JCPSLP Vol 19 No 2 2017 low res

41 / 64

JCPSLP Volume 19, Number 2 2017 95
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
Explore site
views
Chosen
sites
Resources
and support
Key
personnel
Details
agreed
• demands
• priorites
• staff
development
• service provision
• placement
development
• opportunities
• constraints
• existing supportive
workplace culture
• positive twam
attitudes towards
• learning
• quality
leads to
• well positioned to
implement
innovative
placement models
• 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
• placement models
• precise student
numbers
• theories of peer
and workplace
learning discussed
with staff
• range of supports
to be provided by
the facilitator
Figure 2. The Establish phase