DL & Group Work: How to Address Problematic Student Behaviors
Concurrent Session 3
The mention of group work in DL environments can evoke feelings of resistance in students and educators alike. The presenter will explore the differences between normal anxiety and more persistent behavior concerns and how-to manage both. Unpack a tool box of behavior management skills, best practices, sample rubrics to measure professional behaviors, and more. Leave with strong skills that foster professional growth for all students.
1. Participants will be able to normalize and manage initial student resistance to group projects in DL environments and identify the more problematic professional disposition concerns that may emerge, as well as explore their own resistance to utilizing group work in DL environments.
2. Participants will explore how to utilize gate keeping skills to address concerning behaviors that emerge from collaborative group work expectations in DL environments to help all students gain self awareness, insights that lead to growth as professional counselors.
3.Participants will learn strategies to implement early in the course to clarify expectations, address student anxiety, as well as how to utilize gate keeping skills to address persistent professional disposition behaviors that emerge when collaborating with other students to complete group projectsThe number of distance learning or online programs continues to rise. The integration of technology into instructional design may complicate some educator functions such as managing student behaviors. Distance learning formats may make it more difficult for educators to identify problems with professional competence and increase challenges to addressing the problems once they are identified.
Behavior concerns and remediation are critical functions of educators in both face to face and online environments. In their roles as educator, instructors are tasked with evaluating students in terms of professional competence and intervening when difficult behaviors arise (Brown-Rice & Furr). Foster and McAdams (2009) defined gatekeeping as the responsibility of all educators, to intervene with students who engage in inappropriate behaviors. Problems behaviors include inadequate skill development, inadequate ethical decision-making competency, and lack of appropriate personal functioning including the development of empathy and awareness of impact on others (Vacha-Haase Davenport, & Kerewsky, 2004). Unfortunately, data show that gatekeeping functions are met with roadblocks and challenges, even when educators are trained in this role (Brown-Rice & Furr, 2016). Such challenges include emotional struggles on behalf of the educator, worries around the perception of cultural competence, fear of allegations of discrimination or recrimination after a gatekeeping function was executed (Brown-Rice & Furr, 2016).
The goals of this presentation are to begin a conversation around the performance of gatekeeping and remediation functions in distance learning/online education courses and programs. The presenters will provide an overview of the gatekeeping functions and professional expectations, discuss how distance/online learning may complicate these roles, and offer suggestions that may assist counselor educators who teach in a distance learning format.
The presentation will be built around the presenters and participants own experiences to personally connect content to learning. Presenters will share real life blunders and solutions throughout. In addition, participant’s own resistance will be explored. A tool box of best practices from the field of higher education, sample rubric to quantify professional behavior, how to frame expectations that empower students and more will be shared. Finally, presenters will move participants from resisting to embracing the role of gate keeper in DL environments.
Bhat, S. C. (2005). Enhancing gatekeeping with performance appraisal protocols. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27(3), 399-411. doi:10.1007/s10447-005-8202-z
Brown-Rice, K., & Furr, S. (2016). Educators and students with problems of professional competence: A survey and discussion. The Professional Counselor, 6(2), 134-146. doi:10.15241/kbr.6.2.134
Carlisle, R. M., Hays, D. G., Pribesh, S. L., & Wood, C. T. (2017). Educational technology and distance supervision in Education. Counselor Education & Supervision, 56, 33-49.
Foster, V. A., & McAdams, C. R., III. (2009). A framework for creating a climate of transparency for professional performance assessment: Fostering student investment in gatekeeping. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, 271–284. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00080.x
Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2002). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase programs’ follow-up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 294–305.
Russell, C. S., & Peterson, C. M. (2003). Student impairment and remediation in accredited marriage and family therapy programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 329–337.
Vacha-Haase, T., Davenport, D. S., & Kerewsky, S. D. (2004). Problematic students: Gatekeeping practices of academic professional psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 115–122. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.35.2.115