Группа авторов

Critical Incidents in Counselor Education


Скачать книгу

to engage in a shared learning experience.

      Professor O primarily adhered to a humanistic (C. R. Rogers, 1969) and experiential (Kolb, 1984) teaching philosophy. He tried to facilitate warm, empathic, genuine, and trusting relationships with students. He attempted to facilitate an open environment in which students felt comfortable sharing their perspectives and enjoyed inquiring about course topics within a learning community. Professor O viewed student learning as an active process that included both cognitive and affective components. He believed students learned best by doing, reflecting, and trying new approaches.

      One particular semester, Professor O taught the course Critical Issues in School Counseling. The course was an overview of current issues and concerns school counselors encounter. The content for the class session included environmental risk factors K–12 students face related to academics and overall well-being. Professor O started class by asking students to share some thoughts about the reading. He inquired about which risk factors surprised them most and how they believed school counselors could help prevent student distress related to them. Although he typically started class this way, the discussion during this class related more closely to concepts covered in the required reading.

      After about a minute of observing the glazed looks on students’ faces, Professor O realized most were unsure about how to answer the question because they could not recall specific risk factors in the reading. In an attempt to encourage participation, he half-jokingly reminded them “Participation is 15% of your grade—let’s make sure we all get our points today.” A few of the students laughed nervously while others continued to stare with blank faces. After a few more moments of silence, he asked, “Is any of this ringing a bell?” He still did not get a response. It became clear that students either had not completed the assigned readings ahead of time or did not comprehend the material well enough to share their perspectives.

      Professor O was confused because the discussion had been rather lively in previous class meetings. When it became clear nobody was going to volunteer, he asked students what was keeping them from sharing. After another moment of silence with no real response, Professor O blurted out, “Did anybody read?” He noticed guilty looks on students’ faces as some reluctantly shook their heads. He then asked, “So what’s going on? Why aren’t we reading?” Finally, a more vocal student jumped in and explained, “We just finished a big paper that was due yesterday for another class, and we have an exam in our class tomorrow. We have just been really busy this week.” Although the student was not speaking on behalf of everyone, there appeared to be somewhat of a consensus among the students.

      Professor O’s genuine internal reaction was to be a bit offended. He had spent time planning his class, and he felt disappointed that students were not invested in his class. Professor O was careful not to shame the students. Instead, he tried to empathize with them: “You are overwhelmed this week. Sometimes in graduate school things are piled on all at once and it is hard to get to everything. Reading can be hard when it’s not directly tied to a grade or assignment.” He spent some time talking about how reading ahead is imperative to having fruitful class discussions. Professor O eventually moved on to the content of the class. Students were engaged in the discussion throughout the rest of the class when prompted or when asked to work in small groups.

      There are some important considerations in this case. It could be helpful to consider students’ learning preferences. Some students may feel intimidated to speak up in front of the whole class, even if the class is small. Students may do better in pairs or small groups, where the focus is not solely on them. Although it might be nice to have a full class discussion, not all students are initially comfortable participating in this way. Another consideration is that some students learn better through experiences and discussions rather than reading. They may not get as much out of reading because there is nothing to apply it to in the moment. The relevance of topics at hand may become clearer once a discussion begins, an activity is done, or experiences are shared that can better contextualize the meaning of the concepts learned (Kolb, 2015). Finally, some students may not have actually completed the reading. Many professionals cannot honestly say that they have completed all assigned readings. Sometimes students simply do not want to do it, and so they do not. Other times they may feel overwhelmed; readings get cut from the to-do list in favor of something of higher priority. Sometimes students forget about the readings. Regardless, students are coming to class with no introduction to the topic, and they may be secretly hoping other students will contribute and save the class.

      Critical Analysis

      Regardless of which of the aforementioned issues applies, the reality is that the instructor is faced with a room full of students who are not prepared. Educators should question realistic expectations when it comes to classroom preparation. The ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014) states that counselor educators should be “skilled in applying . . . knowledge; and make students and supervisees aware of their responsibilities” as well as serve as role models for the profession (Standard F.7.a.). Instructors provide a syllabus that clearly outlines expectations for the course, but it can be tricky to address students when expectations are not being met. As counselors, students will be faced with clients or students who are not following recommendations or putting in work outside of session. It would not be appropriate for them to scold or punish their clients for not meeting expectations. However, counselor educators are ethically responsible for modeling counselor characteristics while still evaluating student progress and assessing for competency (ACA, 2014). Instructors who gently remind students about the importance of participating and explore their reasons for not doing the reading can model professionalism while holding students accountable and working toward a solution, just as they might with a reluctant or resistant client.

      It is also important to remember cultural considerations that may impact students’ preparation. Ng (2006)