Supervision and the Professions
The Role of Clinical Education as Part of Personnel Preparation and Faculty-Researcher Careers in CSD
Preparation for Clinical Educators?
Unnecessary in the opinion of some, essential in the opinion of others. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists are expected to have extensive preparation to become professionals. Psychologists, social workers, teachers, doctors, physical therapists, counselors-all the helping professions-have varying amounts of education to prepare them for their professional roles. Much of the preparation of such professionals-the applied aspect of it-is provided by clinical educators. Yet it has been generally assumed in most of those disciplines, certainly in speech-language pathology and audiology, that preparation of those supervisors who provide a critical part of the education of practitioners is not necessary. In many disciplines, the apprenticeship model has been the prevalent model for transferring skills from one professional generation to another, "learning by doing" or copying a master practitioner (Kurpius, et, al., 1977).
Judith Brasseur, PhD
Professor and Clinic
Director
California State University,
Chico
|
Background
ASHA's Position Statement on Clinical Supervision (ASHA, 1985) legitimizes supervision as a distinct area of expertise and practice and stipulates that special preparation is needed to enable individuals to function competently as supervisors. Preparation may be in the form of preservice or in-service curricular offerings, continuing education at professional meetings, practicum at universities, self-study, and/or research.
Until the Position Statement was adopted, many speech-language pathologists and audiologists assumed that CCC automatically enabled a professional to be an effective, competent supervisor. While perusal of curricular offerings in programs accredited by ASHA's Council on Academic Accreditation (CAA) reveals that many programs have courses in clinical supervision on their books, it is unclear how often the courses are offered, what kind of enrollments these courses have, and the precise content of the offerings. A number of early surveys in our disciplines revealed that supervisors felt the need for training in supervision (Anderson, 1972, 1973a; Schubert & Aitchison, 1975; Stace & Drexler, 1969), and interestingly, supervisors who have been exposed to some kinds of special preparation begin to see the process as a more complex phenomenon-they seem to begin "to know what they don't know."
Yet the notion that anyone can supervise still seems to be alive and well-particularly among non-clinical educators. People state, "Our supervisors have been supervising for years and we're doing okay." "We can't afford to add another course to the curriculum." Even the 2005 Standards for the Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) in SLP (ASHA, 2000) continue to focus on the amount of observation (i.e., "never less than 25% of the student's total contact with each client/patient..."), while the 2007 Standards for the CCC in audiology state only that supervision must be "sufficient to ensure the welfare of the patient..." Neither set of standards addresses the quality of the experience or the competence of those providing the supervision. O'Neil (1985) emphasized the importance of supervision, stating that given the number of clock hours of supervised practicum required for the master's degree, "clinical supervision and the qualifications of the supervisors should be of major importance" (p.23). Hardick and Oyer (1987) said:
Increasing attention has been directed toward the preparation of trained clinical supervisors and the identification of desirable characteristics of supervisors and the supervisory process. Research in supervision and the teaching of this content are legitimate components of the educational process...The expanding literature on the subject also makes it feasible for university clinics to offer in-service training for staff supervisors, including faculty members who participate in supervision. The administration of a university speech and hearing clinic should provide encouragement and support for staff participation in workshops, courses, or less formal activities designed to improve the supervisory process and individual skills. (p. 49)
Interestingly when licensure boards in states such as California mandate minimal training in supervision for those who will supervise aides and assistants, it would seem that at least comparable mandates would exist for supervisors of students and professionals. Indeed, some states have special certification requirements for program supervisors in schools. And some states or university programs require at least a course in supervision for field supervisors of all school internships, including speech-language pathology. In the first draft of the 1985 ASHA Position Statement (ASHA, 1982a), a recommendation for minimum qualifications for supervisors included that in addition to the master's degree and CCC in the area supervised, that supervisors should have at least two years of professional experience (after the CFY) and some coursework in supervision. Coursework was to consist of six semester credit hours or nine continuing education units applicable to the supervisory process, of which at least one-half must be specific to the supervisory process in speech-language pathology or audiology, and a practicum in supervision in which at least 50 clock hours of supervision would be supervised.
In light of the trend in PhD programs across disciplines, to prepare candidates not only as researchers but also as instructors, it seems like an opportune time to revisit the 1982 recommendation to assist professionals in acquiring the skills necessary for effective supervision. Preparation for one's role as a clinical educator is certainly as important, if not more important, that the preparation that Ph.D. candidates receive for academic instruction.
Return to Top
Content of Clinical Educator Preparation
Content will vary, depending upon the orientation of the program and the instructor's philosophy. The content in this document is predicated on Anderson's (1988) approach which was based on the clinical supervision model (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer, 1969; Goldhammer et al., 1980) and influenced by situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Anderson (1988) stated, "It has never been assumed that this is the only way to supervise" (p.229) and she acknowledged the merit of other approaches. What is assumed to be absolutely essential is that those who supervise or those who teach others about the clinical education process have some model, some theoretical base, some solid foundation upon which they can build their procedures, form hypothesis, and develop their plans. Too much supervision, and presumably the teaching of it, is not rationally and logically planned on such a foundation. Thus, it likely to be fragmented, inconsistent, lacking in direction and focus, with no rationale and justification.
There are certain types of information and certain skills related to the supervisory process that clinical educators must attain. The question about the content of such preparation is not what it should be, but what can be selected from the vast array of knowledge important to the clinical educator. The tasks and competencies (ASHA, 1985) provide a focus for training.
Return to Top
A Model for Preparation in the Clinical Education Process
There are many ways in which preparation in the clinical education process can be implemented. Preparation may range from inclusion of information in early clinical management courses to preparation at the PhD level. At each level there are different purposes and different procedures. This article targets PhD level preparation; readers interested in undergraduate, graduate, and/or continuing education models may want to read Chapter 9 in Dowling (2001) and Chapter 9 in McCrea and Brasseur (2003). The amount of training will depend on whether the PhD candidate wants a major or minor concentration in supervision or clinical education.
PhD-Level Preparation
It appears that preparation in the supervisory process at the research doctoral level has been available in several forms for some time, but it is not clear how much or in what form. Courses, practica, independent study, and internships have been provided to some extent at this level as a part of some traditional PhD programs. Beginning in 1972, however, a research doctoral level program, in which the main emphasis was preparation in the clinical education process, was funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) at Indiana University under the direction of Jean Anderson (Anderson, 1981, 1985). The program was funded for 10 years and has been subsequently continued by the university. McCrea secured additional U.S. DOE funding from 1990-1993. Since 1972, 16 dissertations and numerous theses on the supervisory process have been completed. The program has been refined so that the following guidelines can be presented for others who are interested in developing a similar program with a major emphasis in clinical education.
1. The objectives of a doctoral-level program should be (a) to prepare personnel who can teach other clinical educators, and (b) to prepare researchers in the supervisory process.
2. The core content of a program should include at least the following:
- an introductory course that provides a framework and introduces the supervisory literature in speech-language pathology and audiology
- an advanced seminar in which research in the supervisory process is studied extensively (this must include the 25+ dissertations that have been identified in SLP supervision)
- practicum experiences directed toward the development of the ASHA tasks and competencies (ASHA, 1985)
- independent study as needed to fill in the areas not covered in coursework and practica
- research experiences; dissertation.
3. Programs for PhD students should be individually planned, based on students' experience and needs. In addition to coursework, practicum, and research experience in supervision, each program should include a concentration in another area of speech-language pathology or audiology that the student will be able to teach in a university once they attain their degree. This is important, because the reality is that most university programs are not currently able to employ a person to teach only supervision courses. Although many programs desire someone who has had preparation in supervision, their budgets require that they find perspective employees who can teach in more than one area.
4. The supervised practicum requirement, as described earlier, should be considered an essential part of the program. It is here where skill training takes place and where important research questions are identified. All of the 1985 ASHA competencies are relevant to students of the supervisory process at the doctoral level.
5. Programs should include a strong research emphasis, both academic and experiential, because of the great need for research about the supervisory process. Research competencies to be achieved should be identified.
6. Programs should meet all the basic requirements of the regular doctoral program in the university - research, dissertation, qualifying examinations.
7. Whenever possible, courses from other departments of the university that are relevant to students' goals should be included in their program, for example, from business management, counseling, education, higher education, special education, psychology, instructional technology, etc.
8. Since most PhD students are preparing themselves to teach in universities, they should have an opportunity for teaching experience. This experience should be supervised by a faculty member with expertise in the content area and in teaching. Many campuses also offer non-credit programs that prepare individuals for their roles as instructors and help them develop competencies for effective teaching.
9. A minor concentration consisting of coursework and practicum should be available for PhD students who prefer to concentrate in another area but wish to obtain some information and experience in the supervisory process.
Basic Course in Clinical Education
Most research doctoral students intend to obtain positions in academe where their responsibilities are very apt to include clinical education of students preparing to become clinicians, or they may become clinical educators in other settings. Further, those who hold CCC may be engaged in clinical education as PhD students at the time they are taking their program coursework.
Such a course in clinical education should include at least the following topics:
- relevant information on clinical education from related disciplines;
- preparation for the role of the clinical educator; and
- professional/political issues in clinical education in speech-language pathology and audiology.
Most importantly, the course should include content to prepare students to implement Anderson's Continuum of Supervision [PDF] to include the planning, observation, and analysis roles of the supervisor relative to the clinical process; the planning, observation and analysis of the supervisory process; supervisory techniques; as well as interpersonal aspects of the supervisory process. Finally, such a course should address variations in supervision across sites; accountability and evaluation in the supervisory process; preparing supervisees for the process; and research in supervision.
Assignments should include the following:
- extensive reading from the speech-language pathology and audiology literature as well as some from other disciplines
- viewing of videotapes of conferences
- a self-study of students' interactions in taped conferences (as supervisor or supervisee)
- a research proposal or review of literature on a specific topic, or other assignments that meet individual needs and interests
The course should be oriented so that it could be taken by both speech-language pathologists and audiologists. Such courses and their content were discussed by Anderson, Rassi, Laccinole, Casey, Brasseur, McCrea, Ulrich, Ganz and Hunt-Thompson at an ASHA Convention short course moderated by Smith (1985). Rassi described an introductory course for advanced students in the audiology graduate program who aspire to clinical educator positions or have an interest in clinical education and to on- and off-campus clinical educators. Rassi noted that the course provided an opportunity for potential clinical educators to study the process as they experienced it.
Content included an examination of supervision/clinical education research, methodology and theory in communication sciences and disorders, clinical decision making, competency-based instruction, supervisory competencies, leadership and supervisory styles, data collection, conference analysis, interpersonal relationships, observation, attribution and judgment, and evaluation and self-evaluation. Activities included participation in laboratory experiences or practicum which is monitored by a regular staff supervisor, listening to conference tapes, keeping a journal, and role-playing. Course work described by Casey (1985b) had content and requirements similar to Rassi's, but more focused on ASHA's (1985) tasks and competencies. It included a practicum experience, conference analysis, and the use of self-assessment instruments related to the ASHA competencies.
Practicum Experiences in Supervision
Each of the courses described included a very important laboratory or practicum component. Just as clinicians need practice in gaining clinical skills, clinical educators also need opportunities to "field test" the skills about which they are learning. The ASHA competency list provides a guide for such practice.
The practicum experience as part of a PhD-level preparation program has been described by Anderson (1981) as probably the most significant component of the program. "This experience is a necessary step in gaining insight about the supervisory process, in the modification of the supervisory behavior of trainees, (i.e., doctoral students in supervision practicum) and in defining the questions that lead to research in the supervisory process" (Anderson, 1981, p.80).
Procedures for the PhD-level practicum in clinical education as conducted by Anderson was individualized for each trainee. Some research doctoral students had experience in supervision, all had clinical experience and CCC. They were assigned a certain number of Master's level student clinicians to supervise. The PhD student helped plan the services provided to the client, and then observed, and analyzed the clinical work of the student clinician and subsequently held conferences with them. Similarly, their work was planned, observed, analyzed and discussed in conference with the faculty directing the supervision practicum. Extensive use of audio- and videotape and interaction analysis systems provided conference content.
Practicum or laboratory experience for (master's-level or) PhD students who do not have CCC is structured differently than the experience for PhD students who have CCC. Trainees without CCC cannot be independently responsible for supervising student clinicians. Thus, they will need to be assigned to a clinical educator who holds the CCC and will be involved in the clinical education process in a supplementary role. At the beginning of the experience, the clinical educator, the non CCC supervisor-in-training, and the student clinician who is to be supervised discuss the purpose of the experience, set objectives, and develop a plan for the semester. This plan includes the trainee's role in observation, data collection, and analysis of the clinical sessions. It also includes procedures for observation, data collection, and analysis of conferences between the supervisor and the student clinician or the trainee and the certified clinical educator. The plan will specify procedures to be used - use of certain observation systems or other data collection methods, journal writing, observation of others, methods of analysis and reporting in the conference, and other suitable activities. Portfolios would certainly provide a useful procedure for measuring growth. Trainees should participate in conferences. This participation affords opportunities for self-analysis of the trainee's interaction in a conference situation. The PhD student trainee will also have weekly conferences with the clinical educator to discuss his or her progress toward the objectives that were set.
In a case study, Dowling and Biskynis (1993) examined the impact of a course in supervision and a subsequent practicum on the behavior of a supervision trainee. Pre-and post-measures of conferencing ability were obtained using a simulation experience to assess course outcomes. After studying Cogan's clinical (1973) and Anderson's (1988) continuum models of supervision and discussions with the instructor, the student established three goals and contracted to change these in her final conference at the end of the semester. In the subsequent term, the student enrolled in a practicum. She was assigned to supervise a first semester clinician, teaming with the instructor who was certified. Over the course of the semester, the trainee assumed increasing responsibility for the student clinician although the instructor jointly observed all treatment sessions. The instructor met regularly with the trainee and also observed supervisory conferences. They also completed joint analyses of conferences. Academic training resulted in changes in the trainee's supervisor talk time. Those behaviors for which grade contingencies were established consistently improved. During the practicum, behaviors that were targeted changed as well.
The practicum highlights the importance of providing opportunities to apply concepts learned in a course and to practice skills that are discussed. As stated previously, developing new behaviors requires practice, analysis of performance and feedback.
Return to Top
Research on Preparation of Clinical Educators
With the adoption of the position paper on supervision (ASHA, 1985), the need to prepare clinical educators for their roles was officially recognized. With that comes the need for research, not only to validate the tasks and competencies contained in that document, but also to determine how to effectively and efficiently prepare supervisors to perform the tasks.
- Dowling (1986) analyzed the task behavior of two supervisors enrolled in a doctoral program with emphasis on the clinical supervision approach (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer, 1969). She found their behavior to be different than that of supervisors in other descriptive studies of the conference (Culatta & Seltzer, 1976, 1977; Roberts & Smith, 1982; Smith, 1978). Conferences included more equality in the relationship, supervisors did not dominate and supervisees were not passive. Another difference was that conference behavior varied from one supervisee to another, demonstrating that supervisors did modify their styles. While experimental studies need to be designed to determine if differences can be attributed to academic and practicum work, descriptive studies like this provide a foundation.
