Introduction

Efforts to improve teaching are not unique to dental education. A systematic review examining teaching effectiveness in health professions education determined that faculty members in general lack formal training in educational methodology and pedagogy. The review emphasized how faculty development is needed (Steinert et al., 2006).

Furthermore, cognitive psychologists aptly summarize a major critique of higher education: "It would be difficult to design an educational model that is more at odds with current research on human cognition than the one that is used at most colleges and universities" (Halpern and Hakel, 2003, p. 4). Yet many faculty members seem unaware of this research or resist giving it serious attention.

As Derek Bok, president emeritus of Harvard has put it, "No faculty ever forced its leaders out for failing to act vigorously enough to improve the prevailing methods of education. On the contrary, faculties are more likely to resist any determined effort to examine their work and question familiar ways of teaching and learning" (Bok, 2009, p. 334).

Much of what an educator needs to know to be successful is difficult to quantify, leading to the assumption that teaching requires little formal study. If a faculty member has acquired knowledge of a certain discipline (e.g., dentistry), we assume they are qualified to teach. However, it has been shown that faculty teach in the way they themselves were taught, "using instinct, trial, and personal experience" (McAndrew, Motwaly and Kamens, 2013, p. 716). With half of the new faculty members coming into dental education from private practice and 18-21% join after graduating from an advanced education program, dental schools must find ways to develop teaching expertise.

Complicating the lack of formal education training for dental educators is the vigorous and frequent reminders that effective pedagogy has evolved, and what they have done in the past is outdated and needs to improve. This article proposes an explanation for individual resistance (or acceptance of) nontraditional educational pedagogies. The focus of the article is how faculty perceive administrative calls for improved teaching and how this process influences individual resistance of new or changing pedagogies. Procedures for decreasing individual resistance to (and, hence, increasing acceptance and use of) active learning methods are suggested.

Methods

This study is based on an 8-month faculty development workshop project in which faculty members committed themselves to learn about and implementing student-centered teaching in their existing courses. The workshops were scheduled between January 2017 and June 2017 and were endorsed by the Office of Academic Affairs, who requested that all full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and hygienists attend all sessions of the series. Participants were observed before and after the workshop by trained observers using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) (Smith et al., 2013). Those who made noticeable changes were considered 'acceptors', and those who made no change were considered 'resisters.' (Individual COPUS data is not presented in this manuscript, but is included in a different study, currently unpublished.) While research from this workshop indicated that detailed and directed pedagogical training could cause a change in instructor teaching practice from teacher-centered to more student-centered methods in some, we sought further understanding about those who did not change.

For the purpose of gathering information, we used a qualitative narrative approach based on a structured interview with participants of the faculty development workshop. Twenty faculty members participated in all of the workshops. We chose from among the many faculty who made significant changes to be our faculty acceptors group. Only four faculty members made no changes at all and made up our faculty resisters group. Two of these four agreed to participate in our interview process as faculty resisters.

The interviews took place 4 months after the completion of the faculty development workshop series. The privacy of the informants was achieved by receiving their written permission to record the interviews and by the strict use of pseudonyms in all written transcriptions. All faculty members were asked the same questions before researchers completed the thematic analysis (See Table 1):

Table 1: Interview questions asked prior to the intervention

All interviews were recorded and transcribed according to guidelines established by the Institutional Review Board. Using transcription notes, a thematic analysis was completed on each of the interviews. The procedure for this analysis required researchers to create themes that emerged from the data rather than establish groupings according to an existing theory. The data were read and then reread to categorize teacher views. Similarities and differences across and within participants were examined.

In order to avoid subjectivity in the initial selection of categories and to assure trustworthiness, these themes were identified by each of the four researchers separately, who then compared notes and agreed upon a list of preliminary categories of responses. The final themes were determined at a second and third phase of discussion. The primary author trained the researchers in the method before they began thematic analysis.

Results/Analysis

Generally speaking, faculty resisters did not see any need for changes in the way we teach and did not believe student-centered teaching to be more effective, while faculty acceptors were excited for changes and saw the need for change and for student-centered teaching. Furthermore, those resisting change did not know the meaning of student-centered teaching (even though this was the focus of the workshop). It was also noted that faculty resisters were motivated by extrinsic factors (salary and recognition) but did not feel valued. On the other hand, faculty acceptors were intrinsically motivated and felt valued as faculty members. See Table 2.

Table 2

A Need for Change?

Faculty acceptors were excited, grateful, and appreciative of the pedagogical training. These faculty sensed that students were hungry for reform and that traditional models of education were not effective. Furthermore, they even suggested there should be accountability for those faculty unwilling to change their teaching methods. In contrast, faculty resisters saw no reason to make any changes. Comments from these faculty suggest a weariness and frustration with change efforts, indicating that they felt like the system did not need fixing. These faculty also mentioned their teaching experience and the awards they had received as evidence of their effectiveness. One faculty member indicated change mandates stemming from dental educators with additional degrees were "dangerous." Example quotes from interviews are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Example quotes regarding the need for change. 

Understanding Student-Centered Teaching

After the faculty workshop, those incorporating a more student-centered approach were quick to admit their need to learn more about effective pedagogy. Those maintaining traditional methods seemed not yet to understand the principles of student-centered teaching, either admitting that that was the case or claiming to have already adopted the methods (which was contrary to data collected via classroom observation protocols). Example quotes from interviews are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Example quotes regarding understanding of student-centered teaching

Confidence in Student-Centered Teaching

During the faculty development workshop series, evidence was presented to highlight the research behind student-centered teaching. Despite the presentations, not all were confident in the research. Faculty acceptors referenced the positive experiences they had with students and the positive comments made by students. They mentioned the data and were confident the new method was effective. On the other hand, faculty resisters were not confident in the approach and worried that the new teaching styles would not effectively prepare students for their board exams. Example quotes from interviews are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Example quotes regarding confidence in student-centered teaching

Maldonado, N., & Yuan, T. (2011). Technology in the classroom: from Ponyo to “My Garfield Story”: using digital comics as an alternative pathway to literary composition. Childhood Education, 87(4), 297-301.

Motivation

The faculty who adopted student-centered methods made comments suggesting they were more intrinsically motivated. For example, they wanted to be better teachers and mentioned doing what was best for the students. Those rejecting these changes were more motivated by extrinsic factors such as salary and recognition. Example quotes from interviews are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Example quotes regarding motivation for change

Feeling Valued

Whether or not the faculty felt valued at their institution was also a theme that emerged from the interviews. Those who changed their teaching practices felt valued, while those who did not change their teaching did not. Furthermore, these faculty members mentioned a negative culture. Example quotes from interviews are shown in Table 7.

Discussion

After the 8-month faculty development workshop, our research indicated that detailed and directed pedagogical training could cause a change in instructor teaching practice from teacher-centered to more student-centered methods for many faculty participants. Specifically, twenty-one of the twenty-five participants made noticeable changes in their teaching practices. In this project, we chose to utilize a narrative analysis to better understand the perspective of those rejecting change efforts and to compare them with the majority of participants who made changes.

The emerging themes from our analysis led us to the theoretical explanations offered by the status quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988), which is a preference for leaving things as they are. Changes in pedagogy hope to improve student learning, but some faculty only see the loss of what they have always done. The faculty members we interviewed who did not change were quick to mention their teaching experience and teaching awards as evidence of the effective status quo. That they were also motivated extrinsically by recognition allows us to gain insight into what they might lose if they were asked to change what they had always done. They might lose the recognition that had brought them to where there were now.

Why is the status quo bias so powerful? Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988) theorized that it is often an effort to resolve cognitive dissonance, especially in terms of one's own worth as a decision maker. Asking a faculty member to change how they teach is perceived as an attack on how they have always taught. Past choices are rationalized, even when new evidence suggests improved methodology. The status quo bias limits our ability to change, and the evidence indicates that it applies at least as powerfully to college professors as to any other segment of the population (Tagg, 2012).

Many of our faculty, however, accepted student-centered teaching, so it is important to ask, "why did only some of the faculty fall prey to the status quo bias?" As reported above, we found that faculty with more experience were less likely to change their teaching practices after pedagogical training and to resist student-centered teaching. This finding is consistent with the research reviewing the literature on the development of pedagogical knowledge for educators (Prosser and Trigwell, 2001). This data leads us to hypothesize that more experienced faculty have a stronger status quo bias when introduced to pedagogical change.

How can we create a career path for faculty who are afraid of losing their present successes? Case studies detailing change efforts within dental education have indicated some success in implementing large-scale changes throughout a curriculum (Nadershahi et al., 2013). A review of these case studies in light of the emergent themes from our interviews would direct us to (a) discover solutions that involve faculty in discovering the perceived need for change, (b) help faculty understand the outcomes of student-centered pedagogies, and (c) properly motivate and value faculty in their ongoing efforts. The following recommendations are provided in view of our findings:

Conclusion

A narrative analysis allows us to focus on an individual perspective and is relevant when that story might be validated by a greater audience. With the ongoing discussion to change dental education and the subsequent findings of faculty resistance to these changes, this approach was seen as an appropriate investigation into pertinent barriers to change for faculty resisters. Understanding the restrictive pull of the status quo bias can give insight to overcome it as an obstacle for change.

Take Home Messages

• Faculty development does not always lead to noticeable changes.

• Faculty who resist change are likely unaware of the need for change, unaware of student-centered approaches, motivated by external factors, and perhaps undervalued by their peers.

• Faculty who embrace change are likely aware of and excited about change, interested in learning new student-centered techniques, motivated intrinsically to be a better teacher, and perhaps valued by their peers.

• A lack of change is likely motivated by a status quo bias.

References

Bok, D. (2009) Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More (Vol. 2). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Chmar, J., Weaver, R. and Valachovic, R. (2008) 'Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions, academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07', Journal of Dental Education, 72(3), pp. 370-385. https://edtechbooks.org/-Zeof

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010) 'Teacher education and the American future', Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), pp. 35-47. https://edtechbooks.org/-HWGf

Gadbury-Amyot, C., Smith, D., Overman, P. and Bunce, L. (2015) 'Faculty development at one midwestern dental school: a program evaluation', Journal of Dental Education, 79(10) pp. 1177-1188. https://edtechbooks.org/-RoLD

Halpern, D. and Hakel, M. (2003) 'Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer', Change, 35(4), pp. 36-41. https://edtechbooks.org/-RInPC

McAndrew, M., Motwaly, S. and Kamens, T. (2013) 'Long-term follow-up of a dental faculty development program', Journal of Dental Education, 77(6), pp. 716-22. https://edtechbooks.org/-LKWw

Nadershahi, N., Bender, D., Beck, L. and Alexander, S. (2013) 'A case study on development of an integrated, multidisciplinary dental curriculum', Journal of Dental Education, 77(6), pp. 679-687. https://edtechbooks.org/-DPo

Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (2001) Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in Higher Education. Philadelphia: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1988) 'Status quo bias in decision making', Journal of Risk Uncertainty, 1(1), pp. 7-59. https://edtechbooks.org/-Ajfj

Smith, M., Jones, F., Gilbert, S. and Wieman, C. (2013) 'The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices', CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), pp. 618-627. https://edtechbooks.org/-dPpA

Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., et al. (2006) 'A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME guide no. 8', Medical Teacher, 28, pp. 497-526. https://edtechbooks.org/-AtzZ

Tagg, J. (2012) 'Why does the faculty resist change?' Change, 44(1) pp. 6-15. https://edtechbooks.org/-xRtJ