies represent the basic knowledge and skills required to participate in research activities. The major competencies represent components of the discovery process, and the supporting competencies represent the skills and knowledge required for each component. The mean of the panel’s rating of the importance of each competency statement for the three categories of dental faculty is also presented in Table 2Go. The panel’s rating of the importance of these competency statements was substantially higher for clinical scholars and research-intensive scholars than for clinical teachers. One new competency statement, "implement a data management plan," was added to the competency list from suggestions made by the panel during round two and thus was not rated. None of the fifty-five rated competencies for the scholarship of discovery were rated as "Valuable" or "Essential" by 80 percent of the panel members for clinical teachers; thirty competencies were rated that highly for clinical scholars; and all fifty-five were rated as "Valuable" or "Essential" for research-intensive scholars by at least 80 percent of the panel.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Competencies for the scholarship of discovery
Importance of Discovery Competencies for Three Faculty Types
 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Future directions
 References
 
Faculty in dental education institutions fulfill a number of roles, including 1) teacher, 2) scholar/ researcher, 3) mentor, 4) discipline leader, 5) curriculum developer, 6) information manager, 7) committee member, and 8) clinician. Other than the delivery of clinical oral health care, dental education training programs provide little opportunity for the development of these skills.

The aging of the current dental faculty will require the recruitment of large numbers of new faculty members into dental education. In addition, it appears that a major source of new faculty may come from the practicing community as dentists who have had a successful practice seek a second career. Schenkein17 found that teaching, intellectual stimulation, and lifestyle were positive attractions for dentists choosing an academic career, while income and indebtedness were negative factors. Dentists who are veterans of a successful private practice for a number of years and who have managed their educational debt and secured a comfortable level of financial assets may be less concerned with those negative factors and attracted more strongly by the potential variety and intellectual stimulation offered by an academic setting.

It is unlikely that many of these new faculty members will have received training in many of the areas identified in this study as necessary for success in an academic environment, particularly education and research methods. These new faculty will therefore require additional professional development opportunities to facilitate their acquisition of the needed skills. The first step in providing these opportunities is to determine which skills we think faculty should possess. This project began that process by asking a panel of experienced dental educators to reach consensus on the competencies necessary for dental faculty in the areas of teaching and discovery.

The web-based Delphi method chosen for this project made it possible for a panel of geographically dispersed and busy expert dental educators to contribute to the identification of competencies. Although some panel members would have preferred a face-to-face meeting, resource and time constraints restricted the availability of that option. In addition, the Delphi method has the advantage that it facilitates the consideration of all panel member contributions free of the influences of personal style and status.15 A disadvantage of this method is that the facilitator is relied upon to interpret the input from the participants without the opportunity for clarification that might occur in a face-to-face meeting.

The competency lists presented in Tables 1Go and 2Go represent my assessment of a consensus of the panel on the aggregate competencies necessary for a dental faculty in the areas of teaching and discovery. These lists can provide a framework for wider input from communities of interest and can serve as the basis for the development of assessment tools to identify competency gaps. It is suggested that although not every faculty member can possess all competencies, the faculty at a dental education institution, as a whole, should possess a balance of these competencies. Not all individual faculty members have to assume or excel in all roles. Individual faculty members may have different levels of competencies in different domains. However, the relative importance rating the panel placed on each competency statement for the three faculty types described can serve as a guide for individual faculty members to assess their own skills.

It also may be worthwhile for dental education institutions to assess the aggregate competencies possessed by their faculty. The identification of individual faculty competency gaps can be used to drive educational plans for individual faculty members. The identification of institutional competency gaps could be used to drive faculty hiring decisions and the implementation of professional development activities.

The identification of competency gaps is only useful if there are resources available to address the gaps identified. Few, if any, dental education institutions, or their parent universities, can provide faculty development opportunities for their faculty in all of the needed competency areas. However, as a group, dental education institutions possess a tremendous stock of intellectual resources that could be brought to bear on the delivery of professional development opportunities that could be accessed by faculty from all institutions.

ADEA, through the Council of Faculties’ Academy of Dental Educators Task Force, is launching an electronic Communities of Interest for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning that may serve as a valuable resource for dental faculty throughout the country. ADEA could serve as the coordinator of the design and implementation of professional development courses to address these competencies. In addition to the existing courses and workshops at the ADEA Annual Session, collaboratively designed distance-learning courses could be made available to member institutions.

Because people tend to enjoy activities that they are good at, increasing faculty competency will have the twofold effect of improving the quality of education of future dentists and increasing the quality of life for dental faculty. Dental education institutions are unable to compete with private practice on a financial basis. Enhancing quality of life may be our best opportunity to recruit and retain effective faculty.