- One study (Hagler, 1986) that used the "bug-in-the-ear" technique attempted to modify the amount of verbal behavior of supervisors during the conference by providing feedback through an electronic device which delivered immediate feedback to subjects. The findings show that supervisors were able to reduce their verbal behavior as a result of a verbal directive to "try to talk less," which was delivered via a bug-in-the-ear at two-minute intervals. Data provided to the subjects about the amount of verbal behavior and contingent social praise delivered in the same manner did not produce change. Generalization to other behaviors cannot be supported without further research, but as the author states, the study does constitute a "first step toward systematic modification of a supervisor conferencing behavior, which may lead someday to strategies for teaching supervisory styles" (p. 67).
- Hagler, Casey, and DesRochers (1989) examined the effects of feedback on facilitative conditions offered by supervisors during conferencing. They attempted to increase facilitative behaviors by providing supervisors with data about their use of concreteness, facilitative genuineness, respect, and empathic understanding and instructions for change. Analysis of two consecutive conferences, using McCrea's Adapted scales revealed no significant differences between experimental and control groups. They concluded that simple, written suggestions pertaining to each behavior had too little substance and impact to induce change. They suggested that subsequent studies train facilitative behaviors, including opportunities to role play and practice.
- Using a multiple baseline across behaviors design, Strike-Roussos (1988) examined the effects of training supervisors to ask a variety of questions and to talk about the supervisory process during their conferences. A three-phase program for each of the two behaviors was implemented - each phase involved one-hour training sessions. Phase I was designed to teach supervisors to distinguish between the clinical versus the supervisory process and broad versus narrow questions. Phase II in which subjects received verbal feedback about their use of a target behavior in actual conferences and III in which subjects engaged in self-analysis of a target behavior, were implemented only when a subject failed to reach criterion after training for the previous phase. The results revealed that the teaching methodology was effective in causing an increase in the amount of broad question asking and discussion of the supervisory process during conferences for the seven subjects.
In a post-hoc analysis of her 1988 dissertation study, Strike-Roussos (1995) examined questions for four subjects to determine whether the cognitive level of supervisees' responses matched the cognitive level of the questions. Eighty total conferences were analyzed. Data trends suggest that without specific education about the use of questions, supervisors tend to use predominantly Narrow questions, and that the frequency of higher level questions increases in conjunction with education. More interestingly, the effectiveness of the higher-level questions in facilitating higher level thinking by supervisees also improves after supervisors participate in an education program focused on question asking (p.17).
- Dowling (1995) investigated if supervisee and supervisor questions and responses changed as a function of academic training. In a nine-hour module and subsequent 15-week regular academic course, 29 graduate students/ "supervisors-in-training" participated in lecture-discussion, role play and simulations. Simulated therapy and conferences were used to assess the trainees' skills in: decreasing conference talk time, collecting at least three different pieces of data during observations for use in conferences, and one goal of their choosing. Supervisors' use of open-closed questions and supervisees' simple-elaborated responses were measured. Supervisory training resulted in a dramatic change in supervisors' use of open questions and supervisee elaborated responses.
- Dowling (1992, 1993, 1994) and colleagues (Dowling, Sbaschnig, & Williams, 1991) have examined the effects of graduate student supervisory training. At the beginning of a regular academic course (three credit hours) the "supervisors-in-training" baseline conference behaviors are measured, three professional goals are set, and progress is measured at the end of the semester. Findings have consistently demonstrated the value of preprofessional training in supervision in changing targeted behaviors and philosophies.
Research of this nature must continue. Demonstrating that clinical educators who have been trained are more effective than those who have not will substantiate the need and provide the clout for mandating academic preparation and practicum for the important role of clinical educator.
Return to Top
Outcomes of the Clinical Education Process
In addition to investigating the impact of training in the supervisory process, individual clinical educators and supervisees will want to engage in self-study of the clinical education process. Competency 8.9 highlight's the need for "ongoing analysis of supervisory interactions." Principles and methodologies for observing and analyzing the clinical and supervisory process are described in Dowling (2001) and McCrea and Brasseur (2003).
The bottom line is that observation and analysis must have a purpose and should be jointly planned by clinical educator and supervisee. Observation and analysis must be objective and scientific. Their primary focus should be on gathering data to determine if objectives have been met. This data will then be analyzed to show if change has occurred of if further work is needed. Just as fundamentally observation and analysis are prerequisites to evaluation and provide a rationale for the results of the evaluation process.
Differences between studying the clinical and supervisory process will be found in the questions to be answered, the types of behavior to be observed, the data to be recorded, the method of observation, the observation instruments used, the method of discussion with the supervisee, and the implementations of change.
Return to Top
Obtaining Feedback About the Clinical Education Process
If the clinical education process is to be discussed and analyzed by clinical educator and supervisee, information must be gathered to form the nucleus of this discussion. Attitudes, perceptions, actual behaviors, needs-all go into the analysis.
In addition to the objective data obtained by the observation systems, there is a need to obtain subjective feedback about the conference. Rosenshine (1971) and Rosenshine and Furst (1973) have strongly urged the use of high-inference ratings (subjective ratings) along with low-inference category counts, which are more objective, as have Ingrisano and Boyle (1973) and Smith and Anderson (1982a).
Low-inference systems are classification systems that code specific, notable, supervisor and supervisee behaviors and require few inferences on the part of the coder who is analyzing one event at a time. High-inference systems are classifications that rate general supervisor and supervisee behaviors and require inferences on the part of the rater who is analyzing a series of events (Smith & Anderson, 1982a, p.243).
How is this feedback obtained? Three methods are useful to varying degrees:
- general discussion with the supervisee,
- the use of rating scales or evaluation forms, and
- the collection of objective behavioral data through the use of interaction analysis systems.
Return to Top
General Discussion
Discussion about the clinical education process facilitates mutual understanding and growth. Such discussion continues throughout the period of the assignment (practicum). What are supervisees' perceptions of whether or not their anticipations, needs, and goals are being met? Objectives for the clinical education process, set during the planning stage, should be reviewed periodically. New impressions of the clinical education process, gained through experiences, should be expressed.
One drawback of attempting to obtain feedback directly from the student is that it may be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain honest feedback from supervisees, especially if it is negative. Clinical educators do give grades to supervisees, or write recommendations or evaluations. There are behaviors that are difficult to discuss with the clinical educator. How do students tell clinical educators that they talk too much? That they don't give supervisees a chance to use their own ideas? That they always tell them about the negative aspects of their clinical work, not the positive? Or a host of other complaints one hears from supervisees-some justified, some not?
Clinical educators, too, may find it difficult to engage in this general discussion of supervisees' activities. They may not have any better understanding of the components of the clinical education process than the supervisees, and therefore may not know how to structure such a conversation. They may also not be able to deal face-to-face with their supervisees on sensitive issues.
The success of analysis of the conference depends upon the individual situation. The manner in which the clinical education process is presented at the beginning of the interaction will influence ongoing discussion. Adequate information about the components of clinical education and tasks and competencies will facilitate discussion. Discussions may come more easily as clinical educators and supervisees learn and develop skills. The interpersonal skills of the clinical educator will make a difference in the supervisees' ability and willingness to be open and frank. The specificity of the objectives set for the clinical eduation process may determine the productivity of the discussion. For example, if an objective has been to increase the amount of talk by the supervisee in the conference and, if data are available to quantify this talk, it will be easier for both.
The direction of such discussion will need to be considered carefully by the clinical educator at first. While it should be encouraged, it may come easily only after experience with the types of feedback to be discussed next, or from a very experienced or secure supervisee. It is also important to deal with this feedback as perceptions, which may or may not be accurate. Their validity can be tested through the collection of data, but until that point, they must be dealt with as reality, at least for the perceiver.
Rating Scales
Rating scales or evaluation forms are high-inference scales that are a slightly more objective way of obtaining feedback about the supervisory interaction than general discussion. Such forms may be developed and used by the agency, or supervisors may develop their own. Rating forms, such as those developed by Powell (1987) and Brasseur and Anderson (1983), are a good basis for the early discussion of the process and in setting objectives for supervisor and supervisee. They are also valuable guides for ongoing discussion.
