| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
© 2003 SAGE Publications Issues and Strategies for Faculty Development in Technology and Biomedical InformaticsPresented at "Dental Informatics & Dental Research: Making the Connection", a conference held in, Bethesda, MD, USA, June 12–13, 2003, sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Center for Dental Informatics and supported in part by award 1R13DE014611-01 from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research/National Library of Medicine.
Department of Informatics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881; Michelle.Robinson{at}marquette.edu
Biomedical informatics and technology are becoming important components of dental education. The tools and techniques now available have the potential for significant impact on teaching and research by improving the way information is acquired, stored, retrieved, and managed. However, a gap exists between those who create, introduce, or implement the technology applications and the faculty in dental schools faced with the challenge of using it. For technology and informatics to thrive in the areas of didactic teaching, clinical teaching, and clinical practice, more than a select few must understand the potential applications. This paper provides an overview of the issues and strategies involved with faculty development for the use of technology in the educational setting. The discussion covers important reasons for developing faculty competence in technology applications, significant barriers to faculty development in this area, and several strategies designed to overcome these barriers.
Key Words: Dental faculty • diffusion of innovation • technology transfer • training programs
Reasons for developing faculty in technology and informatics When new technologies are introduced into the educational environment, successful implementation is often dependent on the technology being used by the right people, at the right time, with the right methods. Faculty development is a key component of this process. The technology is only as effective as the faculty who use it; thus, it is necessary that they become familiar with its applications and trained in its appropriate utilization. Once technology integration has taken place, faculty can perform evaluations and provide insights regarding improvements or development of additional technologies. Finally, as primary users, faculty can participate in a wide variety of opportunities for research. Development activities in technology applications are critical for faculty members to flourish in today’s high-tech environment.
Barriers to faculty development
To introduce technology and informatics successfully into the educational environment, we must bridge the gap between the early adopters and mainstream faculty (early and late majority). Failure to do so can result in a situation where the early adopters have saturated their use of a technology innovation, while the early and late majority, who comprise 70% of faculty, have few experiences with the innovation (Geoghegan, 1994). The late majority, or latter half of the 70%, constitute the skeptical and conservative group of the mainstream. They are similar to the early majority but are less comfortable with technology and wait to see how it works for the early majority before proceeding. The strategies suggested below will apply mostly to these three groups—early adopter, early majority, and late majority. The "laggards" represent the approximately 15% of the population who are non-adapters and are very slow to adopt or who may never adopt the innovation. This population is generalized to include mainstream faculty in higher education, which would include dental school faculty. Dental faculty are introduced to new materials on a regular basis. However, many things within the classroom have not changed for decades, resulting in a suspension of the growth of the educational process (Friedman, 2000). Motivation and attitudes toward change, particularly in the area of technology, present another barrier to faculty development. A study at George Washington University, examining the factors influencing faculty participation in distance learning programs for post-secondary education (Betts, 1998), demonstrated that the majority of faculty had an interest in distance education, but were not necessarily motivated to participate as online instructors. This was especially true for faculty involved in the promotion and tenure process. Faculty regarded intellectual challenge, personal fulfillment, job satisfaction, development of new ideas, and monetary or other compensation as motivating factors. However, not all faculty considered distance education as promoting these motivational factors, and many felt no pressure or inclination to use this technology. It follows, therefore, that motivation lies in convincing faculty of the benefits of the technology and creating an atmosphere where it is not simply an increased workload without perceived benefit. In the dental school, where use of technology and distance education is a newer phenomenon, faculty will clearly need guidance, information about the technology, career advancement opportunities, and adequate support to foster positive attitudes and participation. If attitude toward technology can influence faculty development, there must be a psychological basis for technology resistance. Indeed, there are psychosocial factors that can affect a faculty member’s decision to use technology (Cravener, 1999). First, some faculty are concerned with "what’s in it for me?", sometimes referred to as WIIFM. This parameter relates directly to the perception that rewards or incentives for involvement with technology are deserved. Second, some faculty will use technology if trained, but are reluctant to attend group sessions and desire training that is personalized and convenient with regard to their schedule or expectation of when they plan to use technology. Thus, these psychosocial elements must be considered in the faculty development strategy. Although the barriers listed thus far focus on the faculty member, there are also external factors that impede technology use and development. Challenges present within the environment of the institution can make it difficult or unattractive for willing faculty to display enthusiasm and become involved. Whether a dental school uses the centralized information technology services of the campus or relies on its own resources, an environment conducive to technology integration must be created. It is difficult for faculty to utilize technology when the institution lacks the equipment, access, support, or protocols required for such use. As an example, at our institution, where the equipment, access, and support exist, one faculty member was reluctant to use an online course database tool due to concerns over ownership of course material. Protocols and policies need to be developed for intellectual property rights (Spallek and Schleyer 1999), and these should be communicated to all faculty.
Strategies to overcome barriers As discussed above, there are several reasons why faculty might not understand or choose to use technology and informatics tools in their daily activity. Some faculty reading this manuscript can probably think of additional problems that justify technology avoidance. The situation, however, is not hopeless. Since the value of technology integration can be demonstrated in a variety of ways, it is worthwhile to pursue options that would overcome barriers to implementation. Two tiers of strategies are presented. The first establishes a framework for bringing technology into the institution. The second uses this framework to ensure that technology is used and integrated.
Tier 1 A set of rules always helps to create limits, define boundaries, and bring some degree of clarity to a changing environment. Policies regarding use of technology should be established to guide expectations of administrators, faculty, students, and staff. These policies should include documentation that concentrates on the following:
Several dental schools now have an office or department for informatics, technology, or new media. Whatever form or name it takes, an office needs to exist to serve as a clearinghouse for information, projects, coordination, and management of the school’s technology activity. This office should be staffed with people who have background or knowledge in the areas of technology and/or informatics. Required skill sets for personnel in this office can include, but are not limited to, Web or other programming and scripting, databases, technology planning and integration, technical or helpdesk support, networks, expertise in specific application programs used by the school, and adult education if they are responsible for training. This office would also conduct or help to coordinate programs that evaluate training and faculty use of technology. As with any new initiative, areas of concern will arise. These should be addressed to keep everyone informed and as supportive as possible. An organized system of communication can be utilized to target different groups at the dental school and inform them about upcoming changes or events. An assessment of faculty needs can be initiated by this strategy, helping to overcome some of the motivational and psychosocial barriers.
Tier 2 The faculty development program should begin with a thorough needs assessment. Although valuable information can be obtained from this process, caution should be used when basing a whole program on these data. The needs assessment instrument must be very carefully constructed to extract the desired information. For example, it may not be useful to ask faculty about their desire for a particular type of training, and then offer a session based on the number of positive responses. Some faculty may not understand how the training will help them. Others may think it is a good idea, but do not have the time to attend the session. Still others may have understanding and time but, due to psychosocial factors, lack motivation or want personal attention. Once a decision is made as to what will be included in the faculty development program, other judgments need to determined regarding the frequency, setting, level of participation required, selection of trainers, and mechanism for evaluation, feedback, and ongoing support. Alternatives to faculty development programs exist and can be used if they are more appropriate to the individual institution. These include Web-based training environments, convenience training, train-the-trainer approaches, and coaching programs. In-person hands-on training is not the only option for faculty development. As more faculty have grown comfortable with the Web environment, Web-based training is becoming a viable alternative that offers convenience and just-in-time training—training delivered at the time the technology will be used. Convenience training can also take place in person when a trainer answers the personal request of a faculty member, training him or her in a one-on-one session at the time that the skills will be needed. This is advantageous and effective for the resistant faculty who require that level of attention to use technology. However, this is inefficient and time-consuming for the trainer. A train-the-trainer program may work if there are teaching assistants or other faculty with sufficient technology skills who can be trained to teach others. This is a more efficient way to execute in-person training on a small or personalized scale. The coaching program is a hybrid of the other forms of training. In this setting, a very small group consisting of faculty, trainers, and/or support professionals collaborates to accomplish a technology-based directive through stepwise progression toward a defined goal. This goal can range from the incorporation of spreadsheets into managing course information to the implementation of a paperless dental patient record. Any of these alternatives can also be used as adjuncts to traditional faculty development, and many institutions will find that a combination of approaches may work best. Lack of motivation and environmental challenges create barriers to technology use for faculty. A final strategy addresses these challenges through the application of faculty incentives, rewards, and compensation models. Surveys in higher education have addressed the issue of incentives for faculty involvement with use of technology in teaching. One such study (Irani and Telg, 2001) describes these incentives as monetary compensation, graduate assistant support, release time, software, and hardware. Other non-tangible but equally important incentives include making technology easy to use, getting faculty buy-in by stressing value and benefits, and recognizing faculty efforts in the promotion and tenure process. This does not mean that tenure is a reward for using technology, but rather that technology-related activity can be incorporated into tenure requirements (Culp et al., 2001). In the area of scholarship for promotion and tenure, faculty could fulfill this requirement through publication in a peer-reviewed online journal such as Dentistry On-Line and the Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, or by development and dissemination of an application software program. An online course could be included in pre-tenure achievements under the subheading of "teaching". In the area of service, activities such as providing training for community organizations, technical assistance to colleagues, and faculty development workshops are examples that could fit into this category. A study endorsed by Temple University gathered information on 160 institutions, including two-year, four-year, public, and private, to survey the models of compensation in place for faculty who use teaching technologies (Schifter, 2000). Because using technology can place demands on a faculty workload that is already filled with clinical teaching, lectures, administrative duties, research, and dental practice, the compensation system can be highly motivating. A widespread survey of dental school compensation schemes has not been published, so it is unclear how many schools either have one in place or are currently developing one. Possible arrangements for compensation consist of:
From the list of options presented here, it is evident that additional pay is not the sole motivator for faculty. In survey after survey, support was shown to be a key factor in coercing faculty to use and integrate technology. Support can take the form of any of the strategies presented in the two tiers, since they all create some assistive mechanisms to make the process more convenient and acceptable to faculty.
The intersection between pedagogy, technology, and informatics is becoming inevitable. As dental schools increasingly embrace technology and informatics, the need to address faculty development will intensify. Through lessons learned in higher education, dental education can formulate its own templates for tackling inherent issues regarding faculty development related to technology. Although training, incentives, compensation, and the existence of other support mechanisms can be encouraging to almost any faculty member, the diffusion model demonstrates that there are laggards who may remain resistant to the very end. Considering the value and benefits of technology and informatics, dental schools must be willing to make the investment necessary to implement strategies that will improve chances for successful implementation.
Publication supported by Software of Excellence (Auckland, NZ)
Advances in Dental Research, Vol. 17, No. 1,
34-37 (2003) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
TOP
Abstract
Introduction
