JCPSLP Voll 15 No 3 Nov 2013

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.

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)

117

JCPSLP Volume 15, Number 3 2013

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au