6/23/2019

1

Adaptive Repertoire Development of a Signature Pedagogy

Christine E. Wright, PhD, OTR/LInnovations in OT and PT Education Summit

Creighton UniversityJune 28, 2019

College of Nursing and Health Professions

Disclaimer and Fair Use Statement• This presentation may contain copyrighted material, the use of

which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is available in an effort to explain issues relevant to the development of signature pedagogies for professional education programs. Only small portions of the original work are used so the original work could not be easily duplicated.

• This should constitute a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material (referenced and provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

• If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this presentation for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain expressed permission from the copyright owner.

Copyright Statement• Copyright © Dr. Christine E. Wright 2019

• The Adaptive Repertoire signature pedagogy is the intellectual property of the author.

• Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, education purposes ONLY to the participants of the 2019 Innovations in OT and PT Education Summit.

• To disseminate otherwise or republish requires written permission by the author.

6/23/2019

2

Objectives

• Participants will understand the concept of and need for a signature pedagogy in Occupational Therapy.

• Participants will understand how four core documents formed the signature pedagogy Adaptive Repertoire.

• Participants will understand the specific contributions of each core document to the Adaptive Repertoire signature pedagogy.

What is a Signature Pedagogy?• As the editors suggest in Ch. 1, faculty

want students to learn more than basic concepts, we want them to understand and practice disciplinary ways of thinking or habits of the mind. 1

• Signature pedagogies invoke the core characteristics of a discipline to help students think and act like a OT, PT, SLP, Lawyer, etc. 2

2009

OT Pedagogical History

• Ch. 14 authors proposed that the historical signature pedagogy for Occupational Therapy is…..3

Relational Learning and

Active Engagement

2012

6/23/2019

3

OT Pedagogical History• Relational Learning – Intimate tie between educator and

student.

• Pre WWII: “We are what we do” – Knowledge imparted through a mentor – mentee relationship in an apprentice model.

• After WWII: Teaching moved into universities with medical centers – “learning by doing” took the form of classroom-based education along with fieldwork training.

• Now: Huge increase in the number of programs. Therefore, “desired ways of being” communicated through the culture of the individual program.

Problems• If “desired ways of being” is communicated through the culture of

the individual program, why do we continue to have practitioners who do not practice occupation-based, evidence-based intervention?

• How do we know that fieldwork educators can continue the relational learning and explicitly describe the desired way of being an OT?

• If relational learning and active engagement has been and still is the signature pedagogy for Occupational Therapy, then why have we not explained the thinking frame behind relational learning?

My Response• I have been arguing since 2003 that Occupational

Therapy has not fully realized and articulated a signature pedagogy.

• Relational learning lacks evidence especially as it relates to fieldwork supervisors EXPLICITLY teaching students how to think like an OT.

• Modern OT professional education can no longer afford to ignore this problem.

6/23/2019

4

Evidence of the Problem

• Blueprint for Entry-Level Education – The purpose of the Blueprint for Entry-Level Education is to identify the content knowledge that occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants should receive in their educational programs. 4

• Occupational Therapy Model Curriculum – The purpose of this Guide is, therefore, to provide an overarching view of curriculum design that can be adapted to the vision that faculty may have for their particular institution. 5

• Focus on SoTL – SoTL asks the questions “what are we teaching and what are the students learning?”6

Evidence of the Problem• Philosophy of Occupational Therapy Education (2014) 7

• Preamble: The education process includes academic and fieldwork components and is distinctly concerned with beliefs about knowledge, learning, and teaching.

• What are the fundamental beliefs of occupational therapy education? The learning context includes the curriculum and pedagogy and conveys a perspective and belief system that includes a view of humans as occupational beings, occupation as a health determinant, and participation as a fundamental right.

Evidence of the Problem

• Philosophy of Occupational Therapy Education (2014)

• What are the values within occupational therapy education?

• Active and diverse learning within and beyond the classroom environment

• A collaborative process that builds on prior knowledge and experience

• Continuous professional judgment, evaluation, and self-reflection

• Lifelong learning

6/23/2019

5

What should we do?• How do we transform the education values into

pedagogy? Does curriculum content and teacher delivery reflect a disciplines way of thinking and acting?

• Accept and clearly state that curriculum design and SoTL are not the same as pedagogy.

• Reenergize the call by Hooper (2008) to move pedagogy, curriculum design and SoTL from implicit to explicit. 8

Where we should be?

• Joseph Aoun suggests that we need to “rebalance the objective of college education away from its current overemphasis on content delivery and toward teaching the new literacies and cognitive capacities. Likewise we need to expand our pedagogical toolboxes.” 9

The Answer for Arkansas State

• I became Department Chair July 1, 2017. 4 months before our initial accreditation visit.

• Results of the accreditation visit were excellent except for one area:

• A.6.7. Curriculum Design: The program must submit documentation that the curriculum design guides the selection of the content and scope (doctoral rigor) of coursework.

• This was an opportunity to put into practice the need for a pedagogy as the thinking frame for the curriculum design.

6/23/2019

6

The Core Four

• Four documents provide the foundation for our program’s pedagogy and curriculum design:• Spatiotemporal Adaptation Theory (Gilfoyle, Grady, and

Moore, 1990) 10

• OT-PEP: Occupational Therapy Professional Education Paradigm (Wright, 2012) 11

• Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) with OA embedded elements 12

• Theory of Occupational Adaptation (Schkade and Schulz, 1992) 13

Spatiotemporal Adaptation

as

Basic Assumptions

Principle 1

• Development is a function of maturation that occurs through the process of person-environment adaptation.

• A student can only mature by experiencing adaptation, reflection, and creation of meaning in sequence.

• Moving from knowing to evaluating and expanding their repertoire to include transitional and mature behaviors.

6/23/2019

7

Principle 2

• Adaptation is contingent on attention to and active participation with purposeful events within the spatiotemporal dimensions of the environment.

• Principle two reinforces our belief in providing an education experience that includes active “real-world” experiences to build an internal repertoire for future situations.

Principle 3

• Purposeful events provide meaningful experiences for the enhancement of maturation by directing a higher level of adaptive response by the “doer”.

• All classes, labs, fieldtrips, fieldworks, and scholarly activities are designed to provide meaningful experiences that help the “doer” retain the information for application, synthesis, analysis, and evaluation.

Principle 4

• Higher responses result from integration with and modification of acquired lower level responses.

• One cannot analyze, synthesize, or evaluate without knowing, comprehending, and applying. Multiple modes of reasoning must be provided to develop adaptive thinking.

6/23/2019

8

Principle 5

• Adaptation spirals through primitive, transitional, and mature phases of development occurring at the same time with different learning.

• Principle five suggests that at any given time a person can be at simultaneously developing adaptive thinking, reflection, and creation of meaning as new information is added to more familiar information.

• Principle five also supports the program’s activity of presenting concepts multiple times in multiple ways for maximum internalized maturity.

Principle 6• Environmental experiences may present situations of

spatiotemporal stress. With stress, the system calls forth past acquired strategies and sequences to act upon the demands of the environment and maintain the system’s homeostasis.

• In occupational therapy this is known as the “just right challenge”.

• Thus, the curriculum is designed with more structured courses in beginning moving forward each semester with courses that require higher and higher levels of integration.

Principle 7• Spatiotemporal distress provokes behaviors that result in

dysadaptation.

• Such dysadaptation is a result of delayed or absent development which is why the curriculum is designed developmentally in order to try to avoid dysadaptivebehaviors.

• However some spatiotemporal distress is necessary in order for student to learn how to adapt.

6/23/2019

9

OT-PEP: Occupational Therapy Professional Education Paradigm

• First conceived by author in 2003 to explore the OT education literature for pedagogical themes and articulate a unified thinking frame.

• In 2012, article published in the Open Journal of Occupational Therapy. Renamed the OT-PEP: Occupational Therapy Professional Education Paradigm to emphasize the model as a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology.

• My thinking has evolved since the publication of the OT-PEP. More explanation was needed about the embedded methodology which is why four documents were needed to explain the development of our Adaptive Repertoire pedagogy.

OT-PEP AS Thinking Frame

Learner

Action Time

Organization

Adaptive Thinking

Naming and

Framing

Building Repertoire

Tolerance for

Ambiguity

Creation of Meaning

Reflection

Plugging into

Repertoire

Consciousness of

Craft

Narrative

Adaptive Thinking

6/23/2019

10

Reflection

Creation of Meaning

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

and OA as

Methodology

6/23/2019

11

Bloom’s + OA • Primitive – tend to be hyperstable

behaviors. To know and comprehend is more about memorization so students will use study habits they bring from undergraduate.

• Transitional – tend to be hypermobile. Much of professional program curricula are apply and analyze. Students often are anxious and try many ways to study even if most are unsuccessful.

• Mature – blend of mobility and stability. By the third year of our program we begin to see this behavior. 13

Spiral Explanation• Bloom’s revised taxonomy is pictured as an upward

spiral to demonstrate our belief that learning is also a developmental process that builds on prior knowledge and experience (Gilfoyle, Grady and Moore, 1990).

• Students use existing (primitive), modified (transitional) and new (mature) adaptive response modes which correspond to the spiral behaviors as they learn more knowledge and skills and expand their internal adaptive repertoire.

Occupational Adaptation

6/23/2019

12

Relative Mastery

• Relative Mastery is the summation outcome measure of the OT-PEP.

• When students develop an internal repertoire containing the elements of the OT-PEP, then they are able to think and act like an Occupational Therapist because they are:• Efficient in use time and energy • Effective in production of the desired result• Satisfying to self and society (others) – pleasing not

only to the self but also to relevant others as agents of the occupational environment. 14

Adaptive Repertoire

• The ability to be both a professional and a creator. To surmount “the existing model of higher education that has yet to adapt to the seismic shifts rattling the foundations of the global economy.” 15The Final Outcome

Bloom’s and OA Spiral as

professional development

Spatiotemporal adaptation as

guide for pedagogy delivery

OT-PEP as thinking frame

and relative mastery as outcome

References1. Gurung, R.A.R., Chick, N.L., and Haynie, A. (Eds.) (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies:

Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus, p. 2.

2. Gurung, R.A.R., Chick, N.L., and Haynie, A. (Eds.) (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus, p. 4.

3. Chick, N. L., Haynie, A. and Gurung, R.A.R. (Eds.) (2012). Exploring MORE signaturepedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, Virginia:Stylus, 188 – 202.

4. The American Occupational Therapy Association Blueprint for Entry-Level Education Retrieved from:

https://www.aota.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Educators/Blueprint_FINAL.pdf

5. OT Model Curriculum Ad Hoc Committee. (2008). Occupational Therapy Model Curriculum. American Occupational Therapy Association. Bethesda, MD.

https://www.aota.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Educators/OT-Model-Curriculum.pdf.

6/23/2019

13

References6. Gurung, R.A.R., Chick, N.L., and Haynie, A. (Eds.) (2009). Exploring signature

pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, Virginia:Stylus, p. 3.

7. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2018). Philosophy of occupational therapy education. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(Suppl. 2), 7212410070. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.72S201

8. Hooper, B. (2008). Stories we teach by: Intersections among faculty biography, studentformation, and instructional processes. American Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 62(2), 228 – 241.

9. Aoun, J.E. (2017). Robot-Proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p. 73.

10. Gilfoyle, E.M., Grady, A.P. and Moore, J.C., (1990). Children adapt: A theoryof sensorimotor-sensory development (2nd Ed.). Thorofare, NJ: Slack, Inc,p.275.

References11. Wright, C. E.(2012) OT-PEP: Development of a professional education paradigm

for Occupational Therapy. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy: Vol.1: Iss. 1, Article 6. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/ojot/vol1/iss1/6.

12. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41:4, 212-218, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

13. Schkade, J. and Schulz, S., (1992). Occupational adaptation: Toward a holistic approach for contemporary practice, part 1. American Journalof Occupational Therapy (46),doi: 10.5014.ajot.46.9.829. p. 835.

14. Schkade, J. and Schulz, S., (1992). Occupational adaptation: Toward a holistic approach for contemporary practice, part 1. American Journalof Occupational Therapy (46), doi: 10.5014.ajot.46.9.829, p. 834.

15. Aoun, J.E. (2017). Robot-Proof: Higher education in the age of artificialintelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p. xv.