This 2009 study of dental school curricula follows a similar one conducted in 2002-03. Through a web-based survey, the authors gathered information from dental schools about 1) past trends in curricular change over seven years; 2) current changes under way in dental school curricula; 3) significant challenges to curricular innovation; and 4) projected future trends in curricular change and innovation. Fifty-five schools (fifty U.S. and five Canadian) responded to the survey for a response rate of 86 percent. In addition to background information, the survey requested information in four broad areas: curriculum format, curriculum assessment, curriculum innovation, and resources needed for curriculum enhancement. Forty-nine percent of the respondents defined their curriculum format as primarily organized by disciplines. Half of the respondents reported the use of problembased and case-reinforced learning for a section or specific component of some courses. In a significant change from the 2002-03 study, a high proportion (91 percent) of the responding schools require community-based patient care by all students, with just over half requiring five or more weeks of such experience. Competency-based education to prepare an entry-level general dentist seems well established as the norm in responding dental schools. Forty-three percent or less of the responding schools indicated that their students participate with other health professions education programs for various portions of their educational experience. Since the 2002-03 survey, dental schools have been active in conducting comprehensive curriculum reviews; 65 percent indicated that their most recent comprehensive curriculum review is currently under way or was conducted within the past two years. Respondents indicated that the primary reasons for the configuration of the current curriculum were "perceived success" (it works), "compatibility with faculty preferences," "faculty comfort," and "capacity/feasibility." Key catalysts for curricular change were "findings of a curriculum review we conducted ourselves," students' feedback about curriculum, and administration and faculty dissatisfaction. There was an increase in the percentage of schools with interdisciplinary courses, especially in the basic sciences since 2002-03, but no change in the use of problem-based and case-reinforced learning in dental curricula. Respondents reported that priorities for future curriculum modification included creating interdisciplinary curricula that are organized around themes, blending the basic and clinical sciences, provision of some elements of core curricula in an online format, developing new techniques for assessing competency, and increasing collaborations with other health professions schools. Respondents identified training for new faculty members in teaching skills, curriculum design, and assessment methods as the most critical need to support future innovation.Dr.

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 identiied 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 dificult 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.

In 2003, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called for interprofessional education (IPE) to be adopted by the health professions education community as the pedagogical approach to educating future practitioners for practice in multidisciplinary teams. In dentistry, this call built on points made in the key 1995 IOM report Dental Education at the Crossroads. Currently, IPE and collaborative practice are among the most signiicant changes to health care education and delivery in the 21 st century. This report describes the path that dental education has taken regarding IPE since the irst national report on the subject was released in 1995. It also reports the results of a 2014 survey of U.S. dental schools to ascertain their progress in adopting and implementing IPE, as well as perceived obstacles that persist. Of the 63 dental schools, 62 participated, for a response rate of 98%. While over 90% of the respondents reported that their schools offer IPE experiences, only 58.1% had formal university-led and -promoted IPE programs. Formal IPE experiences were more prevalent at public institutions (67.6%, compared with 44% of private institutions). In 2012, a previous study reported that 66% of the IPE experiences offered to dental students were voluntary; today, 69.1% of these activities are required. Interprofessional core competencies occupy four of the top ive content areas of IPE programming, providing a framework for schools to implement IPE activities. However, inding the bandwidth within the dental curriculum to accommodate IPE competencies, identifying adequate time in the schedule, providing faculty training, and assessing IPE activities were the most frequently reported challenges. The results of this survey lead to recommendations for academic dental institutions moving through this transitional phase in adopting IPE.Dr.

No abstract

No abstract

This study presents the results of the annual American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Survey of Dental School Seniors for the graduating class of 2014. Where appropriate, data from past surveys are incorporated to show changes over time. The survey covers a range of topics, including students’ decisions to pursue a dental career, dental school experience, financing of dental education, planned activities after graduation, and perceived preparation to treat underserved groups. The survey response rate was 84% and included respondents from all 58 U.S. dental schools with graduating classes in 2014. The findings characterize who is entering the dental profession, how they will contribute to the dental workforce, and whether schools are meeting the perceived needs of students. Following graduation, these seniors reported primarily planning to enter private practice (45%) or advanced dental education (38%). Of those going into private practice, 65% planned to be an associate at a private dental practice. Nearly 11% had no educational debt, while the remaining respondents averaged $247,227 in total educational debt. Although few seniors intended to teach immediately after graduation, over half planned to teach at some point in the future. Finally, most of these seniors reported that their schools had generally met their perceived needs; agreed or strongly agreed that the time spent on most subject areas was appropriate; and agreed or strongly agreed that their school's curriculum had adequately prepared them to practice in settings with culturally and ethnically diverse patients. Among the demographic findings were that a quarter of the seniors were from lower income families. These students were more likely to have become interested in dentistry as a career prior to undergraduate studies than did the higher income students. These and other results from the survey provide a look into the experiences and perceptions of new dental professionals.

The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Survey of Dental School Faculty is conducted annually to provide an overview of the hiring and retention activity of U.S. dental school faculty. The survey collects data on the dental faculty workforce, including vacant budgeted positions by appointment and discipline, number of new and lost positions, sources of new hires, and reasons for faculty separations. This report highlights the results of three years of survey data, from the 2011–12 academic year through the 2013–14 academic year. After declining in previous years, the number of vacant faculty positions in U.S. dental schools has begun to increase, rising to 242 full‐time and 55 part‐time positions in 2013–14. Additionally, the number of schools having more than ten vacancies increased from five to 12. Although the number of vacancies has increased, the length of faculty searches that took more than one year declined from 25% to 16% in the same period. Retirements as a share of full‐time faculty separations increased from 14% in 2008–09 to 31% in 2013–14. The current average retirement age of dental school faculty members is 69.7 years. The percentage of full‐time faculty members leaving for the private sector remained constant over the last three years at approximately 16%. Full‐time faculty members were more likely to be recruited from other dental schools, while part‐time faculty members were more likely to come from the private sector.

No abstract