JCPSLP Vol 23 No 3

Participants Four PWP (two women; two men) and six first-year SLP students (all women) participated in the study (see Table 1). The convenience sample of PWP were invited to participate through an advertisement circulated in the university clinic. PWP received reimbursement for travel expenses. Student participants received information about the study and the nature of their involvement through a face-to-face meeting with one of the researchers and a written information sheet. It is possible that some of the students may have had experience interacting with people with Parkinson’s disease outside the course, but this was not an exclusion criterion. All participants were informed that participation was voluntary and they all provided written consent. The study was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Ref: 16749).

A focus group was chosen to explore the perspectives of the student group and to capture discussion between participants (Barbour, 2007). The students were asked to describe all aspects of their experiences and how the program impacted on their learning. This was also audio- recorded and transcribed verbatim. Prior to commencing the analysis, the research team checked the transcripts for accuracy. To further enhance rigour, the first author used a reflective journal to record initial thoughts after each interview and the focus group. Further notes were made throughout the analysis. Analysis Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). All authors engaged in analysis. The first author (AD) generated initial codes using NVivo 10 software. To promote rigour and reach consensus on meaning, these codes were discussed and refined with all authors. AD then identified potential themes, which were refined and discussed among the research team to reach agreement and ensure clarity. The coded data extracts were collated and analysed. Themes were named using participants’ own words. Results Participants discussed both beneficial and challenging experiences of being involved in the clinic. There were five themes from the analysis of the expert teacher interviews and four from the student focus group. Their experiences are reported below by theme with illustrative examples. The expert teacher perspective Working on a real thing The expert teachers benefitted from specific SLP input for their communication. Two reported becoming aware of their speech difficulties and contributing factors. One benefitted from using the breathing strategies she learned in the clinic in her daily life. Another discussed the importance of being actively committed to managing his own health and viewed the clinic as an opportunity to work on real difficulties. I found that my speech had changed and they [the students] taught me quite a lot in that area. It has helped me an awful lot, I think that’s probably what I gained out of it the most, was to do with my speech. (Kay) one of the best bits was actually working on a real thing and I got an enormous amount of benefit out of the interaction between the two of them and Maree as well... (Tony) Helping the next generation The expert teachers appreciated the contribution they could make to student education, both enjoyable and challenging aspects. One enjoyed the “mental gymnastics” of thinking about and answering students’ questions after a session. All expressed positive views on giving good, helpful, salient and practical feedback to students. “I find it interesting to see how students react and what they wanted to know … I like to be very altruistic … as I said helping the next generation …” (Robert) Three mentioned the need to tailor feedback for each student due to differences in their age, life experiences, demeanour and learning approaches: “ the two students were different … one was older, one was younger. I think they had different experiences they brought to their own training, which I found interesting ….” (Tony).

Table 1. Participant information for the PWP and SLP students

Name Age

Gender Employment status

TPO How

Parkinson’s disease diagnosed

PWP

Kay

75 Female Retired

6 years Neurologist

Tony

65 Male

Retired

6 years Neurologist

Judy 73 Female Retired

7 years Neurologist

Robert

>65 Male

Retired

13 years Chiropractor & GP

SLP students

MA 22 Female Student

N/A

N/A

SE

21 Female Student

N/A

N/A

EJ

53 Female Student

N/A

N/A

DB 22 Female Student

N/A

N/A

AC 21 Female Student

N/A

N/A

MY

38 Female Student

N/A

N/A

TPO = time post onset of diagnosis; N/A = not applicable

Due to the small sample size and the nature of this being a university clinic, the authors were careful to protect the participants’ confidentiality. They were all given the option of being identified by a pseudonym. Some of the PWP asked to be identified by their real name but all of the students chose a pseudonym (initials). Data collection Individual semi-structured interviews with the expert teachers and a focus group with the SLP students were conducted at the conclusion of the practicum. These were all conducted by a final-year SLP student who had participated in a trial expert teacher clinic in her first year. The interviews explored their involvement in the clinic, reasons for wanting to be in this clinic, and the impact on their lives. Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed. All expert teachers were offered the opportunity to edit their transcript; only two chose to do so.

152

JCPSLP Volume 23, Number 3 2021

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology