The Committee surveyed faculty, deans, and chairs of the APT Committees, reviewed APT Policies of each HSC school, reviewed the Faculty Satisfaction Survey data, and conducted a literature review to assist in developing this Report. The Committee has found great opportunity for the improvement of the HSC culture in support of teaching by administration and faculty by assuming a new model of rewarding faculty work including teaching. Affirmative action on the recommendations below will greatly facilitate the advancement of teaching excellence at the HSC.

Implications of Surveys

1. There is a substantial discrepancy between HSC deans' perceptions about teaching and those of individual school APT chairs.
2. The majority of faculty at the Health Science Center feel that teaching is largely an unrewarded (by promotion and tenure) activity.
3. There is a lack of faculty support at Health Science Center schools for teaching and teachers.
4. These points indicate that there is a substantial disconnect between the HSC’s stated mission and its actual performance.

Recommendations
Based on the survey findings, the review of the literature including identifying characteristics of supportive teaching culture, and the work of this Committee, the following Recommendations are made:

1. The HSC must value teaching/education of students as one of the critical faculty activities, without which the University could not exist.
2. The HSC must recognize teaching as a faculty activity comparable in importance to the University missions of research and clinical service.
3. Each HSC School should redraft its Promotion and Tenure document to include guidelines for awarding promotion and tenure for the scholarship of teaching. The guidelines would include ways that the candidate can document substantial teaching activities, including peer and student reviews, as well as the documentation of disseminated educational products.
4. The HSC and UTH-HSC schools should reward educators with promotion and tenure.
5. The HSC Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee should redraft its guidelines to reflect the changes implemented at the school level.
6. Faculty Development Plans negotiated by the faculty and chair that indicate effort in teaching, research, and service must be used in consideration for promotion and tenure decisions.
7. The composition of the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees of the UTH-HSC schools must reflect a cross section of each school’s faculty at the associate or professorial level including clinical educators.
8. Educational training sessions should be held for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees to prepare them to understand, review, and determine appropriate rewards for the scholarship of teaching.
9. Educational training sessions should be held for department chairs to prepare them to understand, review, and determine appropriate rewards for the scholarship of teaching.
10. Educational training sessions should be held for faculty to prepare them to document their scholarship of teaching and/or the use of teaching portfolios.
11. All Schools must employ strategies in the hiring process to determine whether applicants for faculty positions can demonstrate teaching excellence.
12. All Schools must support faculty development in teaching and the scholarship of teaching for their faculty.
13. All schools must develop and implement a method of documenting the scholarship of teaching to increase the opportunity for promotion and tenure of its teaching faculty.
14. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee supports the development of Teaching Excellence Awards, a Teaching Academy of faculty who have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and an Excellent Teacher Certification process.
15. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee strongly encourages the development of an HSC Faculty Development Center or Center for Teaching Excellence to support the scholarship of teaching.
16. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee strongly supports the formation of another Committee to shepherd the above Recommendations.

REPORT

In August of 1998, the Interfaculty Council of The University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center (HSC) formed an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the role of and issues pertaining to rewarding teaching on this campus. During its formative meeting the IFC President charged the Committee to: 1) assess the current status of teaching at HSC schools; 2) determine the impediments to effective teaching and the rewards of teaching, and 3) develop recommendations for a more supportive environment at the school and HSC level.

The issues that the Committee was challenged with are connected to the problems of support, assessment, recognition, and reward of the scholarship of teaching, which have been identified as significant problems in health science education not only on this campus but on many others as well. Ernest Boyer (1990) recognized this problem when he stated that “on campuses across the nation, there is a recognition that the faculty reward system does not match the full range of academic functions and that professors are often caught between competing obligations” (p1). And former Stanford President Donald Kennedy states “The constant tension between research and teaching...is now the greatest problem facing the professoriate” (Kennedy, 1997. p29).

Upon further investigation, there are numerous references to the problem, but very few solutions offered. In addition, recent demands by the State Legislature for periodic reviews of the faculty reflect concerns about the quality of teaching that takes place on university campuses. This HSC along with many other academic medical centers has numerous documents and statements that present teaching as a fundamental mission of the HSC. However, in two University Strategic Thinking Sessions, (1993 and 1998) faculty members have stated their perception that teaching does not have equal status to research in terms of the reward of either promotion or tenure. The definition of scholarship has been found to be too narrow, and discussions with both Boyer (1992) and Glassick (1998) on our campus have furthered the conversation about the scholarship of teaching, but not resolved the problem.  In fact, during the recent three-day visit by Dr. Glassick to the HSC, the common concern expressed by faculty across the HSC, was assessing and rewarding the scholarship of teaching to increase the opportunity for faculty advancement.

