Report and Recommendations
From the
The UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Health Science Center-Houston
Task Force
on
Identifying, Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching Excellence
Dr. Paula O’Neill, Dental Branch, Chair
Dr. William Schnapp, Medical School, Co-Chair
Ms. Linda Brannon, Health Science Center Administration, Co-Chair
Committee Members
Dr. Ted Pate, Dental Branch; Drs. Virginia Moyer, and Neal Waxham, Medical School; Dr. James Turley, School of Allied Health Sciences; Drs. Miguel da Cunha and Jeanette McNeill, School of Nursing; Dr. Elizabeth Heitman, School of Public Health; and Dr. Jon Weiner, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.
Reflectors
Drs. Linda Nieman, Linda Perkowski, and Gary Rosenfeld, Medical School.
Submitted to The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Executive Council
January 2001
In January of 2000, the Executive Council of The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UT-Houston) formed Task Force composed of representatives from each of the schools to investigate issues pertaining to the evaluation of teaching effectiveness on the HSC campus.
The work of the Task Force was an outcome of the Interfaculty Council Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Support, Recognition, and Reward of Teaching on the UT-Houston Campus. The Executive Summary of this Report can be found in Appendix A. The full Report is available from the Office of Research and Academic Affairs.
The UT-Houston Task Force on Teaching Excellence is charged with two activities by the Executive Council. Those two activities are to:
Define teaching excellence and identify its relationship to learning.
Identify methods of evaluating teaching excellence.
Each Health Science Center School is represented on the Task Force. The Task Force is led by Dr. Paula O’Neill, Dental Branch with the assistance of Dr. Bill Schnapp, past chair of the Interfaculty Council and Ms. Linda Brannon; Health Science Center Administration. Committee members are:
| Dr. Ted Pate | Dental Branch |
| Dr. Virginia Moyer | Medical School |
| Dr. Neal Waxham | Medical School |
| Dr. James Turley | School of Allied Health Sciences |
| Dr. Miguel da Cunha | School of Nursing |
| Dr. Jeanette McNeill | School of Nursing |
| Dr. Elizabeth Heitman | School of Public Health |
| Dr. Jon Wiener | Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences |
The Committee reviewed the Report and Recommendations from the Interfaculty Council Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Support, Recognition, and Reward of Teaching on the University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center Campus in preparation for undertaking its charge. Task Force members reviewed documents from other universities and health science centers related to the charge of this committee such as the Draft Report of the Task Force on Teaching Evaluation and Improvement from Ohio State University, the Effective Faculty Evaluation: Annual Salary Adjustments, Tenure, and Promotion Report, and the Guide for Planning for Promotion and Tenure and Professional Development from Allegheny University for Health Sciences. We also reviewed the literature (see attached bibliography) to provide structure.
Excellent teaching can be defined as documented exemplary faculty activities that occur before (preparation), during (delivery), and after (self-reflection and evaluation) teaching that help facilitate students’ learning and that results in measurable positive outcomes in students’ cognitive, affective and/or psychomotor academic domains.
The Task Force determined the qualitative standards as defined in Glassick’s Scholarship Assessed: The Evaluation of the Professoriate can also be used to describe or characterize excellent teaching. These criteria for teaching excellence include 1) clear goals, 2) adequate preparation, 3) appropriate methods, 4) effective presentation, 5) reflective critique, and 6) significant results are not meant to be prescriptive. Depending upon the learner, the educational goal, the educator role, or the educational setting, some may be more relevant than others. The Task Force also believes that the criteria meet Boyer’s and Glassick’s precept of the scholarship of teaching as found in the institutional Statement on Scholarship.
The following list of methods, evidence, sources, and products of documenting teaching excellence is intended to reflect the widest possible range of teaching activities applicable to the programs at UT-Houston. The individual methods, evidence, sources, and products may not apply to all situations. Schools will need to emphasize or prioritize those methods, evidence, sources, and products that are most applicable to their environments.
No one method or measure is sufficient to evaluate teaching excellence. Instead, multiple methods and measures must be used over time.
Rating scales/surveys
Observations
Interviews
Written critical appraisal
Measures of student outcomes and achievement
Documentation and records review
Measures of eminence, quality, and impact
Review of produced materials
Ratings of standardized activities or simulations
Student evaluations
Peer reviews
Market surveys
Professional/teaching/course portfolios
1. Excellent teaching should be documented, recognized, and rewarded in the same manner that excellent research is documented, recognized, and rewarded.
2. Each UT-Houston school should be charged with establishing guidelines to document, recognize, and reward the excellent teaching, as well as establishing guidelines for oversight of this process.
3. The criteria described in this Report should guide the University and school Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees in the evaluation of teaching excellence.
4. The UT-Houston schools and departments should provide faculty development activities and the infrastructure to support teaching excellence.
As has been said in the previously presented Report from the IFC Task Force, excellent teaching faculty deserve to be tenured and promoted whether they are in the classroom, laboratory, hospital or clinic. It has been shown that excellent teaching can be documented and evaluated and that the existing excellence in teaching at the HSC can be improved through increased support of faculty. Positive actions on the above recommendations by the Executive Council including Deans, Departmental Chairs, and Faculty will result in continued advancement of academic excellence at UT-Houston.
To implement these recommendations, it will take a change in the institutional culture that can only be accomplished by a commitment of the administration, allocation of resources, and education of the entire UT-Houston community.
November 11, 2000
The UTH-HSC Task Force on Teaching Excellence was charged with two activities by the Executive Council. Those two activities are to:
Define teaching excellence and identify its relationship to learning.
Identify methods of evaluating teaching excellence.
Each Health Science Center School is represented on the Task Force. The Task Force is led by Dr. Paula O’Neill, Dental Branch; Dr. Bill Schnapp, Medical School; and Ms. Linda Brannon; Health Science Center Administration. Committee members are:
| Dr. Ted Pate | Dental Branch |
| Dr. Virginia Moyer | Medical School |
| Dr. Neal Waxham | Medical School |
| Dr. James Turley | School of Allied Health Sciences |
| Dr. Miguel da Cunha | School of Nursing |
| Dr. Jeanette McNeill | School of Nursing |
| Dr. Elizabeth Heitman | School of Public Health |
| Dr. Jon Wiener | Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences |
Three reflectors Dr. Linda Nieman, Dr. Linda Perkowski, and Dr. Gary Rosenfeld from the Medical School have supported the Task Force by making important contributions to the process and progress of the work undertaken.
The Committee employed the following activities to move its work forward:
1. A review the Report and Recommendations from the Interfaculty Council Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Support, Recognition, and Reward of Teaching on the University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center Campus in preparation for undertaking its charge.
2. A review of documents from other universities and health science centers related to the charge of this committee such as the:
· Draft Report of the Task Force on Teaching Evaluation and Improvement from Ohio State University,
· Effective Faculty Evaluation: Annual Salary Adjustments, Tenure, and Promotion Report from Kansas State University,
· Guide for Planning for Promotion and Tenure and Professional Development from Allegheny University for Health Sciences.
3. A review of the UTHSC-Houston Faculty Satisfaction Surveys (1998 and 1994).
4. A review of the literature (see attached bibliography).
5. The writing of the Report and Recommendations for submission to the Executive Council.
The purpose of teaching is to help students learn more effectively and efficiently than they would on their own. We should call teaching exemplary only when we have face-valid evidence that it is powerfully and positively affecting student learning. (Angelo, Honoring Exemplary Teaching, p. 59)
Teaching means demonstrating a pedagogy of substance. Excellent teachers learn what it takes to make students understand the concept, apply it, and integrate it (Shulman, AAHE Bulletin, 1989). Additionally, teachers not only transmit knowledge, but also transform and extend it (Boyer, 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered). Teaching includes instructing, conducting laboratories, mentoring, tutoring, and advising among others (Braskamp and Orgy, 1994, Assessing Faculty Work).
Teaching does not take place in a vacuum. Teaching is not teaching without students, and discoveries should be made known to more than the discoverer. That is, teaching should lead to communication with colleagues, as well as with students. Indicators of excellence in teaching may relate to the sharing of innovative instructional materials and concepts through both formal and informal means.
Teaching is a learned combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Evaluation of faculty must be formative and supportive as well as summative.
An HSC infrastructure is necessary to support teaching and educational scholarship (Bolman and Deal, 1997).
Educational research documents that excellent teaching is directly linked to enhanced student learning.
Excellent teaching can be defined as documented exemplary faculty activities that occur before (preparation), during (delivery), and after (self-reflection and evaluation) teaching that help facilitate students’ learning and that results in measurable positive outcomes in students’ cognitive, affective and/or psychomotor academic domains.
Included in the cognitive domain are both specific cognitive skills including subject matter expertise, general cognitive skills (e.g., analytical thinking), and metacognitive skills (e.g., error correction).
Included in the affective domain are attitudes and interests towards the subject matter in particular and learning in general, as well as interpersonal skills and abilities relevant to learning and working in a social context.
