The New Standards: Impact on the Audiology Curriculum

Stephanie DavidsonThe Ohio State University

Initial Decisions

Type of Doctoral Degree• PhD• AuD• Some other type of doctoral degree

Initial Decisions

We decided to develop a clinical track within our existing PhD program• Rationale

Ohio State had an existing PhD program Did not require the approval process necessary

for a new degree program We believe the PhD is “robust” enough to

accommodate the new standards without compromising research training

Does not preclude us from changing from an MA/PhD program to an AuD/PhD program at some point in the future

Pros and Cons of the PhD

Advantages to the PhD• Could be implemented relatively

quickly• Students will graduate with a well-

recognized degree• Students graduating with a PhD will

be prepared to take academic positions

Pros and Cons of the PhD

Disadvantages to the PhD• Requires a longer time commitment

The Ohio State program is designed to be completed in five years

• Perception, on the part of some, that students will not receive adequate clinical training in a PhD program

• Difficult to provide student support to increased numbers of doctoral students

Initial Decisions

Should we keep our existing MA program?• We decided to keep it

Several years until 2007 Ohio licensure laws have not changed Clean breaking point after Year 2

Initial Decisions

Should we keep our existing PhD program?• We decided there was merit in

keeping the “traditional” program Serves speech and hearing science

students Serves practicing clinicians returning to

school

Program Framework:Years 1 and 2

Year One• Courses focus on

introductory clinical issues and the scientific underpinnings of the discipline

Didactic classroom activity

Laboratory experiences

• Practicum experiences are closely supervised and include observations of experienced clinicians

Year Two• Courses focus on

more advanced clinical issues

• Increased emphasis on off-site practicum

• PhD students begin research practicum

• MA awarded for state licensure purposes

Differences from Our Previous MA Program

Additional Coursework• 54 semester hours to 63 semester

hours (excluding practicum and thesis/non-thesis hours)

• Offset by a decrease in practicum hours in Years 1 and 2

Differences from Previous MA Program

Development of curricular tracks in Years 1 and 2• Scientific Bases, Assessment,

Rehabilitation, Special Populations, Research Allows for future flexibility Makes the curriculum more cyclical,

contextualized, and synthetic Aids in assessment

Differences from Previous MA Program

Introduction of a research “practicum” in lieu of a thesis in Year 2• Two in-department research classes• Research “practicum” with faculty mentors

to prepare for the project which is completed in Year 3 Background reading Prospectus development Human subjects approval

Program Framework:Year 3

9-12 month experience at an approved clinical site(s)• “Full-time” clinical experience• Supervised by PhD-level supervisors• Obtain advanced clinical experience• Complete a clinical research project• Meet Ohio PEY requirements

Program Framework: Years 4 and 5

Year 4• Statistics sequence• Coursework in

selected “minor”• Seminars in

Department• Preparation for

candidacy exam, including development of dissertation prospectus

• Candidacy Exam

Year 5• Seminars in

Department• Dissertation• Final Oral Exam

Formative Assessment

Standard IV specifically outlines the minimum required knowledge and skills• Prerequisite knowledge and skills• Foundations of practice• Prevention and identification• Evaluation• Treatment

Formative Assessment

Insure that each of the required areas has a “home” in the curriculum—preferably in multiple places• Faculty develop and administer assessments

to measure student outcomes in designated areas Written examinations, “practical” examinations

associated with laboratory components of courses, final projects

• Documentation of assessment results is tracked centrally

Formative Assessment

An opportunity to improve our assessment practices• Frustrated with “disconnect” between

courses and our comprehensive exams• Implementing a more cyclical and

contextualized assessment process• Knowledge and skills are expected to

be cumulative along and across tracks

Summative Assessment

PRAXIS• Available• Students need to take it for

certification and licensure• We’re busy with formative

assessments!

Challenges

Faculty time• Extremely time-intensive process

Assign knowledge and skill areas, design assessments, develop tracking mechanisms, track student progress

Views of academic freedom• Some faculty members are

philosophically opposed to this degree of control over their courses

Challenges

Faculty Size• The new standards require more faculty to

teach courses and more supervisors/sites for practicum

• Adjunct faculty positions are being added to help with courses and clinical/research placements

• Increase in faculty number (particularly adjuncts) causes more difficulty in tracking student progress

Challenges—Student Funding

Long history of fully funding doctoral students at Ohio StateInitially applied that mindset to our post BA doctoral program—especially for students funded coming inWe’ve discovered it poses a number of problems• Longer program• More students (hopefully)• Difficulty in Year 3

Summary

Answer your set of initial questionsPut together a framework that works for your programDetermine your method for dividing the knowledge and skillsDesign assessment tools and develop a plan for tracking student progressWonderful opportunity to rethink the way that we are educating our students