Name of Committee/Group/Initiative: University Outreach Task Force
Committee Chair/Board Member: Eliza Bigham
Board Liaison: Alan Pope
Committee Members (please list with email addresses):
Alan Pope ()
Barbara Welsch ()
Carmen Rossoniello ()
Eamon Trainor ()
Elizabeth Bigham ()
Ellen Gehrke ()
Kevin Vernon ()
Lonnie Nelson ()
Margaret Dupee ()
Michael Conley ()
Morayo Jimoh ()
Nubli Wahab ()
Robert Longo ()
Stacey Ketchman ()
Susan Antelis ()
Tim Sobie ()
Tira Clay ()
Report on Strategic Initiatives (See page two for the list of strategic initiatives and the committee responsible):
Create a White Paper detailing the need for a consistent BF Curriculum and the recommended elements
Committee Goal(s):
The University Outreach Task Force’s short and medium term goals are to:
- survey the field (who is using biofeedback in teaching/conducting research/counseling in university settings)
- obtain/review current curriculum
Problems/Challenges in meeting Committee Goals:
It is the goal of this committee to identify the curricular needs by allowing them to emerge from the field through interaction with educators, researchers, and clinicians. Further, this committee is a university outreach committee and, thus, is interested in creating curricular support for learners at all levels. The objectives laid out in our proposed text are to produce curricular materials for a variety of BF expertise levels and BF applications.
Current programs teach clinicians to the BCIA test
In our review of existing curriculum over the past two years, we have found many existing programs in different settings that teach BF to clinicians so they can incorporate BF into their practices. There are university-based programs that are primarily within graduate level clinical programs as well as for-profit training programs that stand alone. Most, but not all, of the training materials that we reviewed seem to be focused on passing the BCIA exam.
Current programs are in primarily graduate schools
In our online survey sent to the AAPB membership in April 2011, 75% of the respondents indicated the training at their university was at the graduate level while only 8.3% indicated any training in their undergraduate programs.
Growth of field requires more than just clinicians knowing what BF is
We intend to include materials that are easily incorporated into another course or degree program to encourage professors to expose students to these concepts and plant seeds for future advocates, consumers, and practitioners.
Exposure at the undergraduate level – Resistance??
We have attempted to clarify the content of different levels of competency (technician, assistant, clinician) for different settings (research, clinical practice, education) so that the included materials are an appropriate reflection of the current field. I believe this part of our effort may make some of the membership uncomfortable and perhaps this is somehow conceptually related to the concept of “certification” for licensed practitioners. With the wide availability of BF equipment (even “apps”), some may be concerned about the “protection” of BF as a clinical field for licensed practitioners. This topic merits a great deal of attention due to the importance of the related issues, however, this discussion is beyond the scope of this committee.
Committee meeting(s) since last Board meeting recap:
In our last report (November 2011), we proposed that we would create/assemble a 400 page text on teaching bio/neurofeedback to students and invite contributors from a nominated group of “core” biofeedback instructors.
We received word that the Board supports this effort and had the following recommendations:
1. Survey the clinicians as part of the strategy - utilize the views of clinicians of skills that should be taught when developing curriculum.
2. The board requested that Eliza draft a letter for the board to forward to identified “core” biofeedback/neurofeedback educators to determine interest and potential participation willingness level.
3. Initial list of identified “core “ educators could begin with Rick Harvey, Rich Sherman, Dick Gevirtz, and Fred Shaffer.
We have included a draft letter (below) as requested by the Board. The intent is for the Board to support the current efforts of the UOTF by sending an inquiry/invitation to identified “core” BF instructors, researchers, and clinicians to determine their interest and potential participation in creating an initial BF textbook as proposed in our November 2011 report. The letter needs to be clear that the primary focus is not teaching students in clinical programs so that they can include BF in their practices or pass a particular certification. It is, instead, about university outreach – facilitating the inclusion of BF concepts into existing curriculum by providing ready materials and clarifying for the students what is needed to engage in the field. While the primary interest at this point is undergraduate education, we hope to stimulate faculty interest in generating minors/majors as well as student interest in pursuing further education in BF.
DRAFT letter regarding UTOF textbook
Good morning ______(identified “core” biof/neuro educators, researchers, clinicians),
Congratulations! You have been identified by your colleagues in AAPB as one of the “core” experts in the field of biofeedback / neurofeedback. Your valuable contributions to the growth of the field are so very much appreciated and we would like to invite you to share your expertise by contributing to an AAPB sponsored textbook on teaching biofeedback / neurofeedback in university settings.
This project proposal is a result of the efforts of the AAPB University Outreach Task Force. Over the past two years, the Task Force has reviewed current curriculum, surveyed the AAPB membership at the annual conference and online, and reviewed prior studies on teaching biofeedback / neurofeedback in university settings. Their review revealed that many programs seem to base their educational materials on a specific goal (i.e. meeting criteria for BCIA certification) and are primarily for graduate students.
The Task Force proposes that the growth of the field is dependent on a wider audience, not just practitioners/researchers, understanding the concepts and applications. Therefore, the Task Force proposes that undergraduate curriculum be developed for multiple levels of competency (awareness, understanding, assistant, practitioner/researcher/educator) for students in multiple majors (psychology, biology, kinesiology, etc.) and, further, that instructional materials be available in formats that allow instructors to easily integrate them into existing courses or generate new course proposals (or even propose new minors or majors). The current proposal is to produce a 400 page textbook with chapters written by the “core” educators in the field with input from clinicians.
Today, we are requesting input from you regarding your potential interest in contributing to this effort. More specifically, we are interested in learning more about your past experiences with this topic and would like to know if you would be interesting in writing a chapter for the textbook. Your comments of any nature on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you ………
Action needed, motion or policy to be approved by the Board:
1. Need Board to identify “core” biofeedback/neurofeedback experts (educators, researchers, and clinicians) to determine initial list – perhaps in order of preference
2. Need Board to forward/send out communication to “core” biofeedback/neurofeedback experts to determine interest and potential participation level