TPC Journal V7, Issue 2 - FULL ISSUE

166 The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 2 (Moate, Cox, Brown, & West, in press). In both studies, three factors emerged from the data that bear great similarities to one another, despite each study being comprised of different participants and Q sort items. This may suggest that to some degree a commonality exists between CMHC students’ perceptions of what is helpful about teachers in both clinical and didactic courses. However, unlike the previous study that found a high level of agreement among the three factors about the helpfulness of counselor educators of didactic courses, the factors in this study demonstrated three distinct viewpoints about their preferences. This may suggest that it is more challenging for counselor educators in clinical courses to find a pedagogical middle ground that is mutually pleasing to each student-learner archetype. Thus, counselor educators may need to spend more time in clinical courses considering how they can accommodate the different learning perspectives present in their classroom. Limitations and Future Research This study used Q methodology to explore different shared viewpoints that exist among beginning-level counselors about their perceptions of helpful aspects of counselor educators teaching clinical courses in CMHC. Although we believe that student learning preferences are an important perspective for counselor educators to consider, we also recognize that this represents only one side of a coin. It would be helpful for future research to explore what counselor educators perceive as being important for CMHC students to learn in clinical courses to prepare them for the rigors of being professional counselors. This added perspective could elucidate important pedagogical items that were not accounted for in this study. Implications for Teaching Practice Because of the three distinctive teaching preferences among CMHC students in clinical courses, counselor educators may need to spend more time considering how they can accommodate diverse student learning needs when teaching clinical courses. An important first step may be for counselor educators to reflect on their teaching and learning bias by considering the following questions: (a) with which student-learner archetype did they most closely identify as a student; (b) which student-learner archetype’s teaching preferences most closely align with their style of teaching; and (c) to which student-learner archetype do they prefer to teach? Counselor educators who possess self-awareness of their teaching and learning biases in relation to the student-learner archetypes presented in this study may be better able to make pedagogical adjustments that are beneficial to students who are most unlike their preferences. For example, a counselor educator who identifies as having a pedagogical style that they believe aligns with the Factor 1 (application-oriented) preferences might consider ways to better engage Factor 2 and Factor 3 learners. This could entail structural considerations when designing the course and lesson planning for each class or being intentional about emphasizing or de-emphasizing certain personality characteristics during class. We also believe that counselor educators can use the findings of this study as a tool to conceptualize students with whom they work in clinical courses. Having such a conceptualization tool may help counselor educators modify their pedagogical approach when working with students individually in a classroom setting. Smaller class sizes and interactive environments in clinical courses provide counselor educators with greater opportunities to communicate directly with students. Consequently, counselor educators have greater potential in clinical courses to make adjustments based on the perceived needs of the individual students. For example, rather than working in the same way with all students (e.g., providing strength-based feedback), a counselor