Factors Influencing Counseling Students’ Enrollment Decisions: A Focus on CACREP

Eleni M. Honderich, Jessica Lloyd-Hazlett

A purposeful sample of 359 graduate counseling students completed a survey assessing factors influencing program enrollment decisions with particular attention to students’ awareness of and importance ascribed to accreditation from the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) prior to and following enrollment. Results indicated that accreditation was the second most influential factor in one half of the students’ enrollment decisions; nearly half of participants were unaware of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment. Accreditation was a top factor that students attending non-CACREP-accredited programs wished they had considered more in their enrollment decisions. Findings from the survey indicate that prospective counseling students often lack necessary information regarding accreditation that may influence enrollment decisions. Implications for counseling students and their graduate preparation programs, CACREP and the broader counseling profession are discussed.

Keywords: CACREP, accreditation, counseling students, enrollment decisions, graduate preparation programs

 

The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) provides specialized accreditation for counselor education programs. Within higher education, accreditation is a “quality assurance and enhancement mechanism” premised on self-regulation through intensive self-study and external program review (Urofsky, 2013, p. 6). Accreditation has been reported to be particularly relevant to prospective counseling students, given increases in both the number of programs seeking CACREP accreditation (Ritchie & Bobby, 2011) and implications of program accreditation status for students’ postgraduation opportunities. Research to date has not surveyed counseling students about their knowledge of CACREP accreditation prior to or following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs.

 

Graduate Program Enrollment Decisions

 

For prospective counseling students, selecting an appropriate counselor preparation program for graduate-level study is an exceedingly complex task. Prospective students must choose from a myriad of options across mental health fields, areas of specialization and program delivery formats (i.e., traditional, virtual and hybrid classrooms). Those prospective students who are unfamiliar with CACREP accreditation and potential implications of program accreditation status for postgraduation opportunities may not sufficiently consider accreditation a relevant criterion during selection of a graduate-level counselor education program.

 

To date, the majority of higher education enrollment research has focused on undergraduate students. Hossler and Gallager (1987) outlined a three-stage college selection model that integrates econometric, sociologic and information-processing concerns of prospective enrollees. The first stage, predisposition, culminates with a decision to attend college or not. Past student achievement, ability and level of educational aspiration, along with parental income, education and encouragement, are important influences at this stage. The second stage, search, includes gathering information about prospective institutions, submitting applications and receiving admission decision(s). Finally, choice, describes the selection of a college or university. Factors influencing enrollment decisions include a variety of personal and institutional characteristics including socioeconomic status, financial costs and aid, academic qualities, location, and recruitment correspondence (Hossler & Gallager, 1987).

 

Academic reputation, job prospects for graduates, campus visits, campus size and financial aid offerings have been identified as critical factors influencing undergraduate student enrollment decisions (Hilston, 2006). Research also has underscored the weight of parental opinions in shaping undergraduate student enrollment decisions. More limited research has examined factors influencing graduate student enrollment decisions, but appears necessary given differences across contexts of individuals making undergraduate versus graduate-level enrollment decisions.

 

Within a non-field-specific survey of 2,834 admitted graduate students, Kallio (1995) found the following factors to be most influential in participants’ program selection and enrollment decisions: (a) residency status, (b) quality and other academic environment characteristics, (c) work-related concerns, (d) spouse considerations, (e) financial aid, and (f) campus social environment. A more recent examination of doctoral-level students within higher education administration programs (Poock & Love, 2001) indicated similar influential factors with location, flexibility of accommodations for work–school–life balance, reputation and friendliness of faculty of highest importance. Flexibility of program requirements and delivery format also were indicated. Ivy and Naude (2004) surveyed 507 MBA students and identified a seven-factor model of variables influencing graduate student enrollment decisions. The seven factors were the following: program, prominence, price, prospectus, people, promotion and premium. Students indicated elements of the program, including range of electives and choice of majors; prominence, including staff reputation and program ratings; and price, including tuition fees and payment flexibility, as the most salient factors.

 

Accreditation and Graduate Program Enrollment Decisions

In a review of the status of accreditation within higher education, Bardo (2009) delineated major trends with implications for both current and prospective students. First, across higher education fields, there is heightened emphasis on accountability through documented student learning outcomes that transcend individual course grades. Second, there are calls for greater transparency around accreditation procedures and statuses. Parallel attention also is given to ethical obligations of institutions and accrediting bodies to provide clearer information to students, not only about the requirements of enrollment in accredited institutions, but also about the significance of accreditation to postgraduation outcomes (Bardo, 2009).

 

Accreditation is a critical institutional factor that appears to have both a direct and an indirect impact on graduate program enrollment decisions. Most directly, accreditation may be a specific selection criterion used by prospective students when exploring programs for application or when making an enrollment decision among multiple offers. Indirectly, the accreditation status of an institution likely influences each of the seven p’s identified by Ivy and Naude (2004) as informing graduate student enrollment decisions. For example, accreditation may dictate minimum credit requirements, required coursework, program delivery methods and acceptable faculty-to-student ratios. Thus, the need emerges to examine factors informing counseling students’ decisions regarding enrollment in graduate-level programs, with specific attention to students’ levels of awareness and importance ascribed to CACREP accreditation. To contextualize the current study, a brief history of CACREP and perceived benefits and challenges of accreditation are provided.

 

CACREP History

 

CACREP held its first board meeting in 1981 and was founded in part as a response to the development of accreditation standards in other helping professions, such as the American Psychological Association, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the Council on Rehabilitation Education. In its history of over 30 years, a primary goal of CACREP has been to assist in the development and growth of the counseling profession by promoting and administrating a quality assurance process for graduate programs in the field of counseling (Urofsky, Bobby, & Ritchie, 2013). Currently, just over 63% of programs falling under CACREP’s jurisdiction hold this accreditation; specifically, by the end of 2013, CACREP had accredited 634 programs at 279 institutions within the United States (CACREP, 2014). In the 2012–2013 school year alone, CACREP-accredited programs enrolled 39,502 students and graduated 11,099 students (CACREP, 2014).

 

As described by Urofsky and colleagues (2013), some revisions to the CACREP standards represent intentional efforts toward growth, self-sufficiency and effectiveness. Such modifications reflected in the 2009 CACREP standards include greater emphases on unified counselor professional identity through specifications for core faculty members and increased focus on documented student learning outcomes in response to larger trends of accountability in higher education. In contrast to these CACREP-directed modifications, Urofsky and colleagues (2013) highlighted that some historical revisions to CACREP standards have been influenced by the larger context of the counseling field. Pertinent contextual issues include licensure portability and recognition from larger federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of Defense and TRICARE, a government-funded insurance company for military personnel. Following the passing of House Bill 232 (License as a Professional Counselor, 2014), Ohio became the first state to require graduation from a CACREP-accredited program (clinical mental health, rehabilitation or addictions counseling) for licensure beginning in 2018. More than 50% of states accept graduation from a CACREP-accredited program as one path for meeting licensure educational requirements (CACREP, 2013). Further, while not directly advocated for by CACREP, graduation from a CACREP-accredited program is required for counselors seeking employment consideration in the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense, and for TRICARE reimbursement (TRICARE, 2014).

 

Perceived Benefits of CACREP Accreditation

 

Specific benefits of CACREP accreditation have been identified in the literature at both the individual student and institutional levels, which may inform prospective students’ decisions regarding enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs. Perceived benefits of CACREP accreditation identified by entry-level counseling students include increased internship and job opportunities, improved student quality, increased faculty professional involvement and publishing, and increased acceptance into doctoral-level programs in counselor education and supervision (Mascari & Webber, 2013). Doctoral students are assured training that will qualify them to serve as identified core faculty members in CACREP-accredited counseling programs (CACREP, 2009).

 

Counseling students’ graduate program enrollment decisions also might be influenced by differential benefits afforded to graduates of CACREP-accredited programs who are pursuing professional licensure. Though licensure requirements vary from state to state, a growing number of states place heavier emphasis on the applicant’s receipt of a counseling degree from an accredited program (CACREP, 2013). Some states associate “graduation from a CACREP-accredited program as evidence of meeting most or all of the educational requirements for licensure eligibility” (Ritchie & Bobby, 2011. p. 52). Licensure applicants graduating from non-CACREP-accredited programs may need to provide supplemental documentation to substantiate their training program’s adherence to licensing criteria. In some instances, applicants graduating from non-CACREP-accredited programs may need additional coursework to meet criteria for licensure, which incurs additional costs and delays application processes.

 

Graduate programs’ CACREP accreditation status might impact counseling students’ enrollment decisions relative to postgraduation insurance reimbursement and qualification for certain job placements (TRICARE, 2014). Specifically, following intensive professional advocacy initiatives, TRICARE began recognizing and reimbursing counseling professionals as mental health service providers without the need for physician referral. However, as of now, counselors graduating from non-CACREP-accredited training programs after January 1, 2015 will be unable to receive approval to practice independently within the TRICARE system. Considering the estimated 9.5 million people insured by TRICARE (TRICARE, 2014), this contingency may present serious implications for counseling professionals who have graduated or will graduate from non-CACREP-accredited training programs. Johnson, Epp, Culp, Williams, and McAllister (2013) noted that thousands of both currently licensed mental health professionals and counseling students will be affected as they “cannot and will not ever be able to join the TRICARE network” (p. 64).

 

Existing literature also highlights benefits of CACREP accreditation at the program and institutional levels, which may impact counseling students’ graduate program enrollment decisions. Achievement and maintenance of CACREP accreditation entails exhaustive processes of self-study and external peer review. Self- and peer-review processes contribute to shared quality standards among accredited counselor preparation programs and demonstrated student learning outcomes based on standards established by the profession itself (Mascari & Webber, 2013). Faculty members employed by CACREP-accredited counselor education programs also appear to differentially interface with the counseling profession. Specifically, a statistically significant relationship has been found between CACREP accreditation and professionalism for school counselor educators, as reflected by contributions to the profession (i.e., journal publications and conference presentations), leadership in professional organizations and pursuit of counseling credentials (Milsom & Akos, 2005).

 

Perceived Challenges of CACREP Accreditation

 

     In addition to highlighting potential benefits of CACREP accreditation, extant literature delineates potential challenges associated with CACREP accreditation, which may directly or indirectly impact counseling students’ graduate program enrollment decisions. Primary among identified challenges are time and financial resources related to the attainment and maintenance of CACREP accreditation (Paradise et al., 2011). Financial requirements associated with CACREP accreditation include application expenses and annual fees, the costs of hiring faculty to meet core faculty requirements and student-to-faculty ratios, and labor costs associated with compiling self-studies.

 

Considering that the 2009 CACREP standards identify 165 core standards and approximately 60 standards per specialty area (Urofsky, 2013), attaining accreditation can be a cumbersome process. Curricular attention given to each standard can vary widely across programs. In response to significant and longstanding calls for increased accountability in higher education, CACREP-accredited programs are required to identify and provide evidence of student learning outcomes (Barrio Minton & Gibson, 2012). To address this requirement, it may be necessary for some programs to reorganize curricular elements, as well as to integrate assessment software and procedures to support this data collection within their programs.

 

An additional challenge of CACREP accreditation surrounds perceived limitations placed on program flexibility and innovation. Paradise and colleagues (2011) found that of the counseling program coordinators they interviewed (N = 135), 49% believed that the 2009 CACREP standards “would require all programs to be ‘essentially the same” (p. 50). Among changes ushered in by the 2009 CACREP standards, education and training requirements of core faculty and the designated student-to-faculty ratios have received critical attention (Paradise et al., 2011). Clinical experience beyond the requirements of graduate-level internship is not specifically considered within requisites for identified core faculty members (CACREP, 2009, I.W.). While adopted largely to foster counselors’-in-training internalization of a clear counselor professional identity (Davis & Gressard, 2011), these standard requirements may influence program hiring decisions and curriculum content and sequencing (CACREP, 2009; Paradise et al., 2011).

 

Over CACREP’s history of more than 30 years, the landscape of the accrediting body, as well as the larger counseling profession it serves, has dramatically shifted. Bobby (2013) called for greater research examining the effects of CACREP accreditation on programs and student knowledge, skill development and graduate performance. A specific gap exists in the literature related to factors influencing counseling students’ graduate program enrollment decisions, including the potential relevance of students’ knowledge of CACREP prior to and following enrollment. Research in this area not only would illuminate counseling students’ propensities for making informed choices as consumers of higher education, but might also reveal critical implications for and ethical obligations of students, programs and CACREP itself within contemporary and complex accreditation climates. Consequently, the current study examined the following research questions: (a) What factors influence students’ decisions regarding enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs? (b) How aware are students of CACREP accreditation prior to and following program enrollment? (c) How important is CACREP accreditation to students prior to and following program enrollment? (d) Is there a difference in CACREP accreditation awareness between students in CACREP- and non-CACREP-accredited programs prior to program enrollment? (e) Does students’ awareness of CACREP-accreditation increase after program enrollment?

 

Method

 

Participants

In total, 40 graduate-level counseling programs were contacted to participate in this study. A purposeful sample was chosen, seeking participation from four CACREP-accredited and four non-CACREP-accredited programs from each of the five geographic regions within the United States (i.e., Western, Southern, North Atlantic, North Central, Rocky Mountain). For each geographic region, CACREP-accredited and non-CACREP-accredited programs were selected based on the criteria of student body size and status as a public versus private institution. Specifically, within each of the five geographic regions, four institutions (one small [n < 10,000], one large [n > 10,000], one private, one public) were purposefully selected for each accreditation status (CACREP, non-CACREP). Selection criteria did not include cognate focus; however, participants included students within clinical mental health; school; marriage, couple and family; counselor education and supervision; and addictions counseling programs.

 

A request for participation was made to the counseling department chairs of the 40 purposefully selected programs via e-mail. In total, representatives from 25 of the 40 contacted programs (62.5%) agreed that their programs would participate in this study. The participation rate of CACREP-accredited programs was higher than that of non-CACREP-accredited programs; the overall participants included 15 of the 20 contacted CACREP-accredited programs (75%) and 10 of the 20 contacted non-CACREP-accredited programs (50%). At the institutional level, counseling program participation across the five regions was representative of national program distribution. Following attainment of consent from the counseling department chairs, an electronic survey was provided to each of the 25 participating programs for direct dissemination to students meeting the selection criteria.

 

A total of 359 master’s and doctoral students currently enrolled in counseling programs nationwide responded to the survey. The exact response rate at the individual student level is unknown, as the number of students receiving the survey at each participating institution was not collected. Of the 359 participants surveyed, 22 surveys were deemed unusable (e.g., sampling parameter not met, blank survey response) and were not included in analyses. Of the remaining 337 participants, missing data were addressed by providing sample sizes contingent on the specific research question.

 

Participants’ ages (n = 332) ranged from 20–63, with a median age of 28. Gender within the sample (n = 335) consisted of 14.3% male, 85.1% female and 0.3% transgender; the remaining 0.3% of participants preferred not to answer. In regards to race/ethnicity (n = 334), 84.1% of the sample identified as Caucasian, 7.2% as African-American, 2.7% as Latino/a, 1.8% as Asian, 1.5% as biracial, 0.3% as Pacific Islander and 0.3% as Hawaiian; the remaining 2.1% preferred not to answer. The reported educational levels (n = 331) included 90.4% of participants in a master’s program and 9% in a doctoral program; the remaining 0.9% participants were postdoctoral and postgraduate students taking additional coursework. Participants reported enrollment in the following cognate areas (n = 331): mental health and community counseling (48.8%), school counseling (27.7%), marriage and family counseling (5.4%), counselor education and supervision (5.1%), other (4.0%), rehabilitation counseling (3.0%), addictions counseling (2.1%), multitrack (1.8%), assessment (1.2%), and career counseling (0.9%).

 

In order to obtain program demographic information based on the aforementioned purposeful sampling design, participants were asked to identify the university attended. However, as 15.5% of participants provided an unusable response (e.g., preferred not to answer), self-reported program descriptive demographic data were analyzed instead. Participants classified their institution as public or private (n = 332) as follows: 68.7% reported attending a public university and 31.3% a private university. Student population of the university also was self-reported (n = 326) as follows: 38.7% of the participants attended universities with a student population of fewer than 10,000, 23.3% with a student population of 10,000–15,000 and 38% with a student population of over 15,000. The program accreditation status per participants’ self-report (n = 307) indicated that 56.7% were enrolled in CACREP-accredited programs, 34.9% were enrolled in non-CACREP-accredited programs and 8.5% were uncertain about program accreditation status.

 

Procedure

The researchers implemented Qualtrics to house and distribute the electronic survey. Survey items included participant and counseling program demographics, factors influencing decisions on enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs, awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to and following enrollment, and importance ascribed to CACREP accreditation prior to and following enrollment. Relative to factors influencing decisions on enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs, participants first were asked to list the top three factors influencing their enrollment decision. Participants then were asked to select the most important factor among their top three. Additionally, participants responded to the following question: “When choosing your graduate program, is there a factor you now wish had been more influential in your decision?” Questions pertaining to participants’ awareness of and ascribed importance to CACREP accreditation included the following: (a) “When first applying to graduate school, how familiar were you with CACREP accreditation?” (b) “When first applying to graduate school, how important was CACREP accreditation for you?” (c) “Currently, how familiar are you with CACREP accreditation?” (d) “Currently, how important is CACREP accreditation for you?” Participants used a four-point Likert scale for their responses, which ranged from “very familiar/very important” to “not familiar/not important.” The category of “I was/am not aware of accreditation” also was provided where appropriate.

 

Results

 

Research question one examined the top factors participants considered and wished they had considered more when making a counseling program enrollment decision (n = 328). As shown in Table 1, results indicated the following rank order for the top 10 factors that influenced participants’ enrollment decisions: (a) location at 33.6%, (b) program accreditation at 14.0%, (c) funding/scholarships at 12.2%, (d) program prestige at 8.6%, (e) faculty at 7.7%, (f) program/course philosophy at 4.2%, (g) program acceptance at 3.9%, (h) faith at 3.9%, (i) schedule/flexibility at 3.6% and (j) research interests at 2.4%. The top 10 factors that participants wished they had considered more when making their enrollment decisions included the following: (a) “none” at 42.3%, (b) funding/scholarships at 15.2%, (c) program accreditation at 12.8%, (d) faculty at 6.8%, (e) research interests at 5.1%, (f) program prestige at 4.5%, (g) networking opportunities at 3.6%, (h) location at 2.4%, (i) schedule/flexibility at 1.5% and (j) personal career goals at 1.2%. Further analysis indicated the following three factors that participants at non-CACREP-accredited programs (n = 106) wished they had considered more when making an enrollment decision: (a) program accreditation at 31.8%, (b) “none” at 30.8% and (c) funding/scholarships at 9.3%.

 

Table 1

 

Counseling Students’ Enrollment Decision Factors

Factors Participants Considered

Factors Participants Wished They Had Considered More

Factor ranked order

% of n

Factor ranked order

% of n

Location 33.6 None 42.3
Program accreditation 14.0 Funding/scholarships 15.2
Funding/scholarships 12.2 Program accreditation 12.8
Program prestige   8.6 Faculty   6.8
Faculty   7.7 Research interests   5.1
Program/course philosophy   4.2 Program prestige   4.5
Program acceptance   3.9 Networking opportunities   3.6
Faith   3.9 Location   2.4
Schedule/flexibility   3.6 Schedule/flexibility   1.5
Research interests   2.4 Career goals   1.2
Note. n = 328

 

 

 

Research question two explored participants’ awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to (n = 308) and following enrollment (n = 309) in graduate-level counseling programs. Before enrollment, only one quarter (24.7%) of the sample indicated being “familiar” (n = 49) or “very familiar” (n = 27) with CACREP accreditation. The remaining 75.3% of the sample reported less awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment, with these participants reporting only being “somewhat familiar” (n = 93) or “not familiar” (n = 139) with CACREP accreditation. In contrast, following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs, nearly three quarters (73.1%) of the sample noted either being “familiar” (n = 124) or “very familiar” (n = 102) with CACREP accreditation. The remaining 26.9% of participants reported being “somewhat familiar” (n = 66) or “not familiar” (n = 17). Overall, the percentage of all students reporting that they were either “familiar” or “very familiar” with CACREP accreditation increased by 48.4% following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs.

 

Consideration was given to potential differences in familiarity with CACREP accreditation among (a) doctoral- and master’s-level students and (b) students attending CACREP- and non-CACREP programs. For those students enrolled in a master’s-level program (n = 276), regardless of program accreditation status, 21% reported being either “familiar” or “very familiar” with CACREP accreditation pre-enrollment. For doctoral-level students (n = 27), 63% indicated familiarity with CACREP accreditation prior to enrolling in a graduate program. These results indicated that doctoral-level students appeared to show more awareness of CACREP accreditation pre-enrollment, as a 42% difference in familiarity level existed. Post-enrollment, familiarity levels increased for both groups, as evidenced by 72.8% of master’s-level students (n = 201) and 81.5% of doctoral-level students (n = 22) reporting either being “familiar” or “very familiar” with CACREP accreditation. The difference between the two groups was now 8.7%, with doctoral students exhibiting more familiarity with CACREP post-enrollment.

 

Students’ familiarity with CACREP prior to and following enrollment also were considered between students in accredited (n = 173) and non-CACREP-accredited (n = 107) programs, as well as among students who reported being unsure of their program’s accreditation status (n = 26). Prior to enrollment, the following percentages of students reported being either “familiar” or “very familiar” with CACREP accreditation: 31.8% in CACREP-accredited programs, 18.7% in non-CACREP-accredited programs and 0.0% among those unaware of program accreditation status. Post-enrollment, 78.2% of students in a CACREP-accredited program, 77.4% of students in a non-CACREP-accredited program and 23.1% of those unaware of their program’s accreditation status reported being either “familiar” or “very familiar” with CACREP accreditation. Overall, the results indicated that higher percentage levels of CACREP familiarity existed both pre-enrollment and post-enrollment for students in CACREP-accredited programs when compared to students in either non-CACREP programs or who were unaware of their program’s accreditation status.

 

Research question three explored the level of importance participants placed on CACREP accreditation prior to (n = 309) and following enrollment (n = 308) in graduate-level counseling programs. Before enrollment, 39.5% of the sample noted that CACREP accreditation was either “important” (n = 50) or “very important” (n = 73). The remaining 60.5% of participants reported the following levels of importance ascribed to CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment: “somewhat important” (n = 51) or “not important” (n = 34), or indicated they were “not aware” (n = 102) of accreditation. After enrollment, participants’ levels of importance ascribed to CACREP accreditation increased, with 79.6% of the sample describing CACREP accreditation as “important” (n = 80) or “very important” (n = 165). Approximately one fifth (20.4%) of the sample reported low levels of importance ascribed to CACREP post-enrollment, rating CACREP accreditation as “somewhat important” (n = 33) or “not important” (n = 22), or indicated they were “not aware” (n = 8) of accreditation. From pre-enrollment to post-enrollment, the percentage of students identifying CACREP as “important” or “very important” increased by 40.1%.

 

Potential differences in the results as a function of program accreditation status also were examined. The following percentages of students believed CACREP accreditation was either “important” or “very important” prior to graduate school enrollment: 58% if the program was reported to be accredited (n = 101), 17.8% if not CACREP accredited (n = 19), and 3.8% if the participant was unsure of the program’s accreditation status (n = 1). Post-enrollment, ascribed levels of importance increased for all students regardless of program accreditation status, as follows: 89.7% of students in CACREP-accredited programs (n = 156), 72.6% of students in non-CACREP-accredited programs (n = 77) and 38.5% of students unaware of their program’s accreditation status (n = 10) indicated that CACREP accreditation was either “important” or “very important” to them.

 

Research question four explored potential differences in levels of awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs between participants in CACREP-accredited programs, those in non-CACREP-accredited programs and those unaware of program accreditation status. Descriptive results indicated that a difference existed between CACREP accreditation awareness levels prior to enrollment contingent on self-reported program accreditation status; to determine whether a significant statistical difference existed, a one-way ANOVA was used. The omnibus F statistic was interpreted, which is robust even when sample sizes within the different levels are small or unequal (Norman, 2010). The results indicated that self-reported CACREP accreditation statuses (i.e., accredited, non-accredited, unaware of accreditation status) were found to have a significant effect on participants’ awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment into a graduate-level counseling program, F(2,303) = 15.378, MSE = 0.861, p < 0.001. The Levine’s test was significant, indicating nonhomogeneity of variance. To account for the unequal variance, post hoc analyses using Tamhane’s T2 criterion for significance were run to determine between which accreditation levels the significant difference in the mean scores existed. The post hoc analyses indicated that prior to graduate school enrollment, participants who self-reported attendance in accredited programs were significantly more aware of CACREP accreditation (n = 173, M = 2.88, SD = 0.976) than the following: (a) participants who self-reported attending non-accredited programs (n =  107, M = 3.36, SD = 0.934; p < 0.001) and (b) participants who reported uncertainty of their program’s current accreditation status (n = 26, M = 3.77, SD = 0.430; p < 0.001). Additionally, the analysis indicated that participants who self-reported enrollment in non-CACREP-accredited programs were significantly more aware of CACREP accreditation compared to participants who were uncertain of their program’s current accreditation status, p = 0.004. Overall, the results for research question four suggested the following information regarding awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment for all students: (a) those enrolled in CACREP-accredited programs indicated the most awareness, (b) those enrolled in non-CACREP-accredited programs exhibited the second most awareness and (c) those unaware of their program’s accreditation status reported the least awareness.

 

The omnibus F test for research question four was re-run, looking at only students currently enrolled in a master’s-level program, teasing out potential outlier effects produced by doctoral students’ knowledge base; descriptive statistics had indicated that doctoral-level students exhibited more awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment. When examining only master’s-level students (n = 274), the results indicated that self-reported CACREP accreditation statuses (i.e., accredited, non-accredited, unaware of accreditation status) were found to have a significant effect on these students’ awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment in a graduate-level counseling program, F(2,274) = 14.470, MSE = 0.724, p < 0.001. Tamhane’s T2 post hoc analyses suggested similar results for master’s-level students’ CACREP awareness contingent on the program’s accreditation status when compared to results found for all participants (i.e., both master’s- and doctoral-level students). For master’s-level students, the following results were found: (a) those enrolled in CACREP-accredited programs indicated the most awareness, (b) those enrolled in non-CACREP-accredited programs exhibited the second most awareness and (c) those unaware of their program’s accreditation status reported the least awareness.

 

Research question five assessed whether participants’ levels of CACREP accreditation awareness increased after enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs. Overall, the descriptive results indicated that participants’ awareness of CACREP accreditation increased after enrolling in a counseling program regardless of other factors (e.g., grade level, program accreditation status). The two-tailed dependent t test indicated that the mean score for CACREP accreditation awareness significantly increased for all students after enrollment in a graduate-level counseling program (M = 1.130, SD = 1.046, t(306) = 18.934; p < .001), with the following mean scores reported: prior to enrollment (n = 307), M = 3.11, SD = 0.975, and following enrollment (n = 307), M = 1.98, SD = 0.869.

 

Discussion

 

The purpose of this research was to examine factors that influence students’ decisions regarding enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs, with specific attention to students’ knowledge of CACREP accreditation prior to and following enrollment. The findings of this study were congruent with previous research, indicating that counseling students deemed program location to be the most influential factor in their enrollment decision-making process (Poock & Love, 2001). A dearth of previous research existed on the role of program accreditation in enrollment decisions; the current study suggests that program accreditation status signifies the second most influential factor, reported by 14% of the participants surveyed. Across the sample, program accreditation ranked third among factors participants wished they had considered more prior to making an enrollment decision. For participants attending non-CACREP-accredited programs, the ranking of accreditation increased to the number one factor these students wished they had considered more (31.8%), closely followed by no other factors (30.8%). Results of this study suggest that while CACREP accreditation is important to some students when choosing a program, ultimately, enrollment decisions are influenced by a number of factors whose weight varies from student to student.

 

A critical finding emerging from this research is that nearly half of participants (45.1%) were not familiar with CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment in a graduate-level counseling program. In contrast, only 8.8% of students reported being very familiar with CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment. These results support the assertion that counseling students may lack information necessary to make an informed program enrollment choice. Specifically, if prospective students are not aware of the existence of accrediting bodies or the potential implications of CACREP accreditation for postgraduation opportunities, they may omit accreditation as a decision-making criterion for enrollment. The ranking of CACREP accreditation as the first and third most important factors that students in non-CACREP and CACREP programs, respectively, wished they had considered more appears to reflect this omission.

 

Relatedly, one third of participants reported being unaware of the importance of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment in a graduate-level counseling program. Drastically, post-enrollment, less than 3% of participants reported lacking awareness of the importance of CACREP accreditation. Post-enrollment, the participants appeared to perceive CACREP accreditation as very important, with over half of the participants (53.6%) reporting this perception. Significant differences existed in participants’ awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment between participants enrolled in CACREP- and non-CACREP-accredited programs. A possible grounding for this finding may be that participants who were aware of CACREP accreditation prioritized this factor differently when making an enrollment decision. Regardless of the CACREP accreditation status of their graduate-level counseling programs, participants’ knowledge of CACREP accreditation increased significantly following program enrollment. This result suggests that accreditation is an effectively shared domain of professional socialization within counselor preparation programs, but largely not communicated to students outside formal entry into the field.

 

Overall, the results of this study provide a valuable window to the varied factors that prospective counseling students consider when making graduate program enrollment decisions. Interestingly, while accreditation signified an important factor in this decision-making process, many students lacked awareness of accreditation and subsequent implications of attending a CACREP-accredited program prior to enrollment. Post-enrollment, awareness of and importance ascribed to program accreditation increased for students, indicating that some students’ selection priorities changed with increased knowledge about accreditation. Ultimately, though enrollment decisions are personal choices in which students consider a number of factors, this study’s findings suggest that unfamiliarity with accreditation might impact the subsequent decisions.

 

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

 

Several limitations to this study must be noted. First, the results might have been biased by the use of a purposeful volunteer sample, with counseling program representatives electing whether to participate based on unknown motivations. Additionally, while the participation rate was ascertainable at the institutional level, the participation rate at the individual student level was unknown, as the number of students receiving the instrument at each participating institution was not collected. Second, the binary designation of CACREP-accredited and non-CACREP-accredited programs is broad and may not sufficiently account for rich variation across and within programs. For example, the research design did not account for programs working toward accreditation. Further, the use of self-reported program demographic information (e.g., accreditation status, institution name) may have impacted findings, as over 15% of participants preferred not to answer or gave incorrect data. Finally, data analysis did not address potential differences in participants’ responses across program cognate areas, full- and part-time enrollment statuses, or traditional and virtual program delivery formats. Future research may be informed by consideration of these demographic variables, as well as the possible relationship of students’ gender, age and race/ethnicity on graduate program enrollment decisions. Additionally, given that many participants lacked awareness of CACREP accreditation prior to enrollment, but ascertained this knowledge while enrolled, future research should examine specific educative venues through which students learn about CACREP accreditation prior to and following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs. Results of research examining how counseling students become, or fail to become, knowledgeable about CACREP accreditation can inform outreach efforts. Qualitative examination of these questions, as well as of students’ lived experiences within and outside CACREP-accredited programs, would be particularly helpful. Examination of counselor educators’ levels of awareness of and importance ascribed to CACREP, within both accredited and non-accredited programs, also is suggested.

 

Implications for Counselor Preparation Programs and the Broader Profession

 

Results of this study suggest critical disparities among counseling students’ awareness and perceptions of CACREP accreditation prior to and following enrollment in graduate-level counseling programs. Considering the increased implications of accreditation within the counseling profession, this study’s findings substantiate a professional need to assist individuals in making optimally informed decisions about graduate school. Such an intervention moves beyond the individual student level, bringing renewed attention to the obligations of counselor preparation programs and professional associations. Though prospective students bear the responsibility of the enrollment decision, such an argument becomes confounded (and circular) when one considers that about 50% of students surveyed were unfamiliar with CACREP accreditation prior to graduate school enrollment.

 

Program Level

This study supports Bardo’s (2009) assertion of the responsibility of programs to educate students about the benefits, challenges and rationale of accreditation. Transparent and educative dissemination of facts relative to the significance of accreditation is becoming paramount, particularly in light of new state-level requirements for licensure (License as a Professional Counselor, 2014) and continued movements toward portability, which may introduce new liabilities for programs not accredited by CACREP. Programs may wish to integrate such information about CACREP accreditation into recruitment processes and application materials, such as program websites, on-campus visits and open houses, and prospective student communications. The intention is to assist students in making well-informed decisions when choosing a counseling graduate program related to individual preferences and goals. For non-accredited programs, such transparent discussions may pose additional implications, considering that participants of this study deemed accreditation an important enrollment decision factor. However, because students prioritize enrollment decision factors differently, non-accredited programs still have the potential to attract students through their program’s prestige, philosophy, faculty, location and other factors that individuals prioritize.

 

Broader Professional Level

Among contemporary influences on the counseling profession, the TRICARE resolution is a particularly significant event. Graduation from a CACREP-accredited counselor preparation program increasingly differentiates students’ postgraduation employment and licensure opportunities. It is essential to recognize the differing, and potentially incongruent, contexts emerging for CACREP-accredited and non-CACREP-accredited programs. While complex, there is a clear need for proactive and inclusive dialogue across the profession that both minimizes potential collateral damage and maximizes the power of unified preparation standards for achievement of broader goals of professional recognition and licensure portability.

 

Results of this study lend support to the assertion that CACREP and other professional associations must find new ways of reaching out to non-accredited programs in order to assist them in recognizing the benefits and importance of accreditation, not only for their graduating students and individual institutions, but also for the counseling profession as a whole (Bobby, 2013). It also is essential that both financial support and mentorship continue to be provided to counselor preparation programs seeking and maintaining CACREP accreditation. Directed professional advocacy efforts to inform various stakeholders about the importance of CACREP accreditation as a national preparation standard also are recommended (Mascari & Webber, 2013).

 

Summary

 

The history of CACREP as an accrediting body has been and continues to be inextricably connected to broader movements of the counseling profession. Ultimately, the credibility and importance of CACREP accreditation remains grounded in the larger profession it serves. Ongoing respectful and critical dialogue related to CACREP is imperative within the general profession, and more specifically, with potential students of graduate-level counseling programs. Such transparent discussions are grounded by this study’s findings—although many students considered accreditation an influential factor when making enrollment decisions, nearly half of the participants sampled were unaware of accreditation prior to enrollment in a counseling graduate program. Assisting vested stakeholders, including institutions and students, in making informed decisions is an important part of the dialogue that is introduced through this research and invites subsequent conversation.

 

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported receiving a grant contribution

from CACREP for the development of this manuscript.

 

 

References

 

Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the changing climate for accreditation on the individual college or university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 47–58. doi:10.1002/he.334

Barrio Minton, C. A., & Gibson, D. M. (2012). Evaluating student learning outcomes in counselor education: Recommendations and process considerations. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 3, 73–91.

Bobby, C. L. (2013). The evolution of specialties in the CACREP standards: CACREP’s role in unifying the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 35–43. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00068.x

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2009-Standards.pdf

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2013). CACREP position statement on licensure portability for professional counselors. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CACREP-Policy-Position-on-State-Licensure-adopted-7.13.pdf

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2014). Annual report: 2013. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/cacrep/docs/cacrep_2013_annual_report_full_fina

Davis, T., & Gressard, R. (2011, August). Professional identity and the 2009 CACREP standards. Counseling Today, 54(2), 46–47.

Hilston, J. (2006, April 24). Reasons influencing college choice in the US. Pittsburgh Post Gazette, p. A1.

Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207–221.

Ivy, J., & Naude, P. (2004). Succeeding in the MBA marketplace: Identifying the underlying factors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 401–417. doi:10.1080/1360080042000290249

Johnson, E., Epp, L., Culp, C., Williams, M., & McAllister, D. (2013, July). What you don’t know could hurt your practice and your clients. Counseling Today, 56(1), 62–65.

Kallio, R. E. (1995). Factors influencing the college choice decisions of graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 36, 109–124. doi:10.1007/BF02207769

License as a Professional Counselor, 47 Ohio Rev. Code 232 § 4757.23 (2014).

Mascari, J. B., & Webber, J. (2013). CACREP accreditation: A solution to license portability and counselor identity problems. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 15–25. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00066.x

Milsom, A., & Akos, P. (2005). CACREP’s relevance to professionalism for school counselor educators. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45, 147–158. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2005.tb00137.x

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

Paradise, L. V., Lolan, A., Dickens, K., Tanaka, H., Tran, P., & Doherty, E. (2011, June). Program coordinators react to CACREP standards. Counseling Today, 53(12), 50–52.

Poock, M. C., & Love, P. G. (2001). Factors influencing the program choice of doctoral students in higher education administration. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 38, 203–223.

Ritchie, M., & Bobby, C. (2011, February). CACREP vs. the Dodo bird: How to win the race. Counseling Today, 53(8), 51–52.

TRICARE. (2014, October 31). Number of beneficiaries. Retrieved from http://www.tricare.mil/About/Facts/BeneNumbers.aspx?sc_database=web

Urofsky, R. I. (2013). The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs: Promoting quality in counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 6–14. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00065.x

Urofsky, R. I., Bobby, C. L., & Ritchie, M. (2013). CACREP: 30 years of quality assurance in counselor education: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91, 3–5. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00064.x

 

Eleni M. Honderich, NCC, MAC, is an Adjunct Professor at the College of William and Mary. Jessica Lloyd-Hazlett, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas-San Antonio. Correspondence can be addressed to Eleni M. Honderich, College of William & Mary, School of Education, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, emhond@gmail.com.

 

Professional Identity Development of Counselors-in-Training in a School Internship Program in Turkey

Meral Atici

The purpose of this study was to identify perceptions about a school counseling internship program at a university in Adana, Turkey by determining counseling interns’ perspectives on the effects of the internship program and supervisors’ perspectives on interns’ professional development. Data were collected from nine school counseling supervisors, 11 school counseling interns, 11 guidance teachers and 34 students who attended group guidance activities during counseling students’ internships. Data were analyzed using content analysis, and findings suggested that counseling interns have the opportunity to perform activities that school counselors normally perform, and that interns become competent in performing these activities. The internship program helped interns become competent at applying professional knowledge and skills. Additionally, with the assistance of interns, school counselors were able to provide proactive counseling services to students. The study suggests that positive, constructive feedback and advice from supervisors are essential for interns to be successful in completing internship activities in a positive and confident manner.

Keywords: school counseling, school counseling internship, professional development, counselors-in-training, Turkey

 

Professional school counselor identity is defined as an integration of professional training with personal attributes in the context of the profession (Nugent & Jones, 2009). Brott and Myers (1999) stated that the development of professional school counselor identity can serve as a frame of reference for implementing work roles and making important decisions. Professional identity develops as part of the experiential maturation process over time, which begins in training and continues throughout a person’s career. A school counselor’s professional development starts during training, evolves during entry into the profession and continues to develop as the school counselor identifies with the profession (Brott & Myers, 1999).

 

Professional identity has internal as well as external aspects (Auxier, Hughes, & Kline, 2003). Internal aspects are defined as an individuation process derived from a cycle of dependence and autonomy as counselors-in-training (CITs) gain counseling skills (Brott & Myers, 1999). During training, students rely on guidance and support provided by supervisors as external authorities. Gibson, Dollarhide, and Moss (2010) found that CITs needed external validation and assurance from experts, especially at the beginning of their training. Alternatively, counseling students felt much stronger, more confident and more positive toward counseling at the end of their internship and practice, with anxiety levels decreased and feelings of personal accomplishment increased (Nelson & Jackson, 2003). Researchers in Turkey found that the sense of efficacy increased among counseling students who conducted group guidance activities (Atici, Özyürek & Çam, 2005), while their counseling skills evolved throughout the school counseling internship program (Atici & Ulusoy, 2010). Both an increase in positive feelings and a decrease in negative feelings were observed from the beginning to the end of the term (Atici et al., 2005; Atici & Ulusoy, 2010).

 

The interpersonal aspect of professional identity development involves the role of the professional community in shaping the new professional (Auxier et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2010). In the context of counseling, new professionals are socialized in the language of counseling, learn professional expectations, and learn to become a counselor through observation, supervision, consultation and practice (Gibson et al., 2010; O’Byrne & Rosenberg, 1998). This process also is conceptualized as entering a professional culture in which CITs learn appropriate attitudes, values, thinking styles and problem-solving strategies (Dollarhide & Miller, 2006).

 

It can be concluded that school counseling training programs can contribute to the professional development of CITs. For instance, in the United States, school CITs learn and apply the standards and models of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA, 2003, 2005, 2012) and practice counseling activities under supervision via practicum and internship. School counseling interns at some universities in Turkey (e.g., Çukurova University) perform classroom guidance activities at primary and secondary schools, putting into practice what they have learned. In addition to classroom guidance, these students conduct activities such as small group guidance, individual counseling and consultation; apply individual assessment techniques and psychological measurement tools; and observe school counselor practices. Conducting these activities as CITs can result in a contribution to interns’ professional development, in which being prepared as a school counselor and establishing confidence are preeminent. Other factors that contribute to students developing a sense of competency during their internship include observing school counselors’ collaborative skills, engaging in the profession, perceiving their activities as successful and acknowledging their own professional development (Atici & Çam, 2013). Studer (2005) found that internship experience can provide opportunities for school counseling interns to engage in a number of activities concerning school counseling, while Nelson and Jackson (2003) indicated that internship experiences had positive effects on interns by giving them the opportunity to apply what they had learned and develop a sense of being a counselor. Similarly, Jett and Delgado-Romero (2009) found that prepracticum service learning and internship programs at schools and community agencies facilitated counseling students’ professional development.

 

Henderson (1994) reported that supervision provided learning opportunities within a school context for counseling students. Furthermore, Sutton and Page (1994) suggested that supervision can function as a bridge between competencies in counselor education programs and the skills required in an actual work context. Receiving feedback from supervisors, along with having varied experiences during internship, appears to positively affect professional identity development. Findings from several studies have shown that support and assurance from university tutors and school counselors as supervisors also have a positive effect on professional identity (Nelson & Jackson, 2003); especially when school counseling students receive constructive, nourishing and encouraging feedback (Özyürek, 2009). Receiving feedback and advice from university professors, having a relaxed supervisory atmosphere in which counseling students can express themselves comfortably, and observing and modeling themselves after working school counselors all lead to improvement and motivation as a counselor (Atici & Çam, 2013).

 

However, Portman’s study (2002) revealed that a group of CITs had not received supervision at their assigned schools, but had received clinical supervision from university supervisors during practicum and internship. Some student counselors found this supervision helpful, while others thought that they did not have a real supervisory experience. Accordingly, Özyürek (2009) found that supervisory courses and supervision were insufficient in school counseling internship programs.

 

Coker and Schrader (2004) developed a comprehensive, collaborative and integrative school-based practice in order to prepare students to better fulfill the demands of the school counselor’s role and to help students learn to work at schools as leaders and advocates. In this school-based internship, in addition to individual and group counseling, students consulted with teachers and parents, attended team meetings, and advocated for the personal, social and academic development of students. During internship at a primary school, students were able to perform the required number of hours for practicum, counsel real clients in an actual school context, and develop a clear counseling approach and orientation for working with young people at school under the guidance and supervision of researchers. They also experienced the various roles of a school counselor including advocate, consultant, collaborator and leader.

 

School counseling internship programs can facilitate the development of specific skills required for school counseling and general preparation for the profession. In addition, it can be concluded that during school counseling practice sessions, the support provided by the supervisor and role model at the school is influential in teaching school counselor roles and encouraging professional identity development.

 

Several studies have shown that counseling interns experience positive emotions such as confidence, success and efficaciousness by the end of the internship (Atici & Ulusoy, 2010; Nelson & Jackson, 2003), and their counseling skills and professional and personal development evolve (Atici & Çam, 2013; Atici et al., 2005; Atici & Ulusoy, 2010; Jett & Delgado-Romero, 2009). Additionally, researchers have found that counseling interns have opportunities to experience several activities (Studer, 2005); to obtain their supervisor’s help, support (Nelson & Jackson, 2003) and feedback (Atici & Çam, 2013); and to develop their own personal counseling approach (Coker & Schrader, 2004). However, since these studies focused on counseling interns or counseling students, there is a need to investigate the impressions of working school counselors (who also function as supervisors at school) about school counseling internship programs, as well as to explore counseling students’ perspectives on the contributions of school counseling internship programs, supervisors and supervision to their professional development.

 

The present study focuses on school counseling supervisors’ perspectives on school counseling internship programs, their assistance and contribution to school counseling interns, and their recommendations for solving problems and conducting internships more effectively, as well as on counseling students’ opinions about the effects of their internship experiences and supervision on their professional development. The aims of this study were the following: (a) to identify school counseling supervisors’ views on the effectiveness of school counseling internship programs, (b) to assess the assistance provided to school counseling interns, (c) to gather school counseling supervisors’ recommendations for effective internship methods, (d) to investigate counseling students’ perceptions about the effects of internship programs and the process of supervision on their own professional development, and (e) to examine the views of secondary school students and their teachers on the effectiveness of group guidance activities conducted by counseling interns.

 

Method

 

Participants

Participants included nine professional school counseling site supervisors and 11 school counseling interns. A purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) was used to collect data from information-rich cases. Specific school counseling supervisors were invited to participate in the study because they were identified as effective models for interns. Six female and three male counseling supervisors working in different schools voluntarily participated in the study. Five counselors had a master’s degree in counseling, and the remainder held degrees at the undergraduate level. Of the professional participants, three worked at a high school, five worked at a middle school, and one worked at a primary school in Adana, Turkey. Their experience ranged from 9–22 years, while the number of years spent supervising counseling students ranged from 2–10 years. Eleven school counseling interns enrolled in school counseling internship courses at one university in Adana also participated in the study. These interns were selected because they provided written data from both the students who participated in their group guidance activities in the schools and from these students’ teachers regarding their views on the effects of group guidance activities. An agreement of consent regarding the purpose of the study, the research procedure and confidentiality was obtained from each of the participants. All participants voluntarily accepted participation in the study.

 

Description of Course Process

Counseling students in this study each attended a course for school counseling internship, taking place at three schools and at one university in Adana, Turkey. They went to their respective schools for half a day each week during the autumn and spring terms in their fourth year of undergraduate study. During internship, counseling students conducted group and classroom guidance activities, consulted with teachers and parents, applied assessment techniques and measurement tools, interviewed individual students, and observed other school counselors working. One group guidance session was observed by a university supervisor and/or a professional school counselor site supervisor, who provided feedback about the intern’s activity.

 

Supervision at the university was 3 hours per week; all students and the university supervisors attended this session. During this session, counseling students discussed their activities and difficulties, and received feedback from supervisors and other students in the group. At the end of the term, students submitted a portfolio of all of their activities during the internship, with a general evaluation of the supervisory course and supervision; the school, school personnel and school counselor; and the contribution of the supervisory course to their professional and personal development.

 

Data-Collecting Procedure

Interviews and data from documents were used as qualitative data-collecting tools. The researcher interviewed nine school counseling supervisors individually using a semistructured interview guide. Open-ended questions were used to elicit supervisors’ views on the effectiveness of the school counseling internship program, problems encountered during internship, their recommendations and the assistance they provided. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed.

 

Three different documents were used in this study. Counseling interns were asked to evaluate their school counseling internship programs, supervisors and supervision in terms of their professional development at the end of the term. Interns wrote about their internship programs and submitted these written texts to their supervisors as part of their final portfolio. High school students who attended group guidance activities and their teachers provided their ideas about the effects of group guidance activities on participating students’ behavior by responding to an open-ended question. These written forms of data were collected from 11 counseling students, 11 teachers and 34 students who attended group activities conducted by six counseling students.

 

Analysis of Data

The researcher analyzed qualitative data by using content analysis. To begin with, an open coding procedure was followed (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Interview transcripts and written documents were examined by line, sentence and paragraph, and a code or a name representing a particular idea, activity or event was given. Then the researcher combined related codes into categories. For example, in coding data regarding influential factors in conducting group guidance activities, the codes of enthusiasm, not feeling anxious and feeling efficacious were grouped under the heading emotional state. Axial coding was carried out to identify main categories, their subcategories, and relationships between main and subcategories. For example, one of the categories that identified influential factors in conducting successful group guidance activities was titled counseling studentrelated. Emotional state and professional skills were placed under the counseling student-related category as subcategories. Finally, in the selective coding stage, the main categories and their subcategories were grouped together.

 

Credibility and Trustworthiness

Activities performed to ensure validity included data and method triangulations by collecting in-depth data in face-to-face interviews with school counseling supervisors, and examining and analyzing documents produced by counseling interns, teachers and students who attended group guidance activities (Denzin, 1994). Next, the researcher presented direct quotations from counselors and examined research results in terms of meaningfulness and consistency, comparing his findings to those from different data sources in the literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2008).

 

The researcher kept a detailed explanation of the data collection and analysis procedure and raw data for reexamination by others. In order to enhance trustworthiness, the researcher attempted to acknowledge personal assumptions and prejudgments and prevent those biases from interfering with the data analysis and interpretation process (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2008). Since a single researcher conducted the study, he tested for consistency (Robson, 1993) by comparing the codes derived from the initial coding process with those obtained from a second process. The researcher computed the proportion of agreement by dividing the number of agreements by the sum of the number of agreements and number of disagreements, resulting in a consistency value of 0.84.

 

Results

 

Results are presented in three categories as follows: (1) results derived from the analysis of interviews with school counselors, (2) counseling students’ views on the roles of school counseling internship programs and supervisors impact on their professional development, and (3) school students and their teachers’ views on the contributions of group guidance activities to participating students. Throughout the Results section, direct quotations from school counseling supervisors are labeled with a C, quotes from teachers are labeled with a T and quotes from counseling student interns are labeled with an S.

 

Results from Interviews with School Counseling Supervisors

     School counseling supervisors’ perspectives on counseling students’ practices and effectiveness. According to the results of the interviews, the counseling students carried out group and classroom guidance activities during their school counseling internships. Counseling individuals, leading seminars with students and their parents, applying individual assessment techniques and measurement tools, and consulting with teachers and parents were among other activities. Examples of the supervisors’ views on school counseling internship programs are presented below:

 

They did nine group guidance activities with their own group and three classroom guidance activities      . . . [they also provided] consultation and applied an individual assessment technique. I encouraged them to interview students and their families. I have talked with them and asked what they think about the [client’s] problem, which questions they can ask, and what they can do about the problem. (C8)

 

They did group guidance activities, . . . applied individual assessment techniques, evaluated the results, and consulted with teachers about the interpretation of the results. They did classroom guidance activities, for example conflict resolution, anger management, study skills, and career guidance, that must be carried out by school counselors. They also did individual interviews with students. (C9)

 

All of the supervisors surveyed acknowledged the positive work outcomes of the counseling interns. The school counselors emphasized the positive effects of the school counseling internship program by using terms like “significant contribution” and “very helpful.” They also shared their impressions that the interns’ work was reflected in the behavior of students, parents and school personnel. They also witnessed the students’ understanding of their activities, counseling concepts and topics, and expressed positive feelings regarding the interns.

 

Supervisors stated that the effects of the counseling internship program could be seen more specifically in personal and social areas such as self-awareness, self-acceptance, behavior change, interpersonal skills, awareness and control of emotions among school students. Additionally, school students improved in the areas of career decision and coping with career indecision during career counseling; and in areas of education such as study skills, exam anxiety and academic achievement. According to the supervisors, the counseling students benefitted from gaining experience in classroom management and individual counseling, improving communication skills, expressing themselves, and enhancing efficacy feelings. At the same time, the interns helped school counselors carry out their work plans and lessened their workload, providing counseling services to many more students and presenting proactive counseling services. Professional school counselors themselves benefitted from the internship experience by learning new ideas from the counseling students and enhancing their own motivation levels. For example, a counselor summarized the counseling students’ motivating effect in the following quote: “They helped me renew myself. . . . [When counseling interns] came to my school, my enthusiasm and excitement increased. I learned new . . . warm-up activities when I observed them” (C3).

 

The following quote demonstrates how the counseling students’ work was helpful for the supervisors, the school students and the counseling interns themselves: “They definitely made a contribution. I got positive feedback from teachers and students in terms of their contribution” (C6). Another school counselor made the following remarks:

 

They contributed a lot. . . . My interns were very active in working with me. In particular, some of them worked . . . as a second counselor in the school. They made . . . classroom presentations. They improved themselves, as well as benefit[ted] the students. . . . Their practices lessened my workload. (C2)

 

A third school counselor stated, “As I said before, I am trying to reach many students. . . . Interns contributed a lot. They also gained experience in classroom management, communication with students and getting feedback from students to increase their efficacy” (C4).

 

According to the school counseling supervisors, counseling interns learned the most during group work. Interns improved their overall effectiveness, which included emotional comfortableness, readiness, eager communication, leadership, group management and counseling skills. One school counselor explained, “Counseling students’ skills of communication, group management and leadership greatly affected conducting successful activities” (C1). In the following quotes, two counselors explained how they used observation and feedback in the process of evaluating activities:

 

I go to a classroom guidance activity with [interns], especially when they have classroom management problems. They probably feel anxious during the first one or two activities, and then become relaxed. For this reason, after each activity we make an assessment for 5–10 minutes: How was the day? What did they do? What difficulties did they come across? They shared all sorts of things they would like to talk about. Furthermore . . . if there [is] something which I do not like, if they are reluctant to do activities or do something against school rules, I talk to them and express my concerns. (C2)

 

When they have difficulties I try to help them. Upon completion of their activities, we make a general evaluation of the day, focusing on topics like: How was the activity? What was the difficulty? What did they do to cope with it? (C5)

 

     School counselors’ assistance to counseling interns. Interview data regarding professional school counselors assisting counseling internship students revealed four themes: (a) observation, evaluation and feedback; (b) giving information and advice; (c) organizing counseling activities; and (d) being a model.

 

One counselor explained how she helped by observing group guidance activities and giving feedback and advice about reference books: “I prepared an observation form [for interns]. Then we sit and talk all together as a group. Thus, I create an atmosphere in which they benefit from each other. I advise them on books to be read and give information about the counseling approaches I prefer.” (C3) Another counselor explained that she gave individual feedback after classroom guidance, as follows:

 

I observe [an intern] twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of the term, while they are conducting a classroom guidance activity. I give feedback about their deficiencies as a school counselor and advice on how they can rectify these. . . . I find this way of giving feedback is positive and useful. (C4)

 

     Problems in internship programs and recommendations. When school counseling supervisors were asked about problems they encountered during school counseling internship programs, four said there were no problems and they liked the way the internship program was carried out. On the other hand, five counselors mentioned a few problems related to counseling students, such as school student nonattendance, coming as a large group to internship sessions, being unmotivated toward the internship program and disobeying some rules. There also were a few problems arising from the school, school personnel and students, such as difficulty organizing groups of students; complications in scheduling appropriate days, times and places for classroom, group and individual work; school personnel’s negative attitudes and behavior toward counseling interns; and students’ reluctance to engage in group work.

 

One counselor expressed her ideas about the negative effects of nonattendance and the difficulty in observing counseling interns when they came in a large group to internship sessions in the following quote:

 

When a group of interns is too large, it is difficult for me to help them as I had planned. For example, they are not able to observe while I am interviewing students. Of course, I get permission from students for the presence of . . . counseling interns during interviews . . . it is a big problem for me when . . . interns do not come to counseling sessions on the assigned day. . . . All of the students in that group come to me one by one and ask whether . . . interns will come to the group activity, or why she/he is not coming. I am responsible to the principal, since the teacher leaves the class with me for a group guidance activity at a certain time. So, if the interns don’t come, I have to do the activity by myself, meaning extra work for me. (C2)

 

The school counseling supervisors made recommendations for enhancing the quality of school counseling practices rather than solving problems. Although these recommendations were mainly for counseling interns and counseling activities, school personnel, students and university supervisors also were subjects of these recommendations. In particular, the school counselors suggested that certain activities should occur more frequently, such as consultations, seminars and classroom guidance sessions. Other suggestions for contributing to the school counseling internship programs were the following: learning legislative procedures and the tasks of the board of counselors at the school, keeping interview and council records, learning to solve specific problems like abuse and enuresis, presenting case studies about specific problems, observing school counselors’ work, planning warm-up activities to precede group work, and not using old-fashioned individual assessment techniques which lead to labeling students.

 

In terms of duration and timing of the internship programs, suggestions were as follows: school counseling internship should start during the intern’s second or third year of school, junior students should observe senior students during their internships at school, and time assigned for internship should increase. Regarding observation and evaluation, it was recommended that both site supervisors and university supervisors observe and evaluate counseling interns, and that school counselors meet at the university to revise the internship program from time to time. To this end, a school counselor expressed her ideas in the following quote:

 

There should be a meeting with school counselors, who accept counseling interns at their school, at the beginning and end of the year to talk about what they are going to do and to assess how the term went, what they did, was it useful? Coming together and making an overall assessment would be helpful once or twice a year. (C1)

 

Furthermore, another school counselor emphasized the necessity of adding consultations, seminars and case presentations to the practices currently being carried out, as follows:

 

I think the internship program should be revised in the light of a school counselor’s actual duties at school. For example, seminars for parents and students, case examinations and presentations should be required from . . . interns. They should work on a specific case example and present this case study to the program supervisor. For instance, the interns may work with a student with exam anxiety and prepare a report on this case. They must work with specific problems that they will meet when they begin to work as a school counselor. There is a lack of practical experience in case work and consultation in the internship program currently operating. However, we do mostly consultation at school. (C2)

 

The Role of Supervisors and Internship in Interns’ Professional Development

     Interns’ evaluation of university supervisors and supervision. When counseling students’ evaluations regarding supervision and supervisors at the university were analyzed, the following three categories emerged: contribution to the practice process, gaining experience and preparing for professional life, and feedback and advice. In the contribution to practice process, students pointed out that the supervisory course was productive and helpful. Counseling students learned a lot from the course that enabled them to create solutions to problems, recognize their mistakes, and share their activities and difficulties, thus making school counseling activities much more functional. Interns watched video recordings of group activities conducted by themselves or their peers in the supervisory course. The students stated that watching these recordings was beneficial, giving them a chance to see their mistakes, find solutions to problems and benefit from feedback. One counseling intern explained as follows:

 

Due to time limitations our supervisor could not come to observe our work at the school. But, by watching video recordings of the activities we did, and giving detailed feedback in supervisory sessions, our supervisor helped us to see our mistakes. I was lucky to be in her group. (S5)

 

According to the interns, school counseling internship programs contributed to their professional development and professional life by providing the opportunity to apply counseling knowledge and skills. These internship programs, which are considered indispensable for professional development, enabled counseling students to establish their own approaches and prepare themselves for future difficulties.

 

A main distinctive theme that emerged regarding university supervisors was the giving of feedback and advice. Feedback was considered helpful and efficient for solving problems that occurred during the program, selecting and organizing activities, conducting productive group activities, correcting mistakes, overcoming obstacles, coping with anxiety, and creating opportunities for self-evaluation. Advice provided by supervisors was seen as helpful enabling students to find solutions to problems and difficulties, to achieve desired results from group activities, and to feel pleased with their progress. Counseling interns also received feedback and advice from their peers; one stated, “I think sharing our experiences, and giving and taking feedback from each other contributed to our development. The school counseling internship course was effective for gaining experience, getting practice and improving professionally.” (S1)

 

     Interns’ evaluation of school supervisors and supervision. Two themes in this section were assistance to the practice process and negative impressions of supervisors at schools. Regarding assistance to the practice process, counseling interns explained that school counselors coordinated counseling practice for them by organizing groups of students and scheduling appropriate days, times and places for activities during the internship program. The supervisors also shared their experiences and knowledge, and provided opportunities for counseling students to observe some of their interviews with students and parents. The counselors demonstrated various methods of communicating with students, interviewing parents and other aspects of school counseling, and presented an example for which to learn the job. School counselors gave feedback and advice to assist counseling interns in learning how to be school counselors, provided professional information and prepared them for professional life (e.g., files, meetings, reports, minutes of meetings).

 

Regarding negative impressions, interns reported that some site supervisors, although relatively few in number, were reluctant to share their experiences or communicate with the interns because of time limits. For this reason, these supervisors did not organize individual counseling sessions or time for consultation, application and interpretation of measurement tools, and did not give any feedback. One counseling student said, “I think we did not get enough feedback from our site supervisors/school counselor due to their being busy. This was a negative aspect of our internship at school” (S9). Another intern said the following: I wish I had done more activities like individual counseling, learned more techniques and that the school counselor had shared her experiences more with us. Due to time limitations we didn’t have a chance to do some of the activities. (S1)

 

Roles of School Counseling Internship Programs in Interns’ Professional Development

     Self-improvement in counseling skills. School counseling internship programs enabled counseling students to build their skills and become productive in the areas of group guidance, classroom guidance, individual counseling, seminars and consultation. These activities were followed by improvements in counseling skills, application of theoretical knowledge, management of behavioral problems and group management skills.

 

Other contributions that counseling students mentioned included gaining professional knowledge, achieving milestones of the profession, preparing for the profession, discovering coherence between their personalities and the profession, and gaining insight into the ways that working with students of different ages and social backgrounds contributed to their professional development. The following quote may be taken as an example of counseling students’ ideas about the internship program:

 

It was full of experience and learning for me. Both the help of supervision and my own efforts have given me good preparation for my career. I believe that the things I learned this year will facilitate my future education and will be milestones in my professional career. (S7)

 

     Positive feelings during internship. Being happy (n = 9) was the most common positive feeling that counseling students experienced during internship. It was followed, in order, by feeling efficacious (n = 6), confident (n = 5), eager (n = 5), proud (n = 2), and relaxed and good (n = 1), both personally and professionally. Interns used words such as “like” and “enjoy” to describe their experience. Counseling students expressed that they were happy when they were successful and helped students, received supervisors’ support and feedback, and worked with certain supervisors at the university. They also emphasized that their efficacy and confidence had increased as they did successful work, attended supervision sessions and received feedback from supervisors. Similarly, with the support of the supervisors, they became eager about counseling activities and exercises, taking pride in positive feedback, enjoying the profession through their internship experiences and showing positive emotions such as feeling relaxed. One student expressed the positive effects of feedback as follows:Having constructive feedback and advice, and our supervisor giving importance to everybody’s work, made me feel happy. Due to her feedback, I felt little anxiety while I was doing activities. This course enhanced my confidence in doing school counseling work.” (S5)

 

Teachers’ and Students’ Views on Group Guidance Activities

     Students’ gains from activities. Ninth graders attended group guidance activities on communication, assertiveness, social skills and career counseling, and produced written documents acknowledging what they had gained from the activities. When the documents were analyzed, it was clear that students had positive results and acquisitions such as self-awareness, getting to know people, introducing themselves to others and skills of communication, assertiveness and relationships. Students also expressed positive feelings and comments regarding group activities, such as happy, relaxed, enjoyable, peaceful, eager and responsible. Students who attended career counseling group activities reported that at the end of these activities, they had learned about several occupations; identified majors and occupations they would choose in the future; recognized their abilities and interests; understood relationships and consistencies between occupation and ability, occupation and interest, and occupation and personality; and acknowledged factors that affect pursuing a career.

