Educational models

[chicoborja]

Well, there doesn't seem to be a good deal of activity in this new forum so I thought I might try and get the ball rollin'. The first AuD program was started by Dr. James Jerger at Baylor College of Medicine. This program has since closed but while it was in existance, it followed a strong medical model. Subsequent programs have been criticized for merely expanding on existing masters-level programs without providing a true doctoral-level education. Additionally, it seems that uniformity has not yet been achieved (although it is in the works). Current discussions concern whether or not students should have to complete a dissertation-like project, an alternate capstone project, or simply comprehensive exams. Certain programs provide a more medical emphasis while others may lean towards a rehabilitative communication model. Many programs require an undergradute major in communication disorders (or at least certain prerequisite courses). Other programs, I feel, are more forward-thinking by allowing pre-med courses to be substituted (PCO, Ball State) or abolishing all prerequisites. This is an exciting time in education reform for audiology. Does anyone have any comments about audiology education?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Beau Geste]

Since this is a clinical degree, it seems appropriate that schools that offer the AuD (that also previously had MS programs in audiology) would expand on their Master's program. The AuD programs I'm familiar with have distinct separation between didactic and clinical training. The didactics include the standard theoretical understanding, A&P, ethics, a few SLP courses (since it overlaps some), and assessment/treatment courses. A dissertation project might be overkill since that is specifically required of PhD students, but a thesis would not be totally inappropriate. Comprehensive exams are a good idea IMO to produce competent clinicians. Many other disciplines require comprehensive exams in their programs in order to graduate (I'm thinking specifically of biology right now). Clinical experiences have been extended, too for more exposure, allowing the doctoral student a better understanding of assessment and treatment procedures in a variety of settings.

I think where I'm coming from is the fact that two separate terminal degrees exist for the audiologist - the AuD and the PhD, with the AuD designed primarily for clinical purposed and the PhD for research purposes (although many who get their PhD also get an MS or AuD, depending on the school). I don't like to see AuD programs geared toward research knowing that's not the primary purpose of an AuD. That doesn't mean a person with an AuD can't participate in research, but their role is the ultimate in clinical service delivery.

My purpose is not to offend anybody, so my apologies if I did. This is just my take on the basics of an AuD curriculum.

 

[Beau Geste]

Since this is a clinical degree, it seems appropriate that schools that offer the AuD (that also previously had MS programs in audiology) would expand on their Master's program. The AuD programs I'm familiar with have distinct separation between didactic and clinical training. The didactics include the standard theoretical understanding, A&P, ethics, a few SLP courses (since it overlaps some), and assessment/treatment courses. A dissertation project might be overkill since that is specifically required of PhD students, but a thesis would not be totally inappropriate. Comprehensive exams are a good idea IMO to produce competent clinicians. Many other disciplines require comprehensive exams in their programs in order to graduate (I'm thinking specifically of biology right now). Clinical experiences have been extended, too for more exposure, allowing the doctoral student a better understanding of assessment and treatment procedures in a variety of settings.

I think where I'm coming from is the fact that two separate terminal degrees exist for the audiologist - the AuD and the PhD, with the AuD designed primarily for clinical purposed and the PhD for research purposes (although many who get their PhD also get an MS or AuD, depending on the school). I don't like to see AuD programs geared toward research knowing that's not the primary purpose of an AuD. That doesn't mean a person with an AuD can't participate in research, but their role is the ultimate in clinical service delivery.

My purpose is not to offend anybody, so my apologies if I did. This is just my take on the basics of an AuD curriculum.

 

[audstud]

I just wanted to say a few things about the integration of research into the Au.D. programs. Because our clinical judgements should always be supported by (good) research, it is very important that an Au.D. student graduate with the ability to be a good consumer of research. Being able to read new studies and identify potential problems within the design instead of just accepting the article's conclusions is very important. Also, the number of Ph.D.s in the field is steadily declining and I feel that a time will come when Au.D.s will be working in conjuction with Ph.D.s on clinical research studies, with the Ph.D. securing the grant/funding and establishing the main design and the Au.D. overseeing the daily administration of this study.

As for the dissertation v. thesis issue, I think there is still a lot of differences between programs. Also, does anyone else find the Praxis somewhat inefficient as an exit exam for our program? I would like to see an exit exam developed that is written by audiologists and more closely matches what we are taught in our programs.

 

[Beau Geste]

I Because our clinical judgements should always be supported by (good) research, it is very important that an Au.D. student graduate with the ability to be a good consumer of research. Being able to read new studies and identify potential problems within the design instead of just accepting the article's conclusions is very important.

This can be accomplished with a research methods class, which is typically offered in the AuD curriculum. That class is designed so the student can read and interpret research, including recognizing and understands statistical methods. I'm not opposed to AuDs teaching classes in a clinical program, however an AuD should not be mentoring a PhD student for their dissertation.