42 / 64
96
JCPSLP
Volume 19, Number 2 2017
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
to address key skills identified as needing revision for
students working with caseloads in the CDF sites and to
supplement and deepen the student learning from their
clinical experiences. Initially tutorial topics were negotiated
with CEs but there was opportunity for both students and
CEs to make further topic suggestions as the placement
progressed. The tutorials aimed to provide a “safe”
learning space for students. They gave students time
with an experienced clinician who was not responsible
for assessing their performance, as well as support and
learning with a wider peer group. The students thus had
the freedom to bring up any topic, make comments or
ask questions about issues arising on their placement,
whether clinical queries or those involving interactions and
experiences. This discussion was not only debriefing about
experiences, but also a time to ask “silly” questions or
asking peers and the facilitator for help in managing difficult
situations. We gave general feedback to CEs about what
was covered in tutorials and the progress of the whole
group; however, we did not share specific information about
individual students unless explicit permission was given.
their practices and processes as CEs. This included, for
example, consolidating the individual site orientation
activities across a whole district into a one day, centrally
located orientation workshop for the whole group of
students, thus offering opportunities for peer learning, such
as practising oromusculature assessments on each other or
group discussions and practical applications of policy. The
nature and frequency of this support was negotiated prior
to placement commencement; it however was modified if
necessary. A range of supports were offered by the
facilitator, to the students, primary CEs and other staff
on-site, as outlined in Table 1. This phase ran for the
duration of the placements.
Compulsory group tutorials with the facilitator were
seen as a key learning opportunity for the students as
well as a chance to provide CEs with some timeout from
the responsibilities of student supervision. Fortnightly
tutorials of varying lengths (2–4 hours) were scheduled
at a central CDF site so students from a number of CDF
sites could attend. Tutorial topics (e.g., bedside dysphagia
assessments) were identified by CEs and facilitators
One primary site,
possible secondary site
Multiple sites within a
region or district
Student: CE ratio of
4:1 or 6:1 or 8:1
Student: CE ratio of 2:1
Primary CE,
multiple partner CEs
Multiple primary CEs,
multiple partner CEs
Student competency levels: intermediate and/or entry level,
undergraduate and/or graduate entry masters
University support: includes weekly/fortnightly tutorials,
timetabling assistance, CE discussions during placement
High volume/designated CE
Area wide
Figure 3. Examples of different placement models using the CDF framework
Table 1. The Encourage phase
Clinical Educator Support
Student Support
Continued shared support, e.g., telephone and email
Additional face-to-face workplace meetings with CEs as required
Targeted support from the university in area/s of need, for example:
• implementing new models of supervision
• problem solving logistical issues, e.g., scheduling higher volumes of
students
• tutorial development in key areas (conducted by facilitator and/or
site)
• staff mentoring – across a range of clinical and supervisory
experience levels
Improved accessibility and timeliness of standard support offered, due
to on-site presence
Offered a wider range of learning experiences in varying:
• clinician caseloads
• speciality areas
• clinician styles
Provision of workbooks and templates, e.g., reflections, peer feedback
Structured opportunities such as student tutorials to successfully use
peer-learning to acquire:
• teamwork skills, e.g., in quality improvement projects
• high level communication skills, e.g., in case presentations
• critical self- and peer-evaluation skills