Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
      • Resources
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribing
  • About
    • About the JDE
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • My Saved Searches
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Other Publications

User menu

  • My Alerts
  • Log In
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Dental Education
Visit the American Dental Education Association's main website
  • My Alerts
  • Log In
  • My Cart
Journal of Dental Education

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribing
  • About
    • About the JDE
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • My Saved Searches
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Visit jde Template on Facebook
  • Follow jde Template on Twitter
  • Follow jde Template on YouTube
  • View jde RSS feed
  • TOC Alerts
Research ArticleFaculty Development

A Survey of Faculty Development in U.S. and Canadian Dental Schools: Types of Activities and Institutional Entity with Responsibility

Maureen McAndrew, Zsuzsa Horvath and Lindsey E. Atiyeh
Journal of Dental Education November 2018, 82 (11) 1127-1139; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.018.116
Maureen McAndrew
Maureen McAndrew, DDS, MSEd, is Clinical Professor and Senior Director of Professional Development, College of Dentistry, New York University; Zsuzsa Horvath, PhD, is Assistant Professor and Director of Faculty Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; and Lindsey E. Atiyeh, DDS, was a third-year dental student, College of Dentistry, New York University, at the time of this study.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mm154@nyu.edu
Zsuzsa Horvath
Maureen McAndrew, DDS, MSEd, is Clinical Professor and Senior Director of Professional Development, College of Dentistry, New York University; Zsuzsa Horvath, PhD, is Assistant Professor and Director of Faculty Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; and Lindsey E. Atiyeh, DDS, was a third-year dental student, College of Dentistry, New York University, at the time of this study.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lindsey E. Atiyeh
Maureen McAndrew, DDS, MSEd, is Clinical Professor and Senior Director of Professional Development, College of Dentistry, New York University; Zsuzsa Horvath, PhD, is Assistant Professor and Director of Faculty Development, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; and Lindsey E. Atiyeh, DDS, was a third-year dental student, College of Dentistry, New York University, at the time of this study.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

GTranslate

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the status of faculty development in North American dental schools in 2016. This research project was designed to update and expand upon a 2001 study that reported the first comprehensive results on similar topics and to compare the 2001 and 2016 results. In this study, survey responses were received from 57 of 75 U.S. and Canadian dental schools for an overall response rate of 76%. The results showed a sizeable expansion of faculty development efforts across schools. Twenty-three schools (40%) reported the existence of an Office of Faculty Affairs and/or Professional/Faculty Development with 12 offices established within the past five years, a sixfold increase. Other entities that demonstrated increased participation in dental faculty development were Offices of Academic Affairs, Department Chairs, and Offices of the Dean. Activities with the highest increases in involvement over the past 15 years were faculty development planning, assisting with educational research, assessment of teaching, conflict resolution, team-building, and leadership training. The mean number of full-time equivalents devoted to faculty or professional development in these dental schools was 2.67.

Keywords
  • dental education
  • faculty
  • dental faculty
  • faculty development
  • educational preparation
  • professional development
  • faculty recruitment
  • faculty retention
  • faculty training

Dental faculty members assume multiple roles: clinician, teacher, administrator, researcher, and provider of service to their schools and the larger community. To assist faculty members with these diverse responsibilities, dental schools offer faculty development that encompasses a wide range of programs from orientation of new faculty to teaching skills workshops to career development.

The expansion of dental faculty roles and responsibilities and the accompanying need for skill development are due to a number of factors. There is increased recognition that health professions educators need specific training in how people learn and how to best facilitate that learning.1,2 The growing complexity of instructional modalities and student requests for flexibility and technology-supported learning opportunities are motivating dental faculty members to augment their skill sets. The current land scape features new dental schools, increased class sizes, faculty shortages in some areas, heightened performance expectations for faculty, and challenges with obtaining tenure and promotion.3 In addition, faculty members often lack training for an academic career, specifically in teaching and/or research. Dental schools frequently rely on clinicians coming to teaching at later points in their careers. While these new faculty members bring a wealth of experience to the job, they present unique development needs to their institutions. Therefore, it is important to consider the impact of retiring practitioners, use of part-time instructors, presence of international dentists in teaching positions, and declines in tenure track/tenured faculty on faculty development.4,5 Moreover, the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) standard mandating faculty development states that “ongoing faculty development is a requirement to improve teaching and learning, to foster curricular change, to enhance retention and job satisfaction of faculty, and to maintain the vitality of academic dentistry as the wellspring of a learned profession.”6

In 1986, Garbee et al. published the results of their survey of 68 U.S. and Canadian dental schools and reported that just over half conducted formal faculty development programs with an appointed or elected faculty development committee providing oversight.7 In 2001, O’Neill and Taylor published the results of their comprehensive study to explore “the means by which dental faculty fulfill their development needs and how their institutions assist them.”8 In their study, the largest percentage (36%; n=14) of responding schools reported that the Office of Academic Affairs was primarily responsible for professional development. The next largest entity responsible was the individual department chair (23%; n=9), and only four (11%) of the 39 responding schools reported Offices of Professional Development at the time.

