Background. Placements are key contexts for occupational therapy students to connect theoretical knowledge (theory) with practice. Theory relates to the prevailing ideas and concepts used by a profession. It can be derived within and outside the profession (discipline-specific knowledge and related knowledge, respectively). Purpose. This scoping review aimed to identify what is known about the nature of theoretical knowledge used in occupational therapy practice education. Method. A search of 4 electronic databases identified 19 relevant publications, data from which was extracted deductively. Findings. Inconsistent descriptions related to discipline-specific knowledge while related knowledge was often presented as not integrated with, or complementing, discipline-specific knowledge. Some authors referred to educational knowledge and methods informing student's theory use during placements. Implications. Educational methods need to provide a foundational platform, enabling novice learners to structure their thinking about ways discipline-specific and related knowledge can be used within an occupational framework on placement.
American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(6), 609-639.
2.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014). Occupational therapy practice framework: domain & process (3rd edition). The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.682006.
3.
AndersonL.KrathwohlD. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Longman.
4.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
5.
AshbyS.ChandlerB. (2010). An exploratory study of the occupation-focused models included in occupational therapy professional education programmes. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(12), 616–624. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802210x12918167234325.
6.
BennetS.RodgerS.FitzgeraldC.GibsonL. (2017). Simulation in Occupational Therapy Curricula: A Literature ReviewAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal, 64(1), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12372.
7.
BergnerJ. L. (2018). Field report: navigating fieldwork placements using occupation-based models. OT Practice, 14–17.
8.
BilletS. (2010). Emerging perspectives of work: implications for university teaching and learning. In HiggsJ.FishD.GoulterI.LoftusS.ReidJ.TredeF. (Eds.), Education for future practice. (pp. 97–112). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460913204.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (1997). Enabling occupation: an occupational therapy perspective. CAOT Publications ACE.
11.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists (2007). Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being and justice through occupation. CAOT Publications ACE.
12.
ChaiklinS. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction. In KozulinA.GindisB.AgeyevV. S.MillerS. M. (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840975.004.
ChristiansenC.BaumC. (1997). Person-environment-occupational performance: A conceptual model for practice. In ChristiansenC. H.BaumC. M. (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Enabling function and well-being (pp. 46–70). Slack.
15.
CopleyJ. A.RodgerS. A.GrahamF. P.HannayV. A. (2011). Facilitating student occupational therapists’ mastery of occupation-centred approaches for working with children. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2011.78.1.5.
16.
CopleyJ. A.RodgerS. A.HannayV. A.GrahamF. P. (2010). Occupational therapy students’ experiences in learning occupation-centred approaches to working with children. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2010.77.1.7.
Dancza, K. M. (2015). Structure and uncertainty: The ‘just right’ balance for occupational therapy student learning on role-emerging placements in schools. Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
19.
DanczaD.CopleyJ.MoranM. (2019). Occupational therapy student learning on role- emerging placements in schools. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 82(9), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022619840167.
20.
DanczaK.. CopleyJ.MoranM. (2021). PLUS Framework: Guidance for practice educators. Clinical Teacher,18(4), 431–438. https://doi.org.10.1111/tct.13393.
21.
DanczaK.CopleyJ.RodgerS.MoranM. (2016). The development of a theory-informed workbook as an additional resource for supporting occupational therapy students on role-emerging placements. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(4), 135–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022615612806.
22.
DanczaK.RodgerS. (2018). Implementing occupation- centred practice: A practical guide for occupational therapy practice learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297415.
23.
De BonoE. (1985). Six thinking hats: an essential approach to business management. Little, Brown and Company.
24.
Di TommasoA.WicksA.ScarvellJ.IsbelS. (2019). Uncovering educator perspectives of occupation-centred education in Australia: A qualitative study. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66(2), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12529.
25.
DreyfusH.DreyfusS. (1986). Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. The Free Press.
26.
Du ToitV. (2004). Patient volition and action in occupational therapy. Vona & Marie du Toit Foundation.
27.
FearingV.LawM.ClarkJ. (1997). An occupational performance process model: fostering client and therapist alliances. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749706400103.
28.
FishD.BonifaceG. (2012). Reconfiguring professional thinking and conduct: A challenge for occupational therapists in practice. In BonnifaceG.SeymourA. (Eds.), Using occupational therapy theory in practice (pp. 9-20). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118709634.ch2.
29.
Fisher, A. G. (2009). Occupational therapy intervention process model: A model for planning and implementing top- down, client centred, and occupation-based interventions. Three Star Press.
30.
FisherA. G. (2013). ‘Occupation-centred, occupation-based, occupation-focussed: same, same or different?’ Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20(3), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2012.754492.
31.
FrigoN.HannemanE.KashaleA.SuttonM.WrightE.JewellV. (2019). Utility of the occupation-centered intervention assessment for occupational therapy level I fieldwork. International Journal of Practice-Based Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v7i1.510.
32.
GibbsG. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Polytechnic.
GreberC. (2018). Postmodernism and beyond in occupational therapy. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 65(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12438.
36.
GreberC.ZivianiJ.RodgerS. (2007). The four-quadrant model of facilitated learning (part 2): Strategies and applications. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00663.x.
37.
GustafssonL.MolineuxM.BennettS. (2014). Contemporary occupational therapy practice: the challenges of being evidence based and philosophically congruent. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61(2), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12110.
38.
HansonD. (2015). Closing in the practice-theory gap during fieldwork. OT Practice, 20(20), 13–14.
39.
HansonD. (2013a). How do students learn the skills needed for client-centered practice?OT Practice, 18(20), 7–8.
HinojosaJ. (2017). How society’s philosophy has shaped occupational therapy practice for the past 100 years. Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1325.
42.
HowarthJ. T.MorrisK.CoxD. L. (2018). Challenges of teaching occupation: Introduction of an occupation focused teaching tool. Journal of Occupational Science, 25(1), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2017.1397535.
IwamaM. K.ThomsonN. A.MacdonaldR. M. (2009). The KAWA model: the power of culturally responsive occupational therapy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(14), 1125–1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280902773711.
45.
JohnsC. (2004). Becoming a reflective practitioner. Wiley Blackwell.
46.
KaelinV. C.DanczaK. (2019). Perceptions of occupational therapy threshold concepts by students in role–emerging placements in schools: A qualitative investigation. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66(6), 711–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12610.
47.
KatzN.GoldstandS.Traub Bar-IlanR.ParushS. (2007). The dynamic occupational therapy cognitive assessment for children (DOTCA-ch): A new instrument for assessing learning potential. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.1.41.
48.
KielhofnerG. (1980). A model of human occupation, Part two. Ontogenesis from the perspective of temporal adaptation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34(10), 731–737. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.34.10.657.
49.
KielhofnerG. (2008). Model of human occupation: Theory and application. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
50.
KielhofnerG. (2009). Conceptual foundations of occupational therapy practice. F. A. Davis Company.
51.
KnowlesM. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
54.
LadyshewskyR. K. (2013). The role of peers in feedback processes. In BoudD.MolloyE. (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: understanding it and doing it well (pp. 174–189). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074336-16.
LawM.CooperB.StrongS. D.StewartD.RigbyP.LettsL. (1996). The person environment occupation model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749606300103.
57.
LeclairL. L.RipatJ. D.WenerP. F.CooperJ. E.JohnsonL. A.DavisE. L.Campbell-RempelM. A. (2013). Advancing the use of theory in occupational therapy: A collaborative process. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80(3), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417413495182.
58.
LevacD.ColquhounH.O'BrienK. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.
59.
MaloneyS. M.GriffithK. (2013). Occupational therapy students’ development of therapeutic communication skills during a service- learning experience. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 29(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0164212x.2013.760288.
60.
MezirowJ. (1997). Transformative learning: theory and practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401.
61.
MillerM.RobertsM. J. (2020). Teaching and learning occupation in occupational therapy education: A qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 4 (3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2020.040313.
62.
MoseyA. C. (1985). Eleanor Clarke slagle lecture, 1985: A monistic or a pluralistic approach to professional identity?The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39(8), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.39.8.504.
63.
MoseyM. C. (1973). Activities therapy. Raven Press.
64.
NaidooD.van WykJ., M.DhunpathR. (2019). Service-Learning pedagogies to promote student learning in occupational therapy education. Africa Education Review, 16(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1340806.
65.
Nicola-RichmondK.PépinG.LarkinH. (2018). ‘Once you get the threshold concepts the world is changed forever’: the exploration of threshold concepts to promote work-ready occupational therapy graduates. International Journal of Practice-Based Learning in Health and Social Care, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v6i1.417.
66.
PattonN.ChristensenN. (2019). Pedagogies for teaching and learning clinical reasoning. In HiggsJ.JensenG. M.LoftusS.ChristensenN. (Eds.), Clinical reaoning in the health professions (pp. 335–344). Elsevier.
67.
PolatajkoH. J.CraikJ.DavisJ.TownsendE. A. (2007). Canadian Practice process framework. In TownsendE. A.PolatajkoH. J. (Eds.), Enabling occupation II: advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, wellbeing, and justice through occupation (pp. 233). CAOT Publications ACE.
68.
PolatajkoH. J.MandichA. (2004). Enabling occupation in children: The cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP) approach. CAOT Publications ACE.
69.
PolatajkoH. J.MandichA.MartiniR. (2000). Dynamic performance analysis: A framework for understanding occupational performance. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.54.1.65.
70.
PretoriusJ. (1997). A model of ontogenesis and the dynamics of occupational function and dysfunction. In CrouchR. B.AlersV. M. (Eds.), Occupational therapy in psychiatry and mental health (pp. 46–78). Maskew Miller Longman.
71.
RaizA. (2007). Service learning in an occupation-based curriculum: Student commentary. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 21(1–2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/j003v21n01_05.
72.
RipatJ.WenerP.DobinsonK. (2013). The development of client-centredness in student occupational therapists. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(5), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802213X13679275042681.
73.
RobertsM. E.HooperB. R.WoodW. H.KingR. M. (2015). An international systematic mapping review of fieldwork education in occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 82(2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417414552187.
74.
RodgerS.TurpinM. (2011). Using threshold concepts to transform entry level curricula. In KrauseK.BuckridgeM.GrimmerC.Purbrick-IlleckS. (Eds.), Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education, 34 (pp. 263 – 274). Gold Coast, Australia, 4 – 7 July 2011.
75.
SchkadeJ. K.SchultzS. (1992). Occupational adaptation: towards a holistic approach to contemporary practice, part 1. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(9), 829–837. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.46.9.829.
76.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
77.
SchonD. A. (1983). Educating the reflective practitioner: towards a new design for teaching and learning in professions. Jossey- Bass.
78.
SumisonT.LawM. (2006) A review of evidence on the conceptual elements informing client- centered practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841740607300303.
79.
TownsE.AshbyS. (2014). The influence of practice educators on occupational therapy students’ understanding of the practical applications of theoretical knowledge: A phenomenological study into student experiences of practice education. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 61(5), 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12134.
80.
TownsendE. A.PolatajkoH. (2007). Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, wellbeing and justice through occupation. CAOT Publications ACE.
81.
TresederR.PolglaseT. (2013). Intervention knowledge and skills on placement. In The occupational therapy handbook: practice education (pp. 78-93). M&K Publishing.
82.
TromblyC. A. (1993). Anticipating the future: assessment of occupational function. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(3), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.3.253.
83.
TurpinM.IwamaM. (2011). Using occupational therapy models in practice. Churchill Livingstone.
84.
VermaakM. E.NelM. (2016). From paper to practice: Academics and practitioners working together in enhancing the use of occupational therapy conceptual models. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(3), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.17159/2310-3833/2016/v46n3a7.
85.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
86.
World Health Organisation (2001) International Classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva 2001.