Interaction Analysis Systems
Although there is a place for the high inference methods just reviewed, they can not be considered objective measures of what happened in the conference. The use of interaction analysis systems for observation and data collection of behaviors in the supervisory conference is perhaps more important than it is in the clinical session (Anderson et al., 1979). Although subjectivity is never completely eliminated, the use of such systems in conjunction with the other methods is necessary for study of the conference. From the collected data, inferences can be made and compared with the results of ratings. This is particularly important for the conference where there is so little information about variables that are effective.
Interaction analysis systems for the clinical process were discussed in the chapter on observation. Those systems were an outgrowth of similar systems for recording interaction in the classroom, based on the idea that a better understanding of what happens in the classroom will help teachers do a better job. This concept has been transferred now to supervisory activity.
Any situation in which people are interacting is amenable to behavioral analysis by categories appropriate to it. Once the goals of the projected interaction are stated, it should be possible to deduce the kinds of information needed to understand it better (Blumberg, 1980, p.114).
These systems are not evaluations. They are low-inference instruments for collecting data on behaviors within the conference, which can then be examined, analyzed, and categorized, so that inferences can be drawn about the interaction of the participants and its effects on their learning.
Systems for analyzing the clinical education process should be evaluated with regard to their objectives, content, usefulness, methodology, strengths and weaknesses, validity and reliability, and how closely they meet the criteria for interaction analysis systems proposed by Herbert and Attridge (1978). Interaction analysis systems that appear in the SLP supervision literature include:
- A System for Analyzing Supervisor-Teacher Interaction (Blumberg, 1974, 1980)
- Underwood Category System for Analyzing Supervisor-Clinician (1979)
- Content and Sequence Analysis of the Supervisory Session (Culatta & Seltzer, 1977)
- The McCrea Adapted Scales for the Assessment of Interpersonal Functioning in Speech-Language Pathology Supervisory Conferences (McCrea, 1980).
- Smith's 1978 Adaptation of the Multidimensional Observational System for the Analysis of Interactions on Clinical Supervision (Weller, 1971)
These systems are contained in their entirety in McCrea and Brasseur (2003).
Return to Top
Summary
Historically, preparation in the clinical education process has not been considered necessary, nor has it been available to many supervisors in the past. The situation has been changing and the formal adoption of the 13 tasks performed by clinical educators and the 81 competencies necessary to carry them out (ASHA, 1985) provided further impetus for developing preparation programs in the supervisory process. Programs should be developed in conjunction with research that will demonstrate their effectiveness.
In addition to preparation, it is also important to study the clinical education process. Methodologies for self-study and for research are described in McCrea and Brasseur (2003) and there is a need to develop better approaches. For example, discourse analysis offers possibilities for the study of the clinical education process. The need for formative outcomes measures mandated by the 2005 standards for CCC in speech-language pathology and 2007 standards for CCC in audiology will likely stimulate some new methods for studying the clinical education process. Continued attention to the development of reliable and valid techniques to study the clinical education process will also enable educators to refine preparation programs.
Preparation of PhD students increasingly includes a training component to assist them in developing the skills needed to be effective instructors. Common sense dictates that PhD students need comparable preparation for their roles as clinical educators. Universities weight teaching ability in their retention, tenure and promotion decisions. Further, campuses have centers for excellence in teaching to support faculty efforts to improve teaching. Given the powerful and pervasive impact that clinical educators have on the development of professionals and the significance of that impact on future clients (Anderson, 1988), it is essential that clinical educators receive assistance to help them acquire the 81 competencies for effective clinical education that are detailed in the 1985 ASHA Position Statement.
Note: This article is excerpted/a condensed version of Chapter 9: Preparation for the Supervisory Process in McCrea, L., & Brasseur, J. (2003). The Supervisory Process in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.