COLLABORATIVE LEARNING. Collaborative Learning Why introduce (or re-introduce) this model?? – May...
-
Upload
paula-harper -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of COLLABORATIVE LEARNING. Collaborative Learning Why introduce (or re-introduce) this model?? – May...
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
Collaborative Learning
• Why introduce (or re-introduce) this model??– May be an effective way to supervise (some
students may learn better this way)– May be efficiencies for facilities (once up front
planning is done)– Definitely will be more students
• Abilene Christian University, other new programs • TTUHSC increasing enrollment
Collaborative Learning
• Tends to link 2 or 3 students to one supervisor– This is where efficiencies may come into play– Uses “additional” students as a major resource
• Focus is on how to teach/learn– Encourages self-directed learning– Uses teamwork as a motivator for learning– Students ask a lot of question of each other
Collaborative Learning
• Planning is different for facilities– Planning at facilities must take into account more
small group facilitation– Students must be held accountable for teamwork
with each other (sort of, but not exactly on the FWPE)
– Still needs to individually provide suggestions advice and scoring (assessment of skills/behaviors)
Collaborative Learning
• Planning is different for schools– Must prepare students for collaborative learning
in addition to 1:1 learning situations– Must work with facilities to ensure group
processing is occurring– Must ensure that the FW is individualized so that
one student does “carry” the other/s.
Collaborative Learning
• Fear of Managing more than 1 person• Time constraints to be prepared and develop
resources• Concerns about pairing students• Worries about increased workloads• Difficulties meeting the needs of different types
of learners• Confusion about what Collaborative learning
even is…
UTMB EXPERIENCE
The Student Response
• Students participated in a survey questionnaire through Survey Monkey to answer a series of questions on the 2 supervisory models
• A Likert scale of 1 – 5 was used, with 1 – strongly disagree and 5 – strongly agree
Conclusion
• Although the students felt comfortable with both supervisory models and they perceived both models were effective in their learning, they preferred the one-on-one supervision for their Level II fieldwork rotations
ENTRY LEVEL PRACTICE
19
ACOTE: Minimum Standards and Outcomes
OT – Be a generalist – Achieve entry-level competence– Articulate, apply, and justify
occupation interventions– Supervise and collaborate with
the OTA– Keep current with best practice– Uphold the ethics, values, and
attitudes of the profession– Be an effective consumer of
research and knowledge
OTA– Be a generalist– Achieve entry-level
competence – Work under the supervision of
and in cooperation with the OT– Articulate, apply, and justify
interventions related to occupation
– Keep current with best practice
– Uphold the ethics, values, and attitudes of the profession
20
Goal of Level II Fieldwork Education for the OT and OTA Student
• Develop competent, entry-level generalists• Include an in-depth experience in delivering
occupational therapy services• Be designed to promote reasoning, enable
ethical practice, and develop professionalism
Competence
• Competence is mentioned by ACOTE and AOTA as a goal of Education and Fieldwork
• So, what is competence??• Do students need to be competent in every
skill or behavior?– Yes for ethics and safety. No for all other skills.
22
Primary Purpose of the FWPEs
• Measures entry-level competence– Designed to differentiate the competent student
from the incompetent student – Not designed to differentiate levels above entry-
level competence
23
RASCH Ordering of Items OT
- -2- - - - - - - - - -
1- - - - - - - - - -
0- - - - - - - - - -
-1- - - - - - - - - -
-2-
Interpersonal; 41
Res
pnds
2 f
dbk
38D
iver
sity
; 42
Eth
ics;
1 C
olla
b c
supe
r;36
Wor
kbeh
39,
saf
ety
2S
teps
3,R
esp;
37
Tim
emng
40; L
egib
le 3
4
Cli
ent c
ente
red
inte
rv 2
2 O
ccup
n ba
sed
inte
r 23
Sel
ects
rel
occ
u; 2
1P
rodu
ces
wor
k; 3
1C
lear
doc
umen
tati
on; 3
3O
rg g
oals
30;
ver
bl 3
2 D
ocum
ents
intr
v; 2
6C
olla
bora
tes
clnt
; 7L
angu
age
refl
ects
35
Doc
umen
ts e
val r
slts
17
OT
beli
efs
4 O
btai
n in
f 12
R
ole
of O
T; 6
Rat
iona
le T
x 18
, A
dmin
iste
r as
ses
13
Art
ic r
atin
al e
val;
8A
rtic
val
ue o
cc 5
Mod
ifie
s ap
proa
ch 2
4U
nder
st f
inan
ces;
29
Col
labo
rate
s O
TA 2
8O
cc p
rof
10, A
djst
ass
14
Est
Pla
n 16
, Ass
ess
ftr
11U
pdat
es; 2
5, E
vide
nce
19
Inte
rpre
ts e
val r
eslt
s; 1
5 S
elec
ts r
el a
sses
met
hd; 9
Ass
igns
res
p O
TA; 2
7
HARD
24
Rasch Ordering of Items OTAEasier
2- - - - - - - - - -
1- - - - - - - - - -
0- - - - - - - - - -
-1- - - - - - - - - -
-2-
Cultural competence; 25
Ethics; 1
Interpersonal skills;24
Responds to Feedback;21
Safety; 2 and 3
Work Behaviors; 22
Therapeutic Use Self;16
Written Communication;19
Verbal Communication; 18
Self-responsibility; 20
IImplements intervntn; 14
OT/OTA Roles 5DataGather
Selects Intervention;13
Activity Analysis; 15
Evidence BasedPractic 6
Plans Intervention; 12
Reports; 10
OT Philosophy; 4
Administer Assessmnts;8
Establishes Goals; 11
Modifies Intrven Plan;17
Interprets Assessment;9
Harder
Defining Competence...
• Kane (1994): working model definition– “To identify the knowledge, skills, and judgments
that are used in practice and that make a difference in practice, in the sense that the practitioner’s level of mastery of knowledge, skills, and judgment has a substantial impact on the effectiveness of the practitioner’s performance” (p.148)
– Kane reference found in Salvatori, 1996
ACOTE: Entry-Level Competency Definition
• Entry-level: Being prepared to begin generalist practice as an occupational therapy practitioner with less than 1 year experience
• Competency: Having the requisite abilities/qualities and capacity to function in a professional environment
Site Specific Objectives
• These were/are intended to be a way to supplement the FWPE and to allow better more specific measurement of competence for each FW site.
Site Specific Objectives
• Common difficulties with Site Specific Objectives– People don’t take the time to do them.– Using templates can help, but…– What if a student doesn’t meet all of them?– How do you measure the objectives? Do you need
many different types of measurement?– Are objectives actually entry level?– Is it fair to have one site with 3 extra objectives and
another with 35 extra objectives?
Measuring Competence
• So, how can you measure/evaluate that the student is at entry-level mastery?– Level of independence?
– Frequency/Timeliness of performance?
– Quality of performance?
SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL
Situational Leadership Model
• One way to determine competence may be to use the Situational Leadership Model
• Allows you to work with students in an intentional way.
• Allows you to be able to judge student competence by identifying your supervisory behaviors.
• We often do this instinctively, but the model can put words and a usable framework to our instincts.
Situational Leadership Supervision Styles for Your Students
4 Supervisory Approaches to Consider– Directing (low competence)– Coaching (low to moderate competence)– Supporting (moderate to high competence
with consistency)• if you are supporting, then your student is probably at
entry level competence
– Delegating (high competence consistently)
Supervision Styles for Your Students
Directing (Foundational Level)– Sets goals and clarifies expectations– Tells and shows an individual what to do,
when and how to do it– Closely supervises, monitors, and evaluates
performance
Supervision Styles for Your Students
Coaching (2nd level)– Assists with task organization and delivery– Uses competencies to reinforce learning tasks
more fully– Encourages during task performance– Supports what student knows, teaches parts not
known– Explains why desired performance is important – Inquires about student awareness of weaknesses
and follows with suggested action steps to remedy
Supervision Styles for Your Students
Supporting (3rd level)– Engages in more two-way communication– Listens and provides support and
encouragement– Expect accurate assessment of skills and
behaviors– Involves the student in decision making– Encourages and facilitates self-reliant
problem solving
Supervision Styles for Your Students
Delegating– Accepts self-
direction– Asks for input when
needed and to improve
Examples
• Skills/Behavior Checklist• Specific objectives
Evidence for the use of Situational Leadership Model
TTUHSC FW I Experience
• Instructor taught with Situational Leadership guiding her interactions with 20 FW I students
• Learning occurred over the summer semester
TTUHSC FW I Experience
• Students participated in pre-test and the post-test rating of perceived competence in 2 skills
• Students participated in pre-test and post-test evaluation on their knowledge of a treatment planning template
• Students participated in pre-test and post-test treatment planning sessions
Statistically Significant Change Noted (Alpha=.05)
2.05
3.55
SLM Competence ScoresFor Treatment Planning
(using a 1-4 scale)Pre Post
Statistically Significant Change Noted (Alpha=.05)
2.2
3.33
SLM Competence ScoresFor Goal Attainment Scaling
(Using a 1-4 scale)
Pre Post
Statistically Significant Change Noted (Alpha=.05)
1.175
2.75
SLM Pre-PostCategory Identification
(up to 6 categories)
Pre Post
Statistically Significant Change Noted (Alpha=.05)
4.6
6
SLM Pre-PostCategory Descriptions
(up to 6 categories)Pre Post
Other Thoughts About FW and Competence
• What problems occur with FW II:1 students that prompt the decision to accept only FW II:2 students?
• What skills/behaviors do FW II:2 students demonstrate that make them more prepared?
• What skills/competence do students need on a FW II to immediately meet your needs to take a student regardless of rotation?