[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.

245]

Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences

REVIEW ARTICLE

Role of faculty development programs in

improving teaching and learning
Ashraf M. F. Kamel
Department of Preparatory Health Sciences, Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract
Faculty development programs (FDPs) have proven to be successful for improving teaching skills in higher education. This review
article summarizes literature reviews and resource books on faculty development. It tackled why FDP is important, history of
FDP in the past years, and questioned whether FDP produced any positive effect on students’ academic achievement as well
as the different methods to assess FDPs effectiveness. The review also discussed how to establish FDP, presented its ideal
structure, features that make FDP effective, and outlined the barriers to its successful implementation as well as the future
vision. This report also highlighted the situation of FDP in Saudi Arabia. Finally, the review concluded that professional FDPs
produce promising outcomes in the learning and teaching practices and recommended that teachers in higher education should
attend FDP training activities on regular basis and that the scope of planned FDPs should extend beyond the health professions
discipline, to include social skills necessary for collaboration, professional growth as well as management, and leadership abilities.

Key words: Faculty development programs, higher medical education, improving teaching skills, Saudi Arabia, training

Introduction contemporary curriculum development, competition

It has been long believed that the most important
resource that any institution of higher education has
is its faculty members who teach knowledge and skills
to students.[1] However, during the first half of the last
century, it was assumed that a competent basic scientist
or clinical professional would naturally be an effective
teacher.[2] Even most medical schools recruited faculty
members more for their content knowledge and clinical
skills rather than for their educational skills, then after
that we find faculty members sometimes being criticized
for shortcomings in their teaching performances.[3]
Medical school faculty members are currently faced
with increasing demands to be creative and effective
teachers, successful investigators, and productive
clinicians. These pressures have been derived from
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.saudijos.org
in the health care institutions, and from the limited
resources for research.[4] One study[5] emphasized that
such changes entailed faculty members to attain new
knowledge, diverse skills, and abilities in many aspects
including:[5]
• Managing multiple roles and new responsibilities:
Like clinic instruction, micro‑group teaching,
problem‑based tutorials, case‑based discussions,
become mentors, and develop and evaluate new
curricula
Address for correspondence:
Prof. Ashraf M. F. Kamel, Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and
Pharmacy, P. O. Box 84891, Riyadh 11681,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
E‑mail: ashraf.kamel@riyadh.edu.sa
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows
others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as
long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under
the identical terms.
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com

DOI:
10.4103/1658-6816.188073 Cite this article as: Kamel AM. Role of faculty development programs
in improving teaching and learning. Saudi J Oral Sci 2016;3:61-8.

© 2016 Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
• Integrating technology into teaching, learning,
and research and master new computer‑based
educational programs
• Leadership and management proficiency.
Faculty members need to be prepared enough by
some sort of a faculty development program (FDP)
in order to deal with the rapid changes and shifting
paradigms in medical education, health care delivery
systems, and clinical practice.[6] Without such training,
teaching is often reduced to instructors presenting their
understanding of the subject by one‑way lecturing.[7]
Over the past five decades, faculty development activities
evolved in focus and expanded progressively.[8] There have
been sporadic efforts in the first half of the 20th century
to provide such training,[9,10] but true FDPs began in 1975
and have grown steadily over the past 25 years.[11,12]
In 1975, Gaff[13] conceptualized the faculty development
in higher education as those activities that help teachers
improve their teaching skills, design improved curricula,
and enhance the organizational climate for education.
Furthermore, Stritter[14] described setting up individual
consultations on teaching skills, curriculum design, and
collaborative educational research.
Faculty development has been defined as that wide
range of activities that institutions apply to support
faculty members’ roles. [15] This included programs
designed to improve the performance of faculty
members in education, research and administration[16]
as well as augmenting organizational capacities and
culture.[17] A study by Riegle[18] found that a number of
descriptions for the term “faculty development were
used. Among these are:
• Instructional development which emphasized the
development of faculty skills involving instructional
technology, small group teaching, media, courses,
and curriculum design
• Professional development which emphasized the
development of individual faculty members in
their professional responsibilities as educators,
researchers, and administrators
• Organizational development which emphasized the
requirements, and main concerns of the institution
• Career development which emphasized faculty
preparation for career advancement
• Personal development which stressed on life
planning, interpersonal and communication skills
of faculty members.
At present, faculty development has become an
increasingly important constituent of medical education
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 62
offering a wide array of programs.[2] This surge in growth
had been brought about by recognizing the value of
faculty support in their roles as educators, researchers,
and administrators aiming for an energetic academic life
and culture.[2] In 2011, Blaich and Wise[19] regarded the
steady international growth in FDPs as one of the most
valuable changes that took place in higher education in
the last few decades.
Why are faculty development programs important?
In recent times, there has been accumulating evidence
about the ineffectiveness of the traditional way of
teaching. [7,19] In 2000, Steinert [20] highlighted the
importance of faculty development to respond to
advances in medical education and healthcare delivery,
to continue to adapt to the growing responsibilities
of faculty members, and to carry out more rigorous
program evaluations. She also stressed that FDPs
needed to expand their focus, consider different training
methods and formats, and encourage new partnerships
and collaborations.
In 2007, Gappa et al.[21] discussed the evolving factors
that have important implications on faculty members
that should be considered through faculty development:
• Fiscal constraints and calls for accountability ‑ that
necessitate that faculty members demonstrate
greater accountability in the face of the increasing
expenses of public and private investment in
education, and concerns from parents, students,
legislatures, and the general public
• Increasing diversity of students ‑ with varying age,
aspirations, cultural, and academic backgrounds.
Effective faculty must support the learning of those
students with diverse learning needs, and develop
curricula and teaching strategies appropriate for a
wide range of learning environments
• The opportunities and challenges of technology:
Technologies offer many opportunities to enhance
learning processes with information, simulations,
and engaging learning activities, and faculty
members must have the knowledge and skills to
take advantage of these advances in their teaching
and curriculum planning
• Changes in faculty characteristics and shifts in
appointment patterns: That requires finding ways
to integrate the new faculty members into the
institution’s community and culture, and at the same
time, ensuring the quality of their skills and abilities.
Moreover, in 2015, Al‑Eraky et al.[22] recommended the
incorporation of learning and teaching professionalism
into the FDP, in order to transform the clinical experiences
of teachers into an academic institutional reform.
July 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
History of faculty development programs
Over the past four years, a variety of FDPs have been
developed to enhance instructional skills. In 1983,
Sullivan[23] advised that newly‑designed FDPs should
initiate, infuse, and sustain change in targeted faculty.
In 1992, Hitchcock et  al.[24] reviewed earlier studies
of the faculty development[14,16,25] and concluded that
the concept of faculty development was evolving
and expanding. Furthermore, Hubbard and Atkins[26]
considered faculty development strategies as valuable
means to enhance the faculty and institution capabilities
to create an enriched environment that expanded
faculty awareness of new emerging information and is
directed at understanding the growing nature of higher
education.
Currently, contemporary approaches of faculty
development crucially address expanding faculty
awareness about vitality and renewal of teaching skills,[26]
strengthening relationships between colleagues,[27]
supporting stated institutional missions,[28] and dealing
with both the faculty member’s and institution’s capacity
to survive.[29]
Do faculty development programs activities have a positive
effect on student academic achievement in higher education?
In 2005, Bligh[17] reported that implementing FDP was
expected to result in enhanced teaching performance by
instructors and improved learning outcomes for students.
Such improvements included the development of new
teaching skills or assessment techniques, improved ways
of designing or implementing curricula, newer ways of
viewing the student–teacher relationship, and increased
commitment to the educational perspectives. Steinert
et al.[2] collection of student and resident data, especially
indices of learner behavior and student evaluations of
teaching competencies. They emphasized that all these
data needed to be augmented by careful assessment
of changes in students’ and residents’ own knowledge,
attitudes, and skills. The authors summarized the
expected outcomes from FDPs:
• High satisfaction with FDPs
• Changes in attitudes toward teaching and faculty
development
• Gains in knowledge and skills
• Changes in teaching behavior
• Changes in organizational practice and student
learning.
Three general areas have been assessed: (1) Satisfaction
measured by participation data or surveys; (2) impact
on teaching assessed through student evaluations,
syllabus analysis, follow‑up observation, and focus
groups, and  (3) impact on learning such as student
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 63
retention, grade point averages and products of student
learning.[30] More recently, Elliott and Oliver[31] found that
FDPs yielded positive outcomes in teacher practices and
student learning—both vital to the institutional mission
and goals. However, in general, the expected change
would be slow and also influenced by other factors,
i.e., not all change would be a consequence to the effect
of faculty development alone.[32]
How to assess the effectiveness of faculty development
programs?
So far, several publications reviewed the value of
faculty development activities. Different measures
of performance should be used in evaluation of FDP
such as questionnaires, videotape recordings; student
assessments and faculty reports.[2] Student ratings
focused on the perceived increase in active learning,
delivery of prompt feedback, clarity of lecture materials
while faculty reported increases in their perception of
competence and confidence related to lecture‑based
teaching.[30] In general, there was a strong belief that
FDPs were beneficial as measured through surveys and
student evaluations.
