A qualitative study of reflective practice in the workplace. Speech-language pathologists have their say.

PURPOSE: Engaging in reflective practice (RP) and demonstrating reflective abilities is an essential graduate skill for speech-language pathologists (SLPs), yet limited studies have examined the perspectives of practicing SLPs and how and why they engage in RP. This qualitative study aimed to examine SLPs' experiences and perspectives of RP in diverse workplaces. METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 SLPs working in health, education, or private practice sectors. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULT: Three themes were developed from the data, describing what SLPs use RP for, what SLPs perceive as important in order to engage in RP in the workplace, as well as the barriers they have identified, and how SLPs have observed a change in engaging in RP as they have progressed in their careers. CONCLUSION: SLPs described that RP is valued in the workplace for supporting client focused care, problem-solving, and lifelong learning. SLPs wanted time to be protected for RP at all stages of their career and valued the relationships with others as contributing positively to RP. Perceptions of and engagement in RP changed in relation to SLPs' clinical experience. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Written reflective practice abilities of SLT students across the degree programme.

BACKGROUND: Written reflective practice (WRP) is a teaching tool used across speech-language therapy (SLT) clinical education programmes. The process aims to support the development of reflective skills required for the workplace (e.g., problem-solving and self-evaluation). AIMS: This cross-sectional and repeated-measures study design investigated students' demonstration of breadth of WRP across the clinical education programme. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The participants were 77 undergraduate SLT students in their first, second or final professional year of the clinical programme. Participants wrote critical reflections following an interaction with a client/s as part of their clinical education experiences. Formative feedback was provided after each written reflection (WR). In total four WRs per participant were coded for breadth of WRP using a modification of Plack et al.'s coding schema from 2005. This was completed for each of the four time points across the academic year for each professional year. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: There was a statistically significant association between time (i.e., professional year of the programme) and likelihood of demonstration of breadth of reflection for the lower level reflective element of 'attend' and higher level reflective element of 're-evaluate'. A positive trend between time and likelihood of demonstration of breadth of reflection was seen for the lower level element of 'reflection-for-action'. Final-professional-year students exhibited significant enhancements in the higher level elements (e.g., 'premise') compared with first- and second-professional-year students. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This group of SLT students exhibited significant change in breadth of WRP across the degree programme. This finding has positive implications for facilitating WRP with students and using the current coding framework in clinical programmes. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject WRP is one form of reflective practice (RP) used in SLT, allied health, medical and nursing clinical education programmes. Researchers have suggested that RP skills develop over time for students. Previously, studies examining WRP have focused on one off assessment of skill or over a timeframe of 6-10 weeks. Here, we examine SLT students' WRP skills across the degree programme. What this paper adds to existing knowledge SLT students exhibited significant positive change in breadth of WRP across the degree programme as their clinical experience increased. Our results provide quantitative information in support of using RP as a learning tool throughout clinical education programmes for SLT. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study offers support for educators of SLT students; for example, how educators can assess WRP, and how educators can foster SLT student skill development with formative feedback and reflective questioning. This study also offers support for student SLT, for example, describing how WRP can be part of their individualized learning approach and provide a purposeful examination of self and clinical skill development.

An evidence-based guide to clinical instruction in audiology.

BACKGROUND: A significant portion of the AuD curriculum occurs in clinical settings outside the classroom. Expert clinicians, employed within and outside of the university, are called upon to provide this clinical education. Most have had little or no formal training in clinical teaching yet face pedagogical and logistical challenges when simultaneously providing clinical service and teaching. Training to provide optimal methods and approaches to clinical instruction should be based on research evidence; however, there is a paucity of research in this area within the audiology discipline. PURPOSE: This article provides a review of literature supplying evidence for important concepts, elements, and approaches to the clinical instruction process. Additionally, we provide readers with some practical tools with which to facilitate application of optimal clinical teaching principles. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of literature on clinical education in audiology and across a wide array of health professions. Through the use of content analysis we identified four elements of the clinical teaching process most critical in examining optimal practices. RESULTS: The elements identified as critical to positive clinical learning outcomes include the establishment of mutual expectations and goals; structured content and delivery of feedback; establishment of a positive instructor/student relationship; and questioning strategies that lead to the development of critical thinking skills. CONCLUSIONS: Many disciplines outside of audiology demonstrate robust research activity related to understanding and optimizing the clinical education process. The application of a number of evidence-based clinical teaching principles should allow us to improve student outcomes in audiology. Researchers in our field might consider if and how we should develop our own research literature in clinical education.