Launch of “Teaching Occupation”

ABSTRACT

This paper introducxes a new section in the Journal of Occupational Science; Teaching Occupation. It outlines the Editorial Board’s intent in fostering discussion and debate about why and how occupational science is taught, and identifies questions that researchers and scholars might address in this section of the journal. Six commentaries from guest contributors are introduced, and submissions are invited.

KEYWORDS:

• Teaching occupation
• learning by doing
• Dewey
• educational methods
• occupational science

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Occupational Science is pleased to announce the launch of a new section in the journal, Teaching Occupation. It carries forward the educational vision of Ann Wilcock, founder of the Journal of Occupational Science. Wilcock espoused an occupational philosophy of education that centered on the “occupational nature of people; individual rights and uniqueness; community development; holistic approaches based on the synthesis of current social and biological sciences; qualitative and quantitative scientific inquiry; and respect for individual, social and cultural differences” (Johansson, 1998, p. 14). That philosophy, she believed, required acknowledgement and integration of students’ prior learning, demanded both flexibility and student responsibility, and for best results, would employ problem solving approaches. Accomplishing that would position students as self-directed, life-long learners, thus supporting their personal growth and well-being.

Initiating a new section dedicated to scholarly debate and research about Teaching Occupation reflects the Editorial Board’s commitment to furthering occupational science and our mounting concern that, although occupational science is taught in diverse contexts to diverse students, little critical attention has been paid to why, how and to whom it is taught. Turning our collective attention to pedagogic concerns is necessary and urgent given the broad scope of occupational science, initially delineated as the substrates, form, function and meaning of occupation (Clark et al., 1991), and its intended role in synthesising knowledge generated by other academic disciplines. It seems that openly discussing how occupational science is, and might be, taught would be both fruitful and guard against fragmentation of the discipline (Clark, 2006); a risk all disciplines face when ideas developed within a field are researched and taught out of context of the core concepts that give a discipline cohesion.

In addition to this discipline-specific concern, we were also aware that there is a long tradition, at least within western cultures, of engaging people in occupation in order that they might learn. Being apprenticed into a trade, learning to drive, and learning through observation (termed vicarious learning) are everyday examples. Experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), kinaesthetic learning (Fleming & Mills, 1992) and discovery learning (Bruner, 2009) are just some of the ways learning by doing has been theorised. For example, learning by doing, rather than observing, is a basic tenet of constructivism, with constructivist learning environments described as emphasising authentic tasks in a meaningful, real-world context, rather than decontextualized abstract instruction (Jonassen, 1994).

It is now taken-for-granted that children “learn by doing, using their senses, exploring their environment of people, things, places and events” (Bureau of Elementary Education, 1994). That assumption can perhaps be traced to John Dewey’s influence on manual training in schools. For Dewey, occupations were “a method of learning by doing that was at the center of the curriculum and had equal weight with other studies” (DeFalco, 2010, p. 82). Distinguishing what he meant by learning by doing (manual training), from teaching people a trade (vocational training), Dewey explained that it “differs because its end is in itself; in the growth that comes from the continual interplay of ideas and their embodiment in action, not in external utility” (Dewey, cited in DeFalco, 2010, p. 85).

As this brief foray into the issues makes clear, there is much to consider. Thus, our vision for this new section in the journal is to create a dedicated space to put forward and discuss both teaching about occupation and using occupation to teach. This, we believe, will support the ongoing development of occupational science. Important and interesting questions occupational scientists, educators and scholars might consider include:

• What are the philosophical or theoretical perspectives that give coherence to the field?

• What are the pros and cons of teaching occupational science as a pure or applied science?

• Which critical discourses should occupational science students be exposed to?

• What research background do students need to be able to engage with occupational science?

• Should occupational science concepts and evidence be disseminated across society? If so, how and by whom?

• How is occupation itself (not occupational science) taught and learned?

There is also need to debate the content of occupational science courses. Questions include:

• What are the foundational ideas? Are some ideas clearly “postgraduate”?

• What are the key readings and resources?

• How might occupational science curricula be sequenced and segmented?

• How can occupational science courses be tailored to specific student groups?

• How might occupational science knowledge be packaged to inform specific audiences: public health practitioners, architects, social change agents?

Debate about educational methods is also welcome, addressing topics such as:

• What are the pedagogic strategies employed to teach occupational science knowledge?

• What teaching/learning methods are best suited to giving students an “occupational perspective”?