Some studies[33,34] used multiple measures to assess the
outcome such as self‑ratings, video‑taped observations,
and student ratings. Several studies found a strong
correlation between videotape ratings and knowledge
tests.[35,36] These findings, suggested the likelihood
of conducting reliable evaluations without the need
for direct observation which could be costly and
time‑consuming.[2]
In 1997, Reid et al.[37] reviewed several studies published
between 1980 and 1996 and concluded that faculty
development fellowships, workshops, and seminars
yielded positive outcomes.
However, reliable and valid measures are required to
accurately measure the effectiveness of FDPs.[2] Most
studies used questionnaires for psychometric properties.
Faculty developers and researchers concerned in
assessing change should consider using valid and
reliable questionnaires, or work seriously to establish
these measures. For example, a number of scores and
measures of teacher performance have been developed
in education.[38] Whenever possible, different assessment
tools should be used and collaborated in order to obtain
more consistent results.[2]
In one review, Glowacki‑Dudka and Brown[39] elucidated
the beneficial effects of medical FDP by participants’
self‑evaluation of teaching skill, awareness of effective
teaching methods, and student evaluations. Focused
July 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
instructional consultations were used by Finelli et al.[30]
and demonstrated improvements in student ratings and
changes in teaching practice.
In 2014, Lancaster et  al.[40] recommended that the
impact of a FDP should be measured by a thorough and
focused assessment plan that should include but were
not limited to the number of individual consultations,
how many courses changed, how many activities
initiated, changes in course evaluations, changes in peer
evaluations of teaching, number of scholarly articles
and presentations focusing on one or more aspects of
faculty effectiveness, and number of promotions based
on teaching. The authors stressed that ideally such
assessment should be multifaceted and its elements
needed to be agreed upon early in the process of
developing a program.
Figure 1 shows a conceptual plan for the potential scope
of faculty development activities and their evaluation.[41]
Finally, a number of recommendations were cited in the
Ontario report after a workshop by Plank and Khalish
from Ohio State.[42] These were: assess what matters;
connect with institutional and center goals; develop a
cohesive system to collect data; embed assessment into
regular practice; collaborate strategically; and plan for
and use the results.
How to establish faculty development program
Different approaches to improve teaching have emerged,
generally in association with changing theories of
learning.
FDP could successfully start with modest resources, if
combined with strong institutional eagerness for its
success. For example, one of the simplest ways to begin a
program is to simply call for interested faculty and staff to
Figure 1: The potential scope and purpose of faculty development programs[41]
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 64
discuss issues related to teaching, career development,
or leadership.[43]
FDP vary in structure and function and in fact,
there is no one ideal model and all programs have
advantages and disadvantages. Any preference will
depend on key situational factors: Financial support,
human resources (e.g., staff support, faculty time),
campus resources (e.g., other FDPs within the
institution, internal grants), and local expertise such
as faculty or staff members with interest or relevant
background.[40]
In the literature, it was reported [40] that faculty
development could be established through:
• Faculty development centers concerned with
designing and implementing programs of faculty
development activities that supported the academic
goals of the institution. Often the center is
managed by dedicated, full‑time administrative
staff members, as well as other faculty selected on
the basis of their expertise, leadership abilities, or
personal interests[30,44‑47]
• Faculty development committees that might exist
separate or in conjunction with a center to serve an
advisory role to maintain contact with the faculty
at large. These committees included several faculty
members and operated at departmental/division
level, college or school level, or encompassed larger
bodies (e.g., multiple colleges or schools within a
health science campus)[30,44,45,48,49]
• Programs to advance teaching and learning that
ranged from a one‑time activity to regularly
scheduled workshops or seminars, to highly
competitive, application‑driven, multi‑month
fellowship, or scholar programs. A variety of topics
that FDP could address were selected. Table 1
identifies potential topics[40]
• A 1 year training program in teaching: Which
demonstrated successful outcomes in the form of
increased interest for teaching; increased research
and publication in education.[50]
In 2002, Gillespie et al.[51] recommended 10 steps to be
considered when building a FDP [Table 2].
Structure of faculty development programs
The prototype of FDP was a short, focused series
of training workshops providing exposure to sound
teaching principles, educational techniques, or chosen
topics, ideally with some opportunity to practice
newly acquired skills. [3] Several research studies
demonstrated that such programs had a variety of
purposes, including improving attitudes, self‑efficacy,
July 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
Table 1: Topics addressed in a Faculty development
programs that emphasizes teaching, learning, and
assessment
Syllabus/course design
Writing objectives
Constructing assessments
Rubric design
Grading strategies
Student motivation
Learning disabilities
Classroom management
Active learning
Presentation and communication skills
Self‑reflection
Searching and evaluating evidence
Table 2: Ten steps for building a successful Faculty
development programs
Build stakeholders by listening to all perspectives
Ensure effective program leadership and management
Emphasize faculty ownership
Cultivate administrative commitment
Develop guiding principles, clear goals, and assessment procedures
Strategically place faculty development within the organizational
structure
Offer a range of opportunities, but lead with strengths
Encourage collegiality and community
Create collaborative systems of support
Provide measures of recognition and awards
and teaching activities; [52,53] providing feedback in
clinical teaching; [54] augmenting self‑assessed and
actual use of specified teaching concepts;[55] facilitating
faculty’s ability to recognize teaching deficiencies;[56]
and increasing knowledge of teaching principles and
teaching ability.[57] These short‑term programs typically
addressed very limited content and teaching objectives,
such as clinical educational skills, curriculum design, and
providing feedback.[36]
FDPs were categorized in various ways. Bergquist
and Phillips[58] described three components of faculty
development; (1) instructional development, (2) personal
development, and (3) organizational development. The
first category included practices such as curriculum,
development teaching diagnosis, and training. Personal
development generally involved activities to encourage
faculty growth, for example interpersonal skills training
and career counseling. Organizational development
aimed to advance the institutional environment for
teaching and decision making and included activities
for both faculty members and administrative staff.
Developing managerial skills and team work attitudes
would be important components of organizational
development.
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 65
Ullian and Stritter[59] described another classification
that included organizational strategies, fellowships,
comprehensive programs, seminars, workshops, and
personal activities. Wilkerson and Irby[4] also presented
a different classification, starting with orientation for
new faculty members, and then moving to instructional,
leadership, and organizational developmental programs.
Perhaps, the critical point regarding workshops and
seminar programs is that they should be planned,
in response to the needs of faculty members, with
participants being aware about what to expect.[60]
Faculty development programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
In 1999, Al‑Shehri and Al‑Ghamdi[61] reported certain
negative issues related to undergraduate medical
education in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA):
• Overload of curriculum with content material having
little relevance to the clinical practice
• Lack of student support in their learning (e.g., ethical
and communication skills) in medical schools
concerned with people’s health
• Passive teaching methods through lecturing with
little student interaction and participation
• Teachers‑centered approach and assessment
methods focused on students recall of information
• Education system creating dependent rather than
self‑directed learners.
Facing such increasing challenges, there was evidence of
a major commitment toward staff development in KSA.
This was supported in a study conducted in Al‑Imam
Mohammad Bin Saud Islamic University [62] which
described the faculty development in the Arabian Gulf
countries. Later, three research works[63‑65] recommended
the establishment of a well‑structured plan for faculty staff
development in order to deal with the new issues arising
from the teaching‑learning process and its outcomes.
Moreover, in 2013, Al‑Hattami et al.[66] recommended
conducting a consistent training program throughout the
year where faculty members must attend. The program
should be designed by a group of qualified educationists
rather than by a single teacher. Furthermore, such
program should cover the educational areas needing
improvement in Saudi Arabia’s universities in the
five domains set out by the National Commission for
Academic Accreditation and Assessment;[67] which are:
• Knowledge: Regarding specific facts, concepts,
procedures, theories, and principles
• Cognitive skills: The ability to apply theoretical
understanding of concepts, principles, and theories
and apply procedures by problem solving and critical
thinking
July 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
• Interpersonal skills and responsibility: The ability
to become self‑directed learner, work effectively in
groups and practice leadership, act consistently and
ethically with high moral standards
• Communication, information technology and
numerical skills: The ability to communicate
effectively (spoken and written), use information
and communication technologies, as well as basic
mathematical and statistical methods
• Psychomotor skills: Required in some fields such as
medicine, music, and fine art.
In 2014, AlRweithy and Alsaleem[68] confirmed the
positive impact of “University Teaching and Learning
training program” in enhancing the staff members’
teaching skills of at Imam University in Saudi Arabia
and recommended its application in Saudi Universities.
Features of faculty development program that make it
effective
As indicated by Hynes,[69] faculty development is a
continuous process and not only just providing some
workshops and lectures not expected to change faculty
members’ way of teaching overnight.
According to Kirkpatrick, [70] four conditions were
considered necessary for a change to occur: (1) The
person must have the desire to change, (2) knowledge
of what to do and how to do it, (3) a supportive work
environment, and (4) reward for changing. Fortunately,
the first two conditions of change can potentially be
achieved through faculty development activities.
Few reports in the literature described features of faculty
development that make it effective.[71,72] These features
included the following:
• The role of experiential learning: Several authors
highlighted that faculty members needed to
apply what had been learned during the program,
practice skills, and receive feedback on the learned
skills[73‑75]
• The value of feedback: Several studies[33,76] specifically
examined the utilization of feedback as a strategy
and found that systematic and constructive feedback
resulted in improved teaching performance
• The importance of peers: A number of reports[77,78]
stressed on the value of peers as role models,
exchanging information and ideas, and the
significance of collegial support to promote and
maintain change
• Adherence to principles of teaching and learning:
Many authors[79,80] cited principles of adult and
experiential learning as an organizing structure for
FDPs
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 66
• The use of multiple instructional methods to achieve
the learning objectives.
Faculty participation and the success of faculty development
programs
The most commonly encountered impediment to
participation in FDPs is teachers’ beliefs that clinical
skills and expertise were sufficient for excellent
teaching. Research showed that many faculty members
underestimated both their potential for improvement
as well as the potential value of FDPs. Research findings
also indicated that some faculty members might not be
aware of their teaching problems and might overrate
their teaching skills before enrolling in a FDP.[81,82] At least
three logical and understandable reasons diminished
teachers participation: (1) Underestimation of the
potential benefits from a FDP, (2) lack of belief in the
utility of teaching skills as opposed to clinical skills,
and (3) a belief that teacher training was not related to
teaching excellence.[83]
Future vision
Initial efforts of faculty development were chiefly
concerned with advancing the specific disciplinary
skills of individual faculty members. [26] Then, over
the past couple of decades, it was found that this
conventional and narrow perspective of professional
development  –  no longer adequately benefited the
needs of faculty and institutions in relation to the
fast‑paced technological, globally‑connected society.[84]
It is time to shift the philosophy about faculty
development and to embrace a broader view from
one‑time training to ongoing professional development,
and from classroom to workplace activities.[85]
Ongoing continuous professional learning rather than
one‑time development training was proposed by a
number of educators in higher education.[86,87] It was
noted that professionals learn from a variety of training
activities including formal programs, interactions with
colleagues, and learning on the job.[88]
One vision for the profession of faculty development in
the future focused around three key themes.[5,8] First,
a call for more emphasis in the field of organizational
development to build up leadership abilities in the
faculty, and to work with academic leaders, especially
chairs and deans to create supporting environments
for good teaching and scholarship[5,44,89,90] Enhancing
skills and aptitudes for organizational development
will become increasingly important for the profession.
There seems to be a widely held assumption that
the long‑term effects of most faculty development
July 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
activities will bring in some degree of organizational
development. Second, Faculty development will be
linked to the capacity of the field to engage in more
research about best practices that enhance student
learning, and to work systematically on a research base
in learning and teaching. Finally, enhancing the future
of the profession will require new thinking about ideal
structures for faculty development and less centralized
ways of operating organizationally.[8]
Conclusion
High‑quality professional training programs for faculty
members have become essential to higher education
institutions in order to be able to compete in this
ever‑changing world. It is clear that faculty development
has become well established and has grown into a
recognized activity within higher education.
Professional training programs produce promising
outcomes in the learning and teaching practices and
many FDPs have proven effective in developing faculty
skills and educational leadership. Indeed, today, faculty
development constitutes a strategic lever for institutional
excellence and quality, and essentially important means
for advancing forward institutional readiness to bring
in the desired change in response to the ever growing
complex demands facing universities and colleges.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Hrnciar M, Madzík P. Improving the quality of higher education in central
Europe: Approach based on GAP analysis. High Educ Stud 2013;3:75‑88.
2. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, et al.
A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve
teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No 8. Med Teach
2006;28:497‑526.
3. Gruppen LD, Frohna AZ, Anderson RM, Lowe KD. Faculty development for
educational leadership and scholarship. Acad Med 2003;78:137‑41.
4. Wilkerson  L, Irby  DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices:
A comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med
1998;73:387‑96.
5. Sorcinelli MD, Austin AE, Eddy PL, Beach AL. Creating the Future of Faculty
Development: Learning From the Past, Understanding the Present. Bolton,
MA: Anker Publishing, Inc.; 2005.
6. Steinert Y. Commentary: Faculty development: The road less traveled. Acad
Med 2011;86:409‑11.
7. Fink  LD. The current status of faculty development internationally. Int J
Scholarsh Teach Learn 2013a; 7:1‑10.
