Debates about the course - M.O.T.

The course, M.O.T. (Master of Occupational Therapy), was established since 1998. Currently, it is the only graduate-entry course that allows graduates with a non-occupational therapy degree to become one in Australia.

Traditionally, to become an occupational therapist, students need to complete a 4-year undergraduate course. As the MOT course uses a different approach in terms of teaching - problem-based learning, it allows students with a 40% relevance undergraduate degrees, to complete this course and become a practitioner. This concept is new in Australia (on the contrary, it is quite popular in the US).

The debate is, some practitioners and teachers believed that it is not possible to fit the four-year degree's content into two. However, this course has no intension in doing so. They also believed that the course doesn't provide enough clinical practice hours (some practitioners assumed that students from this course are only getting 500 hours, instead of the 1000 hours). In fact, the course provides 1000 hours placements, just like any other OT course, because this is the basic requirement for the course to be a accredited course by WFOT (World Federation of Occupational Therapy). Others are skeptical, believing this type of graduate-entry course might not be as good as the undergraduate course. However, there are a lot of practitioners and other health professionals who are supportive, positive and excited about this course.

To illustrate this debate, here is a letter written by Shaun Lane, an occupational therapist, who graduated from the undergraduate course of Bachelor of Applied Science. He commented on the MOT course (graduate entry level course).

" It is encouraging as an occupational therapist in private practice to see the continued development of the Accredited Occupational Therapist Program [established by the AAOT]. It is equally discouraging to see the prospect of graduate entry occupational therapy students not only be admitted to this program, but also providing them with title of Master of Occupational Therapy.

Our profession has been winning the battle to gain appropriate professional respect among our peers within the medical and health industries. I find it incredulous that there is support for a program which will act to undermine the professional respect which many have fought so hard to achieve. Occupational therapy is a profession incorporating a unique mode of practice - not simply an attained qualification.

As for those occupational therapist who have gained Honours or Masters degrees in the past, I cannot begin to imagine how let down they must feel at the devaluation of their professional expertise"

(sited in the AAOT Newsletter)

The above comment has stirred up a debate amongst those who are supportive of the course and those who dislike the course all together (including some of our lecturers in the schools). However, I have chosen a response made by our graduates, Andrew Thornthwaite because, he showed some of the important qualities of a "good" occupational therapist - open-minded, evidence-based and a reflective practitioner.

" Shaun stated that it is discouraging for students of graduate entry-level degrees to be admitted to the AccOT program. However the MOT course has gone through the rigorous accreditation process from OT Australia and thus WFOT. Graduates of MOT, are eligible for membership of this program. Shaun then stated that it is discouraging that graduates of this type of degree are given the title, Master of Occupational Therapy. Such a title is awarded for academic study by universities, not professional bodies, which is not unique to occupational therapy.

[He also] felt this program will undermine the professional respect gained from other health professionals that occupational therapists have fought so hard to achieve. No reasoning is provided for this statement. In fact most graduates from the first cohort of the MOT have been employed in both NSW and Victoria and are performing well in their new positions.

Finally, Shaun said that he cannot imagine how let down occupational therapists who have gained honours or masters degrees in the past must feel at the devaluation of their professional expertise. I do not see the link between the introduction of entry-level master's programs and the devaluing of other types of qualifications. Bachelors honours programs and the masters programs he refers to fulfill quite different and distinct purposes from a graduate entry-level program and should not be compared.

Central to all debates in occupational therapy should be the quality of outcomes that we as therapists provide to our clients. We need to ask such questions as: how well are graduates of graduate entry (and undergraduate) programs prepared for professional life? Are we providing the best possible outcomes for our clients? These and other areas of graduate entry-level degrees need to be researched, informed, and discussed. We need to have an informed and balanced debate, one that is backed up by empirical evidence. It is crucial that occupational therapists who have first hand experience with students and graduates of graduate entry program provide educators with feedback on the quality of such programs. I challenge therapists to have some involvement with graduate entry programs, whether by taking on students in fieldwork placements or by employing graduates. Not only is this an effective way of learning about these new degrees, it is also an important way in which therapists can help to continue to improve the quality of these degrees and thus our future practitioners.

There are other graduate OT course around the world that offers graduates of a different undergraduate degree to become an OT through such courses, please check them out:

Thomas Jefferson University - http://aisr.lib.tju.edu/CWIS/CGS/OT-subpage.htm

Concordia University-Wisconsin - http://www.cuw.edu/occupationaltherapy/

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws