DIGEST-Volume10.4-FULL

8 TPC Digest ounselor education doctoral students (CEDS) need guided learning experiences with feedback to help them successfully engage in future teaching roles. This is especially true for CEDS who want to become faculty members because teaching is a primary component of the faculty job. The existing and emerging literature in counselor education suggests that programs are using doctoral-level teaching preparation practices. We know that one way counselor education programs are preparing CEDS to teach is through the use of single, semester-long formal teaching courses, which are often located within a larger doctoral curriculum and serve as an instructional starting point prior to CEDS’ engagement in doctoral-level teaching fieldwork. We have labeled those singular teaching courses counselor education teaching instruction (CETI) courses, the content and processes of which address adult learning theories; pedagogies; the design, delivery, and evaluation of courses; and so forth. CETI courses vary in title and focus from program to program, but two things are clear. First, all CETI courses require some alignment to the profession’s accreditation standards for doctoral-level teaching preparation. Moreover, despite having common accreditation standards, which embody teaching-specific learning objectives, there is virtually no information on the construction, delivery, and evaluation of CETI courses in the literature. Second, little is known about the role and function of CETI courses in the larger scheme of doctoral-level teaching preparation. It is with the first point that we were concerned and sought to understand in the current study. We thought it notable that there is no data on how to design, deliver, and evaluate CETI courses, especially if programs wish to include them as part of their teaching preparation practices. Finally, and for us most importantly, we wanted to know how CEDS engaged in CETI courses experience them relative to instructors’ views. To answer these questions, we used Q methodology to reveal patterns among the viewpoints of eight CEDS and their instructor engaged in a single exemplar CETI course. Our results suggest three viewpoints on CETI course design, delivery, and evaluation, which we labeled as The Course Designer, The Future Educator, and The Empathic Instructor. The Course Designer viewpoints suggested the importance of providing CETI course attendees with the ability to design their own counseling courses, whereas The Future Educator viewpoint preferred the interactive aspects of the CETI course, including the helpfulness of teaching to peers and relating CETI course experiences to future faculty roles. The Empathic Instructor viewpoint favored the qualities of a CETI instructor, emphasizing their approachability and passion for teaching. Finally, consensus views supported the inclusion of syllabus design, discussions about pedagogy, and the importance of CETI courses for preparing students for teaching internships. Overall, our findings provide counselor educators with data-supported views on CETI course design, delivery, and evaluation. Specifically, CETI course instructors should include both expert and student perspectives to support CEDS’ learning and teaching preparation. Future research can identify, compare, and contrast CETI courses across programs and their role in the larger process of doctoral teaching preparation. Eric R. Baltrinic, PhD, LPCC-S, is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama. Eric G. Suddeath, PhD, LPC, is an assistant professor at Mississippi State University – Meridian. Correspondence can be addressed to Eric Baltrinic, Graves Hall, Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, erbaltrinic@ua.edu. Eric Baltrinic, Eric Suddeath A Q Methodology Study of a Doctoral Counselor Education Teaching Instruction Course | T i st C