Chat with us, powered by LiveChat https://youtu.be/R1vskiVDwl4 This is - Study Help
  

This is a youtube video: 10 ways to have better communication / Celeste Headlee

Answer the following questions from the video:

After reviewing the communication rubric: (uploaded)

  • Identify 1 communication skill that you believe to be a strength before engaging in the simulation.
  • Identify 1 communication skill that you believe to be an area for growth before engaging in the simulation.
  • Your discussion response must be 200 words. You must also reply to a classmate’s post (response must be at least 100 words). Keep in mind that you will not see other student’s replies until you first post a reply. Therefore you should have one initial reply and one reply to a classmate’s post are required. Discussion must be completed by …..

Appendix H: Communication Rubric
The following is a sample rubric that can be used to score collaboration simulations.

 

How effectively did you utilize responsive listening in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

I forgot to paraphrase what the 

other party said. I used 

language/tone that could have 

come across as 

argumentative/judgmental. I 

provided unsolicited advice. 

I did not use 

paraphrasing as much 

as I could have and/or 

my paraphrasing was 

not accurate and 

tended to be long 

winded. I did not use 

clarifying questions. I 

forgot to summarize 

the overall 

goals/concerns of 

conversation. 

I occasionally used 

paraphrasing that was 

accurate and brief. I 

reflected on the 

person’s feelings before 

speaking. I used many 

clarifying questions 

throughout. I 

summarized the overall 

goals/concerns of 

conversation. 

I used paraphrasing 

that was accurate and 

brief at appropriate 

intervals (i.e., not 

interrupting or 

dominating). I reflected 

on the person’s feelings 

before speaking. I used 

some clarifying 

questions appropriately 

throughout. I 

summarized the overall 

goals/concerns of 

conversation. 

 

How effectively did you utilize follow‐up questioning in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

How effectively did you utilize positive turn‐taking in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

Our conversation was 

very one‐sided; 

dominated by one 

person. The other party 

rarely spoke, there was 

no wait time used. 

Interruptions were often 

and frequent.  

 

One person dominated 

our conversation; limited 

back‐and‐forth exchanges 

were had. Inadequate 

wait time was used.  I 

interrupted more than I 

should have. 

Our conversation could 

have been more 

balanced; overall there 

was a decent amount of 

back‐and‐forth 

exchanges. I used 

adequate and 

appropriate wait time.  I 

interrupted the other 

party at least 2 times.   

Our conversation was 

balanced; equal back‐

and‐forth exchanges 

were had. Parties 

involved were able to 

express themselves in an 

equal manner. I used 

adequate and 

appropriate wait time to 

encourage the other 

person to respond.  

I did not put much 

thought in my 

questioning; hardly any 

follow‐up questions were 

used.  

I used few questions, 

often those questions 

needed to be restated or 

rephrased in order to be 

clear; very few follow‐up 

questions.  

 I used quality questions 

most of the time, but 

sometimes had to be 

restated or rephrased in 

order to be clear; 

sometimes used follow‐

up questions.  

I used concise, clearly 

phrased questions; made 

use of follow‐up 

questions to achieve 

conversation outcomes.  

 

 

How effectively did you use non‐confrontational language in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

I used language that was 

emotionally charged 

and/or defensive. I used 

“You” statements 

regularly to describe 

sensitive situations.  

I used language that created 

a misunderstanding, but 

was able to clear it up. I 

occasionally used “You” 

statements to describe 

sensitive situations.    

I used clear, concise, and 

inclusive language. I 

used a mix of “I” and 

“You” statements to 

describe sensitive 

situations.    

I used clear, concise, and 

inclusive language. I 

used mostly “I” 

statements when 

describing sensitive 

situations. I grounded 

strengths and weakness 

in the ultimate outcome 

of our students’ success.  

 

How was my body language in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

I did not use eye contact, 

had very little movement 

or gestures, tension and 

nervousness was obvious 

(i.e., arms crossed, sighs, 

eye rolls). 

I displayed minimal eye 

contact, had very little 

movement or gestures, 

and displayed mild 

tension (i.e., arms 

crossed, sighs, eye rolls).  

I consistently used direct 

eye contact, made 

movements and/or 

gestures that enhanced 

positive articulation, 

displayed little or no 

tension.   

 I consistently used 

positive nonverbal signals 

and cues to communicate 

I was interested and 

invested in the 

conversation. Made 

movements and gestures 

that enhanced positive 

articulation, displayed 

pose and no tension.  

 

Overall how effectively did you build rapport in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

The other person 

remained hostile or timid 

I am not sure how the 

other person felt. It was 

The other person 

appeared willing to work 

Overall I believe I built a 

positive relationship with 

in the conversation. There 

did not appear to be trust 

or respect. The other 

person appeared 

uncomfortable and/or 

unsatisfied.   

hard to read. They 

seemed neutral.  

with me and satisfied 

with our conversation.  

the other party. There 

was mutual respect and 

trust established. All 

parties were encouraged 

to work with each other. 

The other person 

appeared comfortable 

and satisfied with the 

conversation.  

 

How effective were you in understanding the other person’s perspective in the simulation? 

Ineffective               1  Needs Development  2   Proficient                3  Exemplary             4 

I do not have evidence of 

the other person’s 

perspective from our 

conversation. The 

conversation was one‐

sided. 

I have some evidence of 

the other person’s 

perspective from our 

conversation. The 

conversation was mostly 

one‐sided. I did not ask 

questions to understand 

the other person’s 

perspective.   

I think I know what the 

other person’s 

perspective was in the 

conversation.  My 

questions were general; 

but I can infer how the 

other person felt from 

their responses.  

I can clearly state what 

the other person’s 

perspective was in the 

conversation. I asked 

welcoming questions to 

make the other person 

feel comfortable sharing 

how they felt.   

 

Driver, M. K., Zimmer, K., & Murphy, K. (2018). Using Mixed Reality Simulations to Prepare Preservice Special 

Educators for Collaboration in Inclusive Settings. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26, 57‐77.  

Appendix I: Peer Feedback Form

What went well? Name three specific examples with the corresponding timestamps.

What is an area to improve upon? List one specific example and explain why. Provide
a suggestion for next steps to grow in this area.

What was your overall take-away from watching this video? Identify something that
that stood out to you and will influence your practice.

Final comments/words of encouragement:

Appendix J: Full Scenario for Simulation Specialist
(Hits/Misses)

The following simulation scenario is intended for the Simulation Specialist that is
running the scenarios in a simulated environment.

Target behaviors for simulation/role play: The below “hits” represents strategies that we
would like to see the teachers display. The below “misses” refer nonpreferred teacher

behaviors.
When teachers… Adult avatars will…
HIT HIT

 Remain calm and professional
throughout the duration of the meeting.

 Use person-first and asset-based
language.

 Inquire about and affirm students’
cultural, religious, family, intellectual,
and personal experiences.

 Explain student progress and areas of
support in clear layman terms.
Explanation is not overly technical, and
checks for parent/guardian
understanding are in place.

 Balance discussion of student strengths
and student needs.

 Attempt to build respectful relationships
with family members.

 Solicit input from family members to
inform instructional supports and
services.

 Allow conversational “space” for family
members to ask questions, seek
clarification, and share concerns and
personal insights.

 Affirm the importance and value of
family member input.

 Demonstrate aspects of effective
communication including:
o Positive turn-taking
o Responsive listening
o Follow-up questioning

o Respond positively and with interest.
o Share additional information about

Harrison.
o Engage in problem-solving to decide

on appropriate supports and services
that might improve Harrison’s reading
fluency.

o Volunteer to provide extra practice at
home.

o Ask the teacher questions about
instruction, school services, and
supports.

o Show appreciation for the teacher’s
attempts to build a relationship.

o Non-confrontational language
o Warm body language
o Rapport building
o Seek to understand the other’s

perspective
MISS MISS
If teacher is not engaging and/or is not
prepared, it is realistic to assume family
members might disengage or become upset
or angry during the meeting. This might include
the teacher making assumptions, seeming
disinterested or that they are just checking off
boxes/that they don’t really want to be in the
meeting, or using abrasive or derogatory
language (intentionally or unintentionally).
Play off the participant as they develop their
communication and collaboration strategies.

If teacher is not engaging and/or is not
prepared, it is realistic to assume family
members might disengage or become
upset or angry during the meeting. This
might include the teacher making
assumptions, seeming disinterested or
that they are just checking off boxes/that
they don’t really want to be in the
meeting, or using abrasive or derogatory
language (intentionally or
unintentionally). Play off the participant
as they develop their communication
and collaboration strategies.

error: Content is protected !!