"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." -- Alvin Toffler
We in MT Education often talk about what our program goals should be for the students. We ask employers what they want. The most common response to the question of goals for our programs is "we want to prepare 'job-ready' students. While that is certainly a reasonable and honest goal, I'm of the opinion that it should not be our primary goal.
I had a "virtual conversation" today with a long-time friend, a medical transcription service owner. She and I discuss the problem of preparing job-ready students almost every time we meet. With her as with most of my colleagues—practitioners and educators—we end up rehashing the same old material: too little time, too much content, what does it really take in terms of dictation volume to prepare a job-ready student, how much academic work do they need, what are the important elements of technology and industry that they should carry with them into their jobs... The list of frustrations, questions, and seemingly insurmountable problems goes on.
I would like to propose that we think about our purpose in education with a new perspective. Let's focus on preparing students who can learn, unlearn, and relearn—as many times as it takes over the span of their careers. (In his second book, Toffler said that graduates of, I believe, the '90s, could have as many as 17 different careers requiring different or additional education in their lifetimes.) Let's focus on defining critical thinking and propose and test methodologies for enabling our students to reason through the problems they encounter, in transcription, in speech editing, in their careers. After we test our methodologies, let's compile a set of best practices that we can share with other MT educators.
In my next blog, I'll be trying to define critical thinking, as it applies to our industry specifically. I hope you'll be doing the same.
Blessings to all,
Ellen
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Teaching to Real Life
Students and MTs frequently justify what they've transcribed with "But I just typed what he said!" My unequivocal response is always, "No, you just typed what you heard." Every word transcribed is a decision made, a problem solved. — Ellen Drake
Too much teaching today is focused on teaching to the test. In secondary schools, the comprehensive tests mandated by the federal and state governments dictate much if not most of the curriculum. This, in spite of the fact that it's very difficult to test for comprehension, application, and integration of knowledge with multiple choice, objective testing techniques.
In my industry, medical transcription, credible schools try to follow a model curriculum and, now, there's a push to have association-approved schools use the Registered Medical Transcriptionist exam as a final exam or exit exam for the school's program. I don't object to this. Credentialing is important in any industry, but that's a subject for a later blog. What I do worry about, however, is that teaching to the test will become the focus of some programs and that the numbers of students from a particular program passing the RMT will become a mark of excellence.
Employers have complained for as long as I have been in medical transcription education that graduates of MT Programs are not "job-ready." We've had a difficult time defining "job-ready," and I think that employers do have unrealistic expectations (also a subject for a later post). It is hoped that the RMT exam has managed to define that elusive concept and that those who pass will be job-ready. We hope the RMT will open doors to employment for "newbies." My fear, however, is that it won't, and the reasons for my fear are stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph above. There is a practical application portion of the RMT exam, of course, and that will no doubt help to identify students with entry-level skills (assuming that employers are even willing to accept entry-level candidates; does "entry-level" equal "job-ready" for employers?).
Education in medical transcription is an "odd duck." Training programs in technical schools and community colleges are often directed and taught by instructors in the business department, rarely allied health or health-related professions. These instructors are generally degreed and knowledgeable about education. Training programs in proprietary schools are often developed and taught by medical transcription practitioners. Although there is a trend to require the Certified Medical Transcriptionist credential, there are still instructors with no credential and no degree. Their qualification to teach is X years of experience as a medical transcriptionist.
For schools that care, there is no problem with what to teach in medical transcription programs. The AHDI Model Curriculum, being revised as this post is being written, provides solid guidelines on what to teach. In my opinion, medical transcription education has suffered and continues to suffer from a lack of emphasis on how to teach. Qualified educators in business programs and related health occupations need insights and intimacy with practical application in medical transcription and practitioner instructors need guidance and instruction in methodology.
It is my hope that, through this blog, I and others will be able to bridge this gap in medical transcription instruction. We will focus on the principles and techniques related to comprehension, integration, application, and critical thinking in medical transcription education. I welcome your comments and feedback.
Too much teaching today is focused on teaching to the test. In secondary schools, the comprehensive tests mandated by the federal and state governments dictate much if not most of the curriculum. This, in spite of the fact that it's very difficult to test for comprehension, application, and integration of knowledge with multiple choice, objective testing techniques.
In my industry, medical transcription, credible schools try to follow a model curriculum and, now, there's a push to have association-approved schools use the Registered Medical Transcriptionist exam as a final exam or exit exam for the school's program. I don't object to this. Credentialing is important in any industry, but that's a subject for a later blog. What I do worry about, however, is that teaching to the test will become the focus of some programs and that the numbers of students from a particular program passing the RMT will become a mark of excellence.
Employers have complained for as long as I have been in medical transcription education that graduates of MT Programs are not "job-ready." We've had a difficult time defining "job-ready," and I think that employers do have unrealistic expectations (also a subject for a later post). It is hoped that the RMT exam has managed to define that elusive concept and that those who pass will be job-ready. We hope the RMT will open doors to employment for "newbies." My fear, however, is that it won't, and the reasons for my fear are stated in the last sentence of the first paragraph above. There is a practical application portion of the RMT exam, of course, and that will no doubt help to identify students with entry-level skills (assuming that employers are even willing to accept entry-level candidates; does "entry-level" equal "job-ready" for employers?).
Education in medical transcription is an "odd duck." Training programs in technical schools and community colleges are often directed and taught by instructors in the business department, rarely allied health or health-related professions. These instructors are generally degreed and knowledgeable about education. Training programs in proprietary schools are often developed and taught by medical transcription practitioners. Although there is a trend to require the Certified Medical Transcriptionist credential, there are still instructors with no credential and no degree. Their qualification to teach is X years of experience as a medical transcriptionist.
For schools that care, there is no problem with what to teach in medical transcription programs. The AHDI Model Curriculum, being revised as this post is being written, provides solid guidelines on what to teach. In my opinion, medical transcription education has suffered and continues to suffer from a lack of emphasis on how to teach. Qualified educators in business programs and related health occupations need insights and intimacy with practical application in medical transcription and practitioner instructors need guidance and instruction in methodology.
It is my hope that, through this blog, I and others will be able to bridge this gap in medical transcription instruction. We will focus on the principles and techniques related to comprehension, integration, application, and critical thinking in medical transcription education. I welcome your comments and feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)