I recently learned about the Interactive Model of Program Planning (Daffron & Caffarella, 2021). The 5 assumptions of the interactive model helped me make sense of my experience in doing a curriculum revision.
Using the assumptions in the interactive model, I can now better analyze curriculum revision. For example, Walker, Newcomb, and Hopkins (1987) proposed a model for curriculum revision in undergraduate Psychology programs but only focused on the institution’s and neighboring institution’s expectations and constraints, and obtained information from former psychology students and key people in the postgraduate programs. Relating this to the interactive model of program planning, the need for curriculum revision was influenced by the stakeholders (i.e., institutions and students) and those in power (i.e., those people in the institutions demanding a change). Fast track in 2016, Norcross and colleagues surveyed undergraduate Psychology department chairs and coordinators in the US to obtain information about how to move forward with the curriculum revision. In relation to the interactive model of program planning, this study focused on those in power who practically have the voice on how to revise the curriculum (i.e., chairs and coordinators). I observed that both these 1987 and 2016 studies did not take into consideration other factors such as the culture of the psychology practice, the global problems in psychology-related practices, and the situations and trends in practice, in the academe, and in the industry that may influence the call for change.
Looking back on my curriculum revision experience
The interactive model of program planning helped me broaden my perspective and effectively make sense of the need for curriculum revision. In the future, if I create my own program or if I participate in the creation or revision of the program, I will be more in-depth in my analysis and in how I see the overall picture. I should take note that the 5 assumptions of the interactive model are at play; hence, they must be considered. Knowing the interactive model gives me a sense of assurance that I now have a higher-order view of program planning.
I was tasked to lead the work on curriculum revision for our university undergraduate Psychology program last 2017 to 2018. What I did back then was study the previous and present undergraduate Psychology curriculum and comply with the required curriculum from the commission on higher education. A series of consultations and meetings with the college dean, department chair, and faculty members were done to ensure that the curriculum followed what was needed. However, by learning from the Interactive Model, I believe I can make the process of curriculum revision better.
Making sense of my curriculum revision experience
Looking back on my task of revising the undergraduate Psychology curriculum, I can start by looking into the 5 assumptions of the interactive model. In terms of the assumption of change, the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 informed the code of ethics and professional standards for the practice of Psychology in the Philippines (Professional Regulatory Board of Psychology, 2017). This change also has direct repercussions on the curriculum of both undergraduate and graduate Psychology programs in the Philippines.
The culture of practice of psychologists in the field of human resources, counseling, health and psychopathology, research, and other areas is becoming more specialized and is now calling for transparency and accountability. This is due to the fact that the practice of Psychology and the need for psychology-related works and services are continually on the rise (Sunstar, 2013).
In terms of global problems, there are increasing mental health challenges not only in Asia (Bodeker, 2020) but around the world (Bajbouj, Ta, Hassan, & Hahn, 2022) especially in those developing countries which lack enough resources to address these challenges (Wainberg et al., 2017). Such a global problem does not exempt psychology practitioners to act and make use of education to address these mental health challenges.
In terms of stakeholders, the government is one of the key players in addressing the mental health problems in the Philippines with top problems such as depression, anxiety, psychosis, and substance-use disorders (WHO, 2021). Practitioners in the clinical and counseling field were also seeing a surge in client intake, and psychologists in the school and workplace are specifically facing challenges in addressing the mental health problem of students, teachers, and employees. There is a high demand for Psychology programs both at the undergraduate and graduate levels because people want to know more about mental health and want to be in mental health-related work.
In terms of power, there are political and professional pressures in the revision of the Psychology curriculum. At an international level, mental health professionals are pushing for better and more accessible mental health services for all. This prompted the government on the international stage and in individual countries to act on such a call. Hence, a series of consultations and an intention to put a considerable amount of budget to address mental health problems led to looking into the relevance of education, specifically in the field of Psychology. At the regional, national, and university levels, the pressure is to make sure that the Psychology programs are at par with international standards.
References
Bajbouj, M., Ta, T. T. M., Hassan, G., & Hahn, E. (2021). The nine grand challenges in global mental health. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2465. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.822299
Bodeker, G. (2020). Mental wellness in Asia. Asian Development Outlook 2020 Update: Wellness in Worrying Times. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/633886/adou2020bp-mental-wellness-asia.pdf
Daffron, S. R., & Caffarella, R. S. (2021). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://b-ok.cc/book/14670879/1646b0
Norcross, J. C., Hailstorks, R., Aiken, L. S., Pfund, R. A., Stamm, K. E., & Christidis, P. (2016). Undergraduate study in psychology: Curriculum and assessment. American Psychologist, 71(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040095
Professional Regulatory Board of Psychology (2017). Adoption and promulgation of the code of ethics and professional standards for Psychology practitioners in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.pap.ph/downloadable/PRC_Code_of_Ethics_and_Professional_Standards_for_Psychology_Practitioners_in_the_Philippines.pdf
Sunstar (2013). Peruelo: Psychology in the Philippines: A profession on the rise. Retrieved form https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/307102/peruelo-psychology-in-the-philippines-a-profession-on-the-rise
Wainberg, M. L., Scorza, P., Shultz, J. M., Helpman, L., Mootz, J. J., Johnson, K. A., Neria, Y., Bradford, J. M. E., Oquendo, M. A., & Arbuckle, M. R. (2017). Challenges and opportunities in global mental health: A research-to-practice perspective. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(5), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0780-z
Walker, W. E., Newcomb, A. F., & Hopkins, W. P. (1987). A model for curriculum evaluation and revision in undergraduate psychology programs. Teaching of Psychology, 14(4), 198-202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1404_1
World Health Organization (2021). Prevention and management of mental health conditions in the Philippines: The case for investment. Manila: World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/wpro—documents/countries/philippines/reports/investment-case-report-mental-health-philippines-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=d0f436e7_9
flowjame 