Utilizing Clinical Simulations to Assess Teacher Preparedness for Instructional and Behavioral Classroom Situations

• In Event: 63.065 - Performance-Based Strategies to Train and Assess Teacher–Parent Conversation Competencies

Abstract

1) Objectives/Purposes

This portion of the symposium outlines the concept of clinical simulations for teacher preparation. To illustrate the process, I describe two different clinical simulations – one that situates teacher candidates in conversation with a proactive mother of a student with autism, and a second that challenges candidates to convey a student’s academic and behavioral information to a concerned mother. Data from both simulations are presented, showing how two cohorts of teacher candidates navigated these simulated problems of practice.

2) Perspectives/Theoretical Framework

Clinical simulations within teacher education are anchored by cognitive development and situated cognition frameworks (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Piaget, 1959). As summarized by Reiman and Peace (2002), these frameworks offer (a) the assumption that learners construct knowledge through experience in specific situations, (b) the recognition of uncertainty as a catalyst for growth, and (c) an emphasis on disposition and skill development, as learners’ experiences, interpretations, and professional reasoning synthesize over time (von Glaserfeld, 1989).

3) Methods/Techniques/Data Sources

The author describes his partnership with Central Medical University (CMU) and his use of CMU’s roster of standardized patients. A standardized patient is a healthy individual carefully trained to present distinct symptoms and communicate questions/concerns to medical professionals in training (Barrows, 1987, 2000). The author retrained standardized patients to serve instead as standardized parents. Two documents guide a single simulation – a Teacher Interaction Protocol (TIP) and a Standardized Individual Protocol (SIP). The TIP provides each teacher candidate with an appropriate amount of background and contextual information, but not so much information that it foretells, scripts, or overly-directs the teacher on what to do or say in the simulation. In contract, the SIP is extensive, carefully preparing the standardized individual on exactly what to say and do when interacting with the teacher. The teacher and standardized parent meet in one of CMU’s simulation rooms, equipped with multi-angle cameras and microphones, yielding video data used later with teacher candidates in the debriefing process.

4) Results/Scholarly Significance

When engaging with the proactive mother, candidates show varying abilities in identifying appropriate classroom modifications for students with autism. Candidates indicate in debriefing and written reflections that they struggled with how to respond to the mother’s questions about their knowledge of autism, despite their enrollment in special education coursework. In the second simulation – focused on a student’s significant academic and behavior challenges – teacher candidates demonstrated acumen in conveying academic and behavioral data. At the same time, candidates wrestled with balancing this provision of information to the parent while also attending to the mother’s concerned disposition and her desire to ask clarifying questions. Candidates often questioned perceived boundaries between schools and homes, asking if there are ‘lines’ that should be crossed, and if so, how and when do teachers bridge and navigate these boundaries. Broader implications of these two simulations focus on their comparison and contrast to other clinical simulations that guide school leaders in refining their engagement with families and caregivers.

Author

• Benjamin H. Dotger, Syracuse University