An exploratory study of speech-language pathologists' clinical practice in the literacy domain: Comparing onsite practices with telepractice services during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To explore speech-language pathologists' (SLP) practice in literacy prior to, and during, COVID-19 to understand the practicalities, feasibility and sustainability of telepractice literacy services. METHOD: This exploratory study employed a cross-sectional survey comprising 46 questions covering participants' caseload profile and service delivery models, their assessment and intervention practices and telepractice delivery of literacy services. RESULT: Participants were 44 SLPs working primarily in private practice and education with children and adolescents. Students with literacy difficulties comprised a significant proportion of SLPs' caseloads. Individual and group sessions were the most common format of delivery prior to COVID-19. In a telepractice model during COVID-19, SLPs saw fewer students overall. Most provided individual sessions only and reported cancellation of group sessions. SLPs described their practice in literacy as being aligned with evidence-based principles. A range of resources were used for literacy assessment and intervention. For most, their usual practice changed for telepractice. Many felt underprepared to use telepractice and experienced numerous challenges mostly relating to technology and family engagement. CONCLUSION: Literacy has become a core area of practice for SLPs; however, continued advocacy towards consultative and collaborative services is needed within onsite and telepractice models. Telepractice required SLPs to develop additional skills and modify usual practice. Despite experiencing challenges, many indicated they would continue with telepractice given its perceived benefits.

Comparing alternate learning pathways within a problem-based learning speech-language pathology curriculum.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study investigated the learning process for speech-language pathology (SLP) students engaging in a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum and compared the perspectives of students from two pathways. METHOD: Sixteen final-year SLP students participated in one of four focus groups. Half the participants entered the course directly via an undergraduate pathway and the other half entered via a graduate entry pathway. Each focus group comprised two students from each pathway. Data were generated via a semi-structured interview and analysed thematically. RESULT: Regardless of participants' pathway, many similar themes about factors that influenced their expectations prior to PBL commencing as well as their actual PBL experiences were raised. Participants believed that PBL was a productive way to learn and to develop clinical competencies. Many were critical of variations in PBL facilitation styles and were sensitive to changes in facilitators. The majority of participants viewed experiential opportunities to engage in PBL prior to commencement of semester as advantageous. CONCLUSION: Combining students with different backgrounds has many advantages to the PBL learning process. Regardless of prior experiences, all students must be sufficiently prepared. Furthermore, the facilitator has a crucial role with the potential to optimise or detract from the learning experience.