JCPSLP Vol 23 No 3

Participants valued having input into the allocation of placements and recommended “incorporating students”, “areas of interest” (S41), “preferences” (NG SLP5), and “existing skills/abilities” (S9) into the allocation process. Participants also discussed the challenges of managing placements together with other academic commitments and personal activities, S69 highlighting that “Balancing placement with all other commitments [e.g.] study, casual work, volunteer work, sporting commitments and family has been quite challenging”. Theme 4: Student learning in the real world Students specifically discussed the benefits of hands-on experience to show how SLPs “work in a realistic setting” (S119) and to “cement knowledge” (S101). Students felt that some skills were more easily developed during placements, such as building client rapport, generating and delivering client-focussed tasks, becoming familiar with workplace environments, providing feedback, and working with multilingual or complex clients. S96 commented, “transferring knowledge learnt in the classroom to real life … it always makes so much more sense and is learnt so much more quickly”. Students reported that placement enabled them to identify themselves as a valued professional. S69 said, “I have also thoroughly enjoyed being able to work and build meaningful relationships with clients and their families and feeling like I have had a positive influence on their lives as they make progress.” Theme 5: Transition to work The transition from student to new graduate SLP was described as daunting, and new graduate SLPs discussed how important university preparation was for seeking work and understanding the workplace. NG SLP5 said, “I wish I had some warning of how big that transition was going to be”. NG SLP2 valued “classes for resume writing, preparing us for interview” but others noted this was not always available with NG SLP1 commenting “I felt so unequipped to start looking for a job”. New graduate SLPs also noted specific skills required in the workplace they were not expecting, for example administration, managing the workload and understanding funding models. New graduate SLPs noted that their placement experiences had influenced their job-seeking (or job preferences), suggesting that their final placement ignited a passion or “fire” (NG SLP2). NG SLP1 said “I didn’t want a paediatric disability placement… now I’ve been doing disability work because I loved it so much”. Discussion This study explored (a) clinical education experiences from the perspectives of students and new graduate SLPs and (b) new graduate SLPs’ perceptions of transitioning to the workforce. Five themes were identified across the two data sets: university factors, placement factors, student factors, learning in real world (students only) and transition to work (new graduate SLPs only). Findings from theme 1 and theme 2 suggest the need for a balanced curriculum where student academic learning is aligned with the placement schedule. Specifically, participants wanted an increase in number and variety of placements scheduled after relevant theoretical learning. However, participants valued having placements early in their degree, and with observation-only experiences to assist them to contextualise their learning, upon which they could layer future placement experiences. On examination

“not enough preparation” (S95) with “limited support from university” (S34). Requests were for “more preparation” (S108), “case studies that could be worked through and discussed in our tutorial groups, more opportunities to practise some of the basic skills” (S64), problem-based learning (NG7) and “a database of resources” (S37). Theme 2: Placement factors Participants commented on the location and structure of placements, indicating a preference for block (3 or more days weekly) and longer placements. For example, “I feel that I learn so much more on a block placement” (S105) and “Sessional placements don’t provide enough time to learn anything” (S109). NG SLP8 reflected, “there was little carry over in skills from week to week [in sessional placement] and it was difficult to fully grasp an entry-level placement in that setting.” Participants also commented on specific contexts (e.g., rural) and reported a desire for placements in a range of locations relevant to future employment. S92 said, “I would be very interested in a rural placement as that’s where I’d like to work in the future”. The quality of supervision and degree of support offered by clinical educators were reported as important factors in the participants’ experiences. S89 reported, “A clinical educator could make or break your prac experience”. Participants valued clinical educators who were supportive, cared about learning and put time into the supervisory process; however, as one student noted, the “quality of supervisors varies heavily” (S16). Students and new graduate SLPs discussed the need to support both clinical educators and students. It was suggested that universities be responsible in undertaking “a screening process … to set minimum standards for being a clinical educator” (S47) and “all universities need to have procedures in place to support students who feel they are being mistreated in a placement environment” (S105). Participants reported that placement orientation was important, including expectations about the setting, caseload and administration requirements. For example, NG SLP1 said, “just making sure that everyone is on the same page about expectations for the end of the placement and setting goals and making sure those goals are achieved for the student”. Of particular interest were assessment expectations related to student performance. NG SLP8 noted the need to “clarify the expectations on [COMPASS®] to [CEs] prior to students starting placement”, and S47 highlighted that “clear assessment guidelines for clinical placements need to be established”. Students and new graduate SLPs discussed their relationship with peers, clinical educators and other team members, noting the complexities of working with others in workplaces. While most participants “loved learning from other students while on placement” (S38), some felt multi- student placements impacted their learning opportunities. NG SLP4 said, “It was a challenge to gain practical hands- on clinical experiences as we had less patient contact time due to there being four students per one clinical educator”. Similarly, the benefits of working in teams was highlighted as “a great learning experience, develops great skills” (S115); however, some participants felt “like a burden sometimes on the rest of the team” (NG SLP1). Theme 3: Student factors The logistics of travel and managing personal finances during placements was stressful—for example, S10 said “Not being able to work, not given enough notice to ensure I had enough money and having to pay for rent back home as well as in [x] was very hard financially”.

Ruth Nicholls (top) and Sally Hewat

148

JCPSLP Volume 23, Number 3 2021

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology