A SUGGESTION TO REVISE THE PSYCHODRAMA CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Buds bud.weiss at gmail.com
Fri Jan 23 17:24:58 UTC 2015


I really think john's proposal along with a consideration of shifting the organization of the ASGPP toward that of the Australian/New Zealand organization makes sense to me. Not only does John's suggestion make for the possibility of a more thorough Tele driven live personal process, it has so many spinoffs in terms of how the trainee's learning would be enriched by the process in addition to  hopefully achieving certification. To me, there is far less rigor to completing a written exam which some are far better at than others. Psychodrama etc is not a cold impersonal process. It is hot, requiring high levels of spontaneity which cannot be adequately assessed in a written exam. I would even through in several spontaneity test situations in the process of the live exam. That was a regular activity at Beacon when I was in training and assisting with training others. Too many depend on figuring it out intellectually as they go along. That's fine to begin with and upon going over and analyzing what worked and what didn't in their PDs which should be recorded regularly for the benefit of all involved. 
The board of examiners should be a separate body entirely from the membership and the regular board. Both boards should be established for an agreed upon term with alternates available through a sociometric process created from a list of suggested persons from the membership of the ASGPP who have agreed to take on those responsibilities which of course should be and undoubtedly are listed publicly. 
Hope this is helpful.
Best from Bud
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Peter Howie <peter at moreno.com.au> wrote:
> 
> It sounds like, from someone out of the action and far away,  as though the governance process needs to be thought through again. It may be a pity to make some changes but not set up the system to allow ongoing modifications as context and conditions require.
> 
> The professional association here, The Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Psychodrama association, has a different structure than the USA model. We have one association with members (practitioners) and associate members (trainees). The association has a permanent and largely independent subcommittee called the AANZPA Board of Examiners. This board has carriage of maintaining standards of practitioners, and over sighting training processes and trainers, and keeps updating and refining a fairly comprehensive Training and Standards Manual that has been modified a number of times over the last 30 years. Trainers are certificated through the Board to be TEPs, and institutes are separately accredited by the Board also. Trainees need to be 'attached' to an institute rather than a trainer or trainers. Not all trainers are part of the board which usually operates with 4 or 5 members. Members are invited to join for a period of 3 years. 
> 
> This system has its own dilemmas, but making changes to the certification requirements is not one of them. The board independently has modified the standards over the years and at times has also consulted with TEPs and institutes regarding possible changes. Generally speaking making propositions is way more effective that asking for ideas. 
> 
> Unless someone is able to be a full time psychodramatist it is difficult to engage with such areas on a regular and consistent manner especially during the lean times between either council meetings or conferences. If one has their own institute, as you can do in the USA, even then the capacity to focus on such areas is limited. And as well all know (peculiar Australian humour to follow) being a psychodrama practitioners is a guarantee of riches and wealth.
> 
> We also have a psychodrama, sociodrama, sociometry and role training specialisation. But all these certifications require the practitioner to be able to competently run what we would all call psychodrama session or to work in action.
> 
> I do hope you keep working it through. The discussions are the most important element, from my perspective.
> 
> Cheers from the outside
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> Peter Howie
> B.Sc, M.Ed, T.E.P, PhD Candidate
> School of Education and Professional Studies
> Education M.06. Room 2.04 Mt Gravatt
> Executive Director - Psychodrama Australia 
> Director of Training - Brisbane Campus
> www.psychodramaaustralia.edu.au
> Mobile:  0411 873 851
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 4 Jan 2015, at 5:13 am, Rebecca Walters <hvpi at hvpi.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Not long ago the American Board of Examiners floated some ideas for possible changes or additional certifications . I don't remember the details but I do know that we teps were surveyed, there was very little response and so nothing much came of it. Quite disappointing. If my memory serves me, Mario was part of the initiative.
>>   I would think that people interested in changing the certification process might consider running for the American Board of Examiners. If things run on a platform changing the certification process, and they win, that might be an effective way to begin to create change.
>> Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone.