 

Data suggested that students had positive views of the counseling interns. In order, these positive adjectives were as follows: understanding, being good, good listener, respectful, gentle, being confidential, sympathetic, patient, reliable, optimistic and cheerful. Furthermore, the students also thought that the counseling interns produced solutions to problems. However, in contrast to these positive features, school students also mentioned a few negative aspects of the activities, like hesitating to tell their secrets to the group, not understanding how to fill in forms or finding solutions offered to the group as useless.

 

     Teachers’ ideas about classroom guidance activities. When teachers’ views about the effects of these activities with students were analyzed, three themes emerged as follows: interpersonal relationships, communication skills, and behavioral and motional changes. Teachers pointed out that they observed development mostly in interpersonal relationships and communication skills such as active listening, being respectful and getting to know each other, enhancing group transactions, attachment and cooperation, and sharing. The teachers also brought attention to behavioral development and changes in problem-solving skills, participation in lessons, assertiveness and protection of their rights, taking responsibility, and correcting mistaken goals. According to teachers, students showed positive emotional changes, meaning that they enjoyed, were enthusiastic about and were satisfied with the activities, which enhanced self-confidence and motivation toward their lessons. Two teachers expressed the positive effects of the activities in the following quotes:

 

Some of my students in particular began to come to school with positive feelings such as happy, eager and ready. Others of my students who have had problems in expressing themselves and participating in the lessons started to cope with shyness/timid[ity] and participated in the lessons with confidence. (T1)

 

There are positive changes in students’ behavior like problem solving and communicating with their peers. They used to fight to solve their problems, but now they have learned to stop, wait and listen to each other to work things out. I assume that group guidance activities are very useful in teaching students how to work out their problems. (T2)

Discussion

 

According to findings derived from interviews with counseling supervisors, counseling interns gained experience in classroom guidance, group guidance, individual counseling, seminars, consultation, and application of individual assessment and measurement techniques during school counseling practices. It can be said that these are the essential parts of a school counselor’s work, and having had these experiences, interns are more likely to be prepared for the school counselor role. Similarly, interns’ evaluations of the supervisory course in the internship program showed that through the program, counseling students both developed and enhanced their counseling skills  through conducting school counseling-related activities. Coker and Schrader (2004) also found that in school-based practice, counseling interns did individual and group counseling and consultations, attended team meetings, and advocated for the personal, social and academic achievement of students. The findings of the present study parallel those of Brott and Myers (1999), who concluded that professional identity development begins in training and continues throughout a person’s career life. Additionally, the current results are considered consistent with Studer’s (2005) findings, that internship provides opportunities to do school counseling activities; with Nelson and Jackson’s (2003) findings, indicating that internship has positive effects on application of knowledge, skills and development of insight; and Jett and Delgado-Romero’s (2009) study, showing that doing internship at a school or hospital facilitates counseling students’ professional development.

 

All school counseling supervisors in the present study noticed the positive outcomes of the school counseling internship programs, for the school students who attended the counseling activities, for the interns and for the school counseling supervisors themselves. These school counselors witnessed school students’ cognitive, emotional and behavioral changes as a result of attending counseling activities, and received positive feedback from teachers and parents regarding counseling interns’ work. School counseling supervisors’ impressions and observations regarding the benefits of counseling practices, in terms of personal–social, educational and career development of students, were consistent with teachers and students’ evaluations of the effects of the activities. For example, classroom guidance teachers pointed out that they observed changes in students who attended group guidance activities with regard to interpersonal relationships, communication skills, and emotional and behavioral changes. Furthermore, students who attended these activities also said that they acquired skills in the areas of communicating, building relationships, practicing assertiveness, and making decisions about majors and careers, and that they gained positive feelings toward the activities. It should be emphasized that there were similarities in students’ and teachers’ perceptions about the effects of counseling practices. These similarities were especially apparent in personal–social changes and positive emotions regarding activities. School counselors emphasized that counseling students assisted them in carrying out their work plans and lessening their workloads; thus, they were able to provide preventative counseling services to many more students.

 

According to school counseling supervisors surveyed, counseling students benefitted from counseling internship by gaining experience in classroom management and individual counseling, improving communication skills, and enhancing self-efficacy. Similarly, counseling students mentioned their acquisitions in the application and development of school counseling knowledge and skills, feeling happy and efficacious as a result of the successful internship activities they completed. These findings parallel the findings of studies carried out by Atici et al. (2005), Atici and Ulusoy (2010), and Atici and Çam (2013).

 

The professional school counselors indicated that they were able to help counseling interns by observing them and giving feedback, providing information and advice, organizing counseling practice sessions, and being role models. The counseling interns mentioned the same kinds of help provided by their school counseling supervisors. These results parallel the findings of Atici and Çam’s (2013) study, which indicated that school counselors help counseling interns by coordinating school counseling practice sessions, being role models, and sharing materials and resources. Coker and Schrader’s (2004) findings indicated that counseling interns develop a clear counseling approach with the guidance of supervisors, and are able to experience the school counselors’ roles of collaboration, advocacy, leadership and consulting with the guidance of professional school counselors.

 

A few counseling interns in the current study had negative impressions of school counseling supervisors who were reluctant to share their experiences, organize practice sessions and give feedback. As a result, counseling students could not benefit from the experiences and skills of some school counselors. This finding is supported by the results of a study by Atici and Çam (2013). Similarly, some CITs in Portman’s (2002) study did not receive supervision at schools, and although they found that clinical supervision from the university supervisors was useful, there were deficits in the internship program, and they did not receive a real supervised experience. According to these results, it can be concluded that school counselors’ inability to create an environment in which they function as role models and provide feedback may affect the professional identity development of some counseling interns in a negative way.

 

According to school counselors surveyed in the present study, counseling interns’ readiness, desire, comfort, self-efficacy, communication, leadership, group management and professional skills played roles in the effectiveness of group activities. This finding is consistent with the opinions of counseling interns regarding the contributions of the school counseling internship program to their professional development. Counseling interns reported that as a result of successful work they did, and during successful work, they felt happy, relaxed, eager and efficacious; thus, they acknowledged self-development in conducting group guidance activities and building counseling skills and group management skills. These findings parallel results from other studies, such as that CITs experience positive feelings like confidence, achievement and efficacy (Atici & Ulusoy, 2010; Nelson & Jackson, 2003) and develop their counseling skills, and that school counseling activities contribute to professional and personal development (Atici & Çam, 2013; Atici et al., 2005; Atici & Ulusoy, 2010; Jett & Delgado-Romero, 2009) and provide opportunities to do various activities (Studer, 2005).

 

It is clear that feedback and advice from university supervisors were useful and effective in planning and carrying out successful activities, finding solutions to problems and assessing of activities. Watching video recordings of sessions enabled students to receive feedback from professional school counseling supervisors and their peers, which was very helpful and improved the conducting of group guidance activities. Similarly, in interviews, school counseling supervisors pointed out that their feedback for counseling students impacted the success of group activities. Counseling interns also reported that their feelings of happiness, pride, efficacy, confidence and love for the profession increased as they did successful work and received feedback from supervisors. These findings shared similarities with results in the literature, indicating that assurance and support from university supervisors and site supervisors in schools positively affect professional identity (Nelson & Jackson, 2003), that counseling students find feedback constructive, encouraging and helpful for improving their professional development (Özyürek, 2009). The literature also shows that nurturing feedback and advice from university supervisors and a relaxed supervision atmosphere have motivating effects (Atici & Çam, 2013), and supervision functions as a bridge between competencies in the counselor education program and the skills required in workplaces (Sutton & Page, 1994).

 

School counseling supervisors reported that they met few problems during internship, and they solved these problems by talking with counseling students and expressing their expectations. The fact that school counselors encountered few problems emphasizes that they liked and were satisfied with the internship program, although they made recommendations in order to further develop the internship programs and counseling exercises. These recommendations were mainly to increase some activities and to start school counseling internship programs earlier than the last or fourth year of study.

 

Study Implications

 

From the results of the study, it is apparent that school counseling internship programs not only contribute to the professional development of counseling students, but also help professional school counselors and school students in several aspects. As a result, school counseling coordinators and school principals should organize school counseling internship programs, so as to benefit from counseling interns’ assistance in providing counseling services to as many students as possible.

 

Since feedback and advice given by university supervisors were considered useful and effective in planning and carrying out successful activities, university supervisors should provide feedback by either observing counseling students or monitoring their activity records from the internship program. This feedback is vital for counseling interns, especially when they need to see and correct their mistakes and assess their professional skills with the guidance of an external authority.

 

Although there were only a few complaints about school counseling supervisors’ reluctance to assist counseling students during internship, their disinclination is still an obstacle to the professional development of counseling students. Therefore, the university counseling educators should consider this issue when deciding to which school and school counselors they will send their counseling interns, and they should discuss this potential problem with the school counselors and express their expectations and concerns. In light of school counselors’ recommendations for enhancing activities to better prepare counseling students for the duties and roles of future school counselors and to contribute to professional identity development, revising school counseling internship programs should be considered.

 

Limitations and Future Research Directions

 

Interviews with professional counselors and document data from counseling internship students, classroom guidance teachers and school students who attended group activities were used in this study. Although the triangulation method was used, collection of data from multiple participants was limited since this study was conducted by only one researcher. In the future, if more than one researcher were involved in a study, it would be possible to collect data from a greater number of school counselors, counseling interns, school students participating in group or classroom guidance activities, and teachers at schools. There also was the limitation of not involving a university supervisor in the study. If this level of university supervisor could be involved in a similar study, it would be possible to explore the issue from the different perspectives of relevant parties. Similar studies might be conducted by including counselor education programs from several different universities.

 

Conclusion

 

This study showed that school counseling internship programs provide opportunities for counseling students to experience many school counselor activities and to become competent in carrying out these activities. It is clear that school counseling internship programs and activities give counseling students a chance to apply counseling skills,  make contributions to students attending counseling activities, lessen the workloads of school counselors, provide proactive counseling services to many more students and contribute to their own professional development. Furthermore, once again it evident that positive and constructive feedback and advice, along with help from university supervisors and site supervisors, were fundamental for counseling interns in conducting activities, feeling positive emotions and establishing confidence.

 

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The author reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

 

 

References

 

American School Counselor Association. (2003). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Atici, M., & Çam, S. (2013). Okullarda PDR uygulamaları dersine ilişkin öğrenci görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Students’ views on the course of counseling and guidance practice at schools]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 39, 106–119.

Atici, M., Özyürek, R., & Çam, S. (2005). Okul danışmanlığı uygulamalarının yetkinlik beklentisi algılarının ve mesleki benlik saygısı üzerindeki etkilerinin boylamsal olarak incelenmesi [The effects of school counseling practices on counselor self-efficacy and occupational self-esteem: A longitudinal study]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 24(3), 7–26.

Atici, M., & Ulusoy, Y. (2010). Psikolojik danışman adaylarının grup rehberliği etkinliğini yürütürken kullandıkları psikolojik danışma becerilerinin, bu becerileri kullanmaya ilişkin yeterlik algılarının ve grup yönetimini sağlama yöntemlerinin incelenmesi [Group counselor effectiveness of counseling skills and self-efficacy providing the group management method]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 62–81.

Auxier, C. R., Hughes, F. R., & Kline, W. B. (2003). Identity development in counselors-in-training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 25–38. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01827.x

Brott, P. E., & Myers, J. E. (1999). Development of professional school counselor identity: A grounded theory. Professional School Counseling, 2, 339–348.

Coker, K., & Schrader, S. (2004). Conducting a school-based practicum: A collaborative model. Professional School Counseling, 7, 263–267.

Denzin, N. K. (1994). Triangulation in educational research. In T. Husen, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 6461–6465). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Dollarhide, C. T., & Miller, G. M. (2006). Supervision for preparation and practice of school counselors: Pathways to excellence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45, 242–252. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00001.x

Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010). Professional identity development: A grounded theory of transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 21–38. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00106.x

Henderson, P. (1994). Supervision of school counselors. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED372353)

Jett, S. T., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2009). Prepracticum service-learning in counselor education: A qualitative case study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 49, 106–121. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00091.x

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nelson, K. W., & Jackson, S. A. (2003). Professional counselor identity development: A qualitative study of Hispanic student interns. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 2–14. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01825.x

Nugent, F. A., & Jones, K. D. (2009). Introduction to the profession of counseling (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

O’Byrne, K., & Rosenberg, J. I. (1998). The practice of supervision: A sociocultural perspective. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 34–42. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1998.tb00555.x

Özyürek, R. (2009). Okullarda psikolojik danışma uygulamaları ve öğrencilere sağlanan süpervizyon olanakları: Ulusal bir tarama çalışması [The supervision opportunities for practicum students of school counseling provided to trainees in Turkish universities: A national survey]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 32, 5463.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Portman, T. A. A. (2002). “The opportunity was there!”: A qualitative study of early-entrant school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 6, 61–70.

Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and technique. London, England: Sage.

Studer, J. R. (2005). Supervising school counselors-in-training: A guide for field supervisors. Professional School Counseling, 8, 353–359.

Sutton, J. M., & Page, B. J. (1994). Post-degree clinical supervision of school counselors. The School Counselor, 42, 32–39.

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayınevi.

 

 

Meral Atici is an Associate Professor at Çukurova University. Correspondence can be addressed to Meral Atici, Çukurova University, Education Faculty, 01330, Balcalı, Adana, Turkey, matici@cu.edu.tr

 

The Impact of Transformational Learning Experiences on Personal and Professional Counselor-in-Training Identity Development

Michelle Kelley Shuler, Elizabeth A. Keller-Dupree

Transformational learning experiences for counselor training can be described as experiential activities that facilitate the ability to express feelings and meanings related to life issues. The authors investigated the impact of a 2-day seminar using transformational learning experiences on the personal and professional identity development of counselors-in-training. Quantitative results indicate that participants’ self-reported professional performance scores were not significantly different following the training. However, in the qualitative inquiry, participants noted that through the transformational learning experiences, they became aware of past and present challenges, the need for change, the impact of processing within a group, and the application of transformational activities in clinical practices. Such findings indicate how transformational learning experiences—particularly through the use of reflective journaling—might influence personal identity development among counselors-in-training. 

Keywords: personal identity development, professional identity development, transformational learning, counselor-in-training

The promotion of professionalism is a significant component of counselor training and is recognized by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) as a core curriculum requirement for graduate counseling programs (CACREP, 2009). Professionalism includes knowledge and understanding of professional organizations, legal and ethical standards, the role of counselors, professional competencies, and personal and professional growth. Development in this area includes both personal and professional growth and is often referred to as counselor development (Gazzola & Theriault, 2007; Rabinor, 2004; Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1996; Thompson, 2004) or counselor professional identity (Auxier, Hughes, & Kline, 2003; Cashwell, Kleist, & Scofield, 2009; Nugent & Jones, 2009; O’Bryne & Rosenberg, 1998; Reisetter et al., 2004).

 

Independently, professional development encompasses the acquisition of skills and knowledge, and is “concerned with the doing needs” (Donati & Watts, 2005, p. 476), and personal development includes the “being needs” (p. 476), like authenticity, interpersonal engagement, intimacy and self-evaluation. As dependent concepts, one can imagine the significance each has for counselor identity. A counselor lacking skills and knowledge will function quite differently than a skilled practitioner with years of experience and knowledge. Concurrently, counselors must attend to their own form of personal development (Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1996). Wilkins (1997) went so far as to suggest that personal development embraces everything else that facilitates being a practicing counselor. For example, personal development might include ways in which the counselor maintains a balanced lifestyle, or ways the counselor manages the stress brought on by difficult clients. A counselor lacking in personal well-being might not be considered fit to practice.

 

Many counselors view counselor identity development as a process (Auxier et al., 2003; Brott & Myers, 1999) that results in congruency between personal and professional worldviews (Reisetter et al., 2004), or consider it an equal combination of professional (e.g., roles, decisions, ethics) and personal selves (e.g., values, morals, perceptions; Auxier et al., 2003). This view suggests that personal and professional development are not mutually exclusive and are just as much interrelated as dependent concepts.

 

Research on counselor professional identity development has examined areas such as personal or professional fit (Woodside, Oberman, Cole, & Carruth, 2007), critical incidents experienced by counselors-in-training (CITs; Howard, Inman, & Altman, 2006), career concerns of CITs (Busacca & Wester, 2006), evaluation of personal and professional development (Donati & Watt, 2005; Hensley, Smith, & Thompson, 2003; Lamadue & Duffey, 1999), and ways for counselor educators to address problematic behavior of trainees (Bhat, 2005; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; McAdams & Foster, 2007; McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007). Furthermore, recent research has provided counselor educators with a model for professional identity development, specifying transformational tasks such as “finding a personal definition of counseling, internalizing responsibility for professional growth, and developing a systemic identity necessary for professional identity development” (Gibson, Dollarhide, & Moss, 2010, p. 21).

 

According to the transformational tasks theory proposed by Gibson et al. (2010), change happens in relation to a “transformational process across time and experience” (p. 28). From these transformational experiences, CITs evolve from reliance on external authorities (i.e., supervisors and teachers) to provide learning experiences to a position of self-validation (i.e., integrated personal and professional identity), resulting in a more internalized view of counseling and the ability to personalize understanding of experiences. The concept of counselor development evolving across time in stages and encompassing a spectrum of elements also is reflected in Skovholt & Rønnestad’s (1996) research, which suggests that counselor development explains a complex interplay between the personal and professional realms over the career span.

 

The incorporation of transformational learning experiences in counselor training might significantly impact both personal and professional development of CITs. The importance of a more internalized view of counseling and the ability to self-reflect (Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1996) constitute significant distinctions between counselors who continue to develop versus counselors who face professional burnout and stagnation. Furthermore, lack of reflection also has been shown to have significant impact on selecting intervention strategies (McAuliffe, Eriksen, & Associates, 2002). However, few researchers have examined pedagogical methods used to enhance CITs’ level of professional development. As a result, there is a dearth of literature exploring strategies to incorporate student self-reflective experiences into counselor education in order to influence professional identity development. Counselor educators play a significant role (Griffin, 1993; Sheeley, 1986; VanZandt, 1990; Weiss, 1981) and are a key factor in counselor personal and professional development (Gibson et al., 2010; Oliver, Moore, Schoen, & Scarmon, 1989; Weiss, 1981) through the facilitation of tasks that will increase opportunities for CITs to self-evaluate, self-motivate and self-locate.

 

Transformational learning experiences for counselor training can be described as expressive techniques or experiential activities that facilitate CITs’ ability to express feelings and meanings related to life issues (O’Brien, 2008). Experiential activities in counselor training are applied to creative approaches in the classroom as well as in individual and group supervision (Newsome, Henderson, & Veach, 2005; Sommer & Cox, 2003; ter Maat & Bowman, 2001; Waliski, 2009; Wilkins, 1995). The inclusion of expressive arts in training assists CITs with reframing and deepening their understanding of experience (Bradley, Whiting, Hendricks, Parr, & Jones, 2008) and enhances the development of personal awareness skills (Newsome et al., 2005), functions that are both considered highly important to professional development in models of supervision (Bernard, 1997; Holloway, 1995; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998), as well as to personal development.

 

Such research led the present authors to ask how counselor training programs can best assist in professional and personal identity development using transformational tasks. One suggestion is to incorporate transformational learning experiences into counselor training course work. In the current study, the authors examined the effects of transformational learning exercises on counselor professional identity development, using the professional identity development model (Gibson et al., 2010). In addition, the authors examined how the integration of transformational learning experiences (Mezirow, 1997) impacted CITs’ self-reported skill development on the Professional Performance Review Policy Standards (PPRPS; McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007) assessment tool and how reflective journaling impacted CITs’ personal development.

 

Method

 

Participants

The current study involved 17 counseling graduate students (N = 17) at a Midwestern university, with eight students (47%) pursuing a specialty in clinical mental health counseling, 8 students (47%) pursuing addictions counseling and one student (6%) pursuing school counseling. One student was in the first year of graduate training (6%), 12 students (71%) were in their second year and 4 (24%) were in their third year. Four students (24%) identified as male and 13 students (76%) as female. Researchers collected demographic data only during the initial stage of data collection, or Time 1. At Times 2 and 3 of data collection, 21 students participated in the study; however, demographic data was obtained for only 17 student participants.

 

Instrumentation

The PPRPS (McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007) was used to evaluate participants’ self-reported perceptions of their dispositions and skills. The PPRPS is a 10-item survey with each item rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The 10 dispositions and skills measured on the PPRPS include the following: (a) openness to new ideas, (b) flexibility, (c) cooperativeness with others, (d) willingness to accept and use feedback, (e) awareness of own impact on others, (f) ability to deal with conflict, (g) ability to accept personal responsibility, (h) ability to express feelings effectively and appropriately, (i) attention to ethical and legal considerations, and (j) initiative and motivation. Currently, no psychometric information is available for the PPRPS survey.

 

Procedure

Graduate counseling students were invited to enroll in an elective 1-hour graduate seminar. Students were notified of this opportunity via a university flyer containing the following message: “Sign up now for this new seminar opportunity which seeks to infuse creative, transformational learning exercises for personal and professional counselor growth and development into a 2-day class.” As students signed up for the course, they were informed that the course would involve collecting pretest data and data from three subsequent posttests using the PPRPS survey, in which students would be asked to rate themselves on 10 counselor skills and dispositions. Students also received the opportunity to engage in a self-reflective journaling exercise that accompanied the experiential activities used throughout the seminar. Students were informed that completion of the PPRPS was mandatory for the purposes of the seminar, but that the data gleaned from the surveys and self-reflective journals would only be used for the purposes of this study with their informed consent.

 

The seminar consisted of a 2-day class in which various counselor development topics were taught and activities were facilitated. The activities were regarded as transformational learning opportunities or experiences, and students were told that the purpose of the seminar was to infuse the didactic content of counselor development with creative, hands-on learning opportunities. Following the facilitation of each activity, students were invited to reflect on their experiences through electronic journaling in the university computer lab. The following section outlines the structure of the seminar across both days for all participants:

 

1.  Discussion of professional development, including CACREP core curriculum requirements for graduate-level

counselor training;

2.  Discussion of developing the counselor professional identity across training and clinical experiences;

3.  Discussion of the role of counselor educators and supervisors;

4.  Discussion of professional fit, critical incidents in counselor training and career concerns of CITs;

5.  Discussion of research into models of professional identity development including transformational tasks;

6.  Discussion of the role of self-reflection in counselor personal and professional development;

7.  Discussion of CIT self-efficacy;

8.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 1: True north activity;

9.  Discussion of wellness and self-care in counselor training;

10.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 2: Puzzling wellness activity;

11.  Discussion of the use of music as an expressive art in counseling practice;

12.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 3: Lyrics to my life activity;

13.  Discussion of the use of cinematherapy in counseling practice;

14.  Transformational learning experience 4: Viewing of the movie Prayers for Bobby, and facilitation of discussion

following viewing the movie;

15.  Discussion of values as a determinant of counseling theory and practice;

16.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 5: Values bench activity; and

17.  Final post-seminar discussion of experiences.

(For a full explanation of each transformational learning exercise facilitated in the seminar, please contact the

first author).

 

Students completed the PPRPS pretest, demographic sheet and informed consent prior to arriving at the seminar on day 1. The PPRPS pretest data collection will be referred to as Time 1 data. The demographic sheet included a personal 4-digit code (for participant anonymity) and gathered information about the counseling specialty track in which the participants were enrolled, their year in the counseling program and their gender. Students completed the PPRPS posttest at the start of the seminar on day 1, subsequently referred to as Time 2 data. Throughout the 2 days, students completed five transformational learning experience activities and reflected on each through electronic journaling following each activity. Students were asked to save their reflective journals and submit them to the principal investigator at the end of the 2-day seminar. At the end of day 2, students completed the PPRPS posttest again, subsequently referred to as Time 3 data. In addition, students wrote down the two most meaningful transformational learning experiences of the 2-day seminar, to be used in a frequency count by the researchers. Approximately 3 months following the completion of the seminar, students completed the PPRPS posttest for the final data collection time point, subsequently referred to as Time 4 data. Researchers kept all student data confidential at each data collection time point through the use of the personal 4-digit codes. Electronic journals were submitted by students to the principal investigator via a protected email server and saved in a password-protected file for review and coding.

 

Results

 

A one-way, within-group, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare students’ self-reported professional performance using the PPRPS before, during and after the seminar. The comparison was conducted using the mean PPRPS score for all participants at Time 1, Time 2, Time 3 and Time 4. Nine participants did not submit PPRPS results at a minimum of one data collection time point and therefore were not included in the analysis. As such, 12 participants were included in the analysis of all four data time points (57% of participants). Results indicated that participants’ levels of self-reported professional performance scores were not statistically significantly different over time, F(3, 9) = .83, p = .51, partial η2 = .22. Although while the results across the four data collection time points were not significantly different, further evaluation of the data showed an increase in self-reported professional performance on the PPRPS across each data collection point. Mean data for the PPRPS across the four data collection time points can be found in Table 1.

 

Table 1

 

Descriptive Statistics for All Data Collection Time Points

Time 

N

M

SD

1

17

39.94

5.26

2

21

40.52

5.00

3

20

41.55

5.29

4

16

42.94

4.68

 

 

To explore the movement in the data further, the researchers completed an item analysis for descriptive statistics of all 10 PPRPS items across the four data collection time points. Results of the item analysis supported a positive movement in scores for all 10 areas assessed on the PPRPS, with the most meaningful movement in the data occurring in the following items: (a) Item 7: Ability to accept personal responsibility (+.62 from Time 1 to Time 4), (b) Item 2: Flexibility (+.49) and (c) Item 5: Awareness of my own impact on others (+.48). Table 2 highlights the mean data for each of the 10 PPRPS items across the four data time points.

 

Table 2

 

Item Analysis of PPRPS Survey

Time 1a

Time 2b

Time 3c

Time 4d

Item

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1: Openness to new ideas

4.00

0.87

4.00

0.77

4.30

0.8

4.31

0.79

2: Flexibility

3.76

0.90

3.95

0.67

4.20

0.77

4.25

0.93

3: Cooperativeness with others

4.24

0.75

4.24

0.70

4.30

0.57

4.25

0.58

4: Willingness to accept and use feedback

4.00

0.61

4.29

0.64

4.20

0.7

4.38

0.72

5: Awareness of own impact on others

3.71

0.85

3.67

0.73

3.80

0.77

4.19

0.91

6: Ability to deal with conflict

3.76

0.83

3.76

0.83

4.00

0.65

4.13

1.02

7: Ability to accept personal responsibility

3.88

0.70

4.20

0.77

4.20

0.83

4.50

0.63

8: Ability to express feelings effectively and appropriately

3.82

0.81

3.81

0.73

4.20

0.83

4.13

0.72

9: Attention to ethical and legal considerations

4.29

0.85

4.24

0.89

4.05

0.83

4.31

0.87

10: Initiative and motivation

4.47

0.62

4.33

0.66

4.30

0.80

4.50

0.73

a n = 17. b n = 21. c n = 20. d n = 16.

 

Qualitative Analysis

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of the transformational learning experiences, the researchers conducted a qualitative analysis of the reflective journals for each participant across each activity. A grounded theory design was used to assess the data, with which an emerging theory could become evident for the use of transformational learning experiences in counselor training. Each participant’s journal entry following each transformational learning experience was coded for common themes from open (broad) to axial (narrowed) to selective codes across all five activities (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

 

Prior to exploring commonalities and themes across the data, both researchers completed the open and axial coding process separately. Both researchers kept journals with reflective commentary throughout the seminar and coding process to identify, explore and process their emerging awareness, assumptions and biases. Following individual coding, the researchers collaborated to explore the emerging (selective) themes that were present in the data, as well as to further process self-understandings noted within the reflective commentary. Once the researchers identified the final selective codes, they used a member check to serve as a final trustworthiness measure to support the credibility of the findings, in which they invited three study participants to review their submitted journal transcripts to see if the overarching findings of the study accurately reflected their words.

 

Overarching Themes

Activities led to awareness of past and present challenges. Participants reflected that through the use of transformational learning experiences, they became more in touch with the past and present struggles they had encountered in their life journeys. One participant shared after completing the lyrics to my life activity, “I guess this means that the pain is sometimes still raw and close to the surface, although I haven’t thought about it in months.” Another participant noted, “As painful and troubled as that time of my life may have been, it did serve a purpose.” After the true north activity, a third participant said, “Anxiety, responsibilities, time/money constraints, and other people’s standards are my magnetic north.” In the same activity, one participant created a metaphor for her struggle and noted, “A picture of an army platoon was graced under the clock and weighed heavily on this magnetic pole. I believe it spoke to my affiliation with war. . . . It might represent my own inner conflicts.” Similarly, another participant stated, “This exercise provided me with a deep look at the small elements in my life that pull me off course. . . . My biggest accomplishment today was seeing my failures on paper.” When watching Prayers for Bobby, many participants explored the impact of discrimination, prejudice and judgment within their own lives. One participant shared, “I have experienced this type of constant condemnation from my grandma.” Another noted, “I can also relate to Bobby’s feelings of shame and not belonging as I felt some of that growing up, even the point of ‘what’s the use?’ ” With the values bench activity, one participant explored family conflict and noted the following about her father: “We have always had a very rocky relationship. . . . The message I got from him was I was not good enough to be his daughter.” Across all activities, participants recognized past and present struggles, challenges and conflict that impact their lives.

 

     Activities revealed the need for change. As the participants became aware of past and present struggles through the transformational learning experiences, they also began to express the need for growth and change. One participant shared in the true north activity that “understanding the paths that may be challenging for me can help me have a resolution.” In the same activity, another participant stated the following:

 

Being able to point out the stressors and the negative impacts of things that try to take away from me as a whole and who I am trying to become made it much easier for me to see what I need to work on and what I need to eliminate from my life.

 

Another participant noted, “I’ve got to break that cycle. . . . I have to let go of the distractors and truly take ownership of my situation.” Similarly, a participant stated in the puzzling wellness activity, “This activity brought out my desires and in a way reinforced my need to stay on target of what I want.” Another shared, “This exercise helped me to identify that I need to find more time to establish a better balance for all elements of wellness in my life.” After watching Prayers for Bobby, one participant described her need for better understanding and stated, “I am the only one who can live my life for me and directly suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.” When completing the values bench activity, one participant explored the impact of family struggle in her life and how the activity facilitated her desire to grow and move forward. She wrote, “I don’t mean that I want to win a Nobel peace prize or invent something unbelievable. . . . I simply mean to overcome the battles and issues within my family and get everyone on the same page.” Another participant shared, “What this assignment has done for me personally is to stop and think before I act at home, school, and work because the way you act and treat people is the legacy you will leave behind.” In realizing personal struggles, participants became aware of room for growth and change. The activities sparked discussions of how that growth and development could begin for the participants.

 

Group processing continued self-exploration and connection. It became apparent across the reflective journals that the participants felt connected to the small group processing that followed each transformational learning experience. Time and again, the participants relayed the relief they felt, as well as the ability to process more deeply when sharing their creative expression with others. In the lyrics to my life activity, a participant shared, “I really enjoyed this assignment and sharing my story with the group,” and another noted, “This activity brought out much emotion in most people that shared today. We all struggle.” One participant explained in the puzzling wellness activity, “I did feel better once we presented our puzzles to our groups. It was nice to see what other people struggle with and how they represent themselves.” Another student stated, “I enjoyed processing the work, which actually turned into a very interesting conversation.” One participant offered the awareness that emerged from processing as she shared the following: “As we processed, I noticed that I felt very content in my life and this often comes when I hear where others are in their own life.” In the true north activity, one participant discussed her “strong emotional reaction” and said, “I wasn’t fully aware of just how visceral the feelings I had about them [were]. I felt anger, disgust and even shame when processing with my group.” Another shared, “I had a little break down trying to explain it to my classmates, but it made me realize how this is important and a part of me.” After watching Prayers for Bobby, one participant noted, “This was a great movie and I think the reflection after with the group was powerful. The movie affected everyone in different ways; being able to relax and share our thoughts as a class was so important and refreshing.” Through the group discussion process, participants offered a glimpse into the self-exploration that this interpersonal opportunity facilitated. Participants voiced the normalcy and empathy that were promoted through group self-disclosure and how this processing opportunity deepened their awareness.

 

Activities became useful interventions for future counseling practice. Across all activities, participants noted the usefulness, relevance and effectiveness of creative interventions for their future professional counseling practice. After watching Prayers for Bobby, one participant said, “I have never thought about using film as a therapeutic tool . . . but now my mind is spinning with ideas.” In the same activity, another shared, “This movie could be helpful in the field with families who are struggling to find acceptance.” In the true north activity, one participant stated, “This assignment was very beneficial and it’s something I would definitely use in the future with my clients as well as with myself.” In the puzzling wellness activity, one participant said, “I would recommend this activity to someone that deals with low self-esteem.” In the same activity, another student shared, “I can see how this activity may be useful with a client who has not thought along the lines of wholeness and wellness.” In the lyrics to my life activity, one participant explained, “I will try to incorporate some of these learning tools with my clients,” while another student noted, “Great activity. Several ‘ah ha’ moments. This could be a powerful tool with a client.” Following the values bench activity, one participant shared, “I will also add this to my clinical techniques during session.” In each activity, the participants were able to articulate the utility and application of these transformational experiences not just for themselves, but for their future counseling clients as well.

 

Discussion

 

The current study’s researchers explored the impact of transformational learning experiences and reflective journaling on the personal and professional development of CITs who completed a 2-day seminar in a university setting. Results reflected an increase in each of the 10 areas of professional development across the four data time points, though findings were not statistically significant.

 

Professional development is meaningful for promoting best practice in counselor training and development. Results of this study show gradual improvement in professional development, mirroring the results of Gibson et al. (2010) and indicating that professional development occurs over time and through experience. Both studies shed light on the progression from “reliance on external (classroom and expert) teachings and validation to a more internalized view of counseling and self-validation” (Gibson et al., 2010, p. 33). Interestingly, the items showing the greatest improvement reflect (a) the ability to accept personal responsibility, (b) flexibility and (c) awareness of personal impact on others. One could argue that these three factors also are reflected in the following transformational tasks from Gibson et al. (2010): (a) finding a personal definition of counseling, (b) internalizing responsibility for professional growth, and (c) developing a systemic identity necessary for professional identity development.

 

The qualitative analysis of the reflective journals lends rich support to the use of transformational learning experiences for enhancing and promoting personal and professional development. Participants noted that through these activities, they became aware of past and present challenges, the need for change, the impact of processing within a group, and the application of transformational activities in clinical practices. Such findings provide justification for how transformational learning experiences, particularly through the use of reflective journaling, might influence personal development of CITs. The themes identified above, such as awareness of past and present challenges and the need for change, indicate that participation in such activities provides an opportunity for self-examination, which leads to identification of areas in need of personal attention. Finally, the remaining themes identified relate to the use of transformational activities in future counseling practice. These themes are representative of the integration of personal and professional development identified by Skovholt and Rønnestad (1996).

 

An interesting emergence from the qualitative data is that participants not only recognized challenges inherent to living, but that they also saw themselves as the vehicle for change. Across each activity, participants were aware of the need of personal and professional growth and development. Blonna (2010) wrote that one reasonable response to personal challenge is to “focus on the positive things that can result from taking on a potential stressor. When you feel challenged, you look at a situation for its growth potential or for what you might gain from the challenge” (p. 10). Participants in the study reflected on their desire to grow and change as much as they reflected on the situation that led to the struggle. They voiced their desire to see challenges as obstacles worth overcoming. Doing so could be the beginning of an evolving personal journey that deepens their experience and informs a more competent counseling practice in the future.

 

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

A notable limitation to the study was the limited number of participants. Furthermore, students in counselor education programs are asked to intrapersonally and interpersonally reflect on their development within a number of courses and learning experiences. As such, it would be misguided to assume that improvements in professional development across a semester were only due to the contribution of a 2-day seminar.

 

Additionally, results from data in the current study did not support a statistically significant impact in professional development, though a meaningful trend in the data was revealed. The findings must not be overgeneralized; however, the findings can be used to articulate the benefits that the students noted through the self-reported inventory. A follow-up study is currently underway to replicate the original study and identify commonalities as well as differences in findings with another cohort of graduate counseling students.

 

Conclusions

 

     As counselor educators, the authors believe that CITs benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of themselves, which in turn can positively impact their personal and professional growth. As indicated in the literature related to counselor identity development, the authors are not alone in thinking that greater self-awareness is connected to increased competence on both personal and professional levels. However, at times counselor training curriculum lacks emphasis on self-awareness and would benefit from increasing opportunities for students to engage in self-reflective and experiential activities. The incorporation of transformational exercises into counselor training curriculum can encourage and enhance positive counselor identity development. In participating in these exercises, CITs deepen their intrapersonal and interpersonal learning and developmental journey, thus potentially enriching the counseling relationship, skills and techniques they will eventually use with future clients.

 

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

 

References

 

Auxier, C. R., Hughes, F. R., & Kline, W. B. (2003). Identity development in counselors-in-training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 25–38. doi:10.1002/j1556-6978.2003.tb01827.x

Bernard, J. M. (1997). The discrimination model. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 310–327). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Bhat, C. S. (2005). Enhancing counseling gatekeeping with performance appraisal protocols. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27, 399–411. doi:10.1007s10447-005-8202-z

Blonna, R. (2010). Stress less, live more: How acceptance and commitment therapy can help you live a busy yet balanced life. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Bradley, L. J., Whiting, P., Hendricks, B., Parr, G., & Jones, E. G. (2008). The use of expressive techniques in counseling. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3, 44–57. doi:10.1080/15401380802023605

Brott, P. E., & Myers, J. E. (1999). Development of professional school counselor identity: A grounded theory. Professional School Counseling, 2, 339–348.

Busacca, L. A., & Wester, K. L. (2006). Career concerns of master’s-level community and school counselor trainees. Career Development Quarterly, 55, 179–190. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00012.x

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). Accreditation and procedures manual and application. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Cashwell, C. S., Kleist, D., & Scofield, T. (2009, August). A call for professional unity. Counseling Today, 52(2), 60–61.

Donati, M., & Watts, M. (2005). Personal development in counsellor training: Towards a clarification of inter-related concepts. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33, 475–484. doi:10.1080/03069880500327553

Gazzola, N., & Theriault, A. (2007). Super- (and not-so-super-) vision of counsellors-in-training: Supervisee perspectives on broadening and narrowing processes. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 35, 189–204. doi:10.1080/03069880701256601

Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2002). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase programs’ follow-up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 294–305. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb01292.x

Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010). Professional identity development: A grounded theory of transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 21–38. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00106.x

Griffin, B. (1993). ACES: Promoting professionalism, collaboration, and advocacy. Counselor Education and Supervision, 33, 2–9. doi:10.1002/j1556-6978.1993.tb00263.x

Hensley, L. G., Smith, S. L., & Thompson, R. W. (2003). Assessing competencies of counselors-in-training: Complexities in evaluating personal and professional development. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 219–230. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01813.x

Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howard, E. E., Inman, A. G., & Altman, A. N. (2006). Critical incidents among novice counselor trainees. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 88–102. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00015.x

Lamadue, C. A., & Duffey, T. H. (1999). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A model of evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 101–109. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1999.tb01221.x

Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 3–42. doi:10.1177/0011000082101002

McAdams, C. R., & Foster, V. A. (2007). A guide to just and fair remediation of counseling students with professional performance deficiencies. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47, 2–13. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00034.x

McAdams, C. R., Foster, V. A., & Ward, T. J. (2007). Remediation and dismissal policies in counselor education: Lessons learned from a challenge in federal court. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 212–229. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00026.x

McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K., & Associates. (2002). Preparing counselors and therapists: Creating constructivist and developmental programs. Marceline, MO: Walsworth.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp. 5–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Newsome, D. W, Henderson, D. A. & Veach, L. J. (2005). Using expressive arts in group supervision to enhance awareness and foster cohesion. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1002/j.2164-490X.2005.tb00027.x

Nugent, F. A., & Jones, K. D. (2009). Introduction to the profession of counseling (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

O’Brien, E. R. (2008). From theory to practice: Transferring expressive techniques from supervision to counseling. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 2(3), 17–27. doi:10.1300/J456v02n03_03

O’Byrne, K., & Rosenberg, J. I. (1998). The practice of supervision: A sociocultural perspective. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 34–42. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1998.tb00555.x

Oliver, R., Moore, J., Schoen, J., & Scarmon, M. (1989). Trends in meaning and meaningful trends: A survey of counseling graduates (Report No. CG-022-583). Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota.

Rabinor, J. R. (2004). The therapists’ voice. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 12, 361–365. doi:10.1080/10640260490521479

Reisetter, M., Korcuska, J. S., Yexley, M., Bonds, D., Nikels, H., & McHenry, W. (2004). Counselor educators and qualitative research: Affirming a research identity. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 2–16. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01856.x

Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5–44. doi:10.1177/089484530303000102

Sheeley, V. L. (1986). Roots of greatness: Future directions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 25, 246–254. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1986.tb00673.x

Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1996). The evolving professional self: Stages and themes in therapist and counselor development. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Sommer, C. A, & Cox, J. A. (2003). Using Greek mythology as a metaphor to enhance supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 326–335. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01823.x

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. W. & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ter Maat, M. B., & Bowman R. (2001, October). The use of art in supervision. Program presented at the annual conference of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, Athens, GA.

Thompson, J. M. (2004). A readiness hierarchy theory of counselor-in-training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 135–142.

VanZandt, C. E. (1990). Professionalism: A matter of personal initiative. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 243–245. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1990.tb01367.x

Waliski, A. (2009). An introduction to expressive and creative techniques for counselors in training. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 4, 375–385. doi:10.1080/15401380903372711

Weiss, C. S. (1981). The development of professional role commitment among graduate students. Human Relations, 34, 13–31. doi:10.1177/001872678103400102

Wilkins, P. (1995). A creative therapies model for the group supervision of counsellors. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23, 245–257. doi:10.1080/03069889508253009

Wilkins, P. (1997). Personal and professional development for counsellors. London, England; Sage.

Woodside, M., Oberman, A. H., Cole, K. G., & Carruth, E. K. (2007). Learning to be a counselor: A prepracticum point of view. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47, 14–28. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00035.x

 

 

Michelle Kelley Shuler and Elizabeth A. Keller-Dupree, NCC, are Assistant Professors at Northeastern State University- Tahlequah. Correspondence can be addressed to Michelle Kelley Shuler, College of Education, Northeastern State University – Tahlequah, 705 N Grand Avenue, Tahlequah, OK 74464-2300, michelle.shuler@gmail.com.

 

Supervisor, Counselor-In-Training and Client Perspectives in Counseling: A Qualitative Exploration

Corrine R. Sackett, Gerard Lawson, Penny L. Burge

The authors examined multiple perspectives of meaningful in-session events through participant observation of counseling sessions as well as interviews with client and counselor. The results are anchored with the perspective of a supervisor, and highlight similarities and differences among the three perspectives of supervisor, counselor-in-training and client. Six themes emerged from the observer’s perspective: immediacy with several subthemes, nonverbals and intuition, rescuing, depth of congruence, insights, and goal setting. For each theme and subtheme deemed meaningful in counseling sessions by a supervisor, an event representing the respective theme or subtheme is presented from the three perspectives of supervisor, counselor-in-training and client. The authors discuss implications for counselor training and supervision.

Keywords: supervisor, counselor-in-training, client perspectives, immediacy, counselor training

 

Researchers in the counseling field have much to discover about the counseling process and how it works (Paulson, Everall, & Stuart, 2001; Sackett, Lawson, & Burge, 2012). Researchers who examine multiple perspectives (Elliott & James, 1989; Moon, Dillon, & Sprenkle, 1990; Sackett et al., 2012; Sells, Smith, & Moon, 1996), in-session subjective experience (Bennun, Hahlweg, Schindler, & Langlotz, 1986; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992), and comparisons of those experiences further our comprehension of the counseling process (Elliott & Shapiro, 1992; Sackett et al., 2012). The client and counselor have separate perspectives, each of which is important to recognize in order to gain a picture of what is meaningful in counseling (Blow et al., 2009). Further, the perspective of an observer offers a compelling extension for our understanding (Elliott & James, 1989), as an observer can identify subtleties in interactions between clients and counselors, as well as shed light on experiences that clients may be less willing to report and of which counselors may be unaware. Consequently, capturing multiple perspectives on the counseling process, including client, counselor and observer, enriches understanding. Each perspective is compelling and contributes something unique to understanding the counseling process (Elliott & James, 1989; Sells et al., 1996).

 

Research on Client, Counselor and Observer Perspectives on Counseling Sessions

 

There is a dearth of research exploring multiple perspectives on counseling sessions beyond those of client and counselor. Several researchers have examined clients’ and counselors’ experiences and perspectives in counseling (Lietaer, 1992; Lietaer & Neirinck, 1986; Llewelyn, 1988; Martin & Stelmaczonek, 1988; Sackett et al., 2012; Sells et al., 1996). For example, in a recent study, Sackett et al. (2012) found that clients and counselors-in-training (CITs) consider many of the same aspects meaningful in a counseling session, including the relationship, goals, insights, immediacy and emotions. Findings such as these are valuable for clinical supervision, because supervisors’ awareness of similarities and differences in clients’ and counselors’ perspectives can enhance supervisors’ training of CITs to effectively work with clients. Further, when CITs are counseling, the supervisor’s perspective becomes part of the picture as well, and contributes indirectly to the counseling process through the supervision process.

 

As Elliott and Shapiro (1992) have noted, few researchers have added a third lens by exploring the process through client, counselor and observer perspectives. This statement from more than 20 years ago is still accurate today. In the research that does exist (Blow et al., 2009; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992), discrepancies have been found when comparing client, counselor and observer perspectives. Thus, including all three perspectives creates a more complete picture of the process (Llewelyn, 1988). In two studies, researchers explored a single client system (either a couple or an individual client) from multiple perspectives, including an observer’s. Blow et al. (2009) examined experiences of key therapeutic moments from the perspectives of counselor, client (i.e., a couple) and observation team. Therapeutic mistakes, as labeled by the observation team, did not detract from the work in counseling, given the strong therapeutic alliance. Similarly, what the observation team initially considered to be missed opportunities, they later saw as movement in a direction that they could not anticipate, and that worked well for the couple. Elliott and Shapiro (1992) elicited client, counselor and observer accounts of significant in-session events for a single client system (i.e., one client) as well. Most often the three perspectives were in general agreement. Elliott and Shapiro (1992) saw the few discrepancies in perspectives as opportunities for further understanding of the events and ultimately the counseling process.

 

Considering that research including an observer’s account of the process is limited (Blow et al., 2009; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992), and that researchers who have included an observer’s perspective have not connected this perspective with that of a supervisor to explore implications for clinical supervision, we intend to fill this gap in the literature. Sackett et al. (2012) called for studies to examine meaningful, in-session events from the perspectives of the client(s), the counselor and an observer who has training and experience as a supervisor, in order to give counselor educators a more holistic understanding of the process and to inform supervision with CITs. This particular approach to examining multiple experiences of counseling has not been explored before. Therefore, we addressed the following research question: What are the similarities and differences in what is meaningful in counseling from the perspectives of a supervisor, CIT and client? We frame this inquiry in a constructivist lens, which Ponterotto (2005) describes as the perspective that there is no objective reality outside the person experiencing the reality. Consequently, it is critical to gain perspectives from all involved in the process.

 

Methods

 

We chose the qualitative methodology of phenomenology to answer this research question because it provides a way to describe the meaning of participant experiences in counseling (Hays & Wood, 2011). We answered the research question with an emphasis on the supervisor’s perspective, comparing it with the CIT and client perspectives in order to find similarities and differences. We accomplished this comparison through analysis of field notes from participant observation (Jorgensen, 1989) and of transcripts of in-depth interviews (Seidman, 2013). We utilized a single session unit and significance sampling in this study. The single session unit allows for an examination of in-session events and session impact (Elliott & James, 1989). It also allows participants to reflect on their most recent session, leading to better understanding of experiences than if participants were reflecting on an entire course of treatment (Mehr, Ladany, & Caskie, 2010). Significance sampling is the examination of events that have significant meaning to the participant, or therapeutic impact (Elliott & James, 1989). We designed this study to approach therapeutic impact with what is meaningful in session, as illustrated by Mahrer and Boulet’s (1999) statement, “The emphasis is on whatever touches you as something impressive happening here rather than relying on your theory, your knowledge, and your being on the lookout for particular kinds of traditional significant in-session changes” (p. 1484). For the purposes of this study, meaningful experiences are defined as experiences that are important, significant or moving to the participant as described by Mahrer and Boulet (1999). They may be cognitive, emotional, relational or behavioral in nature. Meaningful experiences were defined in each case by both the supervisor and participants.

 

Participants

Participants in this study included clients and CITs from a master’s counselor education training clinic at a satellite center for a large mid-Atlantic public university. CITs were completing their practicum experience in the clinic and working with actual clients for the first time. Clients were enrolled in a local community college at the time of the study. The resulting sample consisted of 24 participants, specifically 12 CITs and 12 clients, totaling 12 CIT–client dyads. Ages for CITs ranged from 22–29, with an average age of 23. CITs consisted of 10 White females, one Hispanic female and one White male. Client ages ranged from 18–40, with an average age of 25. Among client participants were eight White females and four White males. Each participant chose or was assigned a pseudonym, which appear in the findings section. We gave a $5 coffee shop gift card to each participant as a token of appreciation for participating in the study.

 

Data Collection

One supervisor (the first author) was utilized as the observer across all sessions for consistency, and her perspective as the supervisor was captured through participant observation. The first author observed the second counseling session of each client–CIT pair from a different room in the clinic via televisions linked to cameras in the counseling rooms. Based on recommendations from Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011), the first author took brief notes, which included key words or phrases of significant happenings, both verbal and nonverbal, during the observations of the sessions. Later that day or the next, the first author used these brief notes to aid in writing a field note for each observation. The observation, brief notes and subsequent field notes focused on meaningful events in the counseling session.

 

We conducted semistructured interviews with clients and CITs following their second counseling session. Interviews ranged from 10–45 minutes in length and were audio recorded and transcribed. Interview questions were open-ended and focused on what participants had found most meaningful in that particular counseling session. The client protocol contained a few additional questions that were not asked of the CIT and related to the client’s goals and expectations for counseling. Examples of interview questions for both clients and CITs included the following: What stood out for you in today’s session? Which of those things stood out the most for you?

 

Data Analysis

We analyzed the field notes from the participant observation through qualitative analytic coding described by Emerson et al. (2011). This process began with open coding, reading field notes line by line to identify ideas, themes or issues without limitation. Through the analytic process, we wrote memos as needed when insights arose that deserved further attention. Through the process of coding and writing memos, we identified themes that described a particular group of codes. We integrated initial themes and combined similar themes, and created subthemes when themes were related, but exhibited distinct differences. Focused coding followed theme development and consisted of re-reading field notes, allowing for elaboration of themes, further development of subthemes, and integration of interesting material that may have initially been overlooked. For the purpose of this study, we only used portions of CIT and client interview transcripts that corresponded to meaningful experiences as observed by the supervisor. Themes of meaningful experiences from the CIT and client perspectives can be found in Sackett, Lawson, and Burge (2012).

 

Credibility and Rigor

We used several methods in this study to establish credibility and demonstrate rigor as recommended by Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002). First, we utilized triangulation through the interview data of clients and CITs and field notes from observations. Obtaining data with two different methods provided an opportunity to describe the counseling process in a more complete way. After interviews were transcribed, we implemented member checks, which allowed each participant (clients and CITs) an opportunity to review his or her interview transcript and clarify or expand his or her perspective if needed. We kept an audit trail detailing the steps of the research process, which enhanced the deliberateness and completeness of the study. The audit trail is specific enough that a reader could retrace the researchers’ steps if he or she chose. Peer debriefing and a community of practice were utilized to ensure the ongoing practice of reflexivity by serving as forums for discussion of issues that arose throughout the process.

 

In qualitative research, all data passes through the researcher’s lens; therefore, our position as researchers was important to note. At the time of data collection, the first author and observer was a doctoral candidate in the same counselor education program as the master’s student participants. She had practiced for the past 3 years as a clinical supervisor of CITs, and is currently a faculty member in another counselor education program. The first author was purposeful in not having teaching or supervisory relationships with the cohort of CITs who participated in the study. The first author continually examined how she was positioned in the study and heavily utilized her community of practice for reflexivity work. Practicing reflexivity did not limit her perspective, but instead allowed for critical self-reflection of the ways she contributed to the research process. The second author is an associate professor in the counselor education program where the study was conducted, and the third author is a professor of educational research at the university where the study was conducted.

 

Results

 

Six themes emerged from participant observation by a supervisor of the counseling sessions, including the following: immediacy (with several subthemes), nonverbals and intuition, rescuing, depth of congruence, insights, and goal setting. With each theme and subtheme discussed below, an example from the supervisor’s field notes is provided. These examples are followed first by an account of how the CIT experienced the event, and then by an account of how the client experienced the event. In other words, for each theme deemed meaningful in the counseling session by a supervisor, an event representing that theme or subtheme is presented from three perspectives: supervisor, CIT and client. We chose to present only one example for each theme and subtheme from the supervisor field notes in order to illustrate each event from the three perspectives.

 

Immediacy

The supervisor identified many instances and facets of immediacy between the CITs and clients. Immediacy as a theme included the following three subthemes: processing the counseling process and relationship, here-and-now moments, and the CIT sharing his or her experience of client with client and the reverse.

 

     Processing the counseling process and relationship. Many CIT–client pairs engaged in conversations about the counseling relationship and about the counseling process in an attempt to define it, better understand it and gain insight into how the other participant was experiencing it. In other words, many dyads engaged in processing the process and the relationship. The example given to illustrate this subtheme is from Annie (CIT) and Heather’s (client) conversation about the counseling relationship, including the ways it differs from other types of relationships.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor wrote the following in her field notes: “The counselor asked the client, ‘How about our relationship?’ The client talked about the relationship feeling awkward. The counselor validated the client’s observation that counseling is a different kind of relationship. The counselor offered, ‘Is there anything I can do to make it [the relationship] more comfortable?’”

 

     CIT. Annie reflected that this conversation about the relationship with Heather was meaningful in their session. She spoke in her interview of initiating the discussion about the relationship with Heather and of asking Heather if she could do anything to make the relationship more comfortable.

 

     Client. Heather experienced this conversation about the relationship as meaningful as well, and said the following about Annie: “Her concern . . . with our relationship . . . seemed something that I would think about and that I would care about . . . , but she seemed to care about that relationship, too.” The supervisor, Annie and Heather all experienced this immediacy moment of the process and the relationship as meaningful, and experienced it in similar ways, emphasizing different parts given their positions.

 

     Here-and-now moments. There also were many here-and-now moments in the counseling sessions that were meaningful to the supervisor. Susan (CIT) and Carol’s (client) session contained a very meaningful here-and-now event that was initiated by the client, Carol.

 

     Supervisor. The observer recorded the following in her field notes: “The client confronted the counselor by stating, ‘You’re not as relaxed’ and saying that the counselor had ‘aggressive energy.’ So the client was being very immediate and authentic, and it didn’t feel to me that the counselor was authentic; instead, the counselor responded by smiling and nodding.”

 

     CIT. Susan spoke about this event as meaningful during her interview, although she described the occurrence as the result of her body language; specifically, the CIT perceived that she was sitting close to her client. Susan appreciated Carol’s honesty and directness.

 

     Client. From the client’s perspective, Carol found it meaningful that Susan wanted her to feel comfortable in the relationship, saying to let her know if she made her uncomfortable. Interestingly, Carol did not mention her initiation of the here-and-now event with Susan in her interview. Although the CIT and client found aspects of this occurrence meaningful as well, the supervisor’s experience of this event and strong reaction to it were unlike the experiences of the CIT and client.

 

     CIT sharing his or her experience of client with client and the reverse. Finally, there were a few immediacy events that involved the CIT sharing his or her experience of the client with the client, and the reverse. The supervisor found the following event from Sue (CIT) and Bridget’s (client) session meaningful. They were working on Sue’s fear of speaking up in class.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor reflected as follows in her field notes: “The client, Bridget, used role playing to give an example of an awkward moment. Sue, the CIT, reflected, ‘You have put yourself out there.’ Sue shared her experience of Bridget, saying, ‘I would like to provide my feedback,’ and went on to say that Bridget provided many things [positive contributions] in session and she wondered if others in the Bridget’s life were missing out on this side of her. There seemed to be a shift to the positive here.”

 

     CIT. The CIT, Sue, found this event meaningful in the session as well. She reported that she told her client, Bridget, that she really valued what Bridget said in session. Sue was hesitant about whether or not this disclosure was appropriate, as she was still learning about boundaries in counseling. Ultimately though, Sue found this to be a positive and meaningful experience in the session.

 

     Client. The client, Bridget, also found this occurrence meaningful, saying:

 

Well, something that was different that was really important and really meaningful to me was just the way that she shared herself with me much more than [in] the first session. . . . She also told me that the things I tell her, even though I think they might not be useful . . . can grow from my opinion and that she really likes to hear what I have to say.

 

Here again, the supervisor, CIT and client all found this immediacy occurrence meaningful, and in this case, their accounts of the event were compatible from their varied perspectives.

 

Nonverbals and Intuition

The supervisor found many moments meaningful that were nonverbal events or exchanges in session, or that were intuitive to the supervisor. These moments included silence and space in the counseling, shifts of energy, and other nonverbal occurrences that the supervisor noticed.

 

     Supervisor. During Alex (CIT) and Frank’s (client) session, the observer wrote, “I’m wondering if the counselor is uncomfortable in this session. The client seems dominant and as if he is educating the counselor.”

 

     CIT. The CIT (Alex) perceived the dynamic between herself and her client (Frank), as Frank wanting Alex to be directive with him, and reflected, “I feel like he’s kind of looking for someone to tell him what to do sometimes.” On the other hand, Alex also experienced the dynamic in the session as Frank fulfilling the counselor’s role, saying, “A lot of times I’ll go to like say something just to reflect something back and he’s there already. I’m like, ‘Oh, you steal my job.’ ” This comment from Alex was in line with the supervisor’s observation that Frank was dominant in the session. It seemed as though Alex saw Frank as both wanting her to be the expert and as jumping into the expert role himself.

 

     Client. In his interview, Frank evaluated Alex, concluding, “I was very impressed with my counselor today.” Frank confirmed in some ways the supervisor’s intuition here by making evaluative statements of Alex as a counselor, as though he was in a dominant role in relation to her.

 

Rescuing

The theme of rescuing included instances where the supervisor noticed either the client or CIT shifting the discussion away from something intimate or uncomfortable. Some examples included the CIT interrupting a silence rather than allowing the client to experience what he or she needed in that silence, or the CIT rescuing the client from an uncomfortable thought. In this example from Susie (CIT) and Wanda’s (client) session, the supervisor noticed Susie shifting the conversation away from a topic that seemed clearly important, intimate and likely uncomfortable for Wanda.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor recorded in her field notes, “The client said she was ‘always a nervous person, even when [she] was little.’ The counselor left this conversation abruptly and shifted to talking about the client’s present relationships.”

 

     CIT. Susie, the CIT, did not mention that particular occurrence, but did have the following to say about the session, “I felt like . . . I didn’t do a lot of validating. So, at times . . . I would kind of forget to be in that moment with her and validate painful feelings.” It may be that the example from the observer’s perspective was one of the times Susie forgot to be in the moment with her client and validate her feelings. However, this perceived missed opportunity, or shifting away from something intimate, led to a conversation about present relationships, which ultimately led to a major insight for Wanda that she was judging others in her relationships.

 

     Client. Wanda, the client, did not mention this occurrence either, as rescuing was unique to the supervisor’s perspective.

 

Depth of Congruence

Depth of congruence included instances when CITs understood as well as did not understand their clients’ experiences, and also included questions that CITs asked to further their understanding of their clients’ experiences. This theme also comprised CITs’ efforts to validate and reframe their clients’ experiences. Finally, the theme included instances of clients expressing that their CITs understood their experiences. This example of Penelope (CIT) and Cindy (client) illustrates the supervisor’s perspective of the CIT not understanding her client’s pain and missing the expression of pain and her own part in that pain.

 

     Supervisor. The observer wrote the following in her field notes:

 

The client began the session saying that she felt . . . badly after last week’s session, that she spent the week feeling very negative. The counselor responded with nodding and smiling, [which seemed] disrespectful and heartbreaking. The client continuously brought it up throughout the session, without the counselor addressing it.

 

     CIT. The CIT in this dyad, Penelope, experienced this event differently and felt she had addressed the client’s pain. Penelope spoke to the difficulty she experienced in hearing her client’s discomfort, which may have contributed to her in-session behavior. Penelope’s experience of this event is as follows:

 

She [the client] initially came in and she said that after last week’s session, she felt like crap. . . . I tried to talk with her about why she felt so bad about the last session, . . . [how] to make it a better process for her . . . to make her feel more comfortable. . . . It was hard not to . . . blame myself . . . but, I was glad that she did at least feel comfortable being honest with me and I think that it will be more productive in the next couple of sessions.

 

Penelope perceived her client’s honesty as evidence that they could have a more productive counseling relationship in the future.

 

     Client. Interestingly, Cindy, the client, experienced the CIT’s reaction to her pain as positive, in contrast to the supervisor’s perception. She said the following:Yeah, today was good. I think what helped is . . . before we even started I let her know how I felt last week, and she was great about it. She didn’t take offense to it. . . . She . . . thanked me for telling her.” The supervisor, CIT and client all experienced this occurrence as meaningful, yet each had her own distinctive view of what happened. While the supervisor saw the CIT as missing on joining with the client on her experience, or as lacking congruence, neither the CIT nor client experienced the situation this way.

 

Insights

Insights were present in many sessions and constituted meaningful occurrences in the supervisor’s perspective. Included in this theme were new realizations, ah-ha moments, and questions and experiences that led to insights. The supervisor described the following meaningful event, in which Wanda (client) came to a new realization in her session with Susie (CIT).

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor wrote the following in her field notes:

 

The client, Wanda, talked about feeling judged by her partner’s mother. Wanda came around to saying that her partner’s mother’s behavior might not be about her. Susie, the counselor, affirmed this idea and asked if Wanda felt judged in any other relationships besides her relationship with her partner’s mother. There was a long pause and Wanda finally said that she felt judged by her cousin. Wanda said at one point, “Maybe I’m judging her.”

 

     CIT. Susie, the CIT, found this event meaningful as well:The first moment when she [the client] said, . . . ‘Maybe it wasn’t them being judgmental, it’s me that is being judgmental towards others,’. . . I felt like that was a big moment for her. . . . I think that’s important for [the client] to realize.”

 

     Client. Wanda had the following to say when asked what she had learned about herself through counseling: “I . . . realized that maybe I judge people a little bit too, like I think they have maybe an ulterior motive sometimes, or that they’re being mean or judgmental, and when it’s really just them being themselves.” All three perspectives—the supervisor, CIT and client—found this event meaningful in session, and experienced the event in very similar ways.

 

Goal Setting

The final theme, goal setting, encompassed formulating and mutually setting goals and creating plans of action for clients. Clients seemed energetic in sessions during conversations about goal setting. The following example of goal setting in Kerry (CIT) and Ava’s (client) session, although important to the client, felt like avoidance of painful issues to the supervisor.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor wrote the following in her field notes:

 

They ended the session with suggestions about how the client could busy herself so that she is not lonely (such as focusing on her school work). The client stated that she wants to be an ER nurse, start a family and then ‘everything will be ok.’ This feels like avoidance and/or denial to me, and feels sad.

 

     CIT. Kerry, the CIT in this dyad, did not experience the goal setting as meaningful and did not mention the event in his interview.

 

     Client. The client, Ava, did find the goal setting meaningful, saying, “Schooling . . . is a huge goal that I need to focus on and to keep in mind, and I know schooling will overcome everything if I just focus.” Although the supervisor and client both found this event meaningful, it was for different reasons. The client gleaned hope from the goal setting, while the supervisor felt it was a temporary solution for a deeper issue.

 

Discussion and Implications

 

The findings from this study contribute to our understanding of the counseling process by providing an examination of the similarities and differences between meaningful happenings from three different perspectives—the client, the CIT and a supervisor. Operating from a constructivist paradigm (Ponterotto, 2005), we see multiple and equally valid realities in the findings. In answering the research question, beginning with themes from the supervisor’s perspective, we found that supervisors, CITs and clients were in general agreement about what was meaningful, as was in the case in Elliott and Shapiro’s (1992) study, with some differences in how they experienced the events given their position. Purposely approaching the findings through a supervisor’s lens allows us to clearly delineate implications for supervision.

 

First, many of the findings of this study regarding meaningful events in counseling have support in the literature from the client and counselor (or CIT) perspectives. Immediacy has been found meaningful in counseling from the client and CIT perspectives (Sackett et al., 2012). Goal setting as an important aspect of counseling also is supported in the literature. Sells et al. (1996) demonstrated that both clients and counselors find a focus on goals effective in counseling, and Sackett et al. (2012) found that both clients and CITs find goals meaningful in counseling. Not surprisingly, the literature shows that the counseling relationship is important to both clients and counselors or CITs (Sackett et al., 2012; Thomas, 2006). Further, Singer (2005) established that clients value feeling understood by their counselors, and Paulson et al. (2001) found that clients’ feeling connected with their counselors allows them to engage in the process. Several researchers also have found insight important from both client and counselor perspectives (Lietaer & Neirinck, 1986; Martin & Stelmaczonek, 1988; Sackett et al., 2012). The present study provides evidence that these aspects of counseling are meaningful to a supervisor as well.

 

In some cases, the supervisor, client and CIT not only found the same event meaningful, but also had similar experiences of the events. This was the case for the immediacy subtheme of processing the counseling process and the relationship. Hill and Knox (2009) suggested that when clients and counselors process their relationship, the relationship is enhanced, and clients transfer this relational learning to their other relationships. Relatedly, Bowman and Fine (2000) found that counselor transparency is helpful to clients in counseling. Further, Knight (2012) asserted that counselor transparency is critical to client openness in counseling and serves as a model for clients, and that this learning can be transferred to other relationships. Supervisors who observe CIT transparency can reinforce this skill and the benefits for CITs, as well as model this behavior themselves in their supervisory relationships. Osborn, Paez, and Carrabine (2007) recommended participating in reflective conversations in supervision, creating a collaborative relationship that assists CITs in becoming more aware of their own feelings.

 

Two examples of meaningful events in this study were consistent with Blow et al.’s (2009) finding that a “mistake” as seen by the supervisor did not hinder the process when the counseling relationship was solid, as was the case in the here-and-now subtheme of immediacy, and in the theme depth of congruence. These two examples also are consistent with the finding of Rhodes, Hill, Thompson, and Elliott (1994) in which a client experiencing discomfort in counseling was able to share concern with the CIT, and the CIT responded with understanding and the counseling relationship was strengthened. Similarly, in the case of rescuing, the current results are in line with Blow et al.’s (2009), in that a missed opportunity can lead to a direction that the observer does not anticipate, yet works well for the client.

 

Other differences in perspectives exist in the findings and give us fodder for discussion of supervision. In the example given for the goal-setting theme, the supervisor and the client both found goal setting meaningful, though for different reasons. In supervision with this CIT, the supervisor might have encouraged him to focus less on the client’s seemingly idealistic goals and more on the client’s loneliness, unaware that the focus on the goals was so meaningful to the client. In the case of nonverbals and intuition, the supervisor picked up on a dynamic, or a force producing change, between the client and CIT that she could see since she was not directly involved in the dynamic. In the example given for rescuing, the supervisor was the only one who experienced the abrupt shift away from an intimate topic as meaningful. The rescuing in this example actually led, albeit abruptly, to a conversation that ultimately led to a major insight for the client. This finding supports the discovery of Elliott and Shapiro (1992) that a discrepancy in perspectives eventually can lead to a significantly helpful event for the client. In supervision, the first author might have drawn the CIT’s attention to the rescuing, as well as pointed out that the direction taken led to a realization for the client. Examining meaningful events from multiple perspectives allows for identifying discrepancies and how they might be manifested in supervision with CITs.

 

These findings indicate many recommendations for supervisors. Supervisors can encourage CITs to elicit client experiences throughout the counseling process, as other researchers have recommended (Sackett et al., 2012; Singer, 2005), including directly talking about the alliance as suggested by Hill and Knox (2009). In moments of immediacy, the supervisor can view these intimate interactions from a distance and offer valuable feedback to the supervisee. However, the supervisor is not in the room for these moments of immediacy, and therefore may experience the feeling differently than the CIT and client. Even in these instances, the supervisor can engage in productive conversations with the CIT about the differences in perspectives, facilitating awareness and growth for the supervisee. In addition, modeling conversations about the process and relationship ideally can occur within the context of the supervisory relationship, which also has been suggested by Hill and Knox (2009), as well as Osborn et al. (2007). Clearly, the counseling relationship is paramount, and the supervisor is not part of that relationship. Therefore, what the supervisor sees as a therapeutic mistake might in fact be experienced differently in the counseling room because of the relationship between the client and CIT. Consequently, the significance of the counseling relationship must be continually stressed to supervisees, and the supervisory relationship should be treated with as much care.

 

The findings point to meaningful experiences that may be unique to a supervisor’s perspective, such as those related to nonverbals and intuition, which are often outside the awareness of the CIT and client in the relationship; and rescuing, which may be beyond the developmental level of the CIT and not an aspect with which clients would be in tune. Supervisors can challenge CITs by informing them of moments when they rescue clients. Rescuing is an aspect of counseling that must be seen by the supervisor (live or via video), as CITs likely will be unaware of doing this and therefore not report it. Similarly, supervisors can offer CITs another perspective on what may be happening in the counseling session and in the counseling relationship that the CIT is unable to see, such as nonverbals and intuitive observations. The use of live supervision and video recordings can reinforce how powerful these meaningful experiences are in counseling sessions. For instance, in the case of Sue and Bridget, the supervisor noticed a clear, positive shift in the session following the CIT’s disclosure of how she experienced her client, and although the CIT experienced this event as meaningful, she may not have noticed an overall positive shift in the session or attributed the shift to her disclosure.

 

It is important for supervisors to remember that although they bring expertise to the table, they can only see through their own lens, and therefore should be aware of their predispositions. The use of live supervision and video recording is important in adding the supervisor’s perspective to supplement the CIT’s account of the session. Interpersonal process recall (Kagan, 1980) can be used to enhance supervisee self-awareness (Getz, 1999) by pausing at vital moments while viewing a video recording and checking in with the supervisee about his or her feelings and thoughts from that moment in the counseling session. The supervisor’s perspective can be added to this process as well. The reflective model of supervision (Stinchfield, Hill, & Kleist, 2007) also can be effective in facilitating supervisee self-awareness and growth. This technique involves the supervisor and a peer supervisee observing the presenting supervisee’s work and then discussing feedback for the presenting supervisee with each other while he or she only listens and reflects internally. These supervision techniques can include the multiple perspectives of the supervisor, supervisee and peer supervisee(s). However, it is important to remember, as indicated in the findings of this study, that the clients’ experience can only be accurately known by eliciting it.

 

In summary, we found general agreement among a supervisor, CITs and clients about what was meaningful in the counseling events examined in this study. We did find some differences in how they experienced the events given their roles. We purposely approached the findings through a supervisor’s lens, which allowed us to discuss implications for supervision.

 

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

 

There are limitations to this study that are important to mention. We chose examples for each theme to illustrate a meaningful event as seen by the observer, and described them from each of the three perspectives of the supervisor, client and CIT. As such, the similarities and differences among the three perspectives on the chosen events cannot be generalized to the other meaningful events within those same themes. Also, the study was conducted in one particular clinic, which is associated with a counselor education program that has its own training and style preferences that may not be representative of other counselor education programs and their supervisors.

 

Future research concerning multiple perspectives on meaningful events in counseling sessions can further our understanding of the counseling process. It would be useful to replicate this study across a variety of settings and populations. Finally, using a quantitative or mixed-methods research methodology to examine multiple perspectives on the process would likely provide new, helpful information for supervisors.

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

 

References

 

Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028

Bennun, I., Hahlweg, K., Schindler, L., & Langlotz, M. (1986). Therapist’s and client’s perceptions in behaviour therapy: The development and cross-cultural analysis of an assessment instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 25, 275–283. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1986.tb00707.x

Blow, A. J., Morrison, N. C., Tamaren, K., Wright, K., Schaafsma, M., & Nadaud, A. (2009). Change processes in couple therapy: An intensive case analysis of one couple using a common factors lens. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 350–368. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00122.x

Bowman, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Client perceptions of couples therapy: Helpful and unhelpful aspects. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 295–310. doi:10.1080/019261800437874

Elliott, R., & James, E. (1989). Varieties of client experience in psychotherapy: An analysis of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 443–467. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(89)90003-2

Elliott, R., & Shapiro, D. A. (1992). Client and therapist analysts of significant events. In S. G. Toukmanian & D. L. Rennie (Eds.), Psychotherapy process research: Paradigmatic and narrative approaches (pp. 163–186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Getz, H. G. (1999). Assessment of clinical supervisor competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 491–497. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02477.x

Hays, D. G., & Wood, C. (2011). Infusing qualitative traditions in counseling research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 288–295. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00091.x

Hill, C. E., & Knox, S. (2009). Processing the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 13–29. doi:10.1080/10503300802621206

Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human sciences. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Series Eds.), Applied Social Research Methods Series: Vol. 15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction—Eighteen years with IPR. In A. K. Hess (Ed.) Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp.262–286). New York, NY: Wiley.

Knight, C. (2012). Therapeutic use of self: Theoretical and evidence-based considerations for clinical practice and supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 31, 1–24. doi:10.1080/07325223.2012.676370

Lietaer, G. (1992). Helping and hindering processes in client-centered/experiential psychotherapy: A content analysis of client and therapist postsession perceptions. In S. G. Toukmanian & D. L. Rennie (Eds.), Psychotherapy process research: Paradigmatic and narrative approaches (pp.134–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lietaer, G., & Neirinck, M. (1986). Client and therapist perceptions of helping processes in client-centered/experiential psychotherapy. Person-Centered Review, 1, 436–455.

Llewelyn, S. P. (1988). Psychological therapy as viewed by clients and therapists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 223–237. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00779.x

Mahrer, A. R., & Boulet, D. B. (1999). How to do discovery-oriented psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1481–1493. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199912)55:12<1481::AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-#

Martin, J., & Stelmaczonek, K. (1988). Participants’ identification and recall of important events in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 385–390. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.35.4.385

Mehr, K. E., Ladany, N., & Caskie, G. I. L. (2010). Trainee nondisclosure in supervision: What are they not telling you? Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10, 103–113. doi:10.1080/14733141003712301

Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 357–373. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1990.tb00056.x

Osborn, C. J., Paez, S. B., & Carrabine, C. L. (2007). Reflections on shared practices in a supervisory lineage. The Clinical Supervisor, 26, 119–139. doi:10.1300/J001v26n01_09

Paulson, B. L., Everall, R. D., & Stuart, J. (2001). Client perceptions of hindering experiences in counselling. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1, 53–61. doi:10.1080/14733140112331385258

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

Rhodes, R. H., Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Elliott, R. (1994). Client retrospective recall of resolved and unresolved misunderstanding events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 473–483. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.41.4.473

Sackett, C., Lawson, G., & Burge, P. L. (2012). Meaningful experiences in the counseling process. The Professional Counselor, 2, 208–225. doi:10.15241/css.2.3.208

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education & the social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., & Moon, S. (1996). An ethnographic study of client and therapist perceptions of therapy effectiveness in a university-based training clinic. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 321–342. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1996.tb00209.x

Singer, M. (2005). A twice-told tale: A phenomenological inquiry into clients’ perceptions of therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 269–281. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01568.x

Stinchfield, T. A., Hill, N. R., & Kleist, D. M. (2007). The reflective model of triadic supervision: Defining an emerging modality. Counselor Education & Supervision, 46, 172–183. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00023.x

Thomas, M. L. (2006). The contributing factors of change in a therapeutic process. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 201–210. doi:10.1007/s10591-006-9000-4

 

 

Corrine R. Sackett is an Assistant Professor at Clemson University. Gerard Lawson, NCC, is an Associate Professor at Virginia Tech. Penny L. Burge is a Professor at Virginia Tech. Correspondence can be addressed to Corrine R. Sackett, 307 Tillman Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, csacket@clemson.edu.

 

Development of Counseling Students’ Self-Efficacy During Preparation and Training

Patrick R. Mullen, Olivia Uwamahoro, Ashley J. Blount, Glenn W. Lambie

Counselor preparation is multifaceted and involves developing trainees’ clinical knowledge, skills and competence. Furthermore, counselor self-efficacy is a relevant developmental consideration in the counseling field. Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine the effects of a counselor preparation program on students’ development of counseling self-efficacy. The Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale was administered to 179 master’s-level counselors-in-training at three points in their counselor training and coursework, including new student orientation, clinical practicum orientation and final internship group supervision meeting. Findings indicated that students’ experience in their preparation program resulted in higher levels of self-efficacy.

 

Keywords: counselor preparation, counselor training, self-efficacy, development, internship

 

 

The practice of counselor training is a complex, intentional process of reflective educational and experiential activities to promote the development of knowledge and skills (Bernard & Goodyear, 2013; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2009; McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2011). As such, the primary goal of counselor preparation programs is to educate and train students to become competent counselors by equipping them with necessary skills, knowledge and experiences (American Counseling Association, 2014; Bernard & Goodyear, 2013; CACREP, 2009). Furthermore, students training to be counselors increase their self-awareness and reflective practice throughout their educational experience (Granello & Young, 2012; Lambie & Sias, 2009; Rønnestad, & Skovholt, 2003). Increased understanding regarding counseling trainee development may aid educators’ ability to develop and deliver educational and supervision interventions.

 

Self-efficacy represents an individual’s beliefs or judgments about his or her ability to accomplish a given goal or task (Bandura, 1995). Furthermore, self-efficacy is a recognized measure of development in the counseling field (Larson & Daniels, 1998), has a positive influence on work-related performance (Bandura, 1982; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), and consequently works as an outcome and developmental consideration for counselor training. In addition, there are assortments of published research examining counseling trainees’ self-efficacy (e.g., Barbee, Scherer & Combs, 2003; Cashwell & Dooley, 2001; Kozina, Grabovari, Stefano, & Drapeau, 2010; Melchert, Hays, Wiljanen, & Kolocek, 1996; Tang et al., 2004); however, limited research examines counseling trainees’ development of self-efficacy in a longitudinal fashion based upon their experiences from start (e.g., educational courses) to finish (e.g., initial clinical experiences) in counselor preparation programs. Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine counselor trainees’ self-efficacy as they progressed through the educational and experiential components of a counselor preparation program.

 

Counseling Students’ Self-Efficacy

 

Bandura (1995) described perceived self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (p. 2). Self-efficacy is considered an appropriate scientific lens for examining individuals’ beliefs regarding their ability to accomplish professional goals (Bandura, 1997) and is a common research topic in counseling literature (e.g., Larson & Daniels, 1998). Specifically, Bandura (1997) suggested that individuals’ ability to accomplish a task or goal not only necessitates skill and ability, but also the belief in oneself that provides the confidence and motivation to complete a task. Larson and Daniels (1998) stated that counseling self-efficacy is “one’s beliefs or judgments about her or his capabilities to effectively counsel a client in the near future” (p. 180). Self-efficacy is appropriate for the selection and training of counselors because of the construct’s stability and reliability (Beutler, Machado, & Neufeldt, 1994).

 

Self-efficacy is important in relation to counselor competence (Barnes, 2004; Larson & Daniels, 1998). Larson (1998) suggested that self-efficacy is a critical influence on one’s self-determining mechanisms and as a result is a critical variable in supervision. The importance of self-efficacy in the counseling field is documented by the development of measures of self-efficacy for various research constructs (e.g., Bodenhorn & Skaggs, 2005; Mullen, Lambie, & Conley, 2014; Sutton & Fall, 1995). Melchert and colleagues (1996) developed the Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) to examine counselors’ and counselor trainees’ level of confidence in knowledge and skills regarding counseling competencies. Melchert and colleagues (1996) found that counseling students’ (N = 138) scores on the CSES varied based on their experience in their preparation program, with second-year students reporting more confidence than students in their first year of training. Additionally, Melchert and colleagues (1996) found that counselors (N = 138) with more years of clinical experience also reported greater levels of self-efficacy.

 

Counselors’ training, initial clinical experiences and supervision relates to their self-efficacy beliefs. Hill et al., (2008) found that skills training impacted undergraduate students’ confidence regarding the use of helping skills. However, Hill and colleagues (2008) noted that as students faced more difficult skills, their confidence decreased, but eventually increased upon gaining experience using the skill. Barbee and associates (2003) found that trainees’ (N = 113) participation in service learning had a positive relationship with counselor self-efficacy. However, these researchers also found that total credits of coursework (i.e., time in the preparation program) and prior counseling-related work were stronger predictors of self-efficacy as compared to service learning.

 

Supporting the findings from Barbee and colleagues (2003), Tang and colleagues (2004) found that students with more coursework, internship experience and related work experience reported higher levels of competence regarding counseling skills. Regarding self-efficacy during clinical experiences, Kozina and colleagues (2010) found that the counseling self-efficacy of first year master’s-level counseling students increased during initial work with clients during clinical experience. Additionally, Cashwell and Dooley (2001) found that practicing counselors receiving supervision, compared to those not receiving supervision, reported higher levels of self-efficacy, indicating that supervision supports increased beliefs of counseling efficacy. However, no published studies were identified examining counseling students’ longitudinal change in self-efficacy as a result of their participation in a counselor preparation program from the start of the program through their clinical experiences.

 

Purpose of the Study

 

The development of trainees is a vital topic for counselor education. Counselor educators and supervisors need a comprehensive understanding of student development with the aim of assessing student learning outcomes and facilitating pedagogical and supervisory interventions that support development. Enhancing counseling students’ self-efficacy regarding clinical skills is an important developmental goal within preparation programs, with higher self-efficacy suggesting increased likelihood of efficient and effective counseling services (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, 1997; Larson & Daniels, 1998; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Research on counselor self-efficacy is common; however, no studies have investigated change in master’s-level counseling students’ self-efficacy over the course of their preparation program (i.e., longitudinal investigation). Therefore, we investigated the following research questions: (1) What is the relationship between counseling students’ demographic factors and self-efficacy at three key times during their preparation program? (2) Does counseling students’ self-efficacy change at three points during their graduate preparation program?

 

Method

 

Participants and Procedures

Participants included 179 master’s-level graduate students from a single CACREP entry-level counselor education program at a university in the Southeastern United States. Specifically, participants included several cohorts of entry-level counselor trainees who started the counselor training program during the spring 2008 through fall 2011 semesters and completed the program by the Summer 2013 semester. Institutional Review Board approval from the university was obtained prior to data collection and analysis. To protect the rights and confidentiality of the participants, all identifying information was removed and the data were aggregated.

 

The study was introduced to the participants during the counselor preparation program’s new student orientation (NSO; a mandatory information session prior to the start of trainees’ coursework). At this point, students were invited to be part of the study by completing a paper-and-pencil packet of instrumentation. Participants were invited to complete the second data collection point during a mandatory clinical practicum orientation (CPO) occurring prior to their initial clinical and supervision experience (approximately midpoint during the students’ program of study). The final data collection point was at the participants’ final internship group supervision meeting (FIGSM; end of students’ program of study).  A total accessible sample consisted of 224 students who fit the selection criteria for participate in this study. The selection criteria included the following: (a) started the program in the beginning of the spring 2008 semester and (b) graduated by the end of the fall 2011 semester. However, due to incomplete instrument packets, missing items (listwise deletion) or student attrition, 179 participants completed the instruments across all three data collection points, yielding a 79.91% response rate.

 

The participants included 151 females (84.4%) and 28 males (15.6%). Regarding age, 162 participants (90.5%) fell between the ages of 20 and 29, 13 participants (7.3%) were between the ages of 30 and 39, two participants (1.1%) fell between the ages of 40 and 49, and two participants (1.1%) were over 50 years of age. Participants’ ethnicities were as follows: 133 (74.3%) Caucasian, 36 (20.1%) African American, seven (3.9%) Hispanic American, one (0.6%) Asian American and 2 (1.1%) other ethnicity. Participants program tracks included mental health counseling (MHC; n = 78, 43.6%); marriage, couples and family counseling (MCFC; n = 46, 25.7%); and school counseling (SC; n = 55, 30.7%).

 

Counselor Preparation Program Experience

Students participating in this study were entry-level counseling trainees attending an academic unit with three CACREP-accredited master’s-level programs. The students were enrolled in one of the following three programs of study: (a) MHC; (b) MCFC; or (c) SC. Students’ early coursework in the counselor preparation program included core curriculum courses that focused on content knowledge and initial skill development required for advanced clinical courses. The course prerequisites for initial clinical practicum experience for all students included: (a) Introduction to the Counseling Profession, (b) Theories of Counseling and Personality, (c) Techniques of Counseling, (d) Group Procedures and Theories in Counseling, and (e) Ethical and Legal Issues. Additionally, students in the MHC and MCFC tracks were required to complete a Diagnosis and Treatment in Counseling course. Students in the MHC and MCFC tracks were required to complete 63 credit hours, while students in the SC track were required to complete 60 credits hours (if they did not have a teaching certificate) or 51 credit hours (if they had a valid teaching certificate). Courses were delivered by a diverse set of counselor educators who determined course content and style based on their individual pedagogical approaches.

 

Students participated in their clinical practicum course after their course prerequisites were met. SC students completed their internship after a single semester of clinical practicum (100 total clinical hours in practicum). Students in MHC and MCFC tracks completed their internship experience after two consecutive experiences in clinical practicum (200 total clinical hours in practicum). During their internship experience, SC students completed 600 clinical hours over one or two semesters and MHC and MCFC students completed 900 clinical hours over two semesters. Overall, students progressed through their course and clinical experiences over 2.5–3.5years, depending on their course load and time commitment preferences. Importantly, it was not required for all coursework to be completed prior to initial clinical experiences. Students completed non-prerequisite coursework at the time most accommodating to their schedule, but were required to complete all coursework by the time of graduation, with the FIGSM being one of the last class-based tasks in the program.

 

Measures

We utilized the CSES (Melchert et al., 1996) in this investigation to gather data on counseling trainees’ level of self-efficacy. In addition, a demographic questionnaire was used to collect data regarding participants’ biological gender, age, ethnicity and program track (i.e., MHC, MCFC or SC). The following section introduces and reviews the CSES.

 

Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale. The CSES is a 20-item self-report instrument that assesses counseling trainees’ competency regarding key counseling tasks for group and individual counseling (Melchert et al., 1996). The CSES was developed based upon a review of the literature with the goal of identifying key types of counseling competencies for counselors. The CSES uses 5-point Likert scale responses that indicate an individual’s level of confidence in his or her counseling ability, including “Never,” “Rarely,” “Sometimes,” “Frequently” or “Almost Always” answer options. Half of the items are worded in a negative fashion to avoid acquiescent response bias, requiring reverse coding. The total score of the CSES ranges from 20–100 and is calculated by adding the responses to all 20 items with consideration given to the reverse coded items. Some sample items from the CSES include the following: (a) I am not able to accurately identify client affect, (b) I can effectively facilitate appropriate goal development with clients, and (c) I can function effectively as a group leader/facilitator.

 

Melchert and colleagues (1996) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 and a test-retest reliability (r = .85; p-value not reported) in their initial psychometric testing of the CSES with counseling psychologist students and licensed professional psychologists. In addition, Melchert and colleagues (1996) tested for convergent validity and reported an acceptable correlation (r = .83; p-value not reported) between the CSES and the Self-Efficacy Inventory (Friedlander & Snyder, 1983). Constantine (2001) found that the CSES had an acceptable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 with counseling supervisees. Additionally, Pasquariello (2013) found that Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .85–.93 with doctoral psychology students. For the current study, the internal consistency reliability for the CSES was acceptable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .96 (Sink & Stroh, 2006; Streiner, 2003).

 

Data Analysis

A longitudinal study design was employed for this investigation. After completion of the data collection process, participants’ responses were analyzed using descriptive data analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), repeated measures ANOVA, paired-samples t-test and mixed between/within-subjects ANOVA. Prior to analysis, the data were screened for outliers using the outlier labeling method (Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1987; Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986), which resulted in identifying 11 cases with outliers. Therefore, Windsorized means were calculated based on adjacent data points to replace the outliers (Barnett & Lewis, 1994; Osborne & Overbay, 2004). The resulting data were checked for statistical assumptions and no violations were found. A sample size of 179 graduate counseling students was deemed appropriate for identifying a medium effect size (power = .80) at the .01 level for the employed data analysis procedures (Cohen, 1992).

 

Results

 

Counseling Trainees’ Self-Efficacy

Several one-way between-groups ANOVAs were conducted to examine the impact of each trainee’s age, gender, ethnicity and program track (i.e., SC, MHC or MCFC) on his or her level of self-efficacy at each of the three data collection points. There was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ age at the NSO data collection point (F[3, 178] = 1.35, p = .26), at the CPO data collection point (F[3, 178] = .39, p = .76) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[3, 178] = .71, p = .55). Similarly, there was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ gender at the NSO data collection point (F[1, 178] = .48, p = .49), at the CPO data collection point (F[1, 178] = .02, p = .88) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[1, 178] = .001, p = .97). There was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ ethnicity at the NSO data collection point (F[4, 178] = 1.03, p = .39), at the CPO data collection point (F[4, 178] = .82, p = .51) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[4, 178] = .03, p = .97). Finally, there was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ program track at the NSO data collection point (F[2, 178] = .03, p = .97), at the CPO data collection point (F[2, 178] = .40, p = .67) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[2, 178] = .04, p = .96).

 

Counseling Trainees’ Self-Efficacy Over the Course of the Program

A one-way within-subjects repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine participants’ (N = 179) CSES scores at the three data points (i.e., NSO, CPO, FIGSM). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. Mauchley’s Test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, χ2(2) = .53, p < .001; therefore, the within-subjects effects were analyzed using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction (Greenhouse & Geisser, 1959). There was a statistically significant effect of time, F(1.3, 242.79)= 404.52, p < .001, Partial η2 = .69 on participants’ CSES scores. Sixty-nine percent of the variance in CSES scores can be accounted for by the time participants spent in the program (large effect size; Sink & Stroh, 2006; Streiner, 2003). Therefore, trainees scored higher on the CSES at each interval during their counselor preparation program.

 

Table 1

 

Descriptive Statistics for Self-Efficacy Across Data Collection Points

Data Collection Point

M

   SD

    Mdn

  Mode

Range

New student orientation

57.09

14.42

59

58

23–84 (61)

Clinical practicum orientation

77.43

8.53

78

79

53–99 (46)

Final internship group supervision meeting

83.04

6.80

84

76

66–95 (33)

Note. N = 179.

 

 

Several paired-samples t-tests were employed to evaluate the impact of time in the program on trainees’ self-efficacy. There was a statistically significant increase in trainees’ CSES scores from NSO to CPO, t (178) = 18.41, p < .001; η2 = .65. The mean increase in CSES scores between NSO and CPO was 20.33, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 18.15–22.51. There was a statistically significant increase in trainees’ CSES scores from NSO to FIGSM, t (178) = 23.19, p < .001; η2 = .75. The mean increase in CSES scores between NSO and FIGSM was 25.94, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 23.74–28.15. There was a statistically significant increase in trainees’ CSES scores from CPO to FIGSM, t (178) = 10.37, p < .001; η2 = .38. The mean increase in CSES scores between CPO and FIGSM was 5.61, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 4.54–6.68. Overall, these results provide additional support indicating that trainees’ CSES scores had a statistically significant increase from the start of the program (NSO) to the end of the program (FIGSM). In addition, the span from the start of the program (NSO) to their initial clinical experience (CPO; i.e., completion of the core curriculum required for clinical work) had the largest increase in scores amongst consecutive time ranges (i.e., NSO to CPO and CPO to FIGSM).

 

A mixed between/within-subjects (split plot) ANOVA was conducted to assess the interaction effect of trainees’ degree track (i.e., SC; MHC; and MCFC) on their CSES scores across the three data points (i.e., NSO, CPO, FIGSM). Mauchley’s Test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, χ2(2) = .53, p < .001; therefore, the effects were analyzed using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction (Greenhouse & Geisser, 1959). There was no significant interaction between trainees’ degree track and the data collection points, F(2.72, 239.58)= .12, p = .94; indicating that trainees’ track did not have an effect on their CSES scores across the data collection points, despite the differences in their program requirements.

 

Discussion

 

We examined the relationship between entry-level counseling trainees’ demographic characteristics and their reported self-efficacy at three key points during their graduate preparation program. The findings from this investigation indicated no relationship between participants’ age, gender, ethnicity or program track and their reported self-efficacy at any point in the program. These results are similar to Tang and colleagues’ (2004) findings, which identified no relationship between counseling trainees’ self-efficacy and their age. However, Tang and colleagues (2004) did find that total coursework and internship hours completed had a statistically significant impact on trainees’ counseling self-efficacy.

 

The current investigation is unique in that it longitudinally studied master’s-level counseling trainees’ self-efficacy at developmental points from the beginning to the end of their preparation program, while other studies have examined the construct of counseling self-efficacy through a cross-sectional framework or focused on clinical experiences (e.g., Barbee at al., 2003; Cashwell & Dooley, 2001; Kozina et al., 2010; Melchert et al., 1996; Tang et al., 2004). The results of this investigation identified differences in trainees’ self-efficacy at the three collection points (large effect size), indicating that trainees had an increase in self-efficacy as a result of their participation in the program. Additionally, the results identified mean differences in trainees’ self-efficacy as a result of time in the program from NSO to CPO and CPO to FIGSM. These findings are logical given the theoretical framework of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986); however, these findings are important and relevant as they provide innovative empirical evidence for Bandura’s (1986) theory of self-efficacy.

 

Trainees’ self-efficacy increased the most between NSO and CPO, indicating that completing initial prerequisite content coursework had a larger impact on trainees’ development of efficacy compared to their time spent on initial clinical experience. This finding is important, considering that prior research has shown that initial clinical work increases self-efficacy (Kozina et al., 2010), whereas the findings in this investigation indicate that the majority of efficacy is developed prior to initial clinical experiences. The present results are consistent with those of Tang and colleagues (2004), who found that trainees with more completed coursework and more completed internship hours reported higher levels of self-efficacy. The findings of the current study builds upon Tang and colleagues’ (2004) findings, identifying the specific time within a counseling preparation program (i.e., initial coursework versus clinical experience) when the most growth in efficacy belief occurs.

 

The findings from the present investigation support models of education and supervision that utilize a social cognitive framework (e.g., Larson, 1998). Counselor self-efficacy represents a practitioner’s judgment about his or her ability to effectively counsel a client (Larson et al., 1992). Therefore, knowledge regarding counseling trainees’ development of self-efficacy during their preparation program prior to their clinical experiences affords supervisor practitioners and researchers insight into student development. Much of the existing literature focuses on trainees’ initial clinical experiences, neglecting the large impact that early coursework has on the development of self-efficacy.

 

Implications for Counselor Education and Supervision

We offer several implications for clinical supervisors based on the results from this investigation. First, our findings demonstrate that master’s-level counseling trainees’ self-efficacy increases as a result of their experiences in their preparation program, providing further evidence for Bandura’s (1986) theory of self-efficacy. Counselor educators are expected to monitor trainees’ progress and development throughout their training (Bernard & Goodyear, 2013), and self-efficacy is an established measure of development (Larson & Daniels, 1998); therefore, it serves as an appropriate outcome consideration for counselor preparation programs. Counselor educators can make use of available self-efficacy measures that focus on competency (e.g., CSES; Melchert et al., 1996) and evaluate trainees at milestones in their program as a measure of student learning outcomes. It is logical that trainees entering counselor preparation programs need high levels of instruction, modeling and guidance due to their inexperience in the discipline. Opportunities for modeling counseling skills across topic areas, along with occasions for practicing skills, provide chances for trainees to build mastery experiences early in their program. As noted by Kozina and colleagues (2010), giving feedback on the discrepancy between trainees’ skill competency and perceived efficacy may promote reflection and development at key times throughout their training program (Daniels & Larson, 2001; Hoffman, Hill, Holmes, & Freitas, 2005).

 

In addition, our findings identified the importance of trainees’ counselor preparation coursework. Specifically, increased student course requirements to meet accreditation standards (e.g., Bobby, 2013; CACREP, 2009; Hagedorn, Culbreth, & Cashwell, 2012) are likely to improve trainees’ self-efficacy (Tang et al., 2004). Prior research indicates that increased coursework as a result of higher accreditation standards has an effect on counselor knowledge (Adams, 2006). Our findings build on existing literature by indicating that coursework has an impact on trainees’ self-efficacy prior to their initial clinical experiences. Counselor educators should be strategic and identify prerequisite courses to enhance students’ self-efficacy on vital topics (e.g., counseling skills, group counseling, diagnosis and treatment courses) prior to students’ initial work with clients.

 

An additional implication relates to trainees’ level of self-efficacy as they enter initial clinical experiences. Participants in this study entered practicum with high levels of self-efficacy regarding clinical competence; and furthermore, participants had low to moderate increases in self-efficacy between practicum and the end of their internship. As such, our findings challenge the notion that growth in self-efficacy occurs during the clinical work phase of preparation (e.g., Kozina et al., 2010), because the majority of growth in self-efficacy for this study’s participants occurred prior to initial clinical experiences. On the other hand, participants’ reports of self-efficacy due to coursework may have been inflated, given that they had yet to complete their clinical work. Therefore, counselor educators should examine supervisees during their initial clinical work to assess their perceived efficacy and actual competence.

 

Limitations

As with all research, the present study has limitations. First, this study took place at a single counseling preparation program whose individual systemic factors may have influenced the participants’ experiences. Therefore, future studies should replicate the current investigation to confirm these findings. Second, this study utilized a single instrument that we identified based upon the research objectives for the study; however, more recently developed or validated instruments or a collection of instruments measuring the same construct may produce results that have different findings or implications. Additional limitations include the following: (a) potential unknown/unseen extraneous variables, (b) practice effects of participants retaking the same instruments three times, (c) participant attrition (i.e., 79.91% response rate), (d) cross-generational differences and (e) test fatigue (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Nevertheless, longitudinal research is considered a complex and comprehensive method of examining individual participants’ change over time (Gall et al., 2007), offering a contribution to the counselor education and supervision literature.

 

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research might expand this study to examine changes in postgraduate practitioners’ self-efficacy over an extended period of time (longitudinal study). Additionally, future researchers may examine: (a) the impact of self-efficacy on clinical outcomes, (b) the impact of clinical supervision on trainees’ self-efficacy and (c) the impact of initial clinical experiences (e.g., practicum) on trainees’ self-efficacy. Furthermore, researchers may examine other factors associated with counselor development (e.g., emotional intelligence, application of knowledge and theory, cognitive complexity). Researchers may examine the impact of specific pedagogical interventions on counseling trainees’ self-efficacy. Lastly, the findings from this study should be replicated in other institutes that train counseling professionals.

 

Counselor educators and supervisors promote counseling trainees’ professional competencies, enhancing their ability to provide effective counseling services to diverse clients. Research on counseling trainees’ development is imperative for understanding and attending to their counseling students’ educational and supervisory needs. The findings from this study indicate that counseling trainees experience an increase in their self-efficacy during their preparation programs.

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

 

References

 

Adams, S. A. (2006). Does CACREP accreditation make a difference? A look at NCE results and answers. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory, & Research, 34, 60–76.

American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Barbee, P. W., Scherer, D., & Combs, D. C. (2003). Prepracticum service-learning: Examining the relationship with counselor self-efficacy and anxiety. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 108–119. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01835.x

Barnes, K. L. (2004). Applying self-efficacy theory to counselor training and supervision: A comparison of two approaches. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 56–69. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01860.x

Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data (3rd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2013). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Beutler, L. E., Machado, P. P. P., & Neufeldt, S. A. (1994). Therapist variables. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 229–269). New York, NY: Wiley.

Bobby, C. L. (2013). The evolution of specialties in the CACREP standards: CACREP’s role in unifying the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 35–43. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00068.x

Bodenhorn, N., & Skaggs, G. (2005). Development of the school counselor self-efficacy scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 14–28.

Cashwell, T. H., & Dooley, K. (2001). The impact of supervision on counselor self-efficacy. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 39–47. doi:10.1300/J001v20n01_03

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Constantine, M. G. (2001). The relationship between general counseling self-efficacy and self-perceived multicultural counseling competence in supervisees. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 81–90. doi:10.1300/J001v20n02_07

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/2009standards.html

Daniels, J. A., & Larson, L. M. (2001). The impact of performance feedback on counseling self-efficacy and counselor anxiety. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 120–130. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2001.tb01276.x

Friedlander, M. L., & Snyder, J. (1983). Trainees’ expectations for the supervisory process: Testing a developmental model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22, 342–348. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1983.tb01771.x

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Granello, D. H., & Young, M. E. (2012). Counseling today: Foundations of professional identity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.

Hagedorn, W. B., Culbreth, J. R., & Cashwell, C. S. (2012). Addiction counseling accreditation: CACREP’s role in solidifying the counseling profession. The Professional Counselor, 2, 124–133. doi:10.15241/wbh.2.2.124

Hill, C. E., Roffman, M., Stahl, J., Friedman, S., Hummel, A., & Wallace, C. (2008). Helping skills training for undergraduates: Outcomes and prediction of outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 359–370. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.359

Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1147–1149. doi:10.1080/01621459.1987.10478551

Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 991–999. doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363

Hoffman, M. A., Hill, C. E., Holmes, S. E., & Freitas, G. F. (2005). Supervisor perspective on the process and outcome of giving easy, difficult, or no feedback to supervisees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 3–13. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.3

Kozina, K., Grabovari, N., De Stefano, J., & Drapeau, M. (2010). Measuring changes in counselor self-efficacy: Further validation and implications for training and supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 117–127. doi:10.1080/07325223.2010.517483

Lambie, G. W., & Sias, S. M. (2009). An integrative psychological developmental model of supervision for professional school counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 349–356. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00116.x

Larson, L. M. (1998). The social cognitive model of counselor training. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 219–273.

Larson, L. M., & Daniels, J. A. (1998). Review of the counseling self-efficacy literature. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 179–218. doi:10.1177/0011000098262001

Larson, L. M., Suzuki, L. A., Gillespie, K. N., Potenza, M. T., Bechtel, M. A., & Toulouse, A. L. (1992). Development and validation of the counseling self-estimate inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 105. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.1.105

McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of counselor preparation: Constructivist, developmental, and experiential approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Melchert, T. P., Hays, V. L., Wiljanen, L. M., & Kolocek, A. K. (1996). Testing models of counselor development with a measure of counseling self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 640–644. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb02304.x

Mullen, P. R., Lambie, G. W., & Conley, A. H. (2014). Development of the ethical and legal issues in counseling self-efficacy scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 62–78. doi:10.1177/0748175613513807

Osborne, J. W., & Overbay, A. (2004). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(6). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=6

Pasquariello, C. D. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy in the utilization of physical activity counseling: An online constructivist approach with psychologists-in-training. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5–44. doi:10.1177/089484530303000102

Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2006). Practical significance: The use of effect sizes in school counseling research. Professional School Counseling, 9, 401–411.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240261. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

Sutton, J. M., Jr., & Fall, M. (1995). The relationship of school climate factors to counselor self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 331–336. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01759.x

Tang, M., Addison, K. D., LaSure-Bryant, D., Norman, R., O’Connell, W., & Stewart-Sicking, J. A. (2004). Factors that influence self-efficacy of counseling students: An exploratory study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 70–80. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01861.x

 

 

Patrick R. Mullen, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at East Carolina University. Olivia Uwamahoro, NCC, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Central Florida. Ashley J. Blount, NCC, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Central Florida. Glenn W. Lambie, NCC, is a Professor at the University of Central Florida. Correspondence can be addressed to Patrick R. Mullen, 225A Ragsdale Bldg., Mail Stop 121, Greenville, NC 27858, mullenp14@ecu.edu.