The problem of assessing and rewarding the scholarship of teaching is not only a local problem but also one of international significance. In a 1992 Carnegie Foundation international survey of college and university faculty in fourteen countries, at least two thirds of the faculty members surveyed said that their institutions needed to improve their evaluations of the scholarship of teaching (Glassick, 1997). In two Faculty Satisfaction Surveys on this HSC campus (1994, 1998) these findings were confirmed. However, academic health centers are caught in an interesting position in that we are not undergraduate institutions where the faculty can devote considerable time to traditional scholarly pursuits, but instead, we are wedded to both a university culture and health care industry imperatives. In addition to didactic teaching and research, the mission of academic health centers includes the demands of advancement of health care technology, the care of the undeserved, ambulatory and clinical teaching, supervising residents, performing clinical trials, and community service. These demands often conflict with the criteria for the rewards of promotion or tenure for our faculty (Bickel, 1991; Paulsen & Feldman, 1997; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998).

Critical Issues Driving IFC Ad Hoc Initiative

The Ad Hoc Committee determined critical issues driving this initiative based on previous input from faculty and administration through the HSC Faculty Satisfaction Surveys and Strategic Thinking Sessions. Those issues are: 1) HSC faculty and administration have devoted considerable time and energy in discussing teaching and its importance on the campus without significant change in the environment, and 2) faculty feel that teaching is a fundamental mission that is not well supported nor appropriately evaluated and rewarded.

Activities Employed by the Ad Hoc Committee

The Ad Hoc Committee employed the following activities to move its work forward:

• planning for and actively participating in the visit of Dr. Charles Glassick during his visits to each of the HSC schools, attending his keynote presentation, and participating in meetings with him.
• making efforts to define teaching and the scholarship of teaching.
• reviewing the mission and goal statements of each HSC school
• determining the evidence of teaching excellence/scholarship
• determining how we currently evaluate teaching
• revising the Fall 1998 Faculty Satisfaction Survey to include more questions focusing on issues related to the reward of teaching
• discussing the outcomes of the Faculty Satisfaction Survey with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness
• surveying the deans to determine each school’s support for teaching
• reviewing each school’s Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Policies in preparation for developing and surveying the APT Chairs
• surveying the ATP Committee chairs to determine the support of teaching in the promotion and tenure process
• writing a Report with recommendations
• submitting the Report to both the IFC and the Executive Council

The charge of the Committee was addressed through the development and administration of surveys to faculty, Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees, and deans to determine knowledge, attitudes, and current practices for documenting and evaluating teaching.
Three separate surveys were administered during the 1998-1999 academic year to gather information about the required information. Those surveys include 1) the 1998 Faculty Satisfaction Survey, 2) a Survey of the Deans regarding support for teaching in their schools, and 3) a Survey through a focus group of the Chairs of the APT Committees of each of the HSC Schools. Results from those surveys that impact this Report and ultimately the Recommendations are reflected in the following sections.

Faculty Satisfaction Survey

During the fall of 1998, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness administered a Faculty Satisfaction Survey. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee worked with The Office to incorporate additional questions to assess faculty satisfaction regarding the supportive culture and teaching environment at both the school and university level.

Overall, respondents to the Survey indicated that:

• Teaching was not valued for recognition (56.6%), promotion (62.0%) or tenure (59.5%).
• They were dissatisfied with the support for teaching (DB 45.5%, GSBS & SAHS 33.3%) as demonstrated by facilities, equipment, computers, and technology.
• They had mixed perceptions about feeling supported (DB 30%, SPH 45.8%) and unsupported  (DB 37.9%, SON 37.5%, GSBS & SAHS 66.7%, and MS 31.7%) by the level of university funding.
• They also felt unsupported in protected time allocated for teaching (DB 68.7, MS 52.7, SON 48%, and SPH 56.2%).
• Concerning the concept of support for teaching as demonstrated by actions at the UT-Houston level, they were uncertain (DB 19.7 %, MS, 24.2%, SON 33%, SPH 30.4%, GSBS & SAHS 33.3%) or felt unsupported (DB 34.1%, MS 26.5%, SON 20.8%, SPH 26.1%, and GSBS & SAHS 33.3%).
• By reviewing the individual comments offered by faculty from the Survey, there is a perception that teaching is undervalued, that research is overvalued, that the only factors considered for promotion/tenure are research and publications, and that there is a lack of support for teaching at all HSC schools at all levels.

