Accreditation and Learning in International Rehabilitation Professional Development

382 views

Published on

Paper presented at 2011 EDEN Conference in Dublin, Ireland: Alan Bruce (ULS), David Perry, Michelle Marmé, Chrisann Schiro-Geist, Regina Robertson (CORE - USA)

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
382
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Accreditation and Learning in International Rehabilitation Professional Development

  1. 1. Ireland Alan Bruce, Universal Learning Systems United States David Perry, University of North Dakota Michelle Marmé, Northeastern Illinois University Chrisann Schiro Geist, University of MemphisRegina Robertson, East Central Oklahoma UniversitySUSTAINABLE ACCREDITATION AND LEARNING IN INTERNATIONAL REHABILITATION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  2. 2. Overview Sustainable Accreditation Learning (beyond WHAT is taught… what knowledge & skills are acquired) International Rehabilitation Professional Globalization
  3. 3. Contexts of Inclusive Practice Change dynamic Impact of crisis Imperatives of continuing professional development Standards and quality Ethical practice
  4. 4. Innovative Learning Beyond Barriers to Shared Excellence Using the From American Experience Compe- Perspect- ives of tence to Creativity Disability European Challenges
  5. 5. Thinking Globally Anticipating Future Demogra- phics ICT & Supported Systems Policy and Trans- formationLinkage and Recognition
  6. 6. People with Disabilities Globally, there are almost 1 billion people with disabilities (PWD) Estimates of PWD by continent: Europe – 98 million, Africa – 137 million, Asia – 553 million, North America – 67 million, South America – 57 million U.N. estimates 13.3 % of world population has some form of disability While “disability” is defined differently in different countries, the U.N. offers these definitions: Impairment: “any loss or abnormality of psychological,physiological, or anatomical structure or function” Disability: a “restriction or lack (resulting from animpairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or withinthe range considered normal for a human being”
  7. 7.  Social Dynamics of Marginalized Populations  Interpersonal Communication & Advocacy Skills  Medical Services  Physical Restoration  Psychological Supports  Independent Living  Housing & Transportation  Community Living Skills  Avocational Pursuits  Spiritual Development  Vocational & Job/Career Development  Legal Rights and RecourseSupporting Independence
  8. 8. Interventions and Training A variety of services are offered to help PWD become more independent, such as: medical services, physical restoration, psychological supports, job placement, housing services, transportation assistance, communication aides, and assistive technology. Rehabilitation Service providers receive various kinds of training, ranging from on-the-job training to college degrees. Higher education programs often seek accreditation to demonstrate the quality and sustainability of their degrees.
  9. 9. Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) Has offered accreditation of master’s programs in Rehabilitation Counseling since 1972 Accredits approximately 100 programs in the United States Is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), an organization that certifies a variety of international accrediting bodies (e.g., engineering and business)
  10. 10. Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) This commission is part or CORE and is responsible for sanctioning quality undergraduate rehabilitation education programs The goal is to promote the effective delivery of services to individuals Services improve when professionals receive better training Accreditation standards promote continuing review and improvement of high quality training programs
  11. 11.  Maximizing participation of  people with disabilities  in mainstream of life Creativity  Commitment  Collaboration
  12. 12. International Rehabilitation Education Building on firm foundation fromCORE and CUSA, our goal is to providean opportunity for other countries tohave their training programs recognized Advantages include programmatic reviewwith respect to established standards ofquality, economic viability, sustainability,portability of credentials,course transferability, andunified ethical codes
  13. 13.  Profession defines fundamental standards of practice and essential knowledge Students’ best interests & educational goals protected Strengths of Existing Models  Protocols to follow, refine, & modify for new contexts  Structured process of self-reflection for programs  Asynchronous sharing of information  Data gathering from constituents  “Outside” review & validation from profession Educational institutions & programs are acknowledged for developing/providing “best practice” Accreditation
  14. 14.  Voluntarily organized, by educators, to develop and implement common policies and standards, to evaluate educational quality Non-governmental, entirely voluntary, peer review, ensuring educational programs meet educational and professional standards of quality Consider faculty academic preparation, demonstrated excellence, programmatic recruitment practices and admissions procedures, course content Outcome measures with respect to knowledge and skill attainment, from the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders: supervisors, employers, graduates Accreditation as a Growth Process 14
  15. 15. People with Technology Disabilities Accredita- Pedagogy tion StandardsProcess of Continual Refinement
  16. 16.  Establishing and supporting “best practice” Reimagine “accreditation” as  Growth-oriented  Supportive  Enhancing outcomes  Building upon established structures to address evolving needs of our students and practice  Recontextualizing process in light of varying contexts and technologies Re-evaluating Accreditation Process
  17. 17.  Consensus: some face-to-face components must be retained  To ensure voracity of reports  To address physical access in rehabilitation context  In the absence* of technological alternatives Distance models for executing program evaluation & training of evaluators Virtual training of site visitors  More evaluators involved, enhancing the # observers involved  Decreased costs for accreditation review process, increased cadre of reviewers  Multiple perspectives enhances sophistication of process New Models of Program Assessment
  18. 18.  World becomes flatter Boundaries blur Distinctions become less divisive Definitional considerations Universality of socially-endorsed and  culturally-dependent phrasing & practices Challenges
  19. 19.  Optimum training experiences for individuals interested in the full inclusion of people with disabilities and differences, will be met through this refinement of sustainable training and evaluation methodologies.
  20. 20. Resources Council on Rehabilitation Education www.core-rehab.org National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials https://ncrtm.org/moodle/ National Council on Rehabilitation Education www.rehabeducators.org/resources.html

×