>> 
>>> On Jan 3, 2015 1:29 PM, National Psychodrama Training Center <nptc at snet.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:35 AM, John Nolte <jhn.nolte at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Remer, Rory <rremer at email.uky.edu>
>>> Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:27 AM
>>> Subject: RE: A SUGGESTION TO REVISE THE PSYCHODRAMA CERTIFICATION PROCESS
>>> To: "nolte.jm at gmail.com" <nolte.jm at gmail.com>, Grouptalk <list at grouptalkweb.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  I think John has many good points about reviewing and addressing the examination process.  Discussion is warranted.  I do disagree with a number of the suggestions--primarily with an oral exam.  So discussion would be a good idea. (My experience with oral is that, although they get more depth, then tend to have a problem with breadth, and sharing/distributing time among participants.  Certainly both written and oral exams have their strengths and weaknesses.) Perhaps this item could be put on the agenda for the Board session (or annual meeting) in April, AS A STARTING point.  I wouldn't expect much closure.
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: National Psychodrama Training Center [natpdtngcent at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 3:29 PM
>>> To: Remer, Rory
>>> Subject: A SUGGESTION TO REVISE THE PSYCHODRAMA CERTIFICATION PROCESS
>>> 
>>> This is the main title of the message
>>> A SUGGESTION TO REVISE THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
>>>  
>>> To: Members of The Board of Examiners in Psychodrama, Sociometry and Group Psychotherapy
>>> Trainer, Educator, Practitioners
>>> Certified Practitioners
>>> From: John Nolte, T.E.P.
>>> Subject: A Suggestion to Revise the Certification Process
>>> The Board of Examiners in Psychodrama, Sociometry and Group Psychotherapy was established almost 40 years ago, and the certification process, beyond grandfathering, was begun shortly after. Although elaborated upon, it has remained pretty much the same since. My experience as both a member of the Board and as a trainer is that the certification process is cumbersome and onerous for all involved: trainers, trainees, Board members, and those who read the written test answers. I would like to suggest that the time has come to consider a revision of the certification process. Since the establishment of the Board a wealth of experience with certification is available that could serve that purpose. I would like to propose that the Board invite all those who have taken part in one way or another in the certification process to offer suggestions on how it could be improved.
>>> Because I think that people who suggest what others should do should undertake the task themselves, I am attaching my ideas for revising certification. I am sure other trainers and certified practitioners can generate many more ideas, and some must be better than that which I am proposing. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out?
>>>  
>>>  
>>> My Proposal for a Revised Certification Procedure
>>> Application Forms: There are only three pieces of information that a trainer, primary or secondary can provide that are relevant to the certification process. They are:
>>> 1. The relationship to the trainee, how long trainer has known trainee, and the extent of training with him or her;
>>> 2. Confirmation of trainee's calendar of training with this and other trainers;
>>> 3. Endorsement of the trainee, indicating that the trainer is willing to stake his or her reputation as a trainer on the trainee's competence as a psychodrama director and his or her ethical behavior.
>>> Examination
>>> Rather than a written examination, I propose that the candidate for certification meet with a committee of three members of the Board of Examiners (or previous Board Examiners deputized for this purpose) for an oral examination. I think that such a meeting for an hour or an hour and a half can more effectively measure a candidate's grasp of knowledge of the areas now covered by the written examination. After the examination, the Examiners can decide whether the candidate has succeeded or not and inform him or her directly. The oral examination would reduce the many hours involved in preparing the examinations for grading as well as the hours spent in reading examinations by the graders. Most importantly, the candidate could receive an almost immediate result instead of waiting for months as things now stand.
>>> Oral examinations could be scheduled to take place during the Annual Conference of the ASGPP. The four days offer many opportunities for examining committees to meet with prospective candidates. By deputizing others as examiners and by using small committees, the task should not be too burdensome for individual Board members. If necessary, another opportunity for undergoing the oral examination could be arranged, probably in a different area of the country at a different time of year.
>>> III. Demonstration of Directing Skill (On-Site)
>>> In lieu of the current practice of on-site observations, I would like to suggest that the Board organize and offer several workshops of six to nine sessions. Each session would be directed by a candidate for certification. One, preferably two Board members (or other deputized observers) would conduct a thorough processing session following each drama. Participants in the workshops (seven to twelve) could be recruited by the Board from people in training for certification who could attend at a small or no fee, and in return would accrue training hours. In addition, they would have the advantage of participating in the certification process in advance of undergoing the it themselves. Another possibility is to conduct several of these sessions during the Annual Conference of the ASGPP. In that case, I would recommend different groups and observers for each such session.
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20150123/c3d16c3e/attachment.html>


More information about the List mailing list