Search

Academic dentists and members of the practice community have been hearing, for more than a decade, that our educa- tional system is in trouble and that the profession has lost its vision and may be wavering in the achievement of its goals. A core of consistently recommended reforms has framed the discussion of future directions for dental education, but as yet, most schools report little movement toward implementation of these reforms in spite of persistent advocacy. Provision of faculty development related to teaching and assessment strategies is widely perceived to be the essential ingredient in efforts to introduce new cur- ricular approaches and modify the educational environment in academic dentistry. Analyses of the outcomes of efforts to revise health professions curricula have identified the availability and effectiveness of faculty development as a predictor of the success or failure of reform initiatives. This article will address faculty development for purposes of enhancing teaching effectiveness and preparing instructors for potential new roles associated with curriculum changes. Its overall purpose is to provide information and insights about faculty development that may be useful to dental schools in designing professional growth opportunities for their faculty. Seven questions are addressed: 1) What is faculty development? 2) How is faculty development accomplished? 3) Why is faculty development particularly important in dental education? 4) What happens when faculty development does not accom- pany educational reform? 5) Why are teaching attitudes and behaviors so difficult to change? 6) What outcomes can be expected from faculty development? and 7) What does the available evidence tell us about the design of faculty development programs? Evidence from systematic reviews pertaining to the teaching of evidence-based dentistry, strategies for continuing professional education, and the Best Evidence in Medical Education review of faculty development outcomes are presented to answer this question: does faculty development enhance teaching effectiveness? Characteristics consistently associated with effective faculty development are described.

The purpose of this research project was to determine how many U.S. dental hygiene (DH) programs had full-time (FT) faculty members who provided direct patient care unrelated to the curriculum. Questions in this project also assessed attitudes and opinions of DH directors regarding clinical practice and opportunities for salary supplementation. A questionnaire of twenty open-ended and closed-ended questions was designed on Survey Monkey, an online survey engine. After IRB approval and pilot testing, 278 U.S. DH program directors received two emails with the survey link requesting their participation. A response rate of 69.1 percent (n=192) was achieved. Results revealed that 14.2 percent of the programs required FT DH faculties to participate in clinical practice settings unrelated to the curriculum, while 67 percent of the programs had faculties who also participated in clinical practice. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported faculties who participated in clinical practice were financially compensated. The majority (95.4 percent) of directors indicated maintaining clinical skills was an advantage to clinical practice, while 48 percent of directors indicated participation takes time away from being an educator. Overall, the majority of DH programs did not require FT faculties to participate in clinical practice; however, respondents were generally in favor of allowing faculties the opportunity to practice and thought that it enhanced their competency as clinical instructors.

This article was developed for the Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (CCI), established by the American Dental Education Association. CCI was created because numerous organizations within organized dentistry and the ed- ucational community have initiated studies or proposed modifications to the process of dental education, often working to achieve positive and desirable goals but without coordination or communication. The fundamental mission of CCI is to serve as a focal meeting place where dental educators and administrators, representatives from organized dentistry, the dental licensure commu- nity, the Commission on Dental Accreditation, the ADA Council on Dental Education and Licensure, and the Joint Commission on National Dental Examinations can meet and coordinate efforts to improve dental education and the nation's oral health. One of the objectives of the CCI is to provide guidance to dental schools related to curriculum design. In pursuit of that objective, this article summarizes the evidence related to this question: What are educational best practices for helping dental students acquire the capacity to function as an entry-level general dentist or to be a better candidate to begin advanced studies? Three issues are addressed, with special emphasis on the third: 1) What constitutes expertise, and when does an individual become an expert? 2) What are the differences between novice and expert thinking? and 3) What educational best practices can help our students acquire mental capacities associated with expert function, including critical thinking and self-directed learning? The purpose of this review is to provide a benchmark that faculty and academic planners can use to assess the degree to which their curricula include learning experiences associated with development of problem-solving, critical thinking, self-directed learning, and other cognitive skills necessary for dental school graduates to ultimately become expert performers as they develop professionally in the years after graduation.

This article introduces a series of white papers developed by the ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation (CCI) to explore the case for change in dental education. This preamble to the series argues that there is a compelling need for rethink- ing the approach to dental education in the United States. Three issues facing dental education are explored: 1) the challenging financial environment of higher education, making dental schools very expensive and tuition-intensive for universities to operate and producing high debt levels for students that limit access to education and restrict career choices; 2) the profession's apparent loss of vision for taking care of the oral health needs of all components of society and the resultant potential for marginalization of dentistry as a specialized health care service available only to the affluent; and 3) the nature of dental school education itself, which has been described as convoluted, expensive, and often deeply dissatisfying to its students.

Alternative methods for viewing teeth while performing simulated dental procedures were investigated. The methods allowed participants to assume postures requiring less neck flexion than the standard direct view. One alternative used a video camera and monitor to view the mouth, the other incorporated 90 degrees prism glasses. The study was conducted in two parts: (1) novice participants performing a targeting task; (2) dental hygienists performing a scaling task on a mouth model. Posture and subjective perceptions were assessed in Parts 1 and 2. Muscle activity and performance were also assessed in Part 1. The alternative methods significantly reduced muscle activity, neck flexion, and discomfort, compared to the direct view. Preferences were a function of criteria (general, comfort, productivity, or accuracy). Previously, recommendations for reducing ergonomic risk factor exposure of dental professionals emphasized reducing time spent performing dental procedures. This study shows ergonomic interventions offer alternative means of risk exposure reduction.

The first surgeon general's report regarding oral health, Oral Health in America, called for a national effort to improve oral health among Americans and raised awareness of the importance of oral health; however, many Americans continue to experience poor oral health and are unable to access oral health care. Renewed national interest in oral health and access to oral health care through recent public policy documents and legislation presents a convergence of opportunities for the dental hygiene profession to continue to serve as a strong voice for the prevention of oral disease and the promotion of oral health for all segments of the population.

Academic dentists and members of the practice community have been hearing, for more than a decade, that our educational system is in trouble and that the profession has lost its vision and may be wavering in the achievement of its goals. A core of consistently recommended reforms has framed the discussion of future directions for dental education, but as yet, most schools report little movement toward implementation of these reforms in spite of persistent advocacy. Provision of faculty development related to teaching and assessment strategies is widely perceived to be the essential ingredient in efforts to introduce new curricular approaches and modify the educational environment in academic dentistry. Analyses of the outcomes of efforts to revise health professions curricula have identified the availability and effectiveness of faculty development as a predictor of the success or failure of reform initiatives. This article will address faculty development for purposes of enhancing teaching effectiveness and preparing instructors for potential new roles associated with curriculum changes. Its overall purpose is to provide information and insights about faculty development that may be useful to dental schools in designing professional growth opportunities for their faculty. Seven questions are addressed: 1) What is faculty development? 2) How is faculty development accomplished? 3) Why is faculty development particularly important in dental education? 4) What happens when faculty development does not accompany educational reform? 5) Why are teaching attitudes and behaviors so difficult to change? 6) What outcomes can be expected from faculty development? and 7) What does the available evidence tell us about the design of faculty development programs? Evidence from systematic reviews pertaining to the teaching of evidence-based dentistry, strategies for continuing professional education, and the Best Evidence in Medical Education review of faculty development outcomes are presented to answer this question: does faculty development enhance teaching effectiveness? Characteristics consistently associated with effective faculty development are described.

The purpose of this research project was to determine how many U.S. dental hygiene (DH) programs had full-time (FT) faculty members who provided direct patient care unrelated to the curriculum. Questions in this project also assessed attitudes and opinions of DH directors regarding clinical practice and opportunities for salary supplementation. A questionnaire of twenty open-ended and closed-ended questions was designed on Survey Monkey, an online survey engine. After IRB approval and pilot testing, 278 U.S. DH program directors received two emails with the survey link requesting their participation. A response rate of 69.1 percent (n=192) was achieved. Results revealed that 14.2 percent of the programs required FT DH faculties to participate in clinical practice settings unrelated to the curriculum, while 67 percent of the programs had faculties who also participated in clinical practice. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported faculties who participated in clinical practice were financially compensated. The majority (95.4 percent) of directors indicated maintaining clinical skills was an advantage to clinical practice, while 48 percent of directors indicated participation takes time away from being an educator. Overall, the majority of DH programs did not require FT faculties to participate in clinical practice; however, respondents were generally in favor of allowing faculties the opportunity to practice and thought that it enhanced their competency as clinical instructors.

The second in a series of perspectives from the ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (CCI), this article presents the CCI's view of the dental education environment necessary for effective change. The article states that the CCI's purpose is related to leading and building consensus in the dental community to foster a continuous process of innovative change in the education of general dentists. Principles proposed by CCI to shape the dental education environment are described; these are critical thinking, lifelong learning, humanistic environment, scientific discovery and integration of knowledge, evidence-based oral health care, assessment, faculty development, and the health care team. The article also describes influences external to the academic dental institutions that are important for change and argues that meaningful and long-lasting change must be systemic in nature. The CCI is ADEA's primary means to engage all stakeholders for the purpose of educating lifelong learners to provide evidence-based care to meet the needs of society.

This article was developed for the Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (CCI), established by the American Dental Education Association. CCI was created because numerous organizations within organized dentistry and the educational community have initiated studies or proposed modifications to the process of dental education, often working to achieve positive and desirable goals but without coordination or communication. The fundamental mission of CCI is to serve as a focal meeting place where dental educators and administrators, representatives from organized dentistry, the dental licensure community, the Commission on Dental Accreditation, the ADA Council on Dental Education and Licensure, and the Joint Commission on National Dental Examinations can meet and coordinate efforts to improve dental education and the nation's oral health. One of the objectives of the CCI is to provide guidance to dental schools related to curriculum design. In pursuit of that objective, this article summarizes the evidence related to this question: What are educational best practices for helping dental students acquire the capacity to function as an entry-level general dentist or to be a better candidate to begin advanced studies? Three issues are addressed, with special emphasis on the third: 1) What constitutes expertise, and when does an individual become an expert? 2) What are the differences between novice and expert thinking? and 3) What educational best practices can help our students acquire mental capacities associated with expert function, including critical thinking and self-directed learning? The purpose of this review is to provide a benchmark that faculty and academic planners can use to assess the degree to which their curricula include learning experiences associated with development of problem-solving, critical thinking, self-directed learning, and other cognitive skills necessary for dental school graduates to ultimately become expert performers as they develop professionally in the years after graduation.

This article introduces a series of white papers developed by the ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation (CCI) to explore the case for change in dental education. This preamble to the series argues that there is a compelling need for rethinking the approach to dental education in the United States. Three issues facing dental education are explored: 1) the challenging financial environment of higher education, making dental schools very expensive and tuition-intensive for universities to operate and producing high debt levels for students that limit access to education and restrict career choices; 2) the profession's apparent loss of vision for taking care of the oral health needs of all components of society and the resultant potential for marginalization of dentistry as a specialized health care service available only to the affluent; and 3) the nature of dental school education itself, which has been described as convoluted, expensive, and often deeply dissatisfying to its students.

The purpose of this research was to determine the practice trends of dental hygiene baccalaureate degree recipients who participated in a specialty track.A survey was developed, pilot tested, revised, and mailed to a sample of 265 dental hygienists who graduated from the baccalaureate degree dental hygiene program at University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill School of Dentistry between 1987 and 1998. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a non-parametric analysis of variance for the ordinal-scaled responses, and a chi-square to compare nominal responses.Survey responses along with telephone interviews yielded a response rate of 68% (n=181). Seventy percent of the respondents had been practicing dental hygiene for six or more years. Ninety-six percent had worked in general private dental practice, 29% in a periodontal dental practice, and 18% in a pediatric dental setting. The top three specialty tracks completed were hospital dentistry (24%), periodontology (20%), and pediatric dentistry (19%). Fifty-six percent of respondents would like to obtain a specialty track position if given the opportunity. Forty-four percent (n=16) of those who experienced the periodontal specialty track have worked in a periodontal setting, and 36% (n=12) of those who participated in the pediatric specialty track have worked in a pediatric office. Eighty-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the specialty track was an important part of their dental hygiene education.The results imply that the specialty track is a positive learning experience for students and should be continued. Data from this survey has implications to other dental hygiene programs offering or planning to offer specialty tracks.

Academic dental institutions are the fundamental underpinning of the nation's oral health. Education, research, and patient care are the cornerstones of academic dentistry that form the foundation upon which the dental profession rises to provide care to the public. The oral health status of Americans has improved dramatically over the past twenty-five to thirty years. In his 2000 report on oral health, the Surgeon General acknowledges the success of the dental profession in improving the oral health status of Americans over the past twenty-five years, but he also juxtaposes this success to profound and consequential disparities in the oral health of Americans. In 2002, the American Dental Education Association brought together an ADEA President's Commission of national experts to explore the roles and responsibilities of academic dental institutions in improving the oral health status of all Americans. They have issued this report and made a variety of policy recommendations, including a Statement of Position, to the 2003 ADEA House of Delegates. The commission's work will help guide ADEA in such areas as: identifying barriers to oral health care, providing guiding principles for academic dental institutions, anticipating workforce needs, and improving access through a diverse workforce and the types of oral health providers, including full utilization of allied dental professionals and collaborations with colleagues from medicine.