American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Evaluation Summary

A total of 120 individuals participated in the SLP Summit from academic institutions and clinical settings. Evaluations were received from 83 participants.

  • 97% of the respondents stated that the SLP Summit met or exceeded their expectations.
  • 95% indicated that the SLP Summit provided them with new thoughts or directions concerning the work.
  • 98% indicated that they are likely to use this information from the summit.
  • 100% indicated that they are likely to share the information with their colleagues.
  • 98% agreed that the conference was successful in meeting its learning outcomes.
  • All respondents indicated that they would like to participate in a future SLP Summit if offered.

Some of the qualitative aspects that were deemed particularly beneficial to participants included the following responses from participants:

  • Entire summit was excellent.
  • Networking and opportunity to express concerns regarding my own training and current need to be more forward thinking in our need to change!
  • The balance of the makeup of the discussion groups made it easier for all members to share their views. While some groups had some difficulties, my group was excellent—very thought provoking. Looking forward to the summary document.
  • Group discussions inclusive of participants across work settings, not just those of us in academia. Networking opportunities and the opportunity to hear about innovative models in other programs around the country.
  • The opportunity to think and discuss our professional preparation away from the institutional constraints.
  • Overall this was an excellent conference from which I leave with an enhanced perspective of where speech-language pathology can go in the future. I will continue to evaluate, educate SLPs with a critical awareness of issues/potential issues.
  • Anytime you share ideas it is beneficial. However, in this type of arena, it forces you to not just share information but rethink personal philosophies and practices. Ours is an "evolving profession." Sometimes we don't always remember that.

Suggestions to Enhance and Improve the Summit

  • Next time when we start "first steps," may need some grouping by commonalities—grad program only versus both grad and undergrad, school size, geographic locations, etc.
  • More time to develop models. Too much emphasis on clinical doctorate, need other options to consider like specialty certification. More time to network.
  • The speech and learning scientists feel threatened by some of our discussions (e.g., clinical doctorate). We need them as a part of our discussion and subsequent plans of action.
  • Someone mentioned that it would have been nice having students be part of the discussion. I agree. Other than that, I felt the event was well organized, interesting, and effective. More clinic coordinators/directors should be involved.
  • Credentialing and the continuum—SLPAs—where's the quality assurance piece? Where are the ethics constraints/regulations?
  • Discussions of potential new pedagogies. Feeling that our educational programs are good but need to be tweaked. Focus on competencies at BA level and beyond.

Other Topics that Participants Would Like to Discuss at an SLP Summit

  • Development of a set of foundation courses from which universities could draw to offer distance education to out of field, non traditional students.
  • CF—is it needed? Does it need to change?
  • Pedagogy—especially some practice and new technology for teaching specifically for speech-language pathology.
  • Specialty certification—design implementation for disorders, age (child, adult, geriatric), and supervision. Reassign CF.
  • It probably would be helpful to discuss strategies for creating interdisciplinary courses at the undergraduate level that have a component of communication disorder or a service learning or a case study included in the example, a service learning opportunity involving children with a non?
  • Clinical supervision pedagogy. Models for clinical faculty career ladder. UG location. Clinical doctorate—politics within and outside of discipline, K&S purposes. Value/benefit. CF experiences—execution of CF plan, increase mentoring. Teaching with technology—pedagogy, evidencebased practice, hands-on experience, resources, applications to increase access or enhance learning.
  • Recruitment into the profession. Development of criteria for accepting students into SLP program. What should be included in the application process? Development of entry-level professional exam.
  • Clock hours and experiences that develop competencies (knowledge and skills).
  • Essential elements of ideal faculty (doctorate and clinical competencies). Collaborative models of education across the disciplines and campuses.

Share This Page

Print This Page