Stemmans Catherine L, Gangstead Sandra K
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN.
J Athl Train. 2002 Dec;37(4 Suppl):S255-S260.
To identify and compare clinical-instruction behaviors based on the experience level of the instructor. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic observation, employing the Clinical Instruction Analysis Tool-Athletic Training II was used to identify clinical instructors', athletic training students', and athletes' behaviors. SUBJECTS: Thirty clinical instructors (19 men, 11 women, mean age = 31.7 +/- 10.4 years) with novice, intermediate, and advanced experience volunteered to participate. MEASUREMENTS: We summarized data into contribution and target categories. Frequency data of the categories were analyzed across experiential level of the clinical instructor. RESULTS: Differences among clinical instructors' experience levels existed in the frequency of athletic training student behaviors (chi(2)(2) = 9.6, P =.008). Post hoc comparisons identified differences in the frequency of athletic training student-initiated behaviors when novice clinical instructors were compared with intermediate (F(2,27) = 5.52, P =.023) and advanced (F(2,27) = 5.52, P =.026) instructors. No significant differences were seen between the clinical instructors' experience levels and total clinical instructors' contribution, total athletes' contribution, silent observation, clinical instructors' use of questions, clinical instructors' use of skill feedback, clinical instructors' use of screening and evaluation techniques, and athletic training students' use of screening and evaluative techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Certified athletic trainers in their initial year of instructor experience appear to lack the requisite clinical-instruction knowledge, skills, and abilities to facilitate athletic training student behavior in a clinical setting. Program directors and clinical coordinators should assign instructors' responsibilities to certified athletic trainers who have more experience or demonstrate the ability to foster student interaction.
根据指导教师的经验水平识别并比较临床指导行为。
采用系统观察法,运用临床指导分析工具——运动训练II来识别临床指导教师、运动训练专业学生和运动员的行为。
30名具有新手、中级和高级经验的临床指导教师(19名男性,11名女性,平均年龄 = 31.7 ± 10.4岁)自愿参与。
我们将数据归纳为贡献和目标类别。对各类别的频率数据按临床指导教师的经验水平进行分析。
临床指导教师的经验水平在运动训练专业学生行为频率方面存在差异(χ²(2)=9.6,P = 0.008)。事后比较发现,新手临床指导教师与中级(F(2,27)=5.52,P = 0.023)和高级(F(2,27)=5.52,P = 0.026)指导教师相比,运动训练专业学生发起行为的频率存在差异。临床指导教师的经验水平与临床指导教师的总贡献、运动员的总贡献、沉默观察、临床指导教师使用问题的情况、临床指导教师使用技能反馈的情况、临床指导教师使用筛查和评估技术的情况以及运动训练专业学生使用筛查和评估技术的情况之间均未发现显著差异。
处于指导教师经验首年的认证运动训练师似乎缺乏在临床环境中促进运动训练专业学生行为的必要临床指导知识、技能和能力。项目主任和临床协调员应将指导教师的职责分配给经验更丰富或有能力促进学生互动的认证运动训练师。