0 JCPSLP Nov 2013 3rd draft

11 / 52

JCPSLP Volume 15, Number 3 2013 117
Things students did not like or would do
differently
A key point was that students felt the session was too short
and wanted more interaction time:
Spend more time interacting with the SP students.
More time to discuss. (Ed student)
I really like the idea but we didn’t get enough.
(SP student)
Several education students also suggested that there
could have been more preparation and background
information provided in previous weeks including handouts
on speech pathology or websites to explore in advance:
A little bit of preparation in week 3 [previous week]
directed at how our professions can collaborate.
(Ed student)
Students also wanted more reciprocal learning. For
example, the speech pathology students were “hosted” by
education but a few commented that they wanted student
teachers to attend speech pathology lectures too:
To have a lecture on SP so the teaching students walk
away with more information about what we do. (SP
student)
Have the student teachers sit in on one of our lectures
rather than vice versa as I believe this would be better
than us just telling them what we do (i.e., have a
generalised lecture for them). (SP student)
A number of students wanted to change the nature of
the information such as adjusting the chosen case studies,
offering more examples or scenarios to discuss and by
focusing more on planning and goal setting within the
cases:
Providing ways in which teachers and speechies
can communicate and work together (making plans,
setting goals); list the positives of good teacher/SP
relationships and what both occupations can provide.
(SP student)
Finally, a few of the speech pathology students reported
that the session should have been with primary rather than
secondary school student teachers. Part of this related to
their difficulty seeing how student teachers specialising
in particular areas such as sport or drama were relevant
collaborative partners for speech pathologists:
To have a session with primary rather than secondary
teachers as most early intervention happens in primary
school age children. (SP student)
I think maybe the session would have been more
beneficial to use 3rd–4th year students who are going
to be primary school teachers… give us more insight.
(SP student)
One concrete suggestion towards
collaboration
While there was some overlap between suggestions
towards collaboration and proposals on how to do things
differently, the suggestions built on, and extended the ideas
in the session, particularly around the use of the case study
and opportunity for interaction:
Show case study where this collaboration is healthy/
positive and effective. (Ed student)
More background for ed students about the content
and course structure of speech path students.
(Ed student)
Results
Completed evaluations were obtained from ten of the
education students and nine speech pathology students.
The main themes, within the 3-2-1 format, are highlighted
below with illustrative quotes to provide expansion on these
ideas.
Things students liked
The first and most frequently mentioned point the students
liked related to learning about each other and about each
other’s professional roles. For example:
It was interesting talking to the teachers; they got me
thinking about and considering things I’d not thought
about before… (SP student)
I liked that we were able to share with the teachers
what SPs actually do as most of them didn’t know. (SP
student)
Simply knowing what they do and networking with
them. (Ed student)
The comments were useful in highlighting how university
teaching can be relatively compartmentalised and that,
without deliberate effort, networking with students on other
courses is often limited. Some of the speech pathology
students were within a couple of years of leaving school
themselves and found meeting future teachers interesting.
Many of the education students had little idea of the
breadth of speech pathology practice (for example,
including swallowing or voice), and had not specifically
considered connections between speech and oral
language skills and educational achievement. Although
not mentioned specifically in the evaluations, the case
discussions in the interprofessional sessions also included
mention of the roles of other potential professionals to
support students with special educational needs such as
audiologists and psychologists.
Secondly, there were comments which revealed how
respondents valued collaboration and team work:
Learning how SLPs can aid me as a teacher in the
classroom. (Ed student)
Sharing what we each learn and using the knowledge
in a team to work towards a goal. (SP student)
These concepts were embedded in training from the start
for both groups with a strong recognition that professionals
could not function alone. Involving parents and the school
students themselves in decisions was also recognised as
an important backdrop to these discussions.
Thirdly, students evaluated the process of the session
and how the learning was organised: students liked the
small group work, discussions, the integration of speech
pathology and education students into groups, and the use
of case studies as a focus for learning:
I liked that we were able to work on a case study with
the teachers as it was nice to get the perspective of
someone that is looking at it from a different angle.
(SP student)
Was a good insight to interprofessional learning.
(SP student)
Several of the education students also noted that the
session helped with their assignment – an issue clearly at
the forefront of their priorities.