JCPSLP Vol 14 No 1 2012

multiple students in an organisation at one time, or use alternative supervisory practices (see further discussion in McAllister, Paterson, Higgs, and Bithell [2010]). In a recent study of international practices in speech pathology clinical education, Sheepway, Lincoln, and Togher (2011) found that Australian universities were more likely to adopt innovative or alternative clinical placement or supervisory models than their international colleagues. This study suggests that Australian university programs in speech pathology are actively implementing strategies to meet this challenge. It is likely that Australian graduates will experience an increasingly diverse range of clinical placements which will in turn mean they will bring a diversity of skills and experiences to the workforce. Challenge 8: Using simulated learning effectively in speech pathology education to build students’ clinical competency Another response to the current situation supported by HWA is the use of simulated learning to facilitate clinical competency development. Simulated learning comes in many different forms, for example, computerised simulations of clinical situations, the use of actors, or standardised patients (Hill, Davidson, & Theodoros, 2010), clinical case studies (McCabe, Purcell, Baker, Madill, & Trembath, 2009), or use of models and dummies for practising technical skills (Khan, Pattison, & Sherwood, 2011). The general aims of simulated learning experiences are to promote preparation of students for clinical experiences, reduce time spent in clinical placements, or to reduce safety risks for students or patients. Additionally, from the university’s perspective, greater control over student learning outcomes and the quality of learning experiences may be achieved. A recent report on simulated learning opportunities in speech pathology in Australia indicated that 4 out of 10 university programs involved used simulated learning in their courses and that “the integration of SLEs [simulated learning environments] into speech pathology education curricula is considered likely to reduce the current load on workplace clinical educators and potentially increase clinical education capacity for university programs” (Theodoros, Davidson, Hill, & McBean, 2010, p. 4). Consequently, university programs must also turn their attention to developing SLEs in speech pathology that will assist in easing the demand on clinical placements. It is also likely that a change in attitude of educators supported by research findings is needed about the acquisition of speech pathology competency via SLEs. Challenge 9: Producing work-ready speech pathology graduates for constantly changing and increasingly diverse workplaces University programs in speech pathology not only have to pay attention to Commonwealth government stipulations, the aspirations of students, and the requirements of Speech Pathology Australia, they must also keep in front of changes in the workplace. Presently, university curriculum developers are likely to be paying attention to issues such as inter- professional practice and teamwork, preventative practice, supervision of therapy assistants, ehealth and ehealth records, and telehealth, to name a few (McAllister et al., 2010). Given the two- or four-year time lag between entering a speech pathology course and entering the workforce, curricula are required to be increasingly adept in

country (for example, Stevens, Peisker, Mathisen, & Woodward, 2010). Speech pathology students also expect that they will have the opportunity to have an international experience during their university degree. One of the most frequently asked questions on university open days is “Can I work overseas with this degree?”, followed by “Can I do an overseas placement or semester?” Giving students international experience may be achieved via six-month exchanges to an overseas university, an overseas placement, and exposure to international visiting academics and international students. Challenge 6: Preparing international students for clinical experience in the Australian health, education, and disability sectors Australian universities also have a social responsibility to provide education to students from countries where equivalent university degrees may not yet exist. Speech pathology graduates from Australian universities have populated the health, disability, and education sectors of Singapore, Hong Kong, and more recently Malaysia, Korea, India, and parts of Africa and the Middle East. Recent research suggests that at least some international students may find developing competency in the Australian context difficult (Attrill, Lincoln, & McAllister, 2011). Hence the challenge here is to prepare both international students and clinical educators to work together successfully to ensure clinical competency development. Challenge 7: Accommodating an increased diversity in clinical education experiences into the profession’s perceptions of new graduates’ competency Uncapped university places and increases in numbers of courses in response to Commonwealth imperatives is putting pressure on the supply of clinical education placements for students. National speech pathology registration is not required in Australia. Therefore, accurate information about the size of our workforce is unavailable, so the existence of a mismatch between numbers of students, placements required, and the speech pathology workforce cannot be investigated. Lincoln (2009) estimated that on average in 2005 individual SPA members needed to provide 1.5 weeks per year of clinical education placement experience to meet the then clinical placement needs. This suggests that at least in 2005 there was some capacity for growth in the provision of clinical placements by the existing workforce. University programs are juggling this pressure on clinical placements with the aspirations of students, research evidence about effective learning and teaching practices, and the needs of stakeholders as well as a desire to maintain or increase the quality of their courses. Universities have responded in various ways to this challenge and are increasingly picking up the entire cost of clinical education. In 2005 30% of all clinical placements nationally were provided by university clinics or external clinics funded by universities, and this is likely to have increased in the intervening years (Lincoln, 2009). Of course, in picking up these costs, university programs then have less to spend on other activities and resources related to providing an education in speech pathology. Universities have also invested in supporting innovative clinical placement models that may utilise non-traditional placement sites, place

4

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 1 2012

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology