HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Holyfield, L. J. Articles by Berry, C. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Holyfield, L. J. Articles by Berry, C. W.

Designing an Orientation Program for New Faculty

Key words: faculty development, orientation, mentoring, peer review

Submitted for publication 12/17/07; accepted 09/21/08

	Abstract

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 
The Faculty Development Committee (FDC) at Baylor College of Dentistry (BCD) is charged with providing programs and activities that facilitate the success of existing faculty in the constantly changing environment of academia. In response to concerns regarding the challenges wrought by current and projected shortages of dental faculty across the nation, the FDC was prompted to assess development opportunities available to BCD faculty. A professional development resource that we found deficient was a formal, comprehensive orientation program for newly hired faculty. To guide the efforts of the committee in developing this program, a survey was designed and administered during an annual faculty retreat. Respondents were new and junior faculty, senior faculty, and some administrators. The results of the survey to determine requirements for new faculty orientation became the basis for formalizing BCD’s new faculty orientation program. This article provides an overview of the new faculty orientation process from design to program implementation and describes the development and use of a faculty survey to determine the fundamental elements of a faculty development program, identification of essential individuals for designing/implementing the program, and implementation of a new faculty orientation program at BCD.

The retention and development of a dental education workforce that is sufficient in size and expertise to meet the teaching, research, patient care, and administrative needs of Baylor College of Dentistry (BCD) are the principal objectives of the Faculty Development Committee (FDC). Numerous programs are provided by the FDC throughout the year, primarily focusing upon the improvement of teaching and research skills or on faculty calibration issues. However, despite the programs offered, there was a prevailing perception that more could be done to support the faculty.

After informal discussions with many faculty members having hire dates between 2000 and 2005, the FDC determined that there were potential hindrances to faculty success in reaching academic benchmarks, including promotion and tenure. Among the perceived impediments were inadequate teaching skills, insufficient mentoring, and unsatisfactory levels of communication with new faculty members in an environment that was not adequately conducive to the development of faculty. The FDC’s inventory of barriers to the professional development of faculty was similar to a recent review of these issues by Livingston et al.² and parallels concerns and constraints identified by dental school faculty in a nationwide survey of more than 1,800 dental school faculty at nearly fifty U.S. dental schools in 2007.³ In interviews with several new and junior faculty at BCD, many expressed anxiety about a lack of clarity for what was expected of them and how to proceed to successfully advance in the academic environment. As described by Trower, younger faculty in their thirties and forties (the so-called Generation Y) value and expect an academic environment characterized by openness, transparency of decision making, and clear communication of standards and policies.⁴ Trower’s investigation of factors that predict faculty satisfaction and desire to remain in academic positions indicates that absence of this type of open environment is a career disincentive for many individuals in that age group that dental education needs to attract.

Based on responses during the informal discussions, the FDC reviewed its offerings and other available opportunities for faculty development and determined that a formal process for new faculty orientation (NFO) should be implemented. An NFO subcommittee was established to determine the components to include in the process. Rather than rely solely on the perceptions of FDC members, a survey was designed and administered to faculty members in order to gain insight into their perceptions of what the program should offer.

Based upon the findings from the survey, the BCD NFO was developed. A formal, comprehensive orientation process, the BCD NFO is designed to facilitate the success of new faculty in the academic environment. The process features a series of professional development programs, including a seminar that provides a general overview of the institution and its policies, networking opportunities, establishment of mentoring committees, and peer review. If the goal of the process is met, the knowledge and skills of the participants will be enhanced, translating into a higher level of confidence among faculty in their ability to succeed in academia, thus influencing job satisfaction and, ultimately, improving retention. The program promotes networking and collegiality among participants and fosters a heightened awareness of the institution’s commitment to and support for new faculty. Objectives of the program are to 1) explain general governance and policies of the institution at all levels including the Texas A&M University System, the Texas A&M Health Science Center, and BCD, particularly those aspects that directly impact faculty life; 2) summarize details and actions that apply to promotion and tenure; 3) identify internal and external resources available to faculty; 4) provide an overview of the departments of clinical and basic sciences; and 5) define the principles of effective teaching.

