JCPSLP Vol 19 No 2 2017

placement models and approaches. Key aspects of this phase are summarised in Figure 2 (Johnson et al., 2017). We carefully considered likely resources and support the sites would need from us to successfully adapt their clinical education practices. Such resources and support included on site time with the CDF facilitator (hereafter called “the facilitator”) from the university, for coaching and demonstration on how to work with groups of students, sample timetables for multiple students on site at one time, learning resources about specific topics (e.g., bedside assessments). We also identified key site personnel and a site champion for the encouragement phase of the model, but with the understanding that liaison and support in planning and development was continuing within the site across all stakeholder groups (managers and clinicians within speech-language pathology and other allied health disciplines). Placement models and precise student numbers were negotiated and agreed for each site. We explained to staff how theories of peer learning and workplace learning that enhance student experience and learning outcomes could be applied in multi-student placements. A range of supports to be provided by the facilitator were also agreed to fit individual requirements and supervision ratio and model at each site. The sites agreed to multiple iterations of their chosen model across a calendar year. Figure 3 (Johnson et al., 2017) illustrates two of the placement models used at different sites. Our reflections This phase was vital to the success of the CDF framework. It was critical that capacity for change and priorities for each site were agreed by both site and university staff. Many sites showed good self-awareness of their key drivers, which sometimes resulted in sites declining the opportunity or delaying implementation of the CDF framework until a more suitable time (e.g., stabilised staffing). Ensuring the continued involvement of a variety of staff members at the site is essential in promoting wider engagement and commitment to the approach. This reduces the risk to continuing the CDF framework that comes of relying only on specific individuals who may not continue in their role/s in the longer term. Encourage Once the placements commenced, the facilitator was a regular on-site presence to encourage and support both staff and students. The facilitator worked with site staff to help them apply the educational theories discussed during the Establish phase to the changes they were developing in

learn real-world skills to address the real problems of their assigned patients/clients. Students’ own life experiences as well as theoretical knowledge acquired at university become rich resources for learning as do peers on placement with the students. Skilled educators can scaffold and support self-directed and peer learning by students. Theories of workplace learning and sociocultural learning are foundational to the CDF framework. These theories recognise that learning is not just within an individual, it is linked to the context in which it occurs (Mann, 2011; Patton, Higgs, & Smith, 2013). The workplace is not only an environment in which students apply their current knowledge, but the source of new learning (Patton et al., 2013; Strand et al., 2015). While on placement students participate in authentic professional activities and also learn from the social and cultural context of the workplace (Bennett, O’Flynn, & Kelly, 2015; Chou et al., 2014; Patton et al., 2013). Lloyd et al. (2014) noted the importance of peers in workplace learning. Student learning in the workplace is also a time of professional socialisation (Clouder, 2003); both CEs and peers on placement can have a powerful impact on students’ learning of roles, attitudes and values. Supported by the educational theories outlined above, we developed and implemented a CDF framework. The phases of this framework, the strategies used to implement the phases and our personal reflections on the phases and framework are described in the next section. Strategies for implementation of the framework phases Establish Our CDF work commenced in health settings. We explored health service managers’ and clinicians’ views about current demands, priorities, opportunities and constraints on increasing placement capacity. Their views differed across and within services. These ranged from a strong desire to maintain current patient activity levels when students were present to the potential provision of new clinical services using the increased service capacity that multiple students would allow. From this exploration, we identified sites with an existing supportive workplace culture (Lloyd et al., 2014) and positive attitudes towards learning and quality in both their staff development and service provision, as well as interest in developments in clinical education. We believed these qualities combined meant the teams would be well positioned to implement innovative

Resources and support

Key personnel

Details agreed

Explore site views

Chosen sites

• placement models • precise student numbers • theories of peer and workplace learning discussed with staff • range of supports to be provided by the facilitator

• for sites • for students

• site champion • site and university staff • ongoing liaison and support from managers and clinicians • speech-language pathology • other allied health disciplines

• existing supportive workplace culture • positive twam attitudes towards • learning • quality leads to • well positioned to implement innovative placement models

• demands • priorites • staff

development • service provision • placement development • opportunities • constraints

Figure 2. The Establish phase

95

JCPSLP Volume 19, Number 2 2017

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au