Perceptions of Clinical Supervision With and Without Bug-in-Ear Technology

in International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD  $74.00

1 year subscription

USD  $99.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD  $141.00

2 year subscription

USD  $188.00

Preceptors find challenges delegating responsibility to students while still being able to intervene, and bug-in-ear technology may be a tool that can help overcome some of these challenges with clinical supervision. The purpose of this study was to obtain preceptors’ and students’ perceptions of supervision with and without the use of bug-in-ear technology. Participants described that increasing the distance between preceptors and students helps promote confidence and autonomy, particularly when supervision is adapted to students with different abilities and experience. Participants thought bug-in-ear technology helped them increase the distance between preceptors and students while maintaining communication. Preceptors should continue to adapt supervision of students according to their educational needs and development levels while maintaining patient safety, which can be done by altering the distance between them and the students with tools such as bug-in-ear technology.

Sara L. Nottingham is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health, Exercise, and Sports Sciences at the University of New Mexico.

Address author correspondence to Sara L. Nottingham at nottingham@unm.edu.
  • 1.

    Knight KL. Progressive skill development and progressive clinical experience responsibility. Athl Train Educ J. 2008;3(1):2–4.

  • 2.

    Mazerolle SM, Bowman TG. A time for reflection: should we reconsider the direct supervision standard in clinical education? Athl Train Educ J. 2017;12(2):106–112. doi:10.4085/1202106

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Sexton P, Levy LS, Willeford KS, et al. Supervised autonomy. Athl Train Educ J. 2009;4(1):14–19.

  • 4.

    Scriber K, Trowbridge C. Is direct supervision in clinical education for athletic training students always necessary to enhance student learning? Athl Train Educ J. 2009;4(1):32–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Liberi V. Direct supervision and independent learning can coexist: not a new concept. Athl Train Sports Health Care. 2013;5(5):195–197. doi:10.3928/19425864-20130909-10

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Geisler PR. The elephant in the room: adequate supervision, not direct supervision. Athl Train Sports Health Care. 2013;5(4):151–154.

  • 7.

    Levy LS, Gardner G, Barnum MG, et al. Situational supervision for athletic training clinical education. Athl Train Educ J. 2009;4(1):19–22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Barnum MG, Guyer S, Levy L, Graham C. The supervision, questioning, feedback model of clinical teaching. In: Weidner T, ed. The Athletic Trainer’s Pocket Guide to Clinical Teaching. 1st ed. Thorofare, NJ:Slack; 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Benes SS, Mazerolle SM, Bowman TG. The impact of clinical experiences from athletic training student and preceptor perspectives. Athl Train Educ J. 2014;9(4):156–165. doi:10.4085/0904156

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Mazerolle SM, Bowman TG, Benes SS. Defining the engaging learning experience from the athletic training student perspective. Athl Train Educ J. 2014;9(4):182–189. doi:10.4085/0904182

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education. Standards for the Accreditation of Professional Athletic Training Programs. 2012. http://www.caate.net/. Accessed November 28, 2017.

    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Kahan D. The effects of a bug-in-the-ear device on intralesson communication between a student teacher and a cooperating teacher. J Teach Phys Educ. 2002;22(1):86–104. doi:10.1123/jtpe.22.1.86

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Ottley JR, Hanline MF. Bug-in-ear coaching: impacts on early childhood educators’ practices and associations with toddlers’ expressive communication. J Early Interv. 2014;36(2):90–110. doi:10.1177/1053815114563614

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Scheeler MC, McKinnon K, Stout J. Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Educ Special Educ J Teacher Educ Div Council Exceptional Child. 2012;35(1):77–90. doi:10.1177/0888406411401919

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Rock M, Gregg M, Thead B, Acker S, Gable R, Zigmond N. Can you hear me now? Evaluation of an online wireless technology to provide real-time feedback to special education teachers-in-training. Teacher Educ Special Educ. 2009;32(1):64–82. doi:10.1177/0888406408330872

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.

  • 17.

    Merriam SB. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2009.

  • 18.

    Mazerolle SM, Dodge TM. Role of clinical education experiences on athletic training students’ development of professional commitment. Athl Train Educ J. 2015;10(2):138–145. doi:10.4085/1002138

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Hollett N, Brock S, Hinton V. Bug-in-ear technology to enhance preservice teacher training: peer versus instructor feedback. Int J Learn Teacher Educ Res. 2017;16(2):1–10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 83 83 4
Full Text Views 20 16 0
PDF Downloads 7 7 0