The volume of content (knowledge, evidence, skills, critical thinking and reasoning…) has become so extensive that it sometimes seems impossible to cover everything for a Master’s degree within a reasonable amount of time (4 semesters; 6…8…). Now, with the probability of having a doctoral level entry and the additional requirements that will entail, how long a program will be enough yet still be reasonable?
I fall back on the idea that if we teach our students how to learn within the discipline (how to learn a new assessment; how to learn new therapeutic skills; where to find evidence and appraise it…) that we would not need to cover every detail while still graduating competent entry-level clinicians. Figuring out the balance is difficult. Feedback from graduates is often “you didn’t teach enough of_____(whatever it was they needed on the last Level II FW)” and the knee-jerk reaction is to add that in wherever it might fit. That leads to content bloat.
How do we synthesize the core elements of occupational therapy? Do we focus on therapeutic use of self, theory (horrors – why would we do that?), and the above advanced “learn to teach yourself” and trust the rest will fall into place? No – we need the basic skill sets – ROM, MMT, transfers. Wait – how about behavioral health issues? Working in a community? Pharmacology? The snowball advances to the avalanche of content that swamps our students and increases their graduation debt.
It would be nice for the academician to believe much will come together on fieldwork. Yet due to productivity constraints, the fieldwork educators are expecting students to “hit the ground running” and disparage a program that does not teach all they expect. This becomes a vicious cycle, unless there is sufficient communication between the program and the fieldwork sites to belay conflicts.
Clear communications…amongst faculty, clinicians, students, administrators, stakeholders, clients…takes time and forethought. Yet I think that is what will provide the answer to this challenge.