What do you think of this _ _ by xiuliliaofz


									Curricular Modifications
       to Meet the
2005 CCC-SLP Standards
 in a Rural CSD Program
   Robert W. Quesal, Ph.D.
     Program in Communication
       Sciences and Disorders
       Western Illinois University
             Macomb, IL
Some guiding principles
• "The one serious conviction
  that a man should have is that
  nothing is to be taken too
  seriously." - Samuel Butler
• I apologize in advance to those I
  may offend
• Editorial license
Bob and the standards:
     A love story
  Robert W. Quesal, Ph.D.
     Program in Communication
       Sciences and Disorders
          Western Illinois University
                Macomb, IL

      Council of Academic Programs in
    Communication Sciences and Disorders
              Palm Springs, CA
               April 26, 2002
Applying the new standards:

Into the coal mine…

                 …without a light
     The New Standards in
     context – Into the coal mine

• “The number one cause
 of problems is solutions”
• Problems?
• Well, yes – Let’s be honest
      Summarizing the New

• Students will know it all
• Students will do it all
• Students learn it all…

…in their graduate programs!
     The New Standards in
     context – Into the coal mine

• We have been asked (told) to
  enter the coal mine (without
  a light) and begin digging
• Those who told us to dig are,
  in general, not fellow miners
• Standards that all programs will try to
  meet, but none will fully
• De-emphasis of disorder areas
  • Fluency is the canary in the coal mine – others will follow
• “Flexibility” for how information is taught
  and learned will lead to considerable
  variability from program to program
  • Programs will “play to their strengths”
• Other problems we haven’t even thought
  about – but they are out there
• “The test of a first-rate intelligence
  in the ability to hold two opposed
  ideas in the mind at the same time,
  and still retain the ability to function.
  One should, for example, be able to
  see that things are hopeless and yet
  be determined to make them
                     -F. Scott Fitzgerald

• In the face of all this, what did
  WIU do?
• We played to our strengths
• Actually, the new standards
  have provided an opportunity to
  evaluate what we do well and
  what we can do better

• “Good” timing
 • CAA site visit in Fall of 2000
 • Elimination of Audiology
 • Faculty retirements
 • New faculty

• Applied the Feynman
 Problem-Solving Algorithm:
  1. Write down the problem
  2. Think real hard
  3. Write down the answer

• “Graduate Curriculum Review
  Committee” formed in Jan 2001
  • Evaluated current curriculum in light of CAA
    comments and new standards
  • Met (almost) weekly from Jan-May 2001
    • consulted with all faculty
  • Presented curriculum proposal at Faculty
    Retreat in early May 2001
    • tweaking/preliminary faculty approval at that time
• I wrote paperwork for new curriculum in Fall
  2001, faculty reviewed/edited content
  • New course proposals
  • Elimination of some classes (with goal of
    “integration” of that information into new
    or existing classes)
  • Changes in some course titles, course descriptions,
    credit hours – “cosmetic changes”
  • Program grew from 45 credit hours to 47 credit hours
• Consultation with chair/dean
• Submitted to Graduate Council and approved in
  December 2001 – will go into effect Fall 2002

•   Fluency doesn’t go (until I do)
•   Full class in dysphagia
•   “Oral motor” class
•   “Audiology for the SLP”
    • to keep audiology “presence” at grad level
• “Seminar” adds flexibility
• Research component
    • All students will do a research project or thesis
• Portfolio assessment
  • Currently being developed
  • Benefits:
    • students document and observe growth in
      their knowledge and skills
    • we document that students meet the 2005
    • students have something tangible to show
      potential employers
    • faculty more aware of overall curriculum
A repository for portfolios
      What’s good?

• Portfolio and research
  components, if carried out
  properly, should help students (and
  faculty) see inter-relationships
  between components of the
  curriculum, lead to less
     What’s good?

• Faculty must review their
  classes to ensure that adequate
  opportunities are provided for
  demonstration of competence
• Less “let me talk” and more
  “show me how you can apply
  what you have learned”
     Potential pitfalls

• Faculty must “walk the walk”
  • Some initial resistance could go
    either way
• To what extent are we willing to
  change what we have done for a
  number of years?
• Time will tell
       The future
• I’m pleased with what we have done at
  WIU, but I remain concerned
  • As we (not just WIU, but the whole
    profession) embark upon implementation of
    the new standards, we are faced with
    opportunities we have not had before
  • In an ideal world, those opportunities would
    lead to change for the better
  • The “flexibility” of the new standards leaves
   many, many gray areas
  • What will we see when we look back in 5
    years (or less)?
      The future?
• “This [was] an ineffective solution to
     a non-existent problem.”
                           -Victor Frysinger
• The three classic stages of denial:
  1. That could never work
  2. Sure you can do it, but why
     would you want to?
  3. I said it was a good idea all along

To top