• What place does “learning by doing” have in an occupational science course or curriculum?

• What are the “occupational” means of evaluating student achievement?

To launch Teaching Occupation, we invited international guest commentators to stimulate debate and scholarly thought by sharing their thoughts and reflections. The first contribution follows in Wilcock’s scholarly tradition, looking to history to shed light on current and future directions. Townsend and Friedland (2016) cast back to some of the educational reformers who were active in Europe and the Americas in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Their ideas, Townsend and Friedland argue, can provide a foundational source to inspire occupational science research and educational strategies, particularly as they relate to enabling occupational justice and occupational rights. Addressing both occupational scientists and occupational therapists, they advocate that occupational science education models occupation-based learning, by drawing on the educational reform literature on action-based and project-based learning.

Fittingly, the second paper refers back to a knowledge schema proposed by Florence Clark and Beth Larson at the dawn of occupational science: that humans’ capacity for occupation rests on their physical, biologic, information processing, sociocultural, symbolic-evaluative and transcendental subsystems. Framing these subsystems as threshold concepts, meaning that they are foundational to understanding people as occupational beings, Sadlo (2016) argues their continuing relevance as an organising structure for occupational science education. Addressing each subsystem in turn, she considers emerging knowledge from archaeology, epigenetics, neuroscience, philosophy, physiology, psychology, psychiatry, and sociology to redefine and expand the ideas within each subsystem. Finding substantial, relevant new content that supports the original conceptualisation of the subsystems, Sadlo concludes that they remain relevant but, in line with current thinking, might be better viewed as both internal (humans’ capacities for occupation) and external, in that human capacities are actively elicited and shaped by the environment.

The following four papers more specifically address aspects of curricula content and teaching practice from the perspective of teaching occupational science to occupational therapy students. To an extent, this focus deviates from the stance usually taken in this journal, of speaking to an interdisciplinary audience. Nonetheless, the challenges and triumphs described have something to say to educators of any discipline, faced with the challenge of embedding occupational science into an educational curriculum and helping students engage with an occupational perspective of humans, participation and society. Setting the scene, Zemke (2016) reflects on the transition from teaching occupational science at the University of Southern California to produce PhD qualified researchers, to now teaching it at bachelors’ level. As she points out, if occupational science is to contribute to eradicating complex social issues, which was the original vision, everyone needs a basic introduction to occupational science. That is, incorporating courses about occupational science within other degrees must become commonplace, reaching into college students’ private lives to inspire them to work for healthy occupations for all.

Turning to present day educational concerns, Bagatell and Womack (2016) contend that occupational scientists’ focus on the form, function and meaning of occupation and the influence of the sociocultural context, have drawn attention away from the embodied experience of and human capacity for occupation. In challenging that division, they provide an example of foregrounding those aspects in their own course so that students can more readily understand the relationship between occupation and body structures and functions. In this, their thinking aligns with Clark and Larson’s physical, biologic and information processing subsystems, introduced above (Sadlo, 2016).

Reporting experiences from the same masters level entry programme as Bagatell and Womack, Dickie (2016) shares her reflections on teaching occupational science to occupational therapy students. In addition to outlining the formal objectives, teaching material and educational process, Dickie reveals that her real goals were to get students excited about occupation, have them realize the many ways of learning about occupation and appreciate that occupation is much more than an individual’s experience, and come to value occupational science as central to the practice of occupational therapy.

Finally, Hooper, Krishnagiri, Taff, Price and Bilics (2016) provide commentary about their study of how occupation is taught and the extent to which occupational science is represented in curricula in the US. The impetus for their study aligns with the concerns of the JOS Editorial Board, that what is being taught in occupational science has not been critically examined, and the anxiety provoked by Clark’s (2006) warning about fragmentation of the field. Their main finding is that occupation is often divorced from its origins in occupational science. That is troubling for both the discipline and the profession, risking fragmentation of the science by future researchers who do not appreciate how their work draws from and contributes to the whole, and undermining the possibility of building a profession firmly embedded in its core concept – occupation.

The richness of these initial discussions displays the potential of the Teaching Occupation section of the Journal of Occupational Science. Formal submissions are now invited. Papers dedicated to scholarly discussion and debate, sharing of case examples and innovations, and research findings will be considered. We envisage submissions of 3,000–5,000 words, but longer articles may be considered by negotiation. We look forward to new ideas and an enriching debate.

ORCiD

Clare Hocking http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0364-5157