In 2001, O’Neill and Taylor recommended that research “be initiated to investigate the impact of faculty development upon faculty” and to explore related concerns or issues.8 In 2016, Steinert et al. published a systematic review of medical faculty development initiatives that documented the profound growth of faculty development activities and the increased rigor of the attendant research since 2006.9 In dental education, a plethora of individual studies, perspectives articles, and reports have been published on faculty development outcomes at individual institutions,10–12 faculty development’s role in the recruitment, orientation, retention, and promotion of faculty,5,13 curriculum development,14–17 and faculty involvement in educational and clinical research projects.18–20 Other topics include leadership development,21,22 targeted faculty development for underrepresented minorities,23,24 and faculty development in the areas of interprofessional education,25,26 evidence-based dentistry,27 community-based dental education,28 and technology and dental informatics.29,30 Other articles are directed toward the need for thorough needs assessments to inform dental faculty development.31,32

The aim of this study was to assess the status of faculty development in North American dental schools in 2016. We also sought to compare the 2001 and 2016 results and thus to document the evolution of dental faculty development activities, to map administrative structures in the past 15 years, and to identify emerging trends that may not have been present at the time of the 2001 study.

Methods

This study was approved by New York University’s Institutional Review Board as exempt research (IRB# 15-10761). We consulted with O’Neill and Taylor regarding their 2001 study, and they agreed their survey instrument could serve as the foundation for the new study.8,33 Our literature search revealed few recent wide-ranging survey studies on faculty development in other health professions in North America.34,35 The literature search also confirmed the continuing relevance of the topics from O’Neill and Taylor’s study.8 To capture current trends, we added survey items informed by Sonnino et al.’s follow-up study of U.S. medical school Offices of Faculty Affairs and Faculty Development, published in 2013.35 Based on these resources and consultations with four faculty developers, the following additional faculty development activities were included in the new survey instrument: calibration, faculty career planning, programs for junior, mid-level, and senior faculty,36,37 faculty recognition/awards, dedicated website, interprofessional education programming, and academies.38 In addition, the faculty development-sponsoring entities were expanded beyond the five original entities (Academic Affairs, Department Chair, Faculty Development Committee, Office of the Dean, and Office of Professional/Faculty Development) in the 2001 survey to include four new entities: Faculty Affairs, Human Resources, Outside Consultant, and Parent University Center for Teaching.

The survey instrument included 11 multiple-choice, multiple answer, and open-ended questions. Participants were able to provide comments for several multiple-choice, multiple answer questions. Items asked for information about unit(s) performing faculty development activities; sponsor of academies; number, background, title, and type of support personnel responsible for faculty development activities; and existence, time of establishment, designation, and budget of offices dedicated to faculty or professional development. The survey instrument was reviewed by an expert panel for content validity and ease of use.

In early 2016, the final 22-question survey was distributed three times to the ADEA Faculty Development listserv as well as by sending individual emails to faculty developers at dental schools: the person who seemed to be most knowledgeable about the school’s faculty development/affairs activities listed in the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Directory of Institutional Members39 or on the school’s website. The survey responses were collected via Qualtrics or by telephone if preferred. If there was no response to the initial request, personal contacts of the authors or from institutional websites were used to forward the survey to the appropriate persons. Two follow-up reminder emails were sent to non-respondents.

Respondents could indicate that more than one entity shared responsibility for a certain faculty development activity. For example, “Preparing for promotion and tenure” could be overseen by both Department Chairs and Offices of Professional Development. For this reason, some activities elicited many more responses (overall responses) than the total number of survey respondents.

