JCPSLP Voll 15 No 3 Nov 2013

Interprofessional education and practice

Collaboration towards inclusion An interprofessional learning opportunity for education and

speech pathology students Deborah Hersh, John O’Rourke and Abigail Lewis

In order to support the policy of inclusion, where children with special educational needs are catered for within general education classrooms, teachers and speech pathologists need to develop close collaborative practices. This paper reports on an interprofessional learning opportunity for education and speech pathology students to explore and learn about each other’s role and work through cases. Reports on interprofessional learning opportunities between these two professions have been published but are relatively sparse at the undergraduate level. An evaluation completed by 19 students revealed a positive response to the experience but also suggestions for change. It is suggested that encouraging students to consider collaboration and inclusion early in their training may help to develop positive and flexible attitudes to the challenges of collaboration in practice. I n Australia, there is an increasing trend towards the policy of inclusion in which students with special educational needs are catered for within mainstream classrooms (Ashman & Elkins, 2012; Foreman, 2011; Lindsay & Dockrell, 2002; and, for example, the Western Australia’s Department of Education “Building Inclusive Classrooms” initiative: http://www.det.wa.edu.au/ inclusiveeducation/detcms/navigation/building-inclusive- learning-environments/building-inclusive-classrooms/). With this trend, there is also more awareness of a role for speech pathologists in mainstream schools because of a growing body of knowledge around the links between oral language skills and literacy (Roth & Troia, 2006; Speech Pathology Australia [SPA], 2011b; Walsh, 2007). Effecting these policy changes involves close interprofessional collaboration between teachers, education assistants and speech pathologists, and challenges alternative models of service delivery such as “pull-out” or withdrawal models where children are removed from the classroom for their speech pathology sessions (Hartas, 2004). McCartney (1999) argued that such an approach allowed “peace and privacy” (p. 436), reduced distractions for children and was more

manageable for individual or small group work. However, the withdrawal model could also lead to a mismatch between the curriculum focus of the classroom and the language therapy provided, a lack of communication between teacher and therapist, and a reinforcement of segregation, rather than inclusion, of the child from his or her peers (Hartas, 2004; McCartney, 1999). Despite barriers to collaborative practice, such as the above example of the withdrawal model reducing opportunities for interprofessional communication, or the speech pathologist’s position as a “visitor” to the school (Baxter, Brookes, Bianchi, Rashid & Hay, 2009; Hemmingsson, Gustavsson, & Townsend, 2007; McCartney, 1999), a number of approaches have been reported to promote the interdisciplinary collaboration required to assist children with communication problems. For example, O’Toole and Kirkpatrick (2007) used the Hanen program “Learning Language and Loving It” (Weitzman, 1992) as the basis for their training for 16 teachers, special needs assistants and therapists working with children with language delay. They found that attitudes to collaboration were positive even before the training but that participants’ skills and understanding about how to support these children improved. Wright, Stackhouse and Wood (2008) ran a “Language and Literacy: Joining Together” program for participants of varying professional backgrounds in the UK and found that the majority valued the opportunities, not just to learn about the links between language and literacy, but also to explore the role of other professionals and interdisciplinary work. Bauer, Iyer, Boon and Fore (2010) also summarised some practical strategies for speech pathologists and classroom teachers to work together. These strategies included valuing the expertise of one another on an equal basis, being flexible and keeping channels of communication open. While there are papers, such as those mentioned above, reporting ways to enhance collaborative practice between teachers and speech pathologists, there is some evidence that more could be achieved at an undergraduate level to prepare these professionals to work together (Law et al., 2001). For example, Sadler (2005) surveyed 89 teachers in the UK who were working in mainstream classrooms with children with moderate or severe speech/language impairment, about their training, knowledge, confidence and beliefs around supporting these children. She found that “few of these mainstream teachers had received any information on speech and language impairment as part of their initial training” (p. 157). Serry (2013) found that

Keywords collaboration inclusion inter­ professional student speech pathologists student teachers This article has been peer- reviewed

Deborah Hersh (top), John O’Rourke (centre) and Abigail Lewis

115

JCPSLP Volume 15, Number 3 2013

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au