8. Austin AE, Sorcinelli MD. The future of faculty development: Where are we
going? New Dir Teach Learn 2013;133:85‑96.
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 67
9. Gray WS, editor. The training of college teachers, including their preliminary
preparation and in service improvement. Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press; 1930.
10. Blegen  TC, Cooper  RM, editors. The Preparation of College Teachers.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education; 1950.
11. Al‑Wardy  NM. Medical education units: History, functions, and
organisation. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2008;8:149‑56.
12. McLeod PJ, Steinert Y. The evolution of faculty development in Canada since
the 1980s: Coming of age or time for a change? Med Teach 2010;32:e31‑5.
13. Gaff  JG. Toward Faculty Renewal: Advances in Faculty, Instructional, and
Organizational Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‑Bass; 1975.
14. Stritter FT. Faculty evaluation and development. In: McGuire CH, Foley RP,
Gorr A, Richards RW, editors. Handbook of Health Professions Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey‑Bass; 1983. p. 294‑318.
15. Centra JA. Types of faculty development programs. J High Educ
1978;49:151‑62.
16. Sheets KJ, Schwenk TL. Faculty development for family medicine educators:
An agenda for future activities. Teach Learn Med 1990;2:141‑8.
17. Bligh J. Faculty development. Med Educ 2005;39:120‑1.
18. Riegle R. Conceptions of faculty development. Educ Theory 1987;37:53‑9.
19. Blaich  C, Wise  I. The Wabash National Study  –  The Impact of Teaching
Practices and Institutional Conditions on Social Growth. American
Education Research Council Annual Meeting. Crawfordsville, Indiana:
Wabash College, Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts; 2011.
20. Steinert Y. Faculty development in the new millennium: Key challenges and
future directions. Med Teach 2000;22:44‑50.
21. Gappa JM, Austin AE, Trice AG. Rethinking Faculty Work: Higher Education’s
Strategic Imperative. San Francisco CA: Jossey‑Bass; 2007.
22. Al‑Eraky MM, Donkers J, Wajid G, Van Merrienboer JJ. Faculty development
for learning and teaching of medical professionalism. Med Teach
2015;37 Suppl 1:S40‑6.
23. Sullivan L. Faculty development: A movement on the brink, University of
Arkansas. The College Board Review 1983;127. p. 20-1, and 29-30.
24. Hitchcock  MA, Stritter  FT, Bland  CJ. Faculty development in the
health professions: Conclusions and recommendations. Med Teach
1992;14:295‑309.
25. Bland  CJ, Schmitz  CC. Characteristics of the successful researcher and
implications for faculty development. J Med Educ 1986;61:22‑31.
26. Hubbard G, Atkins S. The professor as a person: The role of faculty
well‑being in faculty development. Innov High Educ 1995;20:117‑28.
27. Gaff J, Simpson R. Faculty development in the United States. Innov High
Educ 1994;18:167‑76.
28. Schuster JH, Wheeler DW. Enhancing Faculty Careers: Strategies for
Development and Renewal. Jossey Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St., San
Francisco, CA 94104; 1990.
29. Blackburn  R, Lawrence  J. Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation,
Satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1995.
30. Finelli CJ, Ott M, Gottfried AC, Hershock C, O’Neal C, Kaplan M. Utilizing
instructional consultations to enhance the teaching performance of
engineering faculty. J Eng Educ 2008;97:397‑411.
31. Elliott RW, Oliver DE. Linking faculty development to community college
student achievement: A mixed methods approach. Community college
journal of research and practice 2016;40:85-99.
32. Jolly  B. Faculty development for organizational change. In: Faculty
Development in the Health Professions. Netherlands: Springer; 2014.
p. 119‑37.
33. Skeff KM. Evaluation of a method for improving the teaching performance
of attending physicians. Am J Med 1983;75:465‑70.
34. Skeff  KM, Stratos  G, Campbell  M, Cooke  M, Jones HW 3rd. Evaluation
of the seminar method to improve clinical teaching. J Gen Intern Med
1986;1:315‑22.
35. Mahler  S, Benor  DE. Short and long term effects of a teacher‑training
workshop in medical school. High Educ 1984;13:265‑73.
36. Sheets KJ, Henry RC. Assessing the impact of faculty development programs
in medical education. J Med Educ 1984;59:746‑8.
37. Reid A, Stritter FT, Arndt JE. Assessment of faculty development program
outcomes. Fam Med 1997;29:242‑7.
38. Gibbs G, Coffey M. The impact of training of university teachers on their
teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of
their students. Active Learn High Educ 2004;5:87‑100.
July 2016
[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijos.org on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, IP: 123.17.31.245]
Kamel: Role of faculty development programs
39. Glowacki‑Dudka M, Brown MP. Professional development through faculty
learning communities. New Horiz 2007;21:29‑39.
40. Lancaster JW, Stein SM, MacLean LG, Van Amburgh J, Persky AM. Faculty
development program models to advance teaching and learning within
health science programs. Am J Pharm Educ 2014;78:99.
41. Fink LD. Innovative ways of assessing faculty development. New Dir Teach
Learn 2013b;133:47‑59.
42. Grabove  V, Kustra  E, Lopes  V, Potter  MK, Wiggers  R, Woodhouse  R.
Teaching and Learning Centres: Their Evolving Role Within Ontario Colleges
and Universities. Issue Paper No.  12. Toronto, Canada: Higher Education
Quality Council of Ontario; January 31, 2012.
43. D’Eon  M, Overgaard  V, Harding  SR. Teaching as a social practice:
Implications for faculty development. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract
2000;5:151‑62.
44. Cook CE, Kaplan M. Advancing the Culture of Teaching on Campus: How
a teaching Center Can Make a Difference. 1st ed. Stylus Publishing, LLC.,
Herndon, VA; 2011.
45. American College of Clinical Pharmacy, Boyce EG, Burkiewicz JS, Haase MR,
MacLaughlin EJ, Segal AR, et al. ACCP white paper: Essential components
of a faculty development program for pharmacy practice faculty.
Pharmacotherapy 2009;29:127.
46. Guglielmo BJ, Edwards DJ, Franks AS, Naughton CA, Schonder KS, Stamm PL,
et al. A critical appraisal of and recommendations for faculty development.
Am J Pharm Educ 2011;75:122.
47. Schmitz CC, Luxenberg MG. Evaluation of the “Learning by Doing” Faculty
Development Program for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
(MnSCU) Center for Teaching and Learning. Final Report Summary. St. Paul,
MN: MnSCU Bush Foundation; 2002.
48. Boucher BA, Chyka  PJ, Fitzgerald  WL, Hak LJ, Miller  DD, Parker RB, et al.
A  comprehensive approach to faculty development. Am J Pharm Educ
2006;70:27.
49. Davis  G, Foley  BJ, Horn  E, Neal  E, Redman  R, Van Riper  M. Creating a
comprehensive faculty development program. J Fac Dev 2003;19:19‑28.
50. Griffith  CH. Evidenced‑based educational practice: The case for faculty
development in teaching. Am J Med 2000;109:749‑52.
51. Gillespie KH, Hilsen LR, Wadsworth EC. A Guide to Faculty Development:
Practical Advice, Examples, and Resources. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing
Company, Inc.; 2002.
52. Bigby  J, Barnes  HN. Evaluation of a faculty development program in
substance abuse education. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:301‑5.
53. O’Connor  PG, Bigby  J, Gallagher  D. Substance abuse and AIDS: A faculty
development program for primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med
1993;8:266‑8.
54. Lye PS, Simpson DE, Wendelberger KJ, Bragg DS. Clinical teaching rounds.
A case‑oriented faculty development program. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
1998;152:293‑5.
55. Quirk  ME, DeWitt  T, Lasser  D, Huppert  M, Hunniwell  E. Evaluation of
primary care futures: A faculty development program for community
health center preceptors. Acad Med 1998;73:705‑7.
56. Rost K, Gordon GH. The teacher simulation exercise: Changes in physician
teaching emphasis and strategy. The SGIM task force on the medical
interview. J Gen Intern Med 1989;4:121‑6.
57. Skeff  KM, Stratos  GA, Bergen  MR, Sampson  K, Deutsch  SL. Regional
teaching improvement programs for community‑based teachers. Am J
Med 1999;106:76‑80.
58. Bergquist WH, Phillips SR. Components of an effective faculty development
program. J High Educ 1975;46:177‑211.
59. Ullian  JA, Stritter  FT. Types of faculty development programs. Fam Med
1997;29:237‑41.
60. Wergin  JR, Mason  EJ, Munson  PJ. The practice of faculty development.
J High Educ 1976;47:289‑308.
61. Al‑Shehri AM, Al‑Ghamdi A. Is there anything wrong with undergraduate
medical education? (Leading Article). Saudi Med J 1999;20:215‑8.
62. Bin Abdulrahman  KA, Siddiqui  IA, Aldaham  SA, Akram  S. Faculty
development program: A guide for medical schools in Arabian Gulf (GCC)
countries. Med Teach 2012;34 Suppl 1:S61‑6.
63. Al‑Alwan  IA. Association between scores in high school, aptitude and
achievement exams and early performance in health science college. Saudi
J Kidney Dis Transpl 2009;20:448‑53.
S J Oral Sci Vol 3 No 2 68
64. Tekian  A, Almazrooa  AA. Does Saudi Arabia need an Abraham Flexner?
Med Teach 2011;33:72‑3.
65. Al-Shehri AM. Quality Management and Medical Education in Saudi Arabia.
INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2012.
66. Al‑Hattami  AA, Muammar  OM, Elmahdi  IA. The need for professional
training programs to improve faculty members teaching skills. Eur J Res
Educ 2013;1:39‑45.
67. National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment National
Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia; 2009. Available from: http://www.art.kau.edu.sa/Files/125/
files/23329_National%20Qualifications%20Framework%20for%20
Higher%20Ed%20Jan%2009.doc. [Last cited on 2015 Sep 09].
68. AlRweithy  E, Alsaleem  B. The efficiency of the university teaching and
learning training program (UTL) on developing the teaching competencies
of the teaching staff at Imam University. Education 2014;135:9‑18.
69. Hynes  W. Strategies for faculty development. In: Brown  D, editor.
Leadership Roles of Chief Academic Officers: New Directions for Higher
Education, No. 47. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‑Bass Publishers; 1984. p. 31‑8.
70. Kirkpatrick  DL. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett‑Koehler Publishers; 1994.
71. Skeff  KM, Stratos  GA, Bergen  MR, Regula DP Jr. A  pilot study of faculty
development for basic science teachers. Acad Med 1998;73:701‑4.
72. Pololi L, Clay MC, Lipkin M Jr., Hewson M, Kaplan C, Frankel RM. Reflections
on integrating theories of adult education into a medical school faculty
development course. Med Teach 2001;23:276‑83.
73. Irby  DM, Vontver  LA, Stenchever  MA. Improving teaching in a multisite
clerkship. Faculty‑development workshops. J Reprod Med 1982;27:307‑10.
74. Coles CR, Tomlinson JM. Teaching student‑centred educational approaches
to general practice teachers. Med Educ 1994;28:234‑8.
75. Hewson  MG. A  theory‑based faculty development program for
clinician‑educators. Acad Med 2000;75:498‑501.
76. Litzelman  DK, Stratos  GA, Marriott  DJ, Lazaridis  EN, Skeff  KM. Beneficial
and harmful effects of augmented feedback on physicians’ clinical‑teaching
performances. Acad Med 1998;73:324‑32.
77. DeWitt  TG, Goldberg  RL, Roberts  KB. Developing community faculty.
Principles, practice, and evaluation. Am J Dis Child 1993;147:49‑53.
78. Elliot  DL, Skeff  KM, Stratos  GA. How do you get to the improvement of
teaching? A longitudinal faculty development program for medical
educators. Teach Learn Med 1999;11:52‑7.
79. Knowles MS. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to
Androgogy. New York: Cambridge Books; 1988.
80. Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‑Hall; 1984.
81. Skeff  KM, Bergen  MR, Stratos  GA. Evaluation of a medical faculty
development program: A  comparison of traditional pre/post and
retrospective pre/post self‑assessment ratings. Eval Health Prof 1992a;
15:350‑66.
82. Skeff  KM, Stratos  GA, Berman  J, Bergen  MR. Improving clinical teaching.
Evaluation of a national dissemination program. Arch Intern Med
1992;152:1156‑61.
83. Skeff  KM, Stratos  GA, Mygdal  W, DeWitt  TA, Manfred  L, Quirk  M, et al.
Faculty development. A resource for clinical teachers. J Gen Intern Med
1997;12 Suppl 2:S56‑63.
84. Millis B. Faculty development in the 1990s: What it is and why we can’t
wait. J Couns Dev 1994;72:454‑64.
85. Steinert Y. Faculty development: Future directions. Netherlands: Springer;
2014. p. 421‑42.
86. Clarke  D, Hollingsworth  H. Elaborating a model of teacher professional
growth. Teach Teach Educ 2002;18:947‑67.
87. Knight  P. A  systemic approach to professional development: Learning as
practice. Teach Teach Educ 2002;18:229‑41.
88. Webster‑Wright A. Reframing professional development through
understanding authentic professional learning. Rev Educ Res
2009;79:702‑39.
89. Bergquist WH. A guide to faculty development. Gillespie KJ, Robertson DL,
editors. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
90. Schroeder C. Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging
organizational development role in institutional change. Stylus Publishing,
LLC.; 2012.
July 2016