	Methodology

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 
Survey
The FDC designed a survey to capture faculty perceptions of the information and resources that should be included in a new faculty orientation program designed to enhance success in the careers of dental faculty. The survey addressed more than thirty aspects of academia that were perceived to have an impact on faculty life. For example, the first part of the survey included a statement to determine if faculty members had received a faculty manual upon employment. The majority indicated that they had not received a faculty manual. The questions in the next part of the survey were related to policies and procedures, available resources, networking, meetings, clinical protocols, and intradepartmental issues. The survey topics appear in Table 1.

Those taking the survey were a combination of new, junior, and senior faculty (ten years or more) members; those on tenure- and non-tenure-track; assistant, associate, and full professors; and administrators. Responses to the BCD survey were mirrored in some of the responses later reported in the 2007 Dental School Faculty Work Environment Survey, administered by the American Dental Education Association (ADEA)’s Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education.⁵

	Results of the Survey

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 
Sixty-two (86.1 percent) of the BCD retreat participants (n=72) took the survey. Of the thirty-three questions on the survey, thirty received responses of "agree" or "strongly agree" at a rate of 80 percent or greater. Nearly 97 percent (96.8 percent) indicated that an explanation of their duties and how they fit into departmental objectives was or would have been valuable. On issues related to policies on tests, grades, and attendance, 93.6 percent responded similarly, as did 91.9 percent on promotion and tenure issues, and 90.3 percent on information regarding courses within the individual’s department. Other offerings that were reported as valuable or that would have been valuable were the following:

• policies and procedures (88.71 percent),
  
• available resources (library information, media resources, etc.) (88.71 percent),
  
• the opportunity to attend lectures of colleagues within one’s department (87.10 percent),
  
• programs and opportunities for faculty development (85.71 percent),
  
• shadowing colleagues within one’s department prior to executing tasks (83.87 percent),
  
• educational meetings (ADEA, AADR, etc.) (82.26 percent),
  
• infection control procedures and clinic attire (82.26 percent),
  
• information regarding courses within related departments (80.65 percent),
  
• security issues (79.03 percent),
  
• continuing education policies and opportunities (77.42 percent),
  
• general orientation to the basic science and/or clinical programs (75.81 percent),
  
• delineation of the clinical privileges form (74.19 percent),
  
• formal presentation of the mission of BCD (72.58 percent), and
  
• rotation through related clinical departments (72.13 percent).
  

Responses to the BCD survey are comparable to some of the responses reported in the 2007 Dental School Faculty Work Environment Survey administered by the ADEA CCI.^3,5 Respondents to that survey rated the clarity of the tenure and promotion process, performance standards and expectations, and career planning advice as minimally adequate. Among dental school faculty members in non-tenure-track positions who completed the survey, 66 percent reported that the information they received about their rights and obligations as non-tenured appointees was either not clear or could be improved.

Using the findings from the BCD faculty survey as a guide, an NFO Task Force was established. Appointees to the task force represented a variety of departments, academic ranks, and length of service to the institution. Included were junior faculty, senior faculty, department chairs, administrators, and others with expertise in specific areas of interest or need. The purpose for the task force was to garner information that would serve two purposes: 1) compilation for use in an electronic faculty manual, and 2) incorporation into orientation seminars designed for new faculty. The committee met monthly for four months to determine the content and format of the NFO seminars and to gather and organize the information for an electronic faculty manual.

The first NFO seminar was held in December 2005. The agenda is generally the same for all seminars; however, because two of the presenters were unavailable during the second seminar, their presentations were prerecorded and presented electronically during the second meeting in June 2005.

It was the intent of the task force to determine the success of the NFO program via focus group assessment. However, scheduling restrictions precluded participation by a sufficient number of attendees so, instead, a written survey was administered to the nineteen faculty members who participated in either of the first two NFO orientation seminars. Results of the survey are reported in the evaluation section below.

The first participants invited were faculty members hired within a three-year period prior to October 1, 2005. During the first two years, the seminars were held every six months to accelerate completion of the process by the selected participants. The seminars are now scheduled once annually, near the end of the fall semester.

	Program Design

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 
The BCD NFO plan includes several components: a new faculty orientation seminar, meetings with department chairs, mentoring, cultural competence/diversity awareness training, peer review, a checklist, and evaluation. Each component is described below.

The Orientation Seminar
By design, the orientation seminar is the most significant aspect of the NFO. The goal of the orientation seminar is to provide general information and directives for new faculty to help them navigate the academic environment, especially in their initial years of employment at BCD. Each NFO seminar starts with a welcome and opening remarks by the dean, followed by several topics that faculty members identified on the survey as being critical for faculty success. Other administrators are invited to report on areas for which they are primarily responsible. For example, the associate dean for academic affairs discusses general faculty responsibilities and institutional policies that pertain to faculty, such as management of the curriculum, annual faculty evaluations, and due process. The director of planning and assessment discusses the school’s mission, values, and strategic directions. Other subjects such as appointment, promotion, and tenure and both basic science and clinical research are discussed by chairs of the appropriate committees or by individuals with the greatest level of knowledge and expertise on a subject. The human resource director explains employment requirements and benefits. Additional subjects covered during the one-day seminars include institutional governance, faculty development opportunities, available resources, and strategies for effective teaching. Faculty members are encouraged to network during lunch, which is provided by the Office of Academic Affairs.

The single greatest obstacle in planning the seminars is establishing a time that conflicts with the least number of presenters. Once the date is determined, each presenter is notified of the agenda time and the specific presentation of assigned information well in advance of the program date, allowing for sufficient time to make adjustments to the schedule if needed. The presenters are asked to arrive at least thirty minutes prior to and to remain available for at least thirty minutes after their presentations.

New faculty members with a 60 percent or more FTE appointment are urged to attend one seminar, which is held on-site at BCD. Attendance is not mandatory; however, most new faculty members attend. Those who do not attend are individuals who, while new to BCD, are not new to dental academia.

Meetings with Chairs
Preceding each seminar, department chairs with participating faculty were asked to schedule meetings with those individuals, preferably immediately following the seminar. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the new faculty members to ask questions precipitated by the seminar. This meeting also gave the chairs an opportunity to address or clarify information discussed during the seminar and specifically as applied to their department. The chairs were made aware of the agenda during the developmental phase of the NFO process.

Mentoring
Faculty mentoring is primarily the responsibility of department chairs. Therefore, the chairs were asked to establish a mentoring committee for their new faculty members. Mentoring integrates the new educator into the faculty community and provides opportunities for professional development and networking with other faculty who have similar interests.⁶ Haden et al. have suggested that mentors are the most important influence for many current dental educators in their choice of an academic career.⁷ Logan, Haden et al., and Shepherd et al. describe formal mentoring programs as the single most important strategy for creating a dental school culture that promotes and supports academic dentistry.^6–8 Further, the ability of junior faculty to achieve success in grant proposal writing, scholarly activity, leadership, academic rank, compensation, and career satisfaction is a direct product of good mentoring.²

The ADEA President’s Commission on Mentoring identified numerous benefits of mentoring.⁹ The commission’s report argues that mentoring supports professional growth and development; provides encouragement, direction, and promotion; increases job satisfaction and retention rates by 15 to 30 percent; increases confidence (of the mentee) in professional development abilities; supports socialization into the profession through networking; and provides a sounding board and safe environment in which to test new ideas and discuss both personal and professional challenges.

The BCD NFO recommended to department chairs that a mentoring committee be established for each new faculty member. The commission’s report also states that mentoring provides benefits for both the mentor and the mentee.⁹ Awareness of the mutual benefits of mentoring relationships may have been an advantage in enlisting willing individuals, whose experience and expertise are conducive to accelerating the professional development of the new faculty, to serve as mentors.

Each mentoring committee consists of the chair or a departmental designee and two other faculty members—one clinician and one basic scientist. The purpose of this structure is to build an interdisciplinary network that will promote clinical research and broaden perspectives among faculty members on varying aspects of the curriculum and the academic environment. The composition of the committee is discussed during the meeting between the new faculty member and the chair that occurs immediately following the orientation seminar. As of March 2008, mentoring committees have been established for at least eleven of the nineteen NFO participants.

Cultural Competence/Diversity Awareness
Many years ago, diversity training workshops were implemented at BCD. Most of the faculty participated in the training program during its initial stages; however, many who were hired in recent years have not received the training. NFO participants were required to attend a special diversity training workshop conducted by members of BCD’s Welcoming Diversity Committee who have been certified by the National Coalition Building Institute, an organization dedicated to improving harmony among all people.

Peer Review
The peer review process at BCD is led by the Peer Review Task Force and includes a team of trained and calibrated evaluators. Though voluntary, all new faculty members are encouraged to contact the Office of Faculty Development to arrange for a formative peer evaluation of their clinical, classroom, and/or laboratory teaching skills within the first six to twelve months of their appointment. Those who request evaluations must provide syllabi and other course materials for review prior to observation of the teaching experience. They must also attend a pre-evaluation consultation with the evaluators and a post-evaluation consultation after they have been observed.

Score sheets that have been customized for clinical, classroom, or laboratory teaching observations are used by the evaluators. Evaluations criteria are provided as an Appendix. All forms and evaluation materials are available to faculty at any time via the electronic faculty manual on the college intranet. A video recording of effective and ineffective teaching styles, also available on the intranet, was developed as a skill-building component for faculty use as well.

Results of a peer evaluation may be used for summative purposes only at the request of the subject of the evaluation. This is usually done as an added measure to enhance one’s success in the promotion and/or tenure review process.

Checklist
An integral component of the NFO was the development of a checklist as a means of determining the progress of each participant through the process. The checklist tracked meetings with chairs, declaration of tenure-track designation, cultural competence training, human resource requirements, peer review, and the establishment of and meeting with the mentoring committee. The checklist appears in Figure 1. Faculty participants were urged to complete the checklists to indicate when the various aspects of the orientation process were completed and to return them to the Office of Academic Affairs for record-keeping purposes. Other meetings and activities, such as interaction with human resources, are completed on an individual basis.

View larger version (56K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Checklist for new faculty

	Discussion

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

One of the lessons learned early in the implementation was the importance of flexibility in planning. There are many barriers to successful implementation. Norris notes two main difficulties in planning an orientation program, one of which involves the time of appointment to the faculty.¹⁰ While most new faculty members arrive on the same date (near the beginning of a semester), there are a few exceptions to that time frame. Time of appointment was also an issue in planning the BCD program. Norris describes another potential problem for faculty orientation programs: new faculty become overloaded and saturated with information, i.e., "getting too much too soon." However, evaluations by NFO participants indicate that was not a problem in the BCD orientation program.

Another difficulty was the selection of the best dates for seminars and the scheduling of presenters during the seminar. The availability of BCD faculty and administrators who were key to the success of the program had to be considered. As a result, we learned to plan well in advance to allow ample opportunity for adjustments in scheduling during each seminar. With the exception of instances in which the key individual for a particular presentation had changed, all presenters except one are still currently involved, and all make a genuine effort to coordinate their schedules with the NFO.

During the initial phase of program implementation, selection of faculty participants presented a minor challenge. Questions such as "who do we consider to be new faculty?" or "what should be the cut-off date from the time of appointment?" had to be addressed. It was agreed that faculty hired after September 30, 2002, approximately three years prior to the date of the initial seminar, would be invited to participate in the inaugural session. Most of those selected were pleased for an opportunity to learn and to find answers to their questions; however, a few determined that they had already learned what they needed to know and it was too late, in their opinion, for an orientation. While those sentiments were appreciated, each invitee was urged to attend.

After the seminar, several of the faculty members who complained that they had been at BCD for so long that it was too late for them to receive benefit from an orientation later admitted that they were pleased with their decision to attend because they had gained valuable information. They expressed their gratitude for the opportunity and recommended that their colleagues attend the next seminar.

	Conclusion

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 
Based on the findings of the survey to determine requirements for new faculty orientation, the BCD NFO process was designed to include comprehensive elements of professional development. The major component of the process is a seminar that combines a general overview of the institutional mission and goals, including its organizational structure; the appointment, promotion, and tenure process; and available resources and policies, with opportunities for socialization among new faculty members. Other components of the process are mentoring, cultural competence training, and peer review. The premise for this design is that the knowledge gained through participation will translate into a higher level of knowledge, skills, and confidence among faculty members, leading to success in academia, thus influencing job satisfaction and, ultimately, improving retention.

The overall goals of the program are to promote networking and collegiality among participants and foster a heightened awareness among newly hired faculty members of the institution’s commitment to and support for new faculty. Additionally, it provides consistency across departments in how new faculty receive orientation to an academic role in dentistry. It has been suggested that retention of new faculty is directly connected to the problems and concerns they experience in the first years of their appointment.^3–7 While lack of collegial support, workload, and time constraints are concerns of new faculty members, feelings of loneliness and isolation have been frequently reported as two of the most significant problems they faced. Further, lack of understanding of what others expect of them, personal commitments, and lack of opportunities to meet other new faculty members also contribute to the pressure they experience.⁴ The BCD NFO program provides a standardized setting to address some of these issues.

Finally, a recent article further suggests the effectiveness of the BCD NFO process. Trotman et al. described the preliminary results of the 2007 Dental Faculty Work Environment Questionnaire sponsored by the ADEA CCI.⁴ Trotman et al. made five recommendations based on data from the survey responses of 1,800 U.S. dental school faculty members. The recommendations were as follows: 1) dental schools need to clearly communicate what is expected of faculty in terms of roles, responsibilities, assignments, standards, productivity, and other markers of academic performance; 2) creating an environment that promotes and supports mentoring is essential for fostering career growth and job satisfaction; 3) enhancing teaching skills and establishing a quality teaching/learning atmosphere must be a central component of faculty development; 4) faculty members need support and assistance in determining if their particular academic job is a good fit for them in relation to their career goals and other aspects of their lives; and 5) developing an institutional culture that promotes academic excellence allows faculty members to be enthusiastic about their job responsibilities.

Three of these recommendations were achieved through the BCD NFO process. First, the recommendation that expectations of faculty be clearly articulated is addressed during the seminar and through the meetings between new faculty members and their chairs. Second, the BCD NFO includes a structure for fostering mentoring relationships, which are the cornerstone of faculty development; and third, the BCD NFO emphasizes development of faculty members’ teaching skills. The other two recommendations proposed by Trotman et al.—making sure that the job "fit" and environment are on target, and creating and maintaining an atmosphere of excellence and enthusiasm—were deemed by the FDC to be tasks that should be accomplished through other means. However, if faculty members are to be successful, it is crucial that all five of Trotman et al.’s recommendations are addressed in dental schools, through institutional and/or departmental faculty development initiatives or venues.

	APPENDIX Evaluation Criteria for Peer Review of Clinical Teaching

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 

1. Role Modeling or Behavior Conducive to Clinical Learning
   1. Serves as a good role model.
      • Manifests a positive attitude.
        
      • Treats patients with respect.
        
      • Models exemplary clinical behavior, including use of personal protective equipment.
        
      
      
   2. Demonstrates empathy for patient.
      • Demonstrates concern for patient comfort and general well-being.
        
      • Includes patients in discussions regarding treatment, where appropriate.
        
      • Listens to patient’s concerns.
        
      • Takes the time to answer questions.
        
      
      
   3. Tactful with comments in the presence of the patient.
      • Applauds student successes and seizes the opportunity to inspire patient confidence in students.
        
      • The instructor is careful to avoid discussion of concerns/problems with the student in front of the patient.
        
      
      
   
   
2. Enthusiasm and Student Interaction

   4. Treats students with respect.

   • Responds positively to student questions or concerns.
     
   • Refrains from making negative comments regarding student progress and/or skills in the presence of patients.
     
   • Maintains a collegial demeanor and avoids projecting a superior, dismissive, authoritarian, or condescending attitude.
     
   • Calls on or responds to students by name.
     

   
   

   5. Shows enthusiasm and commitment to teaching.

   • Combines enthusiasm with a high level of information-giving.
     
   • Relates in a positive way to students.
     
   • During student interaction, clearly communicates to students that he or she enjoys teaching and working with students.
     

   
   

   6. Offers constructive feedback and makes effective use of the QA form.

   • Communicates with students regarding clinical skills, informs students of overall progress, and reinforces good clinical practices.
     
   • Responses to student questions, grades, and other feedback are provided promptly.
     