The Deans of the schools were administered a survey through the mail during February 1999. Responses were received from the Dental School (DB), GSBS, the Medical School (MS), the School of Nursing (SON), and the School of Allied Health Sciences (SAHS).

• When asked if teaching is an integral component of the tenure and promotion process in their school, the deans from the SON and the SAHS Strongly Agreed while the MS and the DB deans Agreed. GSBS answered NA.
• When asked if teaching is an integral component of the tenure and promotion process at the HSC level all responding deans Agreed that it is.
• When asked to describe how their school rewards teaching, the deans referred to the Dean’s Teaching Excellence Award, the McGovern Teacher of the Year, the John Freeman Award, and merit awards. GSBS rewards faculty who demonstrate excellence in graduate education by reappointment with “Commendation” or “Highest Commendation.” Additionally, these faculty are cited at the UT-Houston Honors Convocation.

The chairs of the APT Committees were invited to a breakfast focus group where a structured questionnaire was administered through an interview format. The APT chairs from the DB, MS, SON, and SAHS were in attendance.

• When asked what factors their APT Committee members consider when making a decision about promotion for faculty, the chairs unanimously responded that teaching was taken into consideration.
• When asked what factors were considered when making a decision about tenure, the MS chair responded that mostly PhD’s get tenured because they are hired to do research and to be on tenure track. The SON also stated that the faculty on a research trajectory with extramural funding and published research based on Boyer’s discovery mode are the highest priority. The DB chair indicated that it is the same as for promotion. The SAHS stated that strong evidence of research leading to national and international recognition must be apparent. Teaching and service is also considered at SAHS.
• When asked what weight is given to teaching in evaluating a candidate who is going up for tenure, the SON responded very little as it is expected of all faculty. The MS responded that this is a very subjective evaluation with unpredictable results.  The DB responded that 33% teaching is expected, however, this response does not take into consideration the Faculty Development Planning that the faculty member and department chair have negotiated in regard to the faculty member’s teaching responsibility.
• When asked does your school’s APT Committee review a faculty member’s Faculty Development Plan in evaluating their accomplishments for either promotion or tenure, the SON replied no.  The MS stated not really--the letter from the department chair is more important, and the DB stated not yet since the development plans were only implemented two years ago.
• When asked how many of your faculty were promoted primarily on teaching in the last two years as compared to how many were promoted primarily on research, the MS responded none. The DB indicated one clinical track promotion, and the SON responded that one on non-tenure/clinical track was promoted last year and three were promoted two years ago.

Implications of Surveys

1. There is a substantial discrepancy between HSC deans' perceptions about the value and reward of teaching and those of individual school APT chairs.
2. The majority of faculty at the Health Science Center feels that teaching is largely an unrewarded (by promotion and tenure) activity.
3. There is a lack of support for teaching and teachers from Health Science Center schools.
4. These points indicate that there is a substantial disconnect between the HSC’s stated mission and its actual performance.

1. There is clear intent by the Texas Legislature for establishing education/teaching as the primary activity of The University of Texas (1999 U. T. System Annual Report).
2. The University of Texas Health Science Center – Houston clearly establishes education along with research and clinical service as its primary priority activities (UTH-HSC Mission Statement).
3. Each individual School mission mirrors the above legislative and HSC priority (School Mission Statements).
4. Historically, academic culture has bestowed the highest value on research activities (Banta, 1996; Cuban, 1999; Kennedy, 1997; Mayhew & van Stewart, 1998; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; & van Tassel et al. 1997).
5. Consequently, systems of support and evaluation for research activities have been established and continue to flourish.  These include large amounts of dedicated funds for research, establish methods of competition for such funds, along with systems for evaluation of research outcomes and values  (Banta, 1996; Cuban, 1999; Kennedy, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; & van Tassel et al. 1997).
6. Similar support systems for teaching are less prominent or non-existent. (Banta, 1996; Cuban, 1999; Kennedy, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; & van Tassel et al. 1997).
7. Immediate consequences for the non-existence of support systems for teaching include unclear lines of funding (faculty remuneration), unclear or non-existent systems for teacher evaluation, and unclear, non-existent or inadequate systems for teacher career advancement (i.e. promotion and/or tenure). (Banta, Boyer, Cuban, Glassick, Kennedy, Paulsen & Feldman, & van Tassel et al.)
8. Evidence of an inadequate support system for teaching include poor teaching, poor education of students, poor or non-existent faculty development support for teaching faculty, loss of good teachers, as well as a substantial impoverishment of entire academic systems (Banta, 1996; Glassick, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Svinicki & Menges, 1996; & van Tassel et al. 1997).
9. Primary problems confronting teaching faculty include unclear or non-existent systems of evaluation, recognition and reward (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Boyer, 1990; Cuban, 1999; Glassick, 1997; Massy, Wilger, & Colbeck, 1994; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Svinicki & Menges, 1996; & van Tassel et al 1997).
10. Effective mechanisms for teaching evaluation do exist.  These include peer and student evaluation, student performance on examinations, as well as teaching portfolio and CVs.   Mechanisms for recognition and reward of teaching faculty include career (promotion and tenure) and monetary advancement as well as teaching academies and other awards (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Boyer, 1990; Cuban, 1999; Glassick, 1997; Massy, Wilger, & Colbeck, 1994; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Svinicki & Menges, 1996; & van Tassel et al 1997).
11. Systems for evaluation and reward of qualified teaching faculty must be established.  At the very least these should include those elements mentioned in 10 above (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Boyer, 1990; Cuban, 1999; Glassick, 1997; Massy, Wilger, & Colbeck, 1994; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Svinicki & Menges, 1996; & van Tassel et al 1997).

A review the literature assisted the Committee in identifying characteristics of a supportive teaching culture because the presence of a campus culture that is supportive of teaching clearly enhances the effectiveness of all efforts to improve teaching and learning. The Committee also investigated those characteristics of a culture that is supportive of teaching in an effort to assist in benchmarking the HSC culture. Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the challenge of instructional improvement, a 1995 ASCHE-ERIC Higher Education Report indicates that the literature (Armour, 1995; Aitken & Sorcinelli, 1994; Massy, Wilger, and Colbeck, 1994; Rice & Austin, 1988) consistently identifies those supportive characteristics as:

• an unambiguous commitment to and support of teaching and its improvement from senior administration
• shared values about the importance of teaching between administration and faculty with widespread involvement of faculty in the planning and implementing of activities to improve teaching
• the presence of effective department chairs who are overtly supportive of teaching and its improvement
• frequent interaction and collaboration among faculty and a sense of community among faculty regarding teaching-related issues
• extensive faculty development programs or campus teaching centers
• a broad expanded view of scholarship and scholarly activities
• decisions about tenure and promotion connected to rigorous evaluations of teaching
• a requirement that some demonstration of effective teaching be a part of hiring new faculty.

Recommendations

1. The HSC must value teaching/education of students as one of the critical faculty activities, without which the University could not exist. (Bickel, 1991; Boyer, 1990; HSC Faculty Satisfaction Survey, 1998; Glassick, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1997; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998).
2. The HSC must recognize teaching as a faculty activity comparable in importance to the University missions of research and clinical service. (Bickel, 1991; Boyer, 1990; 1998 HSC Faculty Satisfaction Survey; Glassick, 1997; Nieman, LZ, Donoghue, GD, Ross, LL, & Morahan, PS; Paulsen & Feldman, 1997; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998).
3. The HSC and HSC schools should reward educators with promotion and tenure. (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Armour, 1995; Boyer, 1990; HSC Faculty Satisfaction Survey, 1998: Glassick, 1997; Kennedy, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1997; Seldin, Annis, & Zubizarreta, 1995).
4. Each HSC School should redraft its Promotion and Tenure document to include guidelines for awarding promotion and tenure for the scholarship of teaching. The guidelines would include ways that the candidate can document substantial teaching activities, including peer and student reviews, as well as the documentation of disseminated educational products (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Armour, 1995; Boyer, 1990; Hutchings, P., 1996; Glassick, 1997; Kennedy, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1997; Seldin, Annis, & Zubizarreta, 1995).
5. The HSC Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee should redraft its guidelines to reflect the changes implemented at the school level (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Armour, 1995; Boyer, 1990; Glassick, 1997; Kennedy, 1997; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Seldin, Annis, & Zubizarreta, 1995).
6. Faculty Development Plans negotiated by the faculty and chair that indicate effort in teaching, research, and service must be used in consideration for promotion and tenure decisions (Advisory Committee for Faculty Professional Development, 1997; Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry: Faculty Member Development Committee, 1995; Cohen, PA, 1996; Morahan, PS, & Nieman, LA, 1995; Nieman, LZ, Donoghue, GD, Ross, LL, & Morahan, PS; O’Neill, PN, & Dental Branch Faculty Senate, 1999).
7. The composition of the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees of the HSC schools must reflect a cross section of each school’s faculty at the associate or professorial level including clinician educators (UT Medical School APT Committee Guidelines; UT SON APT Committee Guidelines; UT SAHS APT Committee Guidelines; Personal conversations of faculty with authors of this report).
8. Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees should participate in educational training sessions to prepare them to understand, review, and determine appropriate rewards for the scholarship of teaching (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Nieman, LZ, Donoghue, GD, Ross, LL, & Morahan, PS; Rice & Austin, 1988; Wright & O’Neil, 1994).
9. Department chairs should participate in educational training sessions to prepare them to understand, review, and determine appropriate rewards for the scholarship of teaching (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Nieman, LZ, Donoghue, GD, Ross, LL, & Morahan, PS; Rice & Austin, 1988; Wright & O’Neil, 1994).
10. Faculty should participate in educational training sessions to prepare them to document their scholarship of teaching and/or the use of teaching portfolios (Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS, 1998; Hutchings, 1995 & 1996; Nieman, LZ, Donoghue, GD, Ross, LL, & Morahan, PS; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Seldin, Annie, & Zubizarreta, 1995; Simpson D., Beecher AC, Lindemann JC, & Murzinsk JA. 1993; Svinicki & Menges; 1996).
11. All Schools must employ strategies in the hiring process to determine whether applicants for faculty positions can demonstrate teaching excellence (Massy, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994; Rice & Austin, 1988; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995).
12. All Schools should support faculty development in teaching and the scholarship of teaching for their faculty (Entire reference list).
13. All schools should develop and implement a method of documenting the scholarship of teaching to increase the opportunity for promotion and tenure of its teaching faculty (Anglo, 1998, Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Glassick, 1997; Hutchings, 1995 & 1996; Rice, & Austin, 1988; Svinicki & Menges, 1996).
14. The Committee supports the development of Teaching Excellence Awards, a Teaching Academy of faculty who have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and an Excellent Teacher Certification process (Glassick, 1997; Svinicki & Menges, 1995).
15. The Committee strongly encourages the development of an HSC Faculty Development Center or Center for Teaching Excellence to support the scholarship of teaching (Glassick, 1997; Rice & Austin, 1988; Svinicki & Menges, 1995; Wright & O’Neil, 1994).
16. The Ad Hoc Committee strongly supports the formation of a Committee charged with the implementation of the above Recommendations.

Conclusions:

This health sciences university emphasizes five missions--those to teaching, research, patient care, community service, and institutional and personal development. The findings of this Report confirm that the first of these missions, teaching, has been sacrificed along with the mission of patient care and community service for the sake of the third mission, research. This imbalance has been furthered by the current reward system for HSC faculty, which rewards those who are successful researchers and is now a part of University culture. Excellent teaching faculty deserve to be tenured and promoted whether they are in the classroom, laboratory, hospital or clinic. Excellent teaching can be documented and evaluated. The existing excellence in teaching at the HSC can be improved upon through increased faculty support. Positive action on the above recommendations by the HSC President, Executive Vice Presidents, Deans, Departmental Chairs and faculty will result in the continued advancement of academic excellence at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

REFERENCE LIST

Books

1. Anglo, T. (Ed). New Directions in Teaching and Learning. Classroom Assessment and Research: An Update on Uses, Approaches, and Research Findings. 1998. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
2. Aitken, ND, & Sorcinelli, MD. Academic leaders and faculty developers: Creating an institutional culture that values teaching. To Improve the Academy. 1994; 13:63-77.
3. Armour, RA. 1995. Using Campus culture to foster improved teaching. In Improving College Teaching, edited by Peter Seldin, Bolton, Mass: Anker.
4. Banta, TW, Lund, JP, Black, KE, & Oblander, FW. Assessment in Practice: Putting Principles to Work on College Campuses. 1996. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
5. Braskamp, LA, & Ory, JC. Assessing Faculty Work. 1994. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6. Boyer, EL, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. 1990. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
7. Cuban, L. How Scholars Trumped Teachers: Change Without Reform in University Curriculum, Teaching, and Research, 1890-1990. 1999. NY: Columbia University Press, Teachers College Press.
8. Glassick, CE, Huber, MT, & Maeroll, GI. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. 1997. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
9. Hutchings, P. Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review. 1996. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.
10. Hutchings, P. (ed). From Idea to Prototype: The Peer Review of Teaching. (A Project Workbook). 1995. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.
11. Kennedy, Donald. Academic Duty. 1997. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
12. Paulsen, MB, & Feldman, KA. Taking Teaching Seriously: Meeting the Challenge of Instructional Improvement. 1995. Washington DC: Clearing House on Higher Education (ERIC) The George Washington University.
13. Seldin, P, Annis, LF, & Zubizarreta. Using the teaching portfolio to improve instruction in Teaching Improvement Practices edited by WA Wright. 1995. Bolton, Mass: Anker.
14. Svinicki, MD, & Menges RJ. (Eds) New Directions in Teaching and Learning. Honoring Exemplary Teaching. 1996. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

1. Albino, JE. Scholarship and dental education: New perspectives for clinical faculty. J of Dent Ed 1984;48(9);509-513.
2. Angstadt CN, Nieman LZ, Morahan PS. Strategies to Expand the Definition of Scholarship for the Health Professions. J of Allied Health, 1998;27(3)157-161.
3. Bickel, J. The changing faces of promotion and tenure at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1991;66:249-56.
4. Jones, RF, & Gold, JS. Faculty Appointment and Tenure Policies in medical schools: A 1997 Status Report. Acad Med. 1998;73:212-219.
5. Massy, WF, Wilger, AK, & Colbeck, C. 1994. Overcoming “Hollowed” Collegiality. Change 26(4): 11-20.
6. Mayhew, RB, Van Stewart, A. Review of current tenure policies and their relation to junior dental faculty. J of Dent Ed. 1998;4:302-306.
7. Nieman, LZ, Donoghue, GD, Ross, LL, & Morahan, PS. Implementing a Comprehensive Approach to Managing Faculty Roles, Rewards, and Development in an Era of Change. Acad Med. 1997;72(6)496-504.
8. Pellegrin, KL, & Arana, GW. Why the triple-threat approach threatens the viability of academic medical center. Acad Med. 1999;73:123-125.
9. Rice, ER & Austin, AE. 1988. High faculty morale. Change 20(2):51-58.
10. Seldin, P & Annis, LF. The teaching portfolio. J of Staff, Program and Organizational Development. 1990; 8(4):197-201.
11. Wilkerson, LA, & Irby, DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices: A comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med. 1998;73:387-396.
12. Williams, RL, Zyzanski, SJ, Flocke, SA, Kelly, RB, & Acheson, LS. Critical success factors for promotion and tenure in family medicine departments. Acad Med 1998:73;333-335.
13. Wright, WA & O’Neil MC. Teaching improvement practices: New perspectives. To Improve the Academy. 1994;13:5-37.

1. Academic Medicine. The Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Hanley & Belfus, Inc., 210 South 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA. 19107.
2. American Association of Higher Education (AERA) Bulletin. AERA, One Dupont Circle, Suite 360. Washington, DC.
3. American Educational Research Journal. (ISSN 0002-8312) American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
4. Journal of Dental Education. American Association of Dental Schools. 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 20036-2212.
5. Review of Educational Research. (ISSN 0034-6543). American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
6. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262.

1. Van Tassel, F, Blanchard, K, Dixon, P, Johnson, GR, Yeager, LD. Restructuring the University Reward System: A Report by the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum. 1997. Fort Worth: Side W. Richardson Foundation.

1. Advisory Committee for Faculty Professional Development. Faculty Professional Development Workbook. 1997. Allegheny University of Health Sciences: Office for Faculty Affairs.
2. Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry: Faculty Member Development Committee. 1995. Orientation New Full-and Part-time Faculty Members of Dental Faculties and Allied Institutions.
3. Cohen, PA. Promoting Effective Faculty Evaluation and Development Practice. 1996.  Baylor College of Dentistry.
4. Morahan, PS, Nieman, LZ, & Advisory Committee for Faculty Professional Development. 1995. Guide for Planning for Promotion and Tenure and Professional Career Development. Allegheny University of Health Sciences: Office for Faculty Affairs.
5. O’Neill, PN, & Faculty Senate. 1999. Faculty Development Plan and Evaluation Process. The University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center Dental Branch.
6. Simpson D., Beecher AC, Lindemann JC, & Murzinsk JA. 1993. Educator’s Portfolio. Milwaukee: Medical College of Wisconsin Center for Ambulatory Teaching Excellence.