Included in the psychomotor domain are physical skills that include both fine and gross motor skills (clinical skills).
To assist students to solve the learning tasks associated with learning a particular concept, faculty require expertise in the discipline of teaching in addition to expertise in the subject being taught.
Teaching occurs in many different venues and settings in the schools of UT-Houston (UT-Houston). The educator role that the faculty member assumes in teaching varies based on the environment in which she or he teaches. For example, faculty may assume the following roles:
Lecturer
Small group facilitator/leader
Laboratory instructor
Teacher/Preceptor in clinical setting
Mentor/Advisor/Consultant
Field /Community Service instructor
Distance educator
The student population at UT-Houston is composed of many different groups of learners such as the following:
Professional degree seeking students
Professional Certificate Seeking Students
Residents
Graduate Students
Postdoctoral students/fellows
Continuing education students
Faculty
K-12
College students
Public/Community
The Task Force examined the literature to assist in defining and assessing excellent teaching (see annotated bibliography). Systematic assessment of teachers by their students has occurred for the past 75 years.
The Task Force determined the qualitative standards as defined in Glassick’s Scholarship Assessed: The Evaluation of the Professoriate can also be used to describe or characterize excellent teaching. These criteria for teaching excellence (see below) are not meant to be prescriptive. Depending upon the learner, the educational goal, the educator role, or the educational setting, some of the following may be more relevant than others. The Task Force also believes that the criteria below meet Boyer’s and Glassick’s precept of the scholarship of teaching as found in the institutional Statement on Scholarship.
An excellent teacher is clear about the aims of his or her work.
1 . Articulates clear, realistic, achievable goals/objectives that relate to the course expectations and level of the learners.
2. Appropriately sequences goals and objective in the context of basic knowledge and/or important/current questions in the field.
3 . Develops clear goals and objectives that are realistic and achievable in the setting (e.g., inpatient ward, out-patient clinic), and consistent with course expectations and level of learners.
4. Modifies goals and objectives in response to "teachable moments" and changes in the educational setting.
5 . Helps define intellectual problems that reflect current knowledge in a field of study.
An excellent teacher is well prepared.
1. Uses accurate, current resources to develop the content of lectures.
2. Selects, synthesizes, and interprets material matched to the level of the learners.
3. Demonstrates command of basic concepts and current thinking.
4. Uses and recommends up-to-date varied learning resources.
5. Uses course goals and objectives, and current trends in patient care to prepare and focus teaching encounters.
6. Combines thoughtful planning about the group and individual learning needs with the defined learning objectives.
7. Seeks and acquires current knowledge of subject matter, teaching methods, and learning theory.
An excellent teacher uses appropriate methods and educational strategies.
1. Uses methods that reveal the logic, organization, and relevance of the material.
2. Matches the quantity of material to learner level and allotted time.
3. Uses images, metaphors, analogies, and examples that connect the subject matter to the students' experience and knowledge.
4. Uses pedagogically sound syllabi/handouts and audiovisual aids/instructional technologies.
5. Demonstrates responsiveness to learners' reactions during the presentation.
6. Allows sufficient time for interaction with the learner.
7. Asks questions to promote learning. Listens critically and responds informatively.
8. Provides specific timely feedback and recommendations for improvement.
9. Establishes and maintains a climate conducive to learning.
10. Uses appropriate group process skills.
11. Modifies his/her approach to the learner over time.
12. Skillfully applies teaching methods and learning theories to the teaching environment.
13. Adapts methods as the circumstance change.
14. Questions, responds, motivates, and reflectively critiques through role modeling and feedback.
15. Models professional attitudes and behaviors.
16. Designs/implements tests and evaluation materials that are consistent with stated goals and objectives.
An excellent teacher presents and communicates effectively with students and colleagues in a variety of educational settings.
Provides appropriate orientation for learning experiences.
Communicates to learners evidence of systematic application of one's intellect.
Demonstrates enthusiasm and interest in the topic.
Delivers message with clarity and organization.
Is motivating/stimulating
Appropriately clarifies, elaborates, consolidates information.
Confirms learners' understanding.
Provides handout material matched to the goals and objectives of the presentation.
Capitalizes on the spontaneous occurrence of "teachable moments" during the presentation.
Presents difficult topics in ways that help students learn.
Provides clear explanations and stimulates learners based on learner and peer evaluation.
Shares methods, innovative techniques, and experiences with colleagues.
Mentors newer or less experienced teachers.
Seeks continuous career development from internal and external sources.
Helps the group establish clear standards and expectations for the group and the individuals.
Facilitates discussion of content, provides and facilitates feedback and assessment (written and oral).
Demonstrates skills in group process, facilitation, feedback, and assessment.
Enables student-directed learning and student-directed teaching.
The following can be used to describe the outcomes of excellent teaching.
An excellent teacher thinks about his or her work and seeks the opinions of others so the teaching experience and outcomes can be improved.
Develops as a teacher over time
Enhances his/her teaching skills through reading, discussion with colleagues, or participation in workshops.
Seeks and responds to feedback regarding his/her teaching.
Discusses outcomes of sessions and related strategies with other teachers.
Talks with colleagues about critical teaching incidents.
Translates insights from reflective critique to teaching practices.
Responds constructively to student and peer feedback to improve and advance his/her skills as a teacher and facilitator.
Acquires new or advanced educational skills relevant and applicable to the teaching and learning environment.
An excellent teacher contributes to students’ knowledge, and stimulates the student to express him or herself to solve problems, and to engage in self-directed learning.
Promotion of learner’s thinking skills
Educational objectives and outcomes are achieved.
Learners' narrative comments and ratings indicate that the teacher achieved the stated goals and objectives.
Learners' performances on examinations demonstrate achievement of objectives.
Learners' cognitive, process, and presentation skills become more focused and improved over time.
Learners' questions improve in quality over time.
Learners demonstrate ability to analyze problems better and work more independently over time.
Feedback has a constructive impact on learners.
Peers recognize and adopt/adapt the teaching methods.
Assessing teaching is a highly contextual process requiring the development of “communities of shared reflective judgment” (Shulman, Change, 1993, p. 6)
The following list of methods, evidence, sources, and products of documenting teaching excellence is intended to reflect the widest possible range of teaching activities applicable to the programs at UT-Houston. The individual methods, evidence, sources, and products may not apply to all situations. Schools will need to emphasize or prioritize those methods, evidence, sources, and products that are most applicable to their environments.
No one method or measure is sufficient to evaluate teaching excellence. Instead, multiple methods and measures must be used over time.
13. Rating scales/surveys
14. Observations
15. Interviews
16. Written critical appraisal
17. Measures of student outcomes and achievement
18. Documentation and records review
19. Measures of eminence, quality, and impact
20. Review of produced materials
21. Ratings of standardized activities or simulations
22. Student evaluations
23. Peer reviews
24. Market surveys
13. Professional/teaching/course portfolios
1. Contact and preparation time
2. Learning activities (e.g., laboratory, exercises, case studies)
3. Evaluation tools
4. Honors and awards for teaching
5. Results of guiding and mentoring students/faculty
6. Administration/management activities
7. Course materials
1. Self-assessment
2. Faculty colleagues (Peers, both internal and external)
3. Administrators
4. Faculty development professionals
5. Students
6. Alumni
7. Patients
8. Teacher/education consultants (Peers)
9. Content experts (Peers)
10. Conference/workshop participants
11. Community
1. Administration
2. Course and curriculum development
3. Grants
4. Instructional program development
5. Presentations
6. Professional Service (Internal/External)
7. Public service
8. Publishing
9. Research
1. Excellent teaching should be documented, recognized, and rewarded in the same manner that excellent research is documented, recognized, and rewarded.
2. Each UT-Houston school should be charged with establishing guidelines to document, recognize, and reward the excellent teaching, as well as establishing guidelines for oversight of this process.
3. The criteria described in this Report should guide the University and school Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees in the evaluation of teaching excellence.
4. The UT-Houston schools and departments should provide faculty development activities and the infrastructure to support teaching excellence.
To implement these recommendations, it will take a change in the institutional culture that can only be accomplished by a commitment of the administration, allocation of resources, and education of the entire University community.
REFERENCE LIST
The following is a Reference List that was used by the authors in support of this Report. The references include models for the evaluation of the scholarship of teaching.
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.
Aitken, ND, & Sorcinelli, MD. Academic leaders and faculty developers: Creating an institutional culture that values teaching. To Improve the Academy. 1994; 13:63-77.
Armour, RA. 1995. Using Campus culture to foster improved teaching. In Improving College Teaching, edited by Peter Seldin, Bolton, Mass: Anker.
Banta, TW, Lund, JP, Black, KE, & Oblander, FW. Assessment in Practice: Putting Principles to Work on College Campuses. 1996. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Braskamp, LA, & Ory, JC. Assessing Faculty Work. 1994. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bolman, LG, & Deal, TE. Reframing Organizations. 1997. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Boyer, EL, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. 1990. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
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.
Glassick, CE, Huber, MT, & Maeroll, GI. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. 1997. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kennedy, Donald. Academic Duty. 1997. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
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.
Seldin, P, Annis, LF, & Zubizarreta. Using the teaching portfolio to improve instruction in Teaching Improvement Practices edited by WA Wright. 1995. Bolton, Mass: Anker.
Svinicki, MD, & Menges RJ. (Eds) New Directions in Teaching and Learning. Honoring Exemplary Teaching. 1996. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Articles
Abrami, PC., d’Appollonia, S., & Cohen, PA. “A validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not know.” Journal of Educational Psychology. 1990; (82);219-231.
Albino, JE. Scholarship and dental education: New perspectives for clinical faculty. J of Dent Ed 1984;48(9);509-513.
Bickel, J. The changing faces of promotion and tenure at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1991;66:249-56.
Feldman, KA. “The association between student ratings on specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies.” Research In Higher Education. 1989. (30);014-137.
Fincher, RM, Simpson, DE, Mennin, SP, Rosenfeld, GC, Rothman, A, McGrew MC, Hansen, PA, Mazmanian, PE, & Turnbull, JM. Scholarship in teaching: An imperative for the 21st century. Acad Med. 2000; 75: 887-894.
Jones, RF, & Gold, JS. Faculty Appointment and Tenure Policies in medical schools: A 1997 Status Report. Acad Med. 1998;73:212-219.
Lowman, J. “Characteristics of Exemplary Teachers.” Honoring Exemplary Teaching. 1996. (65); 33-40.
Marsh, HW. “Multidimensional students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: A test of alternative higher-order structures.” Journal of Educational Psychology. 1991: (83);285-296.
Massy, WF, Wilger, AK, & Colbeck, C. 1994. Overcoming “Hollowed” Collegiality. Change 26(4): 11-20.
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.
Pellegrin, KL, & Arana, GW. Why the triple-threat approach threatens the viability of academic medical center. Acad Med. 1999;73:123-125.
Rice, ER & Austin, AE. 1988. High faculty morale. Change 20(2):51-58.
Seldin, P & Annis, LF. The teaching portfolio. J of Staff, Program and Organizational Development. 1990; 8(4):197-201.
Sidanius, J, & Crane, M. “Job evaluation and gender: The case of university faculty.” Journal of Applied and Social Psychology. 1989. (19):519-527.
Wilkerson, LA, & Irby, DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices: A comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med. 1998;73:387-396.
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.
Wright, WA & O’Neil MC. Teaching improvement practices: New perspectives. To Improve the Academy. 1994;13:5-37.
Academic Medicine. The Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Hanley & Belfus, Inc., 210 South 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA. 19107.
American Association of Higher Education (AERA) Bulletin. AERA, One Dupont Circle, Suite 360. Washington, DC.
American Educational Research Journal. (ISSN 0002-8312) American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Journal of Dental Education. American Association of Dental Schools. 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 20036-2212.
Review of Educational Research. (ISSN 0034-6543). American Educational Research Association, 1230 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262.
O’Neill, PN, Schnapp, W, Dosch, R, Pate, T, Darlington, P, Goka, T, Karin, N, Wiener, J, Barratt, M, Berry, J, Nieman, L, Perkoswki, L, Czerwinski, B, daCunha, M, Johnson, C, Turley, J, Ford, C. Report and Recommendations from the Interfaculty Council Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Support, Recognition, and Reward of Teaching on the University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center Campus. 1999. Houston: UTHHSC.
Sills, GM, Beja, M, Bursten, BE, Cole, DW, Dahlstrand, FC, Dinitz, S, Sears, SJ, Leitzel, JR, Pruitt, AS. Report of the Task Force on Teaching Evaluation and Improvement. 1988. Ohio State University.
University Task Force on Faculty Evaluation and the Executive Committee of the University Task Force on the Impact of Tenure and Promotion Practices Upon Excellence. 1991. Kansas State University.
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.
Faculty Development Materials
Advisory Committee for Faculty Professional Development. Faculty Professional Development Workbook. 1997. Allegheny University of Health Sciences: Office for Faculty Affairs.
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.
Cohen, PA. Promoting Effective Faculty Evaluation and Development Practice. 1996. Baylor College of Dentistry.
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.
O’Neill, PN, & Faculty Senate. 1999. Faculty Development Plan and Evaluation Process. The University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center Dental Branch.