   • Quality assurance forms are used appropriately to indicate areas of weakness and strength.
     

   
   

   7. Creates an environment conducive to learning and encourages questions from students.

   • Demonstrates a positive, supportive attitude toward students.
     
   • Engages students, and creates a comfortable environment that allows them to ask questions.
     

   
   

   8. Shows patience in accommodating different skill levels of learners.

   • Appears to be aware of the students’ abilities.
     
   • Provides guidance and assistance based upon student abilities.
     
   • Motivates students to seek improvement.
     

   
   

   9. Checks with students to verify if information was understood.

   • Maintains contact with students periodically to observe proper execution of instructions and successful implementation of planned clinical procedures and to ensure accuracy of patient instructions.
     

   
   

   
   
3. Promotion of Thinking Skills

   10. Engages students in problem-solving and critical thinking.

   • Guides the student through the decision-making process by asking questions to access the student’s knowledge base.
     
   • Directs the student to additional information as required.
     

   
   

   11. Supervises students without taking over.

   • Gives advice when required while allowing students to complete procedures with minimal intervention.
     

   
   

   
   
4. Teaching Responsibilities

   12. Available throughout the clinic period.

   • Arrives in clinic on time.
     
   • Available to students throughout the prescribed session.
     

   
   

   13. Makes efficient use of time to minimize delays in helping other students.

   • Provides adequate instructions using minimal time to allow for interaction with all students to which assigned.
     

   
   

   
   
5. Teaching strategies and organization

   14. Demonstrates organizational skills in his/her teaching approach.

   • Instructions and/or information are delivered clearly and in a well-organized manner.
     

   
   

   15. Appropriately relates clinical and basic science information.

   • Correlates theoretical and clinical knowledge.
     
   • Provides instruction based on currently acceptable clinical principles.
     

   
   

   
   

	Evaluation Criteria for Peer Review of Laboratory Teaching

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 

1. Provides clear explanations of skill to be learned.
   • Uses appropriate information regarding the skill or skills to be learned during the laboratory session.
     
   • Uses the laboratory manual as the basic source of information.
     
   • Clarifies any misunderstood concepts or techniques.
     
   • Emphasizes the most important aspects of the concepts or skills.
     
   
   
2. Clearly explains rationale for skill or procedure.
   • Makes a clear connection with the clinical relevance of the skill or procedure.
     
   
   
3. Emphasizes that the quality of delivered care is directly proportional to the dentist’s ability to perform the skill at a high level of competence.
   
4. Effectively uses available time.
   • Since the instructor is assigned a group of students during the laboratory session, is able to efficiently use the time to provide maximum instruction and feedback to all students in the group.
     
   • Not all students will require equal help, so the instructor demonstrates a level of sensitivity to individual needs and responds appropriately.
     
   • Demonstrates that he or she has an "aerial or global" perspective of the group.
     
   • Responds quickly to each student’s needs, especially if a short and quick answer can be given.
     
   
   
5. Provides direction and feedback.
   • Observes students working, and at the appropriate time interjects helpful information and/or provides a quick demonstration to help the student understand how to better accomplish the task.
     
   • Provides feedback that is not judgmental or personally offensive.
     
   • Takes a proactive approach, not just reacting to students’ activities.
     
   
   
6. Provides examples or demonstrations of expected results.
   • Provides personal demonstrations when appropriate or, when it is indicated, demonstrates for the entire group.
     
   • Uses various forms of "showing" to make effective use of students’ time.
     
   • Demonstrates the ability to perform the procedure being demonstrated at a high level of expertise.
     
   
   
7. Creates a supportive, non-threatening learning environment.
   • Is keenly aware of the differences in the level of knowledge and skills between himself/herself and the students.
     
   • Provides instruction and feedback that are appropriate for a beginning level student.
     
   • Does not make comments about a student’s work or habits that are demeaning or personal in nature.
     
   • Shows a caring attitude toward each student.
     
   • Recognizes their different personalities and learning styles.
     
   
   
8. Models professionalism.
   • Demonstrates through actions and vocabulary the qualities of a professional, one who is characterized by or conforming to the technical and ethical standards of the profession. This process begins with the instructor respecting each student as an individual and showing concern for their development as professionals.
     
