6 / 60
4
JCPSLP
Volume 14, Number 1 2012
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
multiple students in an organisation at one time, or use
alternative supervisory practices (see further discussion
in McAllister, Paterson, Higgs, and Bithell [2010]). In a
recent study of international practices in speech pathology
clinical education, Sheepway, Lincoln, and Togher (2011)
found that Australian universities were more likely to
adopt innovative or alternative clinical placement or
supervisory models than their international colleagues.
This study suggests that Australian university programs in
speech pathology are actively implementing strategies to
meet this challenge. It is likely that Australian graduates
will experience an increasingly diverse range of clinical
placements which will in turn mean they will bring a diversity
of skills and experiences to the workforce.
Challenge 8: Using simulated learning
effectively in speech pathology education
to build students’ clinical competency
Another response to the current situation supported by
HWA is the use of simulated learning to facilitate clinical
competency development. Simulated learning comes in
many different forms, for example, computerised
simulations of clinical situations, the use of actors, or
standardised patients (Hill, Davidson, & Theodoros, 2010),
clinical case studies (McCabe, Purcell, Baker, Madill, &
Trembath, 2009), or use of models and dummies for
practising technical skills (Khan, Pattison, & Sherwood,
2011). The general aims of simulated learning experiences
are to promote preparation of students for clinical
experiences, reduce time spent in clinical placements, or to
reduce safety risks for students or patients. Additionally,
from the university’s perspective, greater control over
student learning outcomes and the quality of learning
experiences may be achieved. A recent report on simulated
learning opportunities in speech pathology in Australia
indicated that 4 out of 10 university programs involved used
simulated learning in their courses and that “the integration
of SLEs [simulated learning environments] into speech
pathology education curricula is considered likely to reduce
the current load on workplace clinical educators and
potentially increase clinical education capacity for university
programs” (Theodoros, Davidson, Hill, & McBean, 2010, p.
4). Consequently, university programs must also turn their
attention to developing SLEs in speech pathology that will
assist in easing the demand on clinical placements. It is
also likely that a change in attitude of educators supported
by research findings is needed about the acquisition of
speech pathology competency via SLEs.
Challenge 9: Producing work-ready
speech pathology graduates for constantly
changing and increasingly diverse
workplaces
University programs in speech pathology not only have to
pay attention to Commonwealth government stipulations,
the aspirations of students, and the requirements of Speech
Pathology Australia, they must also keep in front of changes
in the workplace. Presently, university curriculum developers
are likely to be paying attention to issues such as inter-
professional practice and teamwork, preventative practice,
supervision of therapy assistants, ehealth and ehealth
records, and telehealth, to name a few (McAllister et al.,
2010). Given the two- or four-year time lag between
entering a speech pathology course and entering the
workforce, curricula are required to be increasingly adept in
country (for example, Stevens, Peisker, Mathisen, &
Woodward, 2010). Speech pathology students also expect
that they will have the opportunity to have an international
experience during their university degree. One of the most
frequently asked questions on university open days is “Can
I work overseas with this degree?”, followed by “Can I do
an overseas placement or semester?” Giving students
international experience may be achieved via six-month
exchanges to an overseas university, an overseas
placement, and exposure to international visiting academics
and international students.
Challenge 6: Preparing international
students for clinical experience in the
Australian health, education, and
disability sectors
Australian universities also have a social responsibility to
provide education to students from countries where
equivalent university degrees may not yet exist. Speech
pathology graduates from Australian universities have
populated the health, disability, and education sectors of
Singapore, Hong Kong, and more recently Malaysia, Korea,
India, and parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Recent research suggests that at least some international
students may find developing competency in the Australian
context difficult (Attrill, Lincoln, & McAllister, 2011). Hence
the challenge here is to prepare both international students
and clinical educators to work together successfully to
ensure clinical competency development.
Challenge 7: Accommodating an
increased diversity in clinical education
experiences into the profession’s
perceptions of new graduates’ competency
Uncapped university places and increases in numbers of
courses in response to Commonwealth imperatives is
putting pressure on the supply of clinical education
placements for students. National speech pathology
registration is not required in Australia. Therefore, accurate
information about the size of our workforce is unavailable,
so the existence of a mismatch between numbers of
students, placements required, and the speech pathology
workforce cannot be investigated. Lincoln (2009) estimated
that on average in 2005 individual SPA members needed to
provide 1.5 weeks per year of clinical education placement
experience to meet the then clinical placement needs. This
suggests that at least in 2005 there was some capacity for
growth in the provision of clinical placements by the existing
workforce.
University programs are juggling this pressure on clinical
placements with the aspirations of students, research
evidence about effective learning and teaching practices,
and the needs of stakeholders as well as a desire to
maintain or increase the quality of their courses. Universities
have responded in various ways to this challenge and are
increasingly picking up the entire cost of clinical education.
In 2005 30% of all clinical placements nationally were
provided by university clinics or external clinics funded
by universities, and this is likely to have increased in the
intervening years (Lincoln, 2009). Of course, in picking up
these costs, university programs then have less to spend
on other activities and resources related to providing an
education in speech pathology. Universities have also
invested in supporting innovative clinical placement models
that may utilise non-traditional placement sites, place