A Pilot Study Investigating the Effect of the Supervision-Questioning-Feedback Model of Supervision on Stimulating Critical Thinking in Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Students

Samantha J. Dalessio, Nancy J. Carlino, Mary G. Barnum
{"title":"A Pilot Study Investigating the Effect of the Supervision-Questioning-Feedback Model of Supervision on Stimulating Critical Thinking in Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Students","authors":"Samantha J. Dalessio, Nancy J. Carlino, Mary G. Barnum","doi":"10.30707/tlcsd5.1.1624982519.507364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the supervision-questioning-feedback (SQF) model of supervision on critical thinking in graduate students studying speech-language pathology. The researchers hypothesized that students who were provided with the SQF model of supervision would score higher than students who received the non-SQF (NSQF) style of supervision on the selected critical thinking measures. Method Seventeen out of 24 first semester graduate students in speech-language pathology completing their on-site university-based clinical practicum experience consented to participate in the study. Of the 17 participating first semester students, 9 were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 SQF trained supervisors, and the other 8 were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 NSQF trained supervisors for the duration of 1 semester. Additionally, 3 out of 24 fourth semester graduate students completing their off-site externship experience and their supervisors consented to participate in the study. Four additional study participants served as independent SQF-trained raters charged with the task of analyzing video recorded student-supervisor conferences to determine whether the SQF model of supervision was being implemented. Prior to and at the conclusion of the clinical experience, all participating students completed two measures of critical thinking: (1) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and (2) two Simucase® clinical simulations. At the conclusion of the clinical experience, seventeen out of 20 participating students (11/12 SQF students and 6/8 NSQF students) completed a post-survey rating their supervisory experience . Results For participating first semester students, there were no overall statistically significant differences between SQF and NSQF groups as measured by pre to post completion of (1) CCTST (p=.544) and (2) two Simucase® clinical simulations (p=.781). The 3 participating fourth semester students who received the SQF model of supervision also showed no statistically significant differences on pre to post completion of the (1) CCTST (p=.827) and (2) two Simucase® virtual cases (p=.879). Results from SQF ratings revealed variability in the implementation of the SQF model across supervisors with a moderate level of inter-rater agreement. Results from post surveys completed by students showed that students preferred the SQF model of supervision over the NSQF model (p=.044). Conclusion Results from this preliminary study indicated that the SQF model did not influence the overall outcomes on the selected critical thinking measures. Student preference for the SQF model may support existing evidence that learning clinicians want to be actively engaged in the supervisory process. There were several limitations to this study including the small sample size, variability in the implementation of the SQF model across supervisors, sensitivity of the selected critical thinking measures, and timing of post-intervention procedures. Further investigation of the effects of SQF on students’ critical thinking is warranted.","PeriodicalId":202254,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences and Disorders","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences and Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30707/tlcsd5.1.1624982519.507364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the supervision-questioning-feedback (SQF) model of supervision on critical thinking in graduate students studying speech-language pathology. The researchers hypothesized that students who were provided with the SQF model of supervision would score higher than students who received the non-SQF (NSQF) style of supervision on the selected critical thinking measures. Method Seventeen out of 24 first semester graduate students in speech-language pathology completing their on-site university-based clinical practicum experience consented to participate in the study. Of the 17 participating first semester students, 9 were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 SQF trained supervisors, and the other 8 were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 NSQF trained supervisors for the duration of 1 semester. Additionally, 3 out of 24 fourth semester graduate students completing their off-site externship experience and their supervisors consented to participate in the study. Four additional study participants served as independent SQF-trained raters charged with the task of analyzing video recorded student-supervisor conferences to determine whether the SQF model of supervision was being implemented. Prior to and at the conclusion of the clinical experience, all participating students completed two measures of critical thinking: (1) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and (2) two Simucase® clinical simulations. At the conclusion of the clinical experience, seventeen out of 20 participating students (11/12 SQF students and 6/8 NSQF students) completed a post-survey rating their supervisory experience . Results For participating first semester students, there were no overall statistically significant differences between SQF and NSQF groups as measured by pre to post completion of (1) CCTST (p=.544) and (2) two Simucase® clinical simulations (p=.781). The 3 participating fourth semester students who received the SQF model of supervision also showed no statistically significant differences on pre to post completion of the (1) CCTST (p=.827) and (2) two Simucase® virtual cases (p=.879). Results from SQF ratings revealed variability in the implementation of the SQF model across supervisors with a moderate level of inter-rater agreement. Results from post surveys completed by students showed that students preferred the SQF model of supervision over the NSQF model (p=.044). Conclusion Results from this preliminary study indicated that the SQF model did not influence the overall outcomes on the selected critical thinking measures. Student preference for the SQF model may support existing evidence that learning clinicians want to be actively engaged in the supervisory process. There were several limitations to this study including the small sample size, variability in the implementation of the SQF model across supervisors, sensitivity of the selected critical thinking measures, and timing of post-intervention procedures. Further investigation of the effects of SQF on students’ critical thinking is warranted.
监督-提问-反馈监督模式对语言病理学研究生批判性思维培养效果的初步研究
目的探讨监督-提问-反馈(SQF)模式对语言病理学研究生批判性思维的影响。研究人员假设,在所选的批判性思维测试中,接受SQF模式监督的学生比接受非SQF (NSQF)模式监督的学生得分更高。方法在24名完成现场临床实习的语言病理学研究生中,有17人同意参加本研究。17名参与第一学期的学生中,9名被随机分配到3名SQF培训导师中的1名,另外8名被随机分配到2名NSQF培训导师中的1名,为期1个学期。此外,24名完成校外实习经历的第四学期研究生和他们的导师中有3人同意参加这项研究。另外四名研究参与者担任独立的SQF训练的评分员,负责分析录制的学生-导师会议视频,以确定是否实施了SQF监督模型。在临床体验之前和结束时,所有参与的学生都完成了两项批判性思维测试:(1)加州批判性思维技能测试(CCTST)和(2)两个Simucase®临床模拟。在临床体验结束时,20名参与的学生中有17名(11/12 SQF学生和6/8 NSQF学生)完成了调查后对他们的管理经验进行评分。对于第一学期的学生,通过完成(1)CCTST (p=.544)和(2)两次Simucase®临床模拟(p=.781)的前后测量,SQF组和NSQF组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。接受SQF模型监督的3名参与第四学期的学生在完成(1)CCTST (p=.827)和(2)两个Simucase®虚拟案例(p=.879)之前和之后的差异也没有统计学意义。从SQF评级的结果显示,在SQF模型的实施中,监督员之间的一致性是中等水平的。学生完成的事后调查结果显示,学生更倾向于SQF模型而非NSQF模型(p=.044)。结论本初步研究的结果表明,SQF模型对所选批判性思维测量的总体结果没有影响。学生对SQF模型的偏好可能支持现有的证据,即学习临床医生希望积极参与监督过程。本研究存在一些局限性,包括样本量小、监督人员对SQF模型实施的可变性、所选择的批判性思维措施的敏感性以及干预后程序的时机。有必要进一步研究SQF对学生批判性思维的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信