Are you aware of the timeline for entry level OT education to transition to the doctoral level?

"The Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE®) has mandated that the entry-level degree requirement for the occupational therapist will move to the doctoral level by July 1, 2027.

Only entry-level doctoral occupational therapy degree programs will be eligible to receive or maintain ACOTE accreditation status as of July 1, 2027. " (retrieved from https://www.aota.org/Education-Careers/Accreditation/acote-doctoral-mandate-2027.aspx).

So what exactly do programs need to do to move from the master's degree level to the doctoral level? Know that OT is not alone in facing this transition. Other professions have successfully navigated the transition to doctoral level education. We can learn lessons from our colleagues in professions such as pharmacy, physical therapy, and audiology.

From my personal experiences, I know the potential for a successful transition is diminished by:

Lack of a strategic plan;

Simply adding more courses or credits to a master's degree curriculum;

Being unaware of your local, state and regional needs to create a niche program;

Overlooking resources needs such as student support service needs;

Rushing to complete the task vs creating a doctoral degree.

There are a couple of theories about curriculum development that I find helpful in thinking about how it can or should be done. Ralph Tyler employed an assessment lens to curricular development in 1949. He believed curriculum development involved answering 4 questions. The 4 questions that comprise his notion of curriculum development are well known:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

Walker (1971) described the Naturalistic Model of Curriculum Development from a descriptive method vs. a prescriptive method (i.e., Tyler's 4 questions). The first step in the model is to involve participation from all types of stakeholders to determine the "platform" for the curriculum. The platform consists of a consensus of beliefs, theories, conceptions, points of view, aims or goals for the curriculum. Then, based on those rarely changing platform components, deliberation occurs. The deliberative phase can be stressful; it requires intellectual humility whereby the stakeholders can argue, accept, refuse, change or adapt the curriculum.

Pratt (1980) added to the curriculum development conversation by suggesting attention be paid to the theory / practice dichotomy. His background was engineering. In other words, he urged educators to view curriculum from a pragmatic point of view. Curriculum should not solely focus on theory or on practice. Rather theory should inform practice AND practice should inform theory.

One thing is certain, there is no one perfect curriculum! A "healthy" curriculum should be alive and dynamic. However, the best revisions are based upon evidence (trend data) vs. anecdotes or single episodes of "glitches".

My last piece of advice is that it is often extremely helpful to have an external person facilitate curriculum development or change. For example, as a former OT dept chair, I learned from some "hard knocks". It is difficult as a chair/program director to facilitate faculty participation in curricular development or revision process, while simultaneously serving as a stakeholder who wishes to offer ideas and contributions. Due to the inherent authority difference between a "chair or program director" and a "faculty member", faculty may hold back (or perhaps become resistant to change) if they perceive that the chair/program director is acting as the authority vs. an equal stakeholder in the process.

Let me know your thoughts! What has worked well for your programs? What barriers arose and how did you overcome them?

Future blog: strategies to employ in gaining administrative support/resources for curricular development or revision!