TPC Journal-Vol 11-Issue-1

The Professional Counselor | Volume 11, Issue 1 11 counselor education practicum courses. In this way, any similarities from our findings to other sites is seen more as a matter of shared experiences rather than generalized findings (Stephenson, 1978). The low number of participants in the current study may be viewed as a limitation. However, similar to Baltrinic and Suddeath (2020), the instructors and student participants in the current study represented a purposeful sample of sole interest (Brown, 1980), revealing robust factors within a counselor education classroom (i.e., the unit of analysis). Nevertheless, future research could include larger numbers of participants across multiple practicum courses, which may increase the potential for revealing the existence of additional factors. Researchers are encouraged to test propositions by having supervisees complete Q-sorts with the current Q sample within and across other counseling subspeciality areas as well. Researchers can also use qualitative or case study methods to investigate supervisees’ views from practicum through the completion of internship. Conclusion In conclusion, practicum course instructors can incorporate the current findings into their supervision pedagogy. Using student-generated factors can help practicum course instructors guide supervisees to (a) develop skills grounded in a clear understanding of their roles and related approaches to learning, (b) select and incorporate supervisor feedback about the goals and tasks of supervision, and (c) identify areas of growth based on the alignment of supervisees’ and instructors’ role perspectives. Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure The authors reported no conflict of interest or funding contributions for the development of this manuscript. References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics . Baltrinic, E. R., & Suddeath E. G. (2020). A Q methodology study of a doctoral counselor education teaching instruction course. The Professional Counselor , 10 (4), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.15241/erb.10.4.472 Baltrinic, E. R., Waugh, J. A., & Brown, S. R. (2013). Faculty and student perspectives on what helps counselor education doctoral students towards program completion. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology , 36 (4), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2012.014 Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson. Borders, L. D. (2019). Science of learning: Evidence-based teaching in the clinical supervision classroom. Counselor Education and Supervision , 58 (1), 64–79. http://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12124 Borders, L. D., Glosoff, H. L., Welfare, L. E., Hays, D. G., DeKruyf, L., Fernando, D. M., & Page, B. (2014). Best practices in clinical supervision: Evolution of a counseling specialty. The Clinical Supervisor , 33 (1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2014.905225 Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist , 11 (1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000083111007 Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science . Yale University Press. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research , 6 (4), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408 Cook, R. M., McKibben, W. B., & Wind, S. A. (2018). Supervisee perception of power in clinical supervision: The Power Dynamics in Supervision Scale. Training and Education in Professional Psychology , 12 (3), 188– 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000201 Cook, R. M., & Sackett, C. R. (2018). Exploration of prelicensed counselors’ experiences prioritizing information for clinical supervision. Journal of Counseling & Development , 96 (4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12226