   
   
9. Shows enthusiastic and stimulates interest.
   • The fact that he or she enjoys teaching is apparent.
     
   • Projects a professional demeanor and attitude toward all students.
     
   • Employs a tone of voice, simplicity of explanations, and sensitivity to personality type differences to help students maximize their learning potential.
     
   
   
10. Establishes rapport.
    • Shows personal interest and respect for each student.
      
    • Demonstrates that he or she values students as future colleagues in the dental profession.
      
    
    
11. Provides remedial help when needed.
    • Effectively determines when each student needs help and provided the appropriate level of help.
      
    • Anticipates student reactions when faced when suggesting that they need help.
      
    
    
12. Actively involves learners.
    • At the appropriate time, engages students in challenging questions that require them to think about what they were trying to accomplish, including concepts as well as technical questions about the procedure itself.
      
    
    
13. As a group instructor, provides time and help equitably to all students.
    • As an instructor, does not allow a single student to monopolize his or her time.
      
    • Makes every effort to help all students in the group regardless of the level of help needed.
      
    
    

	Criteria for Peer Review of Classroom Teaching

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 

1. Presentation Preparation
   1. The session was well planned and organized.
      • The content of the session was arranged in a clear and logical manner, both in the context of the whole course and within the lecture.
        
      • Transitions from one topic to the next were easy to follow, and the depth of the information was appropriate for the students.
        
      • General information on a topic was introduced initially to establish the context for more detailed information later.
        
      • The learning objectives of the session were clearly stated at the beginning, and major points were summarized at the end.
        
      
      
   2. The session time was used well.
      • The content for the session was proportional to the available time.
        
      • The time spent on individual topics was proportional to the amount and complexity of the information for each topic.
        
      • The pace of the instruction was optimal for student understanding.
        
      
      
   
   
2. Presentation and Content

   3. The content was well presented by the instructor.

   • The voice of the instructor could be easily heard and understood.
     
   • Unfamiliar terms, concepts, and principles were defined and clarified in the context of the information.
     
   • The use of gestures, variation in vocal inflection, maintaining eye contact, and other elements of presentation style effectively maintained interest and promoted communication of the concepts and information.
     
   • The instructor avoided or minimized the use of repetitive words, speech patterns, noncontributory tangential remarks, and distractive movements.
     

   
   

   4. The visual aids supported the instruction.

   • The visual aids were designed and used to optimally convey the concepts and information in conjunction with the verbal presentation.
     
   • Text slides could be easily read from all seats in the classroom.
     
   • Photographs were of optimal quality.
     
   • Charts/graphs were clearly labeled and designed to efficiently demonstrate the intended point.
     
   • The pace, content, and number of images presented were proportional to the session content and within the ability of most students to absorb and synthesize the information in the time available.
     

   
   

   5. Additional materials such as handouts supported the instruction.

   • Reading assignments and handouts corresponded to and were consistent with the content of the presentation.
     
   • The intended use of the assigned readings and handouts (for example, as preparation for the lecture, optional for additional information, or mandatory additional information for eventual testing) was made clear to the students.
     
   • The length of the reading assignment was reasonable.
     
   • The handout was clear and concise.
     
   • Handouts facilitated learning by limiting the need to take notes and allowing the student to focus on the presentation by instructor.
     

   
   

   6. The presentation promoted higher-order thinking.

   • The instructor established clear interrelationships among the principles, concepts, and factual information of the presentation content.
     
   • Common decision-making scenarios were used to illustrate the importance of presentation content and the process of decision-making.
     
   • The instructor posed problems and demonstrated potential solutions using topic content either by use of examples or by class discussion.
     
   • The instructor promoted curiosity by posing unresolved or controversial issues related to the presentation content.
     
   • Where applicable, the distinction between fact and opinion was clearly made during the presentation.
     

   
   

   
   
3. Rapport and Student Interaction

   7. The instructor created a positive learning environment.

   • The instructor maintained the attention of the students and fostered a positive, stimulating learning environment.
     
   • The instructor sensed and responded to nonverbal cues indicative of student boredom, confusion, or curiosity during the presentation.
     
