Teachers can be supported by engaging in collaborative, interdisciplinary problem solving when students are potentially at risk of not being able to access learning in classroom settings, resulting in a reduction in access to quality education.  This project was the first attempt at the university to bring together the disciplines of Teaching and Speech Pathology in a way that remains grounded to the knowledge and skills required of each discipline but also acknowledges the importance of how disciplinary knowledge in each field contributes to supporting students in classroom settings. In school settings, collaborative practice is considered essential for supporting students with additional needs. 

The key research questions are:

To what extent can deliberate and structured learning experiences - eg. case study design and collaborative placements – enhance the engagement and confidence of the teaching and speech pathology candidates when supporting students with additional needs?

How do Teacher Candidates and Speech Pathology Candidates engage together and independently in the processes of reasoning and problem solving?

This Educational Design Research project aimed to develop a comprehensive case study that could be used to support collaborative practice between pre-service teachers and speech pathology students. In 2018, an initial pilot was trialled using parallel a detailed case study with approximately 160 Master of Teaching and Master of Speech Pathology students completing their final year at The University of Melbourne.  Students in both cohorts worked through the case study and the lecturers shared responses from both cohorts to support ‘parallel’ collaboration. During the trial, it became evident that some participants were making assumptions regarding the students represented in the cases based on initial intuitive responses and in some instances, immediately diagnosed students in a way that extended beyond their scope of practice. This issue was addressed in the next iteration of the Design Research project that involved planning a collaborative case study that would be undertaken in a combined tutorial with both Master of Teaching and Master of Speech Pathology students. 

An essential tool that needed to accompany this process was a model that guided reasoning processes, initially to slow down the decision-making process, but also to ensure that all the necessary information had been generated and analysed to support valid decision-making. A comprehensive literature review was undertaken, and a model for reasoning was created based on the research evidence primarily in education and extending to other fields such as psychology and nursing (eg. Banning, 2008; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 2004; Golding & Bialocerkowski, 2015; Holder, 2018; Kriewaldt & Turnidge, 2013). A theoretical framework for reasoning was developed and used to guide the implementation of the case study.  The outcome was a detailed model that consisted of four key actions: 1) Intuition and Early Perceptions; (2) Data Generation and Interrogation; (3) Representation and Interpretation; and (4) Decision making. 

This project addressed the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers that can be challenging to cater for in the current contexts of coursework and practicum experiences, including Standard 1.5: Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities, Standard 1.6: Strategies to support full participation of students with disability, Standard 3.7: Engage parents/caregivers in the educative process, and Standard 7.4: Engage with professional networks and broader communities (AITSL, 2017). The project also addressed the Competency Based Occupational Standards for Speech Pathologists, particularly Range of Practice Principle 4: Interprofessional practice is a critical component of competence for an entry-level speech pathologist (Speech Pathology Australia, 2016).

Educational Design Research can be used to address complex issues pertaining to educational practice through ‘designing, developing and evaluating educational interventions’ (Plomp & Nieveen, 2010). The primary issue that this project sought to address was the lack of opportunity for participating in interdisciplinary collaborative practice in initial teacher education. To support this initiative, a case study that had the necessary scaffolds embedded in the task was developed to support collaborative decision making. A concordance activity was conducted with 5 expert teachers and speech pathologists to determine the reasoning processes they used and to test the efficacy of an Evidence-based Reasoning Model that was designed for this project. The subsequent implementation of the model and case study was successfully trialled in both parallel and collaborative tutorials with approximately 160 pre-service teachers and speech pathology students. One of the tutorials was conducted in the Science of Learning Research Classroom at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, which is a purpose-built facility containing 16 high definition cameras and microphones that are positioned unobtrusively to enable the recording of interactions. Data analysis involved coding the video data according to the reasoning model and by conducting discourse analysis to map reasoning and argumentation processes. Chinn, O’Donnell and Jinks (2000) state that ‘lengthy discussion can be characterised as complex webs of positions, supporting reasons and evidence, and counterarguments against those reasons and evidence’ (p. 79). Therefore, the analytical framework for determining the structure of discourse during group interaction draws on contribution types such as proposing a claim, providing supporting evidence, seeking clarification, explaining professional terms and stating a position regarding a claim. Furthermore, the analysis resulted in creating a network diagram of the number of interactions between participants in each group. In addition to the tutorials, interdisciplinary placements for Teacher Candidates and Speech Pathology Students were organised, an initiative that has never been offered before at The University of Melbourne. Some students had the opportunity to work in the same school settings, working collaboratively with each other and developing plans to target the needs of students, which was supported by Teaching Mentors and Clinical Educators. All students completed a post-tutorial survey and a selection of students that participated in the parallel case study, collaborative case study and the collaborative placement experience were interviewed. The interviews were analysed using inductive coding to identify the key concepts that emerged from the data (Yin, 2011).

This project sought to create the conditions for collaborative problem solving that reflected realistic situations that teachers and speech pathologists would encounter in school settings. These cases are often complex and unique, and collaboration across professional disciplines can have a significant impact on targeting interventions appropriately. Engaging a reasoning process model to support Teacher Candidates and Speech Pathologists allowed the participants to work methodically through the case study and guided them to focus on specific tasks deliberately to support their reasoning processes. Mapping the structure of discourse in a problem solving context demonstrated that collaboration is both a skill and a process. The analysis of interactions during group work highlighted the flow of conversation, key actors and patterns of discourse that guided the reasoning process. These factors impacted on the performance of the groups in relation to collaboration, problem solving, reasoning and decision-making. The development of a carefully scaffolded case study for the purposes of creating an authentic experience Teacher Candidates and Speech Pathology was achieved. The case study simulated real-life experiences to support learning outcomes for Teacher Candidates and Speech Pathology students. Specifically, the case study and placement experience aim to support the development of skills and confidence for designing effective, evidence-based interventions and engaging in collaborative problem solving. An outcome of the study, reported by participants, is that they had a deeper understanding of each other’s respective professions. The most significant outcome of this project was for teacher candidates and speech pathologists to participate in collaborative problem solving that has the potential to significantly impact on vulnerable student populations they will work with in future.

AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). (2017). Australian professional standards for graduate teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. Banning, M. (2008). Clinical reasoning and its application to nursing: Concepts and research studies. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(3), 177-83. Chinn, C. A., O'Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-97. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The ethical implications of the five-stage skill-acquisition model. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 251-264. Holder, A. (2018). Clinical reasoning: A state of the science report. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 15(1). Doi:10.1515/ijnes-2016-0024 Kriewaldt, J., & Turnidge, D. (2013). Conceptualising an approach to clinical reasoning in the education profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 7. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. M. (Eds.) (2010). An introduction to educational design research: Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26, 2007. (3rd print ed.) Enschede: Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling (SLO) Speech Pathology Australia. (2016). Competency Based Occupational Standards for Speech Pathologists – Entry Level. Retrieved from https://www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/SPAweb/SPAweb/Resources_for_Speech_Pathologists/CBOS/CBOS.aspx Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.