Confidence intervals (CIs) were used to test whether the difference between results at the two survey time points (2001 and 2016) for a particular faculty development activity was statistically significant. 95% CIs of the difference in proportions were calculated using the Agresti-Croull method.40 CIs that did not contain zero indicated a statistically significant change (p<0.05) across the two time points. For analyzing the new survey items, descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Survey responses were received from 57 of 75 U.S. and Canadian dental schools for an overall response rate of 76%. Out of 65 U.S. schools, 52 responded for an 80% U.S. response rate, and five of ten Canadian schools responded for a 50% Canadian response rate. In the case of duplicate responses (four schools), the most complete survey version was used. Twenty-seven dental schools (or almost half of the respondents) participated in both the 2001 and 2016 surveys.

Overall trends showed an increase in the number of offices dedicated to faculty development. Such an office, according to O’Neill and Taylor, is a “separate office dedicated to faculty development or faculty affairs”; more specifically, these offices have “permanent staff that ensure programs are well developed, timely, and consistent in their implementation” and are involved in most of the 18 original activities.8 Twenty-three of the 57 responding schools (40.4%) reported having an Office of Faculty Affairs and/or Office of Professional/Faculty Development. In 2001, only four of the 39 respondents reported a dedicated office. Of the 23 schools in 2016 with such offices, 12 (52%) reported that they were established within the past five years. Only two schools out of 57 (3.5%) identified a Faculty Development Committee as primarily responsible for activities, whereas, in 2001, six of the 39 responding schools (15%) reported faculty development committees having primary responsibility.

Key Findings by Activities Compared to 2001

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not a particular entity (for example, Academic Affairs) was involved in a particular development activity. Fifteen of the 18 original activities demonstrated statistically significant increases since 2001. Table 1 lists these activities by the four most active entities (Academic Affairs, Department Chair, Office of the Dean, and Office of Professional/Faculty Development). Among the activities, faculty development planning (126) and leadership development (121) received the highest number of total responses by all nine entities. (Respondents could indicate that multiple entities shared responsibility for a particular activity.)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Faculty development activities with statistically significant increases from 2001 to 2016 by the four most active institutional entities

There was increased diversity of entities responsible for faculty development since 2001. Activities with the largest increases in involvement by multiple entities since 2001 were assisting with educational research, assessment of teaching, conflict resolution, faculty development planning, team-building, and leadership development.

Key Findings by Entities

Academic Affairs/Education

There was significant growth in faculty development efforts on the part of this entity since 2001 with 12 of the 18 original categories showing significant increases: methods of teaching, assessment of teaching, peer review of teaching, course development, program/course evaluation, teaching with instructional technologies, assisting with educational research, providing expertise on teaching and evaluation, fostering and advising on mentoring, conflict resolution, and leadership development (Table 2). Only one category (preparing for post-tenure review) showed a decline in activity, but this was not significant. Overall responses (including activities in the nine added categories) totaled 559 for this entity (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Number of activities conducted by each institutional entity: comparison of 2001 (N=39) and 2016 (N=57)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Comparison of activities conducted by Offices of Academic Affairs in participating schools in 2001 (N=39) and 2016 (N=57)

Department Chair

There was a significant increase since 2001 in the following seven activities by this entity: assessment of teaching, course development, educational research, team-building, conflict resolution, post-tenure review, and leadership development (Table 4). The total number of responses for all 27 activities was 660 for department chairs’ involvement.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4

Comparison of activities conducted by Department Chairs in participating schools in 2001 (N=39) and 2016 (N=57)

Faculty Development Committees

Twelve of the 18 original activities managed by committees showed declines since 2001, but only one (program/course evaluation) declined significantly (Table 5). Five categories showed essentially the same level of involvement by committees since 2001. The overall number of responses for all 27 activities was 214 for this entity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5

Comparison of activities conducted by Faculty Development Committees in participating schools in 2001 (N=39) and 2016 (N=57)

Offices of the Dean

These entities showed statistically significant increases in seven out of the 18 original faculty development activities: assessment of teaching, fostering and advising on mentoring, team-building, conflict resolution, consultation on salary equity, faculty development planning, and leadership development (Table 6). The overall number of responses for all 27 activities was 302 for this entity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6

Comparison of activities conducted by Offices of the Dean in participating schools in 2001 (N=39) and 2016 (N=57)

Offices of Faculty/Professional Development

These offices showed significant increases in the following since 2001: assisting with educational research, faculty development planning, and leadership development (Table 7). The overall number of responses was 303 for this entity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 7

Comparison of activities conducted by Offices of Faculty/Professional Development in participating schools in 2001 (N=39) and 2016 (N=57)

Offices of Faculty Affairs

The overall number of responses for all 27 activities was 123 for this entity. When the Offices of Faculty Affairs total responses were combined with those of Offices of Faculty/Professional Development, the number of responses was 426 for the combined entities.

Key activities of added entities (yielding more than ten responses each)

Human resources units were reported to oversee aspects of new faculty orientation, provide service or support for conflict resolution, and assist with addressing salary equity. Outside consultants were most often utilized for team-building efforts and leadership training. If a dental school was situated within a university setting, the university’s Center for Teaching and Learning was reportedly utilized for additional training in teaching methodologies, teaching with technology, and teaching and evaluation, as well as programs for junior, mid-level, and senior faculty.

Entities most responsible for added activities

The added faculty development activities in 2016 were often shared among several units in a dental school. Department Chairs were reported to oversee calibrations (25/84 total responses), faculty career planning (43/101 total responses), and programs for junior (21/97 total responses), mid-level (22/97 total responses), and senior faculty (19/90 total responses). Offices of Faculty Affairs/Professional Development or Offices of Faculty Affairs were reported to offer dedicated websites of the school’s faculty development offerings (22/54 total responses). Respondents reported that Offices of the Dean administered faculty recognition and awards (37/110 total responses). Finally, respondents reported that Offices of Academic Affairs offered calibrations (36/84 total responses) and training related to interprofessional education (28/92 total responses).

Professional Development Personnel

The mean number of full-time equivalents (full-time employees) representing time that is primarily dedicated to professional development across schools was 2.67 (range 1-10).

Leadership of professional development

Twenty-seven (59%) of the 46 schools that responded to this question reported either a Dean of Faculty Affairs or Faculty/Professional Development with most (21) possessing a dental degree (DDS/DMD); five had either a PhD or EdD; three had master’s in education degrees; and seven had master’s degrees in other disciplines. Eighteen (nearly 40%) respondents reported having a director, and eight of the 18 directors had faculty-level positions. Thirty-six schools (78%) had at least one administrative support person, and 29 (63%) had at least one educational specialist staff person.

Budget

Only 23 of the 57 respondents (40%) answered the budgetary questions. Five respondents (22%) reported that their schools’ faculty development budget was in the dean’s office, and eight respondents (35%) did not know budget information. Two schools reported budgets less than $50,000; five reported $50,000-99,999; one reported $100,000-200,000; and two reported greater than $200,000. The budgetary information was exclusive of salaries.

Academies

Four of the responding dental schools (7%) in this study indicated that they had their own academy (housed solely within the dental school) to recognize and reward exemplary teaching. The University of California, San Francisco in 1998 and the Harvard Medical School in 2000 each formed an “Academy” comprised of a community of faculty supportive of their school’s teaching mission.38 On our survey, 13 schools indicated the existence of academies in their medical school or parent institution. Five U.S. and one Canadian dental schools indicated that their medical school sponsored an academy, and seven U.S. dental schools indicated that their parent university sponsored an academy.

Eighteen dental schools did not respond to the survey. The ADEA Directory of Institutional Members and the schools’ websites were searched for information about the non-responding schools and their faculty development programs. According to the information publicly available in those sources, there were no offices dedicated solely to faculty or professional development/affairs at these 18 schools. At these schools, dedicated personnel in faculty development appeared to include one dean with additional responsibilities, one director, one director who was also director of research, and two assistant directors reporting to other offices. Two of the 14 non-responding schools were less than ten years old.

Discussion

Our study found that the responsibility for faculty development was widely distributed in North American dental schools, often with multiple entities sharing responsibility for different activities. Similar to Sonnino et al.’s study of medical faculty development,35 our study documented the overall expansion of faculty development in dental schools since 2001. Indeed, 15 of the 18 original faculty development endeavors showed significant increases since the O’Neill and Taylor study.8

In our study, 40% of the respondents (23 schools) indicated a dedicated (separate) office of professional/faculty development and/or faculty affairs. This was a remarkable increase since 2001 when only four responding schools reported an office devoted to this function. In our survey, 12 of the 23 schools reporting such offices indicated that their office was established within the past five years. It is possible that the need for faculty development, especially for those entering academia after years of private practice and to implement the new CODA standard mandating faculty development, played a role in this rise.6 Even so, most increases in faculty development activities were reported to be conducted by dental schools’ Offices of Academic Affairs, Department Chairs, and Offices of the Dean.

In particular, Department Chairs and Offices of Academic Affairs continued to play a substantial role in schools’ faculty development efforts. Twelve activities showed statistically significant increases with Academic Affairs’ participation. Not surprisingly, six of these were in the teaching realm. Seven activities showed statistically significant increases by both Department Chairs and Deans. It is noteworthy that four of these activities (assessment of teaching, team-building, conflict resolution, and leadership development) showed statistically significant increases by both Chairs and Deans.

In 1986, Garbee et al. reported that 36 dental schools (53% of respondents) had an elected or appointed committee that was chiefly responsible for faculty development.7 In 2001, O’Neill and Taylor reported that six schools (15% of respondents) had committees that held principal responsibility.8 As these committees are generally staffed with a rotating group of faculty members, offices with dedicated personnel likely provide more consistency and stability. Perhaps not surprisingly, in 2016, only two respondents (3.5%) reported that committees were the main provider of faculty development at their schools.

Faculty development planning and leadership development activities received the highest number of total responses: 126 and 121, respectively, from all nine entities. The ADEA Policy Statements: Recommendations and Guidelines for Academic Dental Institutions specify that teaching, research, and service—the three pillars of an academic career—are areas for faculty development.41 Our survey found that planning for faculty development activities had the most responses overall, and these were shared by multiple entities, most often Academic Affairs/Education, Offices of the Dean, and Offices of Faculty/Professional Development.

In a 2017 study of North American leadership development programs at academic health centers, Lucas et al. surveyed deans of faculty development/affairs and found that all 94 respondents except one provided some form of leadership training, with more than half (61) providing a formal internal leadership program.42 Our findings verified a significant increase in activities and entities focused on leadership development in dental education, including team-building and conflict resolution.

Since 2001, the time of the O’Neill and Taylor study, the focus on interprofessional education (IPE) in dental education has risen dramatically. The Institute of Medicine (IOM)’s recent report on collaborative practice promoted collaborations among multiple health care professionals in an effort to improve patient care.43 Indeed, according to Reeves et al.’s systematic review, the growing IPE evidence base suggests that students are positive about IPE, reporting improvements in attitudes as well as collaborative knowledge and skills; there was more limited, but growing, evidence related to behavioral changes, organizational practice, and benefits to patients.44 Hence, interprofessional faculty development efforts may be on the rise due to this evidence as well as a CODA standard that requires dental schools to show verification of interactions with other components of the health care delivery system.6 In our study, 92 responses were in this category. Furthermore, in the comments section, some respondents indicated that such faculty development programs were often cosponsored with their affiliated medical school or that their faculty had access to them. These efforts may also save resources and expand opportunities for collaboration.

As dental schools embrace community-based experiences for their students and engage clinicians as adjunct faculty in off-site locations, the creation of more online and technology-supported faculty development programming seems likely. Indeed, we found a statistically significant increase in this area conducted by Offices of Academic Affairs since 2001.

In the report of their study, O’Neill and Taylor called for an ADEA Special Interest Group (SIG) on faculty development.8 While there is still no faculty development SIG, there is a very active SIG dedicated to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL SIG) that was created since publication of the 2001 article. The SoTL SIG focuses on the growing recognition of teaching as scholarship in dental education. In addition, there is an active although informal Faculty Development group with its own listserv that attends the Faculty Development Marketplace offered at the ADEA Annual Session & Exhibition. This marketplace features short talks in which speakers describe a faculty development initiative at their institution and how it is assessed. These five-minute presentations enable participants to provide updates about exciting developments and share ideas, and they foster collaborations among institutions. According to the coordinator of the sessions (coauthor ZH), from 2013 to 2016, an average of 16 presenters participated each year. In the past two years, due to an unprecedented number of submissions, ADEA supported two sessions with 29 presenters in 2017 and 23 presenters in 2018. In all, 170 attendees participated in one or both of the two sessions in 2017. These annual activities and the results of our survey would seem to justify the creation of a Faculty Development SIG to support collaborations and formalize the reporting of activities of faculty development personnel at North American dental schools.

Our survey found evidence of 17 established academies dedicated to the teaching mission of health professionals. Four were reported to be within a dental school, and the others were affiliated with their medical center or parent institution. The academy movement in health professions schools over the past 15 years enhances the educational mission and supports and recognizes the work of educators in these institutions.45

Overall, our study found that, even though most dental schools still did not have a dedicated Office of Faculty/Professional Development or Faculty Affairs, there had been an almost sixfold rise in the number of these offices since 2001. In addition, this study found increased involvement of other entities, most notably Department Chairs, Academic Affairs, and Offices of the Dean in faculty development matters. This increase was no doubt due to both internal and external influences to provide development activities that not only focus on the teaching mission, but also extend to the leadership, scholarship, and career development needs of faculty.

