Report course 2: Models of occupational therapy

This course focused mainly on some aspects that intend to clarify the differences and relationships between Theories, Models and frame of references in the perspective of different occupational therapy authors.  

Five models are introduced, considering their background, theoretical and conceptual organization, and some main aspects of its application: 

Person – Environment – Occupational Performance, from Charles Christiansen and Carolyn Baum; 
Model of Human Occupation, from Gary Kielhofner; 
Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement, from CAOT and developed by Sue Townsend and Helen Polatajko; 
Kawa Model, from Michael Iwama;
Occupational Performance Model – OPM Australia, by Chapparo, C., and Ranka, J. 

The information regarding participation, time, conditions, etc. prior to the course was clear for all the participants. When we look to the course ‘Models of occupational therapy’, all the participants are positive about the understandability and relevance of the content of the course. They indicate that the course was well-organized and found the course attractively designed, sufficiently interactive and appreciated the (interactive) assignments during the course.

The participants agreed that the content of the course fitted their level well, but not all the participants found that the content fitted their prior knowledge. One possible reason therefore is that all the participants hold a big variation of prior knowledge. Despite that, the participants indicated that the learned new knowledge about occupational therapy during the course and that attention was paid to recent developments withing the field of occupational therapy.

Almost a quarter of the participants argue that the content of the course was not in line with the daily reality in Ukraine. Four of the twenty-one participants had no real opinion (neither agree nor disagree). We believe that it is the task of the teachers to make the transition to the daily reality in Ukraine in order to make the content of the course accessible for Ukrainian students.

The participants were extremely positive about the trainer. They found that the trainer was able to keep their attention during the course and was open to questions and feedback. The trainer is seen as someone with sufficient professional knowledge and didactic skills to teach the course and someone who made good translations from theory to practice.

The course materials (syllabus and presentations) were clear, and the participants saw the visual materials as an added value to the content of the course. Mostly all the participants indicated that the language used during the course was also clear. Only two of the twenty-one participants had no real opinion about it (neither agree nor disagree). We believe that some participants would prefer that the entire course would be held in the Ukrainian.

There is also a consensus that the course was cohesive and had a logical structure. Moreover, the participants indicate that the teaching methods were well-chosen and in line with the goals of the course. Not surprisingly, almost all the participants moreover indicated that the applied learning methods and activities were inspiring for their own teaching practice. Only two participants responded with (neither agree nor disagree). Moreover, twenty of the twenty-one participants (one respondent had no opinion) argued that they will integrate the content and the learning methods and activities in their own practice.