The authors begin from an observation that will resonate well beyond dentistry: dental training has transformed dramatically in recent decades, shifting from instructor-centred lecturing to structured, learner-centred, outcomes-driven models. Modern dental schools are expected to produce graduates who are not only clinically competent but also capable of critical thinking, reflective practice, and lifelong learning. That shift has quietly expanded the job description of the dental academic. Beyond supervising clinics, today’s dental schools demand competence in curriculum design, assessment development, innovative pedagogy, programme evaluation, and educational research. Yet, the authors note, the definition of who qualifies as a “dental educationist” remains stubbornly unclear, with institutions recognising expertise based on teaching experience, years of service, or leadership appointments alone.

Central to the paper is a conceptual distinction the authors draw between two roles that are often conflated. A dental educator, in their framing, is someone engaged in teaching dentistry whose expertise rests largely on clinical experience and practical teaching exposure. A dental educationist, by contrast, is someone with formal postgraduate academic preparation in education, whether in dental, medical, or health professions education, combined with scholarly expertise and an understanding of the dental context. The two roles are complementary but distinct. Dental educators deliver content and facilitate clinical learning; dental educationists drive the systematic advancement of educational practice through theory-informed design, critical evaluation, and research-led innovation. Crucially, an educator can become an educationist through formal postgraduate preparation, integrating experiential teaching skill with formally developed educational expertise.

The technical heart of the argument lies in the authors’ breakdown of dental education as an interdisciplinary scholarly field. Far from being synonymous with teaching, they contend, it spans several applied domains, each underpinned by its own theoretical frameworks: curriculum development, instructional design, teaching and learning, learner assessment, leadership and management, programme evaluation, and educational scholarship. Dental education sits at the intersection of dentistry, health professions education, and the broader educational and social sciences, drawing on educational theory, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and measurement traditions. Its distinctive contribution is applying these foundations within the professional context of dentistry, from clinical learning and patient care to preparation for practice. Doctoral-level research on dental curricula, assessment, and pedagogy is now published in dedicated journals such as the Journal of Dental Education and the European Journal of Dental Education, signalling the field’s growing academic maturity.

Take curriculum development as an example of why experience alone falls short. The authors describe it as a systematic process involving needs assessment, formulation of learning outcomes, comprehensive curriculum mapping, and constructive alignment between outcomes, teaching strategies, and assessments. Established models such as Tyler’s model, Taba’s model, Wheeler’s cyclical model, and backward design provide structured approaches, while contemporary curricula often adopt integrated and spiral designs that revisit concepts at increasing complexity. Professional standards reinforce the point: the Academy of Medical Educators expects advanced educators to conduct complex learning needs analyses across learners, groups, professions, or healthcare systems, and to define learning outcomes within theoretical frameworks using appropriate taxonomies of learning. Curriculum design undertaken without such preparation, the authors warn, is more vulnerable to fragmentation, misalignment, or tradition-driven decision-making.

Assessment emerges as perhaps the most technically demanding domain. Modern dental assessment spans written formats such as Single Best Answer and Extended Matching Questions, clinical examinations like the Objective Structured Clinical Examination, and workplace-based assessments including the Mini-CEX, Direct Observation of Procedural Skills, and multisource feedback, often aligned with Miller’s pyramid of competence. Designing defensible assessments requires command of validity, reliability, fairness, and standard setting, including techniques such as blueprinting and standard-setting methods like the Angoff procedure and borderline regression, which the authors note are not consistently understood or implemented among dental educators. The Faculty of Dental Trainers expects educators to maintain knowledge of current assessment theory and apply it to assessment design and quality assurance, while the Academy of Medical Educators expects advanced practitioners to integrate multiple assessment data into a holistic view of learner progression. Outcomes such as professionalism, ethical reasoning, and teamwork demand still more complex approaches to the affective domain, including reflective portfolios and longitudinal observation.

The paper also elevates two domains that are frequently overlooked: educational leadership and programme evaluation. Dental educators often assume roles involving strategic planning, curriculum governance, faculty development, and change management, drawing on leadership theories ranging from transformational to servant leadership. Recent work in dental education, the authors note, has highlighted the importance of structured strategic planning and effective educational governance in creating sustainable academic environments. Programme evaluation, meanwhile, goes well beyond collecting student satisfaction surveys. Structured frameworks such as Kirkpatrick’s model, the Context, Input, Process, Product model, and logic models guide the design of evaluation questions, the selection of indicators, and the systematic analysis of outcomes ranging from clinical competence to workforce impact and patient-centred care. Without methodologically sound approaches, evaluation efforts risk being superficial, biased, or unable to generate meaningful conclusions for decision-making.

Importantly, the authors do not dismiss experience. They acknowledge that experienced dental educators possess valuable tacit knowledge that enables them to mentor students, contextualise learning, and navigate complex clinical scenarios, and that they play a crucial role in shaping professional identity and fostering clinical reasoning. The problem is sufficiency. Designing a defensible assessment system requires psychometric principles; curriculum development requires educational theory; and repeated use of familiar teaching methods may build delivery proficiency without providing the theoretical foundation needed to judge whether alternative strategies would better serve particular learners or outcomes. Competence in delivering an established educational activity, the authors argue, should not be conflated with expertise in designing, evaluating, or theoretically justifying the educational system within which that activity occurs. Trial-and-error approaches, they add, carry real risks of compromising educational quality along the way.

The clearest roadmap comes from medicine, which has undergone a notable professionalisation of education as a scholarly field. Postgraduate qualifications such as Master’s and Doctorate programmes in medical, dental, or health professions education have become common among individuals in educational leadership, curriculum development, and educational research, and their global expansion reflects growing recognition of education as a legitimate academic discipline. These programmes provide structured training across curriculum design, assessment, pedagogy, and research methodology, and have contributed to more robust educational systems characterised by evidence-informed teaching and defensible assessment. Dental education structures, by comparison, remain less consistently developed across institutions and regions, with dedicated education departments far less established than in medicine. The parallels in educational challenges, the authors argue, provide a strong rationale for dentistry to develop clearer pathways for recognising educational expertise.

The article closes with a call to institutions: provide access to postgraduate training, promote faculty development, recognise educational qualifications in career progression, and consider establishing dedicated dental education units and education-focused academic pathways. Within such structures, formally prepared dental educationists can work alongside clinical specialists, basic scientists, and experienced educators, bridging disciplinary silos that often fragment curriculum planning and assessment. The authors are careful to note that postgraduate training demands time, money, and institutional support, so professionalisation efforts must also ensure accessibility through protected time and recognition. Their bottom line is disarmingly simple: just as clinical expertise is underpinned by structured training, recognised qualifications, and professional standards, specialised expertise in dental education should be underpinned by formal academic preparation in education, complemented by experience and continued scholarship. If we expect excellence in how dentistry is practised, they conclude, we must also expect excellence in how it is taught.

Subject of Research: Defining specialised expertise and professional standards in dental education

Article Title: Defining specialised expertise in dental education

Article References: Lin, G. S. S., & Foong, C. C. (2026). Defining specialised expertise in dental education. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02311-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02311-1

Keywords: dental education, health professions education, curriculum design, assessment, educational expertise, faculty development, educational leadership, programme evaluation, postgraduate qualifications, medical education, teaching, educational scholarship