Even with this heightened emphasis on professional development, it is somewhat worrisome that only ten of the respondents provided specific budgetary information; another five reported that it was in the dean’s office budget; and the rest either did not answer the question or reported not knowing how monies were allocated for faculty development. These responses suggest that funds for faculty development might be provided on a more flexible basis in most schools and could even be reallocated in times of financial difficulties. According to Steinert et al., sustained financial support is instrumental in the success of faculty development efforts.9

Strengths of this project include the relatively high response rate (76% of all U.S. and Canadian dental schools at the time) and the careful construction of the survey instrument. The authors of the original survey were consulted for input into the development of the new survey in conjunction with an extensive literature review that informed the final instrument. In addition, pilot testing for content validity and ease of use with four faculty development experts was employed. The inclusion of more entities and development activities provided more granular information about schools’ faculty development efforts than in the previous survey.

Limitations of this study include the possibility of respondent errors and potential self-selection and reporting bias. To increase response rate, the survey was designed to not force responses for every question. Therefore, not every respondent answered all the questions fully. Analyses of the responses of those 27 schools that participated in both the 2001 and 2016 surveys were not matched, so we cannot draw direct conclusions about increases in professional development activities at those schools. Even though we searched the websites of the 18 schools (24%) that did not respond to our survey, we do not know the full extent of faculty development efforts at these non-participating schools. In addition, a French version of the survey was not provided to the Canadian schools and thus possibly limited their participation. Future research should include a systematic review of research done on dental faculty development initiatives; more rigorous research designs to evaluate faculty development program effectiveness, including exploring its impact on individual participants and the institution; focus groups or interviews with faculty and/or faculty developers to gain qualitative evidence; and comparison studies of dental faculty development practices in other countries.