   • The use of humor was appropriate and contributed to a positive learning atmosphere.
     
   • The instructor maintained a collegial demeanor and avoided projecting a superior, dismissive, authoritarian, or condescending attitude.
     
   • The instructor called on or responded to students by name.
     

   
   

   8. The instructor effectively promoted interaction with questions and/or discussions.

   • The instructor was positive and receptive to student questions or comments and restated what the student said so that the entire class could appreciate the instructor’s response.
     
   • The instructor initiated discussion where appropriate by posing questions to the class and allowing adequate time for a genuine interactive discussion to develop.
     
   • The instructor used discussion or posed questions to the class to evaluate the level of student understanding of concepts or demonstrate application of information
     
   • The instructor suggested that questions of limited general interest be discussed after class.
     

   
   

   
   
4. Credibility

   9. The instructor demonstrated mastery of the presentation content.

   • The instructor projected thorough knowledge of the subject by presenting accurate information, by explaining difficult issues from different perspectives, by the use of hypothetical examples to illustrate complex concepts, and by providing advanced or highly specific information in response to questions.
     
   • The instructor appropriately cited authorities or the literature to justify opinions or in response to questions.
     
   • Subject mastery was conveyed by talking through the presentation content in contrast to essentially reading prepared notes.
     
   • Course content was expanded in detail or complexity spontaneously during impromptu class discussions.
     

   
   

   10. The instructor related the presentation content to eventual practical application.

   • The instructor made a compelling argument as to the practical importance of the presentation content.
     
   • Examples of practical application were used to clarify concepts or present information.
     
   • The class session was conducted in a case presentation format.
     
   • Photographs from a clinical setting were used frequently to subtly remind the students’ of their anticipated transition from classroom to clinic.
     
   • Information or concepts were related to the students’ personal health care experiences.
     
   • The instructor discussed episodes of less than optimal clinical outcomes due to poor application of the information or concepts.
     

   
   

   
   

	Author Information

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 
Dr. Holyfield is Director of Faculty Development, Office of Academic Affairs; and Dr. Berry is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Office of Academic Affairs—both at Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M Health Science Center. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Lavern J. Holyfield, Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 Gaston Avenue, Room 513, Dallas, TX 75246; 214-828-8485 phone; 214-874-4523 fax; LHolyfield{at}bcd.tamhsc.edu.

	REFERENCES

Top Author information Abstract Methodology Results of the survey Program design Discussion Conclusion Appendix evaluation criteria for... Evaluation criteria for peer... Criteria for peer review... References

 

1. 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]
2. Livingston HM, Dellinger TM, Hyde JC, Holder R. The aging and diminishing dental faculty. J Dent Educ 2004; 68(3):345–54.[Abstract]
3. Trotman CA, Haden NK, Hendricson W. Does the dental school work environment promote successful academic careers? J Dent Educ 2007; 71(6):713–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Trower CA. Making academic dentistry more attractive to new teacher-scholars. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(5):601–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Haden NK, Hendricson W, Ranney RR, Vargas A, Cardenas L, Rose W, et al. The quality of dental faculty work-life: report on the 2007 dental school faculty work environment survey. J Dent Educ 2008; 72(5):514–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Logan NS. Promoting the recruitment and retention of minority faculty. J Dent Educ 1997; 61(3):273–6.[Abstract]
7. Haden NK, Beemsterboer PL, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Dental school faculty shortages increase: an update on future dental school faculty. J Dent Educ 2000; 64(9): 657–73.[Abstract]
8. Shepherd KR, Nihill P, Botto RW, McCarthy MW. Factors influencing pursuit and satisfaction of academic dentistry careers: perceptions of new dental educators. J Dent Educ 2001; 65(9):841–8.[Abstract]
9. Friedman PK, Arena C, Atchison K, Beemsterboer PL, Farsai P, Giusti JB, et al. Report of the ADEA president’s commission on mentoring. J Dent Educ 2004; 68(3): 390–6.[Medline]
10. Norris S. A faculty looks at its orientation program. Am J Nursing 2008; 58(1):80–1.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Holyfield, L. J. Articles by Berry, C. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Holyfield, L. J. Articles by Berry, C. W.