1. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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…

7. UTMB EXPERIENCE

8. 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

17. 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

18. ENTRY LEVEL PRACTICE

19. 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. 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

21. 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. 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. 23 RASCH Ordering of Items OT - 2- - 1- - 0- - -1- - -2- Interpersonal; 41 Respnds 2 fdbk 38 Diversity; 42 Ethics; 1 Collab c super;36 Workbeh 39, safety 2 Steps 3,Resp; 37 Timemng40; Legible 34 Client centered interv 22 Occupn based inter 23 Selects rel occu; 21 Produces work; 31 Clear documentation; 33 Org goals 30; verbl 32 Documents intrv; 26 Collaborates clnt; 7 Language reflects 35 Documents eval rslts 17 OTbeliefs 4 Obtain inf 12 Role of OT; 6 Rationale Tx 18, Administer asses 13 Artic ratinal eval; 8 Artic value occ 5 Modifies approach 24 Underst finances; 29 Collaborates OTA 28 Occ prof 10, Adjst ass 14 Est Plan 16, Assess ftr 11 Updates; 25, Evidence 19 Interprets eval reslts; 15 Selects rel asses methd; 9 Assigns resp OTA; 27 HARD

24. 24 Rasch Ordering of Items OTA

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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?

29. 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?

30. SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL

31. 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.

32. 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)

33. 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

34. Supervision Styles for Your Students Coaching (2 nd 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

35. Supervision Styles for Your Students Supporting (3 rd 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

36. Supervision Styles for Your Students Delegating – Accepts self- direction – Asks for input when needed and to improve

37. Examples Skills/Behavior Checklist Specific objectives

38. Evidence for the use of Situational Leadership Model

39. TTUHSC FW I Experience Instructor taught with Situational Leadership guiding her interactions with 20 FW I students Learning occurred over the summer semester

40. 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

41. Statistically Significant Change Noted (Alpha=.05)

45. 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?