through a cultural lens. It is critical that instructors continue their professional development as it relates to the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (Ratts et al., 2016). Instructors should consider strategies to promote access for students of color. For instance, they can bring awareness to student research focused on social justice issues. Finally, instructors can demonstrate investment in students by checking in with them outside of class, which may create stronger relationships and increase student engagement in and outside of class.
Professor O considered the use of small-group experiences to promote in-class dialogue. This approach may also be culturally responsive for promoting dialogue among international students, who may not always feel comfortable engaging in classroom discussion because of cultural norms, language barriers, or concerns about not being able to accurately articulate their thoughts (Kwon, 2009). To circumvent some of these issues, instructors can create small groups, provide prompts to the students in advance, and provide feedback during group discussions to reinforce continued dialogue (Corse, 2011).
This case illustrates a common experience for instructors. When students do not follow through with expectations, the onus is on instructors to make changes to promote learning. Counselor educators are tasked with meeting students at their developmental levels while providing experiences that promote a professional counseling identity. All in all, Professor O’s adjustments modeled roles of counselor educators and expectations for counseling professionals without placing negative judgment on students.
• • •
Chapter 2
I Did My Part: Responding to Inequitable Group Project Contributions
Linwood G. Vereen, Clewiston D. Challenger, and Nicole R. Hill
2014 ACA Code of Ethics Standards Addressed
F.8.d. Addressing Personal Concerns
F.9.a. Evaluation of Students
• • •
Mary was a first-semester master’s student enrolled in a group counseling course taught by Professor Jack Madden. A single parent of a teenager, Mary had completed her undergraduate degree in the early 1990s and had been working full time as a case manager for an assisted living center for the past 10 years. The group course was designed to meet 2016 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) Standards (CACREP, 2016) regarding foundational group counseling skills and fundamentals in designing and developing curricula for psychoeducational groups. As part of the course, students were part of a learning triad in which they worked collaboratively to design a group. Professor Madden used this assignment to prepare the counseling students with skills needed to conceptualize group format and practice curriculum development. The assignment was clear: Each group was to create a curriculum focused on a theme of interest. Professor Madden emphasized that each group should have eight distinct sessions to educate members and allow space to process their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
During the first week of the semester, Professor Madden emphasized that “each group member is expected to work in full cooperation with the others and share the workload equitably on this assignment by doing their part.” Mary was grouped with Kyle and Jennifer, who were also first-semester master’s students; all group members immediately liked one another and were excited to work together. Understanding Mary’s situation, Professor Madden encouraged her to have an open discussion with her group members about workload distribution and the coordination of schedules. Mary, Kyle, and Jennifer met off campus to discuss their approach to the assignment. The group decided that Kyle and Jennifer would each develop three plans while Mary was responsible for completing two. Kyle and Jennifer said they wanted to respect Mary’s limited availability and her roles as a parent and full-time professional.
As the semester progressed, Mary, Kyle, and Jennifer developed rapport and seemed to work well together. Meeting weekly, each member communicated well and contributed their thoughts, ideas, and comments equally to the project. Initially it appeared as if the group’s chemistry was paying off as the project progressed smoothly. However, Mary began accepting overtime hours and was less available to attend group meetings in person because of her obligations. Mary requested that the group transition to virtual meetings; Kyle and Jennifer accommodated the virtual meetings so Mary could continue to be included.
After several weeks of virtual meetings, Mary expressed appreciation for how efficiently the group was working together but subsequently withdrew from the virtual meetings altogether, citing her overwhelming work and parental duties. Kyle and Jennifer continued meeting regularly to work on the assignment while trying to practice patience and understanding toward Mary. Both assumed Mary was responsible and would get her sections of the project done.
One week before the due date, Kyle and Jennifer had growing concerns about making the deadline even though both had completed their sections. Mary’s communication with the group had been minimal for a few weeks, and Kyle and Jennifer were left in the dark regarding the status of her assigned sections. Although the group members saw one another in Professor Madden’s class each week, Mary often appeared preoccupied and unable to talk with her groupmates, leaving class immediately after dismissal. Kyle and Jennifer tried unsuccessfully to contact Mary for updates.
Three days before the due date, Mary emailed her group to update them on her progress. Mary said that her work hours and daughter’s extracurricular school activities had hindered her ability to give her full attention to the project. She admitted that she had only completed one of the two sessions assigned to her. Mary expressed disappointment in her efforts and acknowledged Kyle and Jennifer’s disappointment. She requested that Kyle and Jennifer complete the plan.
Kyle and Jennifer privately expressed their frustration with Mary’s nonchalant approach. Concerned about their grades, they reluctantly agreed to complete the final group session, channeled their energy, and submitted the completed assignment on time. Nevertheless, Kyle and Jennifer felt uneasy; neither thought the workload was equitable or balanced. Kyle suggested they make Professor Madden aware of the group dynamics and workload distribution. He felt this information would inform how Professor Madden graded their assignment. After all, Professor Madden had been clear about his expectations that group members contribute equitably and collaboratively. Jennifer did not wish to rock the boat and pleaded with Kyle to reconsider mentioning this to Professor Madden and to be more understanding of Mary’s situation.
A few days after the project was submitted, Mary reached out to Kyle and Jennifer to express her gratitude for their flexibility and understanding. Rather than taking responsibility for her shortcomings, Mary continually praised her peers for their ability to spring into action when it had come down to the wire. Mary sighed and said, “Whew, that was a close one. Talk about cutting it close. But I think we will get a good grade on the assignment.” Her comment did not resonate well with Kyle and Jennifer. They disclosed that they had privately requested that Professor Madden grade their assignment independently and not as a group. Mary felt disappointed, ambushed, and misunderstood. She exclaimed that her time was limited and she had done her part. Mary told Kyle and Jennifer that they did not understand that she did not have the same freedom as them and that she felt singled out because of her age, parental status, and employment status.
Case Analysis and Discussion
Promoting effective group work has been a long-standing challenge for many counselor educators because of the difficulty of assessing individual contributions while focusing on the overall collective assignment. Professor Madden expected students to gain knowledge of effective development of group curricula while also promoting their development as coleaders who navigate group dynamics. Given the explicit and implicit student learning outcomes of this experience, the response to this case should be viewed from multiple perspectives, namely, the ethical framework of the case, the assessment protocol implemented by Professor Madden with an emphasis