Conclusion

Between 2001 and 2016, this study found significant growth in faculty development in dental education. This evolution shows that the field has emerged from ad hoc activities into systematic offerings at the institutional level that engage multiple players. The 2016 survey mapped how the administrative structures had evolved since 2001. In addition, our study identified emerging trends in response to new faculty development needs (interprofessional education, faculty development for subgroups of faculty, and incentives for recognition, just to name a few). Providing quality faculty development programming has the potential to enhance the capacity of faculty members to not only accomplish their academic responsibilities, but also increase their satisfaction in their roles. This study has established a new baseline of faculty development structures and activities at U.S. and Canadian dental schools, showing complexity and diversity in how schools manage this important function. There has been growth in the number of dedicated offices, increased involvement by a variety of entities, and expansion of development activities over the past 15 years. In addition to these developments, institutional support, including funds or release time, is critical to the creation of an organizational culture that champions continuous improvement of all aspects of its faculty’s growing responsibilities.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the individuals from participating schools who completed our survey. We would also like to thank Drs. Paula O’Neill and David Taylor for sharing the original survey instrument with us; Ms. Rebecca Abromitis, MLS, Reference Librarian, University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library System, for her extensive help with the literature review; and Drs. Heiko Spallek and Seth Weinberg for providing feedback on the survey instrument and statistical analysis. We also thank Ms. Mackenzie Rogers, undergraduate student at the University of Pittsburgh, for her help in obtaining references.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Beckerman NL
    . Teaching the teachers. Academe 2010; 96(4):28.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Steinert Y,
    2. Mann KV
    . Faculty development: principles and practices. J Vet Med Educ 2006;33(3):317–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    American Dental Education Association. ADEA snapshot of dental education, 2017-18. At: www.adea.org/snapshot/. Accessed 13 March 2018.
  4. ↵
    1. Horvath Z,
    2. Albani SE,
    3. Wankiiri-Hale C
    . Training future dentists for an academic career: a three-tiered model. J Dent Educ 2016;80(5):502–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. John V,
    2. Papageorge M,
    3. Jahangiri L,
    4. et al
    . Recruitment, development, and retention of dental faculty in a changing environment. J Dent Educ 2011;75(1):82–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Commission on Dental Accreditation. Accreditation standards for dental education programs. Chicago: American Dental Association, 2018.
  7. ↵
    1. Garbee WH,
    2. Strother EA,
    3. Ferraro E
    . A survey of dental faculty development programs. J Dent Educ 1986;50(12):728–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. O’Neill PN,
    2. Taylor CD
    . Responding to the need for faculty development: a survey of U.S. and Canadian dental schools. J Dent Educ 2001;65(8):768–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  9. ↵
    1. Steinert Y,
    2. Mann K,
    3. Anderson B,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update. BEME guide no. 40. Med Teach 2016;38(8):769–86.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Christie C,
    2. Bowen D,
    3. Paarmann C
    . Effectiveness of faculty training to enhance clinical evaluation of student competence in ethical reasoning and professionalism. J Dent Educ 2007;71(8):1048–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. McAndrew M,
    2. Pierre G
    . Using multiple measures to evaluate a dental faculty development program. Eur J Dent Educ 2013;17(1):1–9.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Gadbury-Amyot CC,
    2. Smith DB,
    3. Overman PR,
    4. Bunce L
    . Faculty development at one midwestern dental school: a program evaluation. J Dent Educ 2015;79(10):1177–88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. McAndrew M,
    2. Motwaly SM,
    3. Kamens TE
    . The role of organizational context in the creation and sustainability of dental faculty development initiatives. J Dent Educ 2015;79(11):1339–48.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Gwozdek AE,
    2. Springfield EC,
    3. Peet MR,
    4. Kerschbaum WE
    . Using online program development to foster curricular change and innovation. J Dent Educ 2011;75(3):339–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Licari FW
    . Faculty development to support curriculum change and ensure the future vitality of dental education. J Dent Educ 2007;71(12):1509–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Spallek H,
    2. O’Donnell JA,
    3. Yoo YIJ
    . Preparing faculty members for significant curricular revisions in a school of dental medicine. J Dent Educ 2010;74(3):275–88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Behar-Horenstein LS,
    2. Schneider-Mitchell G,
    3. Graff R
    . Faculty perceptions of a professional development seminar. J Dent Educ 2008;72(4):472–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. DeRouen TA,
    2. Wiesenbach C
    . The summer institute in clinical dental research methods: still going and growing after twenty years. J Dent Educ 2012;76(11):1408–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lanning SK,
    2. McGregor M,
    3. Crain G,
    4. et al
    . The status of the scholarship of teaching and learning in dental education. J Dent Educ 2014;78(10):1353–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. McAndrew M,
    2. Motwaly S,
    3. Kamens TE
    . Long-term follow-up of a dental faculty development program. J Dent Educ 2013;77(6):716–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Comer RW,
    2. Haden NK,
    3. Taylor RL,
    4. Thomas DD
    . Leadership strategies for department chairs and program directors: a case study approach. J Dent Educ 2002;66(4):514–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  18. ↵
    1. Dannels SA,
    2. McLaughlin JM,
    3. Gleason KA,
    4. et al
    . Dental school deans’ perceptions of the organizational culture and impact of the ELAM program on the culture and advancement of women faculty. J Dent Educ 2009;73(6):676–88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Sinkford JC,
    2. Valachovic RW,
    3. Weaver RG,
    4. West JF
    . Minority dental faculty development: responsibility and challenge. J Dent Educ 2010;74(12):1388–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Gates PE,
    2. Ganey JH,
    3. Brown MD
    . Building the minority faculty development pipeline. J Dent Educ 2003;67(9):1034–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  21. ↵
    1. Haber J,
    2. Spielman AI,
    3. Wolff M,
    4. Shelley D
    . Interprofessional education between dentistry and nursing: the NYU experience. J Cal Dent Assoc 2014;42(1):44–51.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Wilder RS,
    2. O’Donnell JA,
    3. Barry JM,
    4. et al
    . Is dentistry at risk? A case for interprofessional education. J Dent Educ 2008;72(11):1231–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Hinton RJ,
    2. Dechow PC,
    3. Abdellatif H,
    4. et al
    . Creating an evidence-based dentistry culture at Baylor College of Dentistry: the winds of change. J Dent Educ 2011;75(3):279–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. McAndrew M
    . Community-based dental education and the importance of faculty development. J Dent Educ 2010;74(9):980–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Robinson M
    . Issues and strategies for faculty development in technology and biomedical informatics. Adv Dent Res 2003;17(1):34–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Schleyer TK,
    2. Thyvalikakath TP,
    3. Spallek H,
    4. et al
    . From information technology to informatics: the information revolution in dental education. J Dent Educ 2012; 76(1):142–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Scarbecz M,
    2. Russell CK,
    3. Shreve RG,
    4. et al
    . Faculty development to improve teaching at a health sciences center: a needs assessment. J Dent Educ 2011;75(2):145–59.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Schönwetter DJ,
    2. Hamilton J,
    3. Sawatzky JAV
    . Exploring professional development needs of educators in the health sciences professions. J Dent Educ 2015;79(2):113–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Personal communication with PN O’Neill and CD Taylor, 13 Oct. 2015.
  30. ↵
    1. McLeod P,
    2. Steinert Y
    . The evolution of faculty development in Canada since the 1980s: coming of age or time for a change? Med Teach 2010;32(1):e31–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Sonnino RE,
    2. Reznik V,
    3. Thorndyke LA,
    4. et al
    . Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey. Acad Med 2013;88(9):1368–75.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Haden NK,
    2. Hendricson W,
    3. Ranney RR,
    4. 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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Trotman CA,
    2. Haden NK,
    3. Hendricson W
    . Does the dental school work environment promote successful academic careers? J Dent Educ 2007;71(6):713–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Howell TH,
    2. Karimbux NY
    . Academy: strengthening the educational mission in academic health centers. J Dent Educ 2004;68(8):845–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    American Dental Education Association. ADEA directory of institutional members. 2016. At: dim.adea.org/. Accessed 3 March 2016.
  36. ↵
    1. Agresti A,
    2. Caffo B
    . Simple and effective confidence intervals for proportions and differences of proportions result from adding two successes and two failures. Am Stat 2000;54(4):280–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    American Dental Education Association. ADEA policy statements: recommendations and guidelines for academic dental institutions. J Dent Educ 2017;81(7):869–81.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Lucas R,
    2. Goldman EF,
    3. Scott AR,
    4. Dandar V
    . Leadership development programs at academic health centers: results of a national survey. Acad Med 2018;93(2):229–36.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Cox M,
    2. Cuff P,
    3. Brandt B,
    4. et al
    . Measuring the impact of interprofessional education on collaborative practice and patient outcomes. An Institute of Medicine report. Washington, DC: National Academies, 2015.
  40. ↵
    1. Reeves S,
    2. Fletcher S,
    3. Barr H,
    4. et al
    . A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME guide no. 39. Med Teach 2016;38(7):656–68.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Buja LM,
    2. Cox S,
    3. Lieberman S,
    4. et al
    . A university system’s approach to enhancing the educational mission of health science schools and institutions: the University of Texas Academy of Health Science Education. Med Educ Online 2013;18(1):20540.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Dental Education: 82 (11)
Journal of Dental Education
Vol. 82, Issue 11
1 Nov 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author

GTranslate

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Dental Education.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Survey of Faculty Development in U.S. and Canadian Dental Schools: Types of Activities and Institutional Entity with Responsibility
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Dental Education
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Dental Education web site.
Citation Tools
A Survey of Faculty Development in U.S. and Canadian Dental Schools: Types of Activities and Institutional Entity with Responsibility
Maureen McAndrew, Zsuzsa Horvath, Lindsey E. Atiyeh
Journal of Dental Education Nov 2018, 82 (11) 1127-1139; DOI: 10.21815/JDE.018.116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Request Permissions

Share
A Survey of Faculty Development in U.S. and Canadian Dental Schools: Types of Activities and Institutional Entity with Responsibility
Maureen McAndrew, Zsuzsa Horvath, Lindsey E. Atiyeh
Journal of Dental Education Nov 2018, 82 (11) 1127-1139; DOI: 10.21815/JDE.018.116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Faculty Development Initiatives in Academic Dentistry: A Systematic Review
  • Scopus (1)
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Role of Faculty Development in Improving the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions in Dental Education
  • Learning and Teaching Together to Advance Evidence-Based Clinical Education: A Faculty Learning Community
  • Evaluation of Faculty Mentoring Practices in Seven U.S. Dental Schools
Show more Faculty Development

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • dental education
  • faculty
  • dental faculty
  • faculty development
  • educational preparation
  • professional development
  • faculty recruitment
  • faculty retention
  • faculty training

About

  • About ADEA
  • About the JDE
  • Editorial Review Board
  • Contact Us

Author Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Submission Information
  • FAQ for Authors
  • Reprint Policies

More Information

  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • My Saved Searches
  • Help

© 2019 Journal of Dental Education

Powered by HighWire