with students in ways that promoted and modeled competent behaviors. She was informed she should verbally reinforce good behavior, inform students when they broke rules, avoid long conversations with individual students, and model socially competent interpersonal behaviors (Rathvon, 2008). In the training sessions, student volunteers learned and practiced fundamental skills that were essential for working with the middle school students. Some of these skills included engaging in active listening, reflecting meaning and feeling, providing praise and encouragement, and giving constructive feedback. The volunteers also learned about a variety of evidence-based games and activities to use during the program.
During the first group session, Beth cofacilitated a game in which students received coupons for exhibiting prosocial behaviors. Afterward, Ms. Mitchell praised Beth and provided some constructive feedback to promote her growth as a cofacilitator. Ms. Mitchell shared some information on the background of students in the group, including information about a 12-year-old boy, Quetzal Rodriguez, who came from a Latinx family, was of low socioeconomic status, and had recently sprayed graffiti on an outer wall of the school. The graffiti incident had resulted in his referral to the Success Program. Beth was curious about Quetzal and asked several questions about his behavior, academic performance, and personality.
The following week, Beth returned to CMS to cofacilitate another session. However, Ms. Mitchell was out sick, and Ms. Davenport, a sixth-grade teacher, co-led the session with Beth. Ms. Davenport looked to Beth to fill her in on the procedure for the session. Beth asked Ms. Davenport whether it would be OK to pull Quetzal aside for a one-on-one conversation during the group activity. She explained that she would like to work on developing rapport and providing him with individual support. Ms. Davenport did not see any harm in Beth talking privately with Quetzal, and Beth and the student had a conversation in an available office. They played a popular game called Dots and Boxes, during which Beth inquired about the graffiti incident. During their conversation, Beth asked him to tell her what had happened and his motivation for drawing graffiti on the wall. Quetzal shared that he had artistic interests in painting, creative writing, and music. Their one-on-one meeting lasted about 20 minutes before Quetzal returned to the group.
A few days later Beth again cofacilitated the group with Ms. Davenport and invited Quetzal to meet with her for a one-on-one conversation. This time the conversation lasted 30 minutes and included talk about holistic wellness and healthy eating habits. She made several recommendations based on an article she had recently read. These included choosing food brands with less sodium and sugar, engaging in mindful eating, and ensuring that fruits and vegetables made up half of one’s plate. Beth was certain that the conversation had gone well.
When Ms. Mitchell returned, Beth learned that the school had received a telephone call from Quetzal’s parents. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez were concerned about the individual counseling their son had been getting from the school counselor and the fact that he had been taken out of the beneficial group activity. Ms. Mitchell reprimanded Beth for counseling Quetzal without proper training and authorization from the school. Though Beth met the hour requirements for her SL project, Ms. Mitchell gave her a very poor evaluation of her performance.
Case Analysis and Discussion
Professor Edwards met with Beth to process the completed SL project, during which he encouraged Beth to reflect on her actions in light of specific standards in the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). In only the first semester of her master’s program, Beth was practicing outside the boundaries of her competence in violation of Standard C.2.a. This standard is related to the general ethical principle of fidelity, and because competence is essential to good practice it is also related to the principles of beneficence (the obligation to benefit clients) and nonmaleficence (the obligation not to harm clients). Beth’s actions created a greater likelihood that she might harm, or fail to benefit, Quetzal. Professor Edwards added that counselors should also understand their own cultural identities and how these “affect their values and beliefs about the counseling process” (ACA, 2014, p. 4). For example, Beth ostensibly believed that taking Quetzal out of the group setting would be more beneficial than having him remain in the group. She did not appear to understand how her own cultural values might have contributed to this belief. Furthermore, Standard A.1.a. states that counselors should “respect the dignity and promote the welfare of clients.” By meeting with Quetzal individually, Beth was reducing his opportunity to develop interpersonal competence. There was thus a greater likelihood that, rather than promoting his welfare, she might harm, or fail to benefit, Quetzal. In addition, she gave Quetzal advice regarding eating habits. Beth’s recommendations were outside the scope of acceptable practice and also disregarded the important role the family’s cultural heritage played in influencing his diet.
Additional areas of concern pertain to Beth’s responsibility to communicate in open and honest ways (ACA, 2014). Beth did not appear to communicate honestly with Ms. Davenport when she asked to talk privately with Quetzal. One of the salient, fundamental rules for session facilitators explicitly stated that facilitators should avoid long conversations with participants. Beth appeared to take advantage of Ms. Davenport’s lack of understanding of the rules when she requested to speak with Quetzal. Beth repeated this action in a subsequent session when Ms. Mitchell was absent; she might have sought permission either from Ms. Mitchell by distance communication or from another school counselor at CMS. This example pertains to the ethical principle of veracity, or “dealing truthfully with individuals” (ACA, 2014, p. 3).
Although an important distinction should be made regarding Ms. Mitchell’s role as an SL supervisor as opposed to an internship supervisor, it appears that she neglected her responsibility to provide Beth with adequate SL supervision. Ms. Mitchell cofacilitated sessions with Beth and gave her immediate feedback on her performance following the first session. However, when she missed two group sessions and did not provide Beth with distance supervision or an alternative qualified supervisor, there was a lapse in the monitoring of Beth’s performance. Ms. Mitchell was neglectful in that she did not provide Beth with a method for maintaining contact or a contingency plan in the event that Ms. Mitchell was unable to cofacilitate the group session. This contingency plan could have included having an alternative method for distance supervision or arranging for another school counselor to monitor Beth’s performance and provide her with feedback.
Professor Edwards recognized that in some instances Beth acted inappropriately, and in other instances her developmental needs had been neglected or underserved. In processing these events, he distinguished between these two sets of issues. He acknowledged that there were ways he could improve as an instructor with regard to supporting Beth during the SL project. He also encouraged Beth to use these events as an opportunity for learning and to incorporate them into her final reflection paper. He reminded her that her course evaluation and grade would be based primarily on the quality of her reflections on her SL project and her poster.
Instructor’s Role and Responsibilities
A key component of well-designed SL experiences is the quality of the preparation that instructors provide their students (Cavazos Vela, 2020). Providing Beth with more preparation might have reduced the potential for some of the problems she experienced. It is important for participants in SL to understand that they are expected to work collaboratively with their community partners (Kaye, 2004) rather than function independently. Professor Edwards might have provided his students with reading assignments to familiarize them with the nature and purposes of SL projects in general and the specific programs in which they would be participating. Professor Edwards might also have required his students to meet with or interview community partners prior to beginning their SL experiences (Cavazos Vela, 2020). Although CMS provided Beth with training that prepared her for her role as a cofacilitator, the preparation she received from Professor Edwards for the SL project was inadequate.
Instructors are responsible for ensuring that SL experiences are integral to the course they are teaching (Caruso et al., 2006; Cavazos Vela, 2020). Professor Edwards appropriately connected the SL project to a course objective. He ensured that students understood the SL project as an integral component of the Human Development course. As a final requirement for the SL project, students presented