   Future Directions
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Future directions
References
 
Next steps for this study may include the following:

  1. Develop assessment instrument(s) to identify gaps in competencies for individual faculty members and educational institutions’ entire faculty;
  2. Identify professional development activities/programs to address the most frequently identified and widest gaps;
  3. Seek ADEA involvement in the coordination of the development and delivery of professional development programs to be offered to all faculty and potential faculty using a variety of formats, including distance learning, workshops at the ADEA Annual Session, and other mechanisms; and
  4. Identify competencies for service and clinical care using a process similar to that used in this study.


   Acknowledgments
 
The author acknowledges the expert panel whose contributions have resulted in the material presented. The panel consisted of Drs. Chris Arena, Charles Bertolomi, Judith Buchanan, David Chambers, Terri Dolan, Bruce Donoff, Jerry Glickman, William Hendricson, Ed Hines, Ron Hunt, Lynn Johnson, Ken Kalkwarf, John Killip, Frank Licari, Dennis Lopatin, Laura Neumann, Tim Oh, Paula O’Neill, Chuck Shuler, Jeanne Sinkford, Tom Taft, Sharon Turner, Rich Vogel, Karen West, and Pam Zarkowski.

In addition, the author acknowledges Dr. N. Karl Haden, Academy for Academic Leadership; Dr. Richard Weaver and Ms. Jackie Chmar, American Dental Education Association; the William J. Gies Foundation; and Dean David Johnsen, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, for their assistance and support throughout this project.


   Footnotes
 
Dr. Hand is Executive Associate Dean and Professor, Preventive and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to him at College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, 100 Dental Science Building, Iowa City, IA 52242-1010; 319-335-7146 phone; 319-335-7155 fax; jed-hand{at}uiowa.edu.

This project was supported by the William J. Gies Foundation and the American Dental Education Association.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Future directions
 References
 

  1. Kennedy JE, Hunt RJ. Meeting the demand for future dental faculty. In: Haden NK, Tedesco LT, eds. Leadership for the future: the dental school in the university. Washington, DC: American Association of Dental Schools [now American Dental Education Association], 1999:23–32.
  2. Weaver RG, Chmar JE, Haden NK, Valachovic RW. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions: academic year 2003–04. J Dent Educ 2005;69(2):296–305.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Chmar JE, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions: academic year 2004–05. J Dent Educ 2006;70(2):189–98.
  4. Chmar JE, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Annual ADEA survey of dental school seniors: 2005 graduating class. J Dent Educ 2006;70:313–37.
  5. Livingston HM, Dellinger TM, Hyde JC, Holder R. The aging and diminishing dental faculty. J Dent Educ 2004;68(3):345–54.[Abstract]
  6. Haden NK, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Meeting the demand for future dental school faculty: trends, challenges, and responses. J Dent Educ 2002;66(9):1102–13.[Abstract]
  7. ADEA policy statements. As revised and approved by the 2005 House of Delegates. J Dent Educ 2005;69(7):786–99.[Free Full Text]
  8. Bland C et al. Successful faculty in academic medicine: essential skills and how to acquire them. New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1990.
  9. Rubenstein W, Talbot Y. Medical teaching in ambulatory care. New York: Springer Publishing Co., 2003.
  10. Edwards J, Friedland JA, Bing-You R, eds. Residents’ teaching skills. New York: Springer Publishing Co., 2002.
  11. Hesketh E et al. A framework for developing excellence as a clinical educator. Med Educ 2001;35:555–64.[Medline]
  12. Dreyfus SE, Dreyful HL. Mind over machine. New York: Blackwell Publishers, 1986.
  13. Nelson AJ. Using a modified Delphi methodology to develop a competency model for vet practitioners, December 24, 2002. At: amynelson.efoliomn2.com. Accessed: March 29, 2005.
  14. Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
  15. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 2001;38:195–200.[Medline]
  16. Cho H, Turoff M, Hiltz SR. The impacts of Delphi communication structure on small and medium sized asynchronous groups: preliminary results. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science. IEEE Computer Society, 2003.
  17. Schenkein HA. Factors considered by new faculty in their decision to choose careers in academic dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001;65(9):832–40.[Abstract]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
J. M. Roger, M. M.H. Wehmeyer, and M. S. Milliner
Reflections on Academic Careers by Current Dental School Faculty
J Dent Educ., April 1, 2008; 72(4): 448 - 457.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
L. S. Behar-Horenstein, G. Schneider-Mitchell, and R. Graff
Faculty Perceptions of a Professional Development Seminar
J Dent Educ., April 1, 2008; 72(4): 472 - 483.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Dent. Res.Home page
M. Oakley and A.R. Vieira
The Endangered Clinical Teacher Scholar: Will this Eliminate Discovery from the Dental School Environment?
J. Dent. Res., March 1, 2008; 87(3): 200 - 202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
W. D. Hendricson, E. Anderson, S. C. Andrieu, D. G. Chadwick, J. R. Cole, M. C. George, G. N. Glickman, J. F. Glover, J. S. Goldberg, N. K. Haden, et al.
Does Faculty Development Enhance Teaching Effectiveness?
J Dent Educ., December 1, 2007; 71(12): 1513 - 1533.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hand, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hand, J. S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS