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
Standards
• 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
Problems?
• 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
Implementation
• “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 otherwise.”
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
Implementation
• 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
Implementation
• “Good” timing
• CAA site visit in Fall of 2000
• Elimination of Audiology
option
• Faculty retirements
• New faculty
Implementation
• Applied the Feynman
Problem-Solving Algorithm:
1. Write down the problem
2. Think real hard
3. Write down the answer
Implementation
• “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
Implementation
• 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
Highlights
•
•
•
•
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
Highlights
• Portfolio assessment
• Currently being developed
• Benefits:
• students document and observe growth in
their knowledge and skills
• we document that students meet the 2005
standards
• 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
“compartmentalization”
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
–or–
• 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