Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 129–141 | Cite as

From Medicine to Teaching: The Evolution of the Simulated Interaction Model

  • Benjamin H. Dotger
  • Sharon C. Dotger
  • Michael J. Maher
Article

Abstract

Medical education institutions frequently simulate interactions between future health professionals and standardized patients. This manuscript describes a partnership between a teacher preparation institution and a nearby medical institution, outlining specific procedures associated with the use of standardized parents, students, and paraprofessionals in helping future teachers and school leaders navigate common problems of practice. Implications center on the potential of this pedagogy to help bridge the gap between teacher preparation and practice as well as the applicability of this pedagogical approach to other higher education professional preparation programs.

Key words

standardized patient standardized parent simulated interaction parent–teacher communication situated cognition 

References

  1. Association of American Medical Colleges. (1998). Emerging trends in the use of standardized patients. Contemporary Issues in Medical Education, 1(7), 1–2.Google Scholar
  2. Barrows, H. S. (1993). An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. Academic Medicine, 68(6), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S. (2000). Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dotger, B. (2009). “I had no idea”: Developing dispositional awareness and sensitivity through a cross-professional pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.017
  7. Dotger, B., & Ashby, C. (in press). Exposing conditional inclusive ideologies through simulated interactions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(2).Google Scholar
  8. Dotger, B., & Haddix, M. (2009). “I have no power”: examining teachers shifting authority through (simulated) parent–teacher interactions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. Dotger, B., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2009). “But what do I say?”: New teachers learn to talk with parents. Educational Leadership, 66(9). Retrieved August 7, 2009 from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/summer09/vol66/num09/But_What_Do_I_Say%A2.aspx
  10. Dotger, B., & Smith, M. (2009). “Where’s the line?”—Negotiating simulated experiences to define teacher identity. The New Educator, 5(2), 161–180.Google Scholar
  11. Dotger, B., Harris, S., & Hansel, A. (2008). Emerging authenticity: The crafting of simulated parent–teacher candidate conferences. Teaching Education, 19(4), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dotger, S., Dotger, B., & Tillotson, J. (2009). Examining how pre-service science teachers navigate simulated parent–teacher conversations on evolution and intelligent design. Science Education, doi: 10.1002/sce.20375
  13. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, J. L. (2005). Links in a professional development chain: preservice and in-service education for effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships. The New Educator, 1, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Kirsh, D. (2009). Problem solving and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 262–306). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.Google Scholar
  18. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  20. Reiman, A. J., & Peace, S. D. (2002). Promoting teachers’ moral reasoning and collaborative inquiry performance: A developmental role-taking and guided inquiry study. Journal of Moral Education, 31(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin H. Dotger
    • 1
  • Sharon C. Dotger
    • 2
  • Michael J. Maher
    • 3
  1. 1.Teaching and LeadershipSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Teaching and Leadership, Science TeachingSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.College of EducationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations