*Corresponding author – nancy.marshall@ryerson.ca 

 

Marshall, N., & Martin, J. (2019). Simulation innovation in cyberspace: A collaborative approach to 

teaching and learning in child and youth care education. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and 

Teaching: Proceedings of the University of Calgary Conference on Teaching and Learning, 3, 87-94.  

SIMULATION INNOVATION IN CYBERSPACE: A 

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO TEACHING AND 

LEARNING IN CHILD AND YOUTH CARE EDUCATION 

Nancy Marshall* and Jennifer Martin 

Ryerson University 

Leveraging digital technology for practice innovation is a compelling challenge. 

Limited education and training prevent human service practitioners from 

incorporating technology into practice. Progress in this area will be achieved when 

significant changes to pedagogy support technology integration with 

teaching/learning partnerships in higher education. With the recent attention to 

relational Child and Youth Care (CYC) practice in cyberspace (Martin & Stuart, 

2011), this paper aims to highlight student/teacher explorations in this emerging 

area of clinical practice using student-driven simulated online counselling sessions 

supervised by the course instructor. Beyond critical learning within the roleplay 

activities, students engaged in solving disruptions to simulations, which can enhance 

their future agility in real practice situations (Rooney, Hopwood, Boud, & Kelly, 

2015). Foundations in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), 

experiential learning theory, and learner-led approaches guided student engagement 

with technology and reflexive practice in this graduate level classroom. 

Key words: Child and Youth Care, digital technology, simulation pedagogy, 

learner-led approaches, experiential learning, online relational practice 
 

There is currently a dearth of literature discussing innovative andragogical approaches to 

Child and Youth Care (CYC) practice principles in postsecondary education. Furthermore, 

literature about technology integration and online relational practice in CYC, a field dedicated to 

supporting the mental health and well-being of young people who are “digital natives” (Prensky, 

2001), is absent. Integrating digital technology into postsecondary education for CYC practice 

settings prepares students to work with young people whose relationships are persistently 

influenced by technology (Martin & Stuart, 2011). As digital technology integration in mental 

health remains a largely underrepresented topic in postsecondary literature, innovative 

educational approaches in this area can be beneficial to teachers and students preparing for 

unfamiliar territories in emerging online practices. Further, as Martin and Stuart point out, it 

provides opportunity for students (and teachers) to take risks with technology in the safety of the  

academic setting. Thus, the aim of this paper is twofold: 1) to highlight the benefits of innovative 

teaching and learning in higher education classrooms preparing for novel areas of practice and 2) 

to explore collaborative learning through simulating relational CYC practice in cyberspace- an 

area that currently has few established ethical or practical guidelines. These aims will be 

discussed using a thematic analysis of eight graduate students’ papers reflecting theoretical and 

practical implications for learning and practice in an emerging social service field.  

 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  88 

SETTING THE STAGE: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND METHODOLOGY  

Theoretical Foundations 

Utilizing postsecondary activities as opportunities for collaborative research inquiries 

with students (Boyer, 1991; McCarthy, 2008) provides social service fields, such as Child and 

Youth Care (CYC), with a starting point to explore uncharted challenges and guidelines in new 

areas of practice. When professors look to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), 

which involves the elements of discovery, integration, application, and teaching (Boyer, 1991), 

they create an important juncture to extend research alongside student inquiries for the 

betterment of practice (Huber & Hutchings, 2005, as cited in McCarthy, 2008). While looking to 

foundational knowledge from other practice fields, CYC generates theoretical foundations based 

on its own practice discoveries in relational lifespace work (Gharabaghi & Stuart, 2013). Thus, 

the planning of the course activities reflected in this paper involved bringing together ideas from 

other social service fields, noted as an important component of SoTL (McCarthy, 2008). The 

course instructor, in collaboration with a graduate level teaching assistant (both authors of this 

paper), incorporated elements of experiential learning theory to guide students in transforming 

their experiences into reliable knowledge acquisition for field work (Kolb, 2015).  

This collaborative partnership to learning, involving a former graduate student, a 

professor, and students from diverse professional backgrounds in youth service settings, allowed 

for a holistic creation of theoretical and practical groundwork in the emerging area of online 

relational practice with young people. To further this goal, simulation pedagogy became an 

excellent foundation for analysis; simulation pedagogy, particularly for health professions, draws 

on important connections between the learning acquired through navigating unpredictable events 

together as classmates, and the skills needed for practice in human service fields (Rooney, 

Hopwood, Boud, & Kelly, 2015). This was complemented with a respect for students as leaders 

in education through learner-led approaches (Iversen, Pedersen, Krogh, & Jensen, 2015). In this 

way, skill-building in the classroom paralleled the continued independent skill-building of 

relational CYC practitioners in the field.  

Methodology 

 This paper examines the experiential use of technology in an online relational practice 

course with CYC students in a one-year Master’s level program offered through a faculty of 

community services. We realized, in discussion with students during the course, that this unique 

learning experience would be of interest to other learners and teachers, and that it would make an 

important contribution to the scholarship of teaching and learning. After the course had ended 

and all marks had been submitted, we sent an email to the students letting them know that we 

were interested in developing a paper about the simulation activities based on their reflection 

papers. We asked students who were interested to send their written permission and their 

reflection papers to the teaching assistant via email. We informed the students that their names 

would be confidential and that we could not guarantee anonymity because the university and the 

program would be identified in the paper. We received emailed consent from eight 

students. Reflection papers from a total of sixteen roleplays (practitioner/youth and 

practitioner/supervisor simulations) were analyzed in relation to the aforementioned learning 

theories and CYC practice principles. Using thematic analysis, two themes and six sub-themes 

emerged. The theme Relational Safety and Paralleling Practice in the Classroom included the 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  89 

sub-themes: Fidelity, Co-existing Forces of Learning, and Simulation and Real Life Balance. 

The theme Ethical and Practical Considerations included the sub-themes: Informed Consent and 

Confidentiality, Boundaries, and Interpretation of Text.  

THEMATIC ANALYSIS 

Relational Safety and Paralleling Practice in the Classroom 

Discussing ethical dilemmas and challenges that arise within simulated roleplay scenarios 

requires a particular trust between classmates who are assigned as partners. For this reason, it is 

important that a sense of relational safety is created in the classroom to allow for honest 

discussions which facilitate genuine, reflective learning. In CYC practice, relational safety refers 

to the positive outcome produced for young people when the characteristics of CYC practice are 

carried out effectively (Editorial, 2015). These characteristics include being emotionally present, 

connecting and engaging, examining context, and reflecting on the co-created space between Self 

and Other (Garfat & Fulcher, 2012). From a SoTL (Boyer, 1991) and experiential learning 

theory (Kolb, 2015) perspective, it is interesting how these characteristics of our practice can be 

paralleled in course work to create a safe learning environment. When classmates take care to be 

present, connected, engaged, to examine context, and to reflect on their interactions with their 

classmates, they not only create the safety needed to challenge each other in class, they also 

practice the skills required for the field.  

Both SoTL and experiential learning theory emphasize active, creative scholarship that 

lends itself to lifelong journeys of learning. Similarly, scholars in simulation-based pedagogy 

explain that when coexisting learning forces of classroom dynamics and professional practice 

naturally “hang together”, profound and enduring opportunities for learning occur (Rooney et al., 

2015, p. 280). The simulation activities reflected in this analysis prepared students to work with 

some of the most vulnerable people in society – children and youth with social, emotional, and 

behavioral challenges who have experienced complex trauma, abuse, and life crises. Creating a 

safe learning environment to model how CYC practitioners connect to this population with 

sensitivity, kindness, and respect was paramount (Delay & Martin, 2015). Therefore, trust 

became an essential component in creating a respectful learning environment to practice these 

skills. Roleplay activities that paralleled these practice principles, both in simulation and the 

complexities of real-life dynamics, became incredibly valuable pedagogical tools for this course. 

To illustrate this, the theme of relational safety and paralleling practice in the classroom is 

divided into three sub-themes: fidelity, co-existing forces of learning, and simulation and real life 

balance.  

Fidelity. In the reflection papers, many students discussed the role play scenarios as if 

they were happening in real life. In simulation pedagogy, this realistic experience is referred to 

as fidelity (Rooney et al., 2015). In both sets of role-plays, students were encouraged to stay in 

character even when disruptions to the fidelity of the role plays occurred due to uncomfortable 

feelings and/or misunderstandings. Rooney et al. explain that these disruptions, much like when 

actors ‘break the fourth wall’, prepare students to become both “agile learners” and “agile 

practitioners” as they maneuver through unpredictable events (p. 280). The authors further posit 

that this non-linear learning process, that balances important occurrences within two domains 

(the clinical and the classroom), is invaluable when practiced in the safety of a classroom with 

supervision from the course instructor. With a lack of guidelines and supervision to online 

therapeutic engagement with young people in CYC practice, unpredictable events are bound to 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  90 

occur. Thus, the value of safely navigating unpredictable events in unexplored territories is an 

important learning objective for this field of practice.  

The roleplay scenarios, which were conducted to simulate asynchronous email exchanges 

outside of classroom time, seemed to be of high fidelity. A common example expressed the 

practitioner’s real feelings of relational breakdown: “I experienced many challenges at 

connecting and engaging with [her]....I failed to respond to her initial email within a short time 

frame, our relationship didn’t recover.” The fidelity was so high that one student reflected on 

how the lack of reply from her young client interfered with her real-life job: “[She] did not reply 

all weekend, and this amplified my anxiety...made it challenging to be present in the moment 

with other young people I was working with simultaneously.” While the exchanges were taking 

place, the course instructor made herself available online to provide assurance and guidance 

when such difficult feelings emerged. Similarly, the teaching assistant, as a former student who 

had previously engaged in these roleplays, provided peer support in the classroom when students 

debriefed their experiences. This coordinated support was key to deepen the safe and reflexive 

learning of students who invested such energy to simulated experiences.  

Coexisting forces of learning. In such high fidelity simulations, while students are 

negotiating their comfort levels with their partners, coexisting learning forces are at play: 

learning that occurs from exploring clinical possibilities in practice and learning that occurs from 

experiencing each other as students in a university classroom (Rooney et al., 2015). In the 

reflection papers analyzed here, some students reported feeling safe to challenge their simulation 

partner, while others reported feeling held back. Important learning about Self and Other 

occurred in both sets of experiences. In the following example, a student connected the difficulty 

of accepting critical feedback to the importance of self-reflection in practice: “...my partner 

brought up in the in-class discussion of [sic] I, as the [CYC Practitioner], ultimately broke the 

relationship ...This was very difficult to hear; however, self-reflection is such a large aspect of 

our practice, thus creating room for growth.” In another example, a student revealed reflection of 

Self when choosing not to challenge his partner when she offended him during the roleplay: “I 

did not choose to negatively respond ...despite feeling that way ...much of our later conversation 

alluded to me being a people-pleaser ...I did not express my true feelings because I felt 

uncomfortable being perceived as negative and domineering.” 

In other examples, coexisting forces of learning presented themselves as permeable 

boundaries between the imaginary roleplay and real experiences of themselves as classmates. 

That is, it was often difficult to discern whether students were experiencing feelings as the 

character in the roleplay or as a classmate being challenged. In the following example, the 

student expressed frustration with his roleplay partner when she refused to engage (reply to 

emails) on several occasions: “I found it extremely difficult to be in relationship with [her]...I 

would argue that both of us were involved in our online relational interaction and therefore both 

of us were responsible for the direction of it.” This student further connected this to practice 

principles: “...how do we reconcile a young person’s lack of responsiveness with our role as a 

CYC [practitioner] if we’re the ones solely responsible for connection?” This anxiety over the 

direction of the roleplay exemplifies a dual learning process. The student is addressing feelings 

of frustration as a student who needs to get the assignment done and as a student learning clinical 

practice skills to successfully engage with young people online- a form of connection that differs 

greatly from the face to face engagement he is accustomed to.  

In this next example, the roleplay partners experienced a significant disruption to fidelity. 

Early on in the roleplay, the supervisee in the simulation admitted she felt her simulation 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  91 

supervisor did not understand her experiences: “...I felt a sense of anger because [she] continued 

to tell me ...how I should feel in a situation.” Within the scenario, after much strenuous back and 

forth engagement with her simulation supervisor, she responded to her supervisor’s attempt at 

empathy with this reply: “I really hate how you keep telling me you can hear the pain in my 

voice. You have no clue what I went through so stop assuming!” After realizing her partner must 

have misunderstood the assignment instructions, the simulation supervisor reflected: “ ...most 

workers would not ordinarily speak to their supervisors in this manner ...I realized that I was 

feeling frustrated, confused and overwhelmed myself. I needed supervision as well so I reached 

out and emailed [the instructor].” Both students in this scenario expressed frustrations with each 

other that represented genuine feelings below the surface of the roleplay. The student playing the 

supervisee also admitted she misunderstood the assignment. With the support of the course 

instructor, they restarted the roleplay and were encouraged to stay in role to work out these 

problems using strategies from the course materials and classroom discussions. This required an 

immense amount of trust, established at the beginning of the course when the foundations of 

safety were negotiated by the instructor, the teaching assistant, and the students. When the 

simulation was completed, they reflected on how they persevered: “ ...we were rushing for time 

to ensure that we both had ample amount of time to participate in both roles and write a well 

written reflection that we both would be proud of.” The supervisee in the scenario finally 

reflected on how they reconciled their differences: “I gained a genuine relationship with the 

supervisor.” This complex process of learning to work out problems, reflect on Self, meet a 

deadline, and respect each other’s feelings in the context of safety and trust, paralleled the skills 

necessary for professional practice.   

Simulation and real life balance. In summary, while the courage to challenge each other 

depended on the relational safety established between roleplay partners, important learning 

occurred whether fidelity was strictly adhered to or not. As one student reflected: “I found it 

incredibly challenging to be realistic in my responses in the beginning. I struggled moving 

myself out of a ‘simulation’ headspace and into a ‘real life’ headspace. My responses became 

more authentic when I became more comfortable ...” The very process of ‘moving into a real life 

headspace’ reflects the dedication university students apply to learning and practice. As shown 

by the examples given, important skill building happens when students begin to explore their 

experience of Self in relation to their partner, push boundaries, challenge each other, and break 

the fidelity of roleplay. Rooney and colleagues (2015) argue that strict adherence to fidelity in 

roleplay scenarios, without a focus on this process, should be reconsidered. Without the ‘hanging 

together’ of the clinical and the classroom learning that occurs when safety is co-created and 

disruptions to fidelity occur, practitioner agility to problem solve within uncharted areas of 

practice is sacrificed.   

Ethical and Practical Considerations: Exploring a New Frontier Together 

Currently, there are no ethical guidelines framing how CYC practitioners intervene with 

young people online. Indeed, there are few regulations to guide online services in general (Harris 

& Birnbaum, 2015). Although improvements are being made in other fields such as social work, 

psychotherapy and psychology, the same guidelines are not necessarily a good fit for CYC 

practice with its unique approach to supporting young people. CYC focuses on using Daily Life 

Events with distinct characteristics defined for our practice (Garfat & Fulcher, 2012). We focus 

on the lifespace and relational work within that lifespace (Gharabaghi & Stuart, 2013). As the 

course instructor has determined previously, cyberspace is an extension of lifespace for young 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  92 

people (Martin & Stuart, 2011). In fact, this discovery built the foundation for the course 

discussed in this paper. However, this discovery marks only the beginning journey of inquiry 

into this dawning era of practice.  

Teaching and learning theories such as SoTL (Boyer, 1991) and experiential learning 

theory (Kolb, 2015) emphasize explorative learning through experience. SoTL, in particular, 

focuses on exploring this learning alongside the teacher. Such foundational theories have 

refreshed teaching and learning to push higher education in new directions such as learner-led 

approaches in education, which position students as knowledge producers in classrooms 

(Iversen, Pedersen, Krogh & Jensen, 2015). In tandem with simulation pedagogy (Rooney et al., 

2015), learner-led approaches assist students in navigating the unknown and becoming flexible 

against uncertain conditions. This approach becomes imperative to the practice-based field of 

CYC, which is in need of guidelines that fit our new frontier of online relational work with 

young people. Thus, the examples discussed here pose the important question: who better to 

develop these guidelines than the emerging practitioners themselves? This process of learner-led 

knowledge mirrors yet another important characteristic of CYC practice- to ‘do with’ not ‘for’ or 

‘to’ (Garfat & Fulcher, 2012).  

The student authors of these reflections come from different ages and stages of 

professional practice, which stimulates in-depth exploration of ethical and practical issues from 

several angles. Some students were self-identified technical luddites, while others were digital 

natives; some were veteran CYC practitioners, while others were novice. Taking this into 

account, a collaborative approach facilitated student-led learning (Iversen et al., 2015), which 

aided the course instructor, teaching assistant, and students to explore potential challenges to 

CYC practice online. For the purpose of analysis, important ethical and practical discoveries 

were divided into three sub-themes: informed consent and confidentiality, boundaries, and 

interpretation of text.   

Informed consent and confidentiality. Students reflected that obtaining informed 

consent felt awkward and hindered the relationship with their youth (simulation partner): “I 

didn’t believe explaining confidentiality to the youth at that moment during the cyber 

counselling would be appropriate.” In CYC practice, relational connection is paramount to the 

therapeutic process (Garfat & Fulcher, 2012). Therefore, this became a critical point of 

reflection. Students further considered the advantages of anonymity and disinhibition, but also to 

the implications of not obtaining identification: “I asked her name and she was reluctant to 

share...I can only assume that this online space offered her anonymity…” Another student 

deliberated: “ ‘...verifying a client’s identity becomes most critical’ (Harris & Birnbaum, 2015, 

p. 135) ...If she had committed suicide, what would have been the legal ramifications for me as 

the CYC?”  

Boundaries. Similarly, boundary issues were a common theme, for example: “My failure 

to establish boundaries ...led to the work ‘creeping in’ to my daily life (Mishna, Bogo, Root, 

Sawyer, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2012) as I constantly checked my phone and email to make sure I 

didn’t miss any messages ...” It is interesting to note that the simulations took place close to the 

Canadian Thanksgiving holiday, causing students to explore real feelings of homesickness, 

which further exemplifies the duality of learning processes hanging together. One student 

reflected: “Mishna et. al. (2012) discuss the concept of permeable boundaries, and how the 

online world blurs usual boundaries that exist ...knowing she was going to be away from family 

during Thanksgiving ...I found myself offering services beyond a typical workday.” 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  93 

 Interpretation of text. Finally, students remarked on challenges to connect with youth in 

the absence of facial and non-verbal cues. They tried emotional bracketing techniques with some 

to little success: “Emotional bracketing (Martin & Stuart, 2011; Mishna, Bogo & Sawyer, 2013) 

was a highly effective technique to ensure that ...my message was articulated despite the lack of 

non-verbal cues...[big smile and kind eyes], [said with a head nod] and [eye-roll]” Other students 

reflected this to be ‘cheesy’: “I judged her use of emoting in the brackets like “[groan]” and 

“[wink]” and similar to the MSW interns in the online counselling study, I found them 

“‘unnatural’ and ‘cheesy’ (Mishna, Bogo & Sawyer, 2013, pg. 174)”. In a rapidly progressive 

digital age, young people create unique rituals to compensate for visual facial cues. Deeper 

exploration into this area became an interesting topic for discussion led by the students. 

CONCLUSION 

Such important inquiries, probed in dedicated partnership with students, allows for 

teachers to be creative in their teaching of new fields of practice (Boyer, 1991). This is critical in 

the field of CYC as it is not only a practice, it is a way of being with people (Garfat & Fulcher, 

2012). The roleplays in this course lasted weeks, which is not typical of traditional roleplay 

modalities in higher education. Thus, the students practiced skills that enhanced their way of 

being with people and enforced critical skills for practice with young people. Students learned to 

become good communicators, reflect on Self in relationship to Other, and explore challenges and 

possibilities of clinical practice. Teaching and learning of this stature is only effective when 

supervision, discussion, debriefing and care is co-created in a safe and trusting space for students 

to feel supported in taking risks. As one student noted: “The ease at which we were able to share 

our reflections mirrored the increased self-disclosure present in online counselling relationships 

...Powell (2012) refers to this as virtual intimacy (para. 10)”. Feeling safe in a relationship to risk 

new ways of being is the foundation of CYC work (Garfat & Fulcher, 2012). Finding this safety 

in the online world through simulation pedagogy, experiential learning, learner-led approaches, 

and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning embodies essential elements of both CYC practice 

and effective higher education. This produces agile, open, and ethical practitioners ready for 21st 

century practice.  

REFERENCES 

Boyer, E. L. (1991). The scholarship of teaching from: Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the  

professoriate. College Teaching, 39(1), 11-13. 

Delay, D., & Martin, J. (2015). Developing facilitator self-awareness: Introducing mindfulness 

practices to the helping classroom. In W. Pelech, K. Ring & S. LaRocque, (Eds.), Unity 

in Diversity: Embracing the Spirit of Group Work. Proceedings of the 36th Annual 

Symposium of the International Association for Social Work with Groups. London: 

Whiting & Birch Ltd. p. 89-103. 

Editorial (2015). Trauma, relational safety and the child and youth care approach. Retrieved from 

http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/aug2015.pdf 

Garfat, T., & Fulcher, L. (2012). Characteristics of a relational child and youth care 

 approach. In T. Garfat & L.C. Fulcher (Eds.). Child & Youth Care in Practice (pp. 5- 

 24). Cape Town, SA: Pretext. 



Marshall & Martin (2019) 

  94 

Gharabaghi, K., & Stuart, C. (2013). Right here, right now: Exploring life-space interventions 

 for children and youth. Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada, Inc.  

Harris, B., & Birnbaum, R. (2015). Ethical and legal implications on the use of technology in     

        counselling. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 133-141.  

Iversen, A. M., Pedersen, A. S., Krogh, L., & Jensen, A. A. (2015). Learning, leading, and letting 

 go of control: Learner-led approaches in education. Sage Open, 5(4), 1-11. 

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and  

development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Martin, J., & Stuart, C. (2011). Working with cyberspace in the life-space. Relational Child &  

Youth Care Practice, 24(1-2), 55-66. 

Mishna, F., Bogo, M., Root, J., Sawyer, J. L., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2012). “It just crept in”:  

        The digital age and implications for social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal,   

        40(3), 277-286.  

Mishna, F., Bogo, M., & Sawyer, J. L. (2013). Cyber counseling: Illuminating benefits and  

        challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 169-178.  

McCarthy, M. (2008). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: an 

overview. The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education, 6-15. 

Powell, D. (2012). Cyber supervision’s time has come. Addiction Professional: Driving Clinical 

Excellence. Retrieved from 

http://www.addictionpro.com/article/cyber-supervision-s-time-has-come 

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. 

Rooney, D., Hopwood, N., Boud, D., & Kelly, M. (2015). The role of simulation in pedagogies 

of higher education for the health professions: Through a practice-based lens. Vocations 

and Learning, 8(3), 269-285.