PRIORITIES AND PRACTICES IN FIELD SUPERVISION OF …



PRIORITIES AND PRACTICES IN FIELD SUPERVISION OF SCHOOL COUNSELING STUDENTS (by BB Kahn – ERIC)A fundamental ethical principle undergirding the practice of counseling in all settings is that the counselor must be aware of the limitations of his or her own professional competence and not exceed those limitations in the delivery of service (American Counseling Association, 1995). One strategy recommended (Barret & Schmidt, 1986; Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 1998; Davis & Mickelson, 1994; Herlihy & Corey, 1996) for the ongoing professional development of a counselor is to engage in a supervisory relationship. Supervision stands as a "distinct field of preparation and practice" (Dye & Borders, 1990, p. 32) and a significant training tool for both those in practice and those becoming practitioners. While there has been a recent increase in the research on supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Hart & Falvey, 1987; Holloway, 1982; Pitts, 1992; Pitts, Miller, Poidevant, & Meyers-Arvin, 1990), relatively little research has focused on field-site supervision of master's level counseling students, particularly school-based counselors. One possible explanation for the lack of research concerning site supervision of master's level school counseling students is that the roles of the school counselor are numerous and unique when compared to clinicians in other settings. According to the most recent role revision statement by the American School Counselor Association (1990), counselors within our schools are encouraged to engage in individual counseling, consultation, coordination, small group counseling, and large group guidance. The question arises whether or not the supervision that students receive targets similar functions. Borders et al. (1991) noted "the conceptual and empirical supervision literature has emphasized one-to-one counseling with scarce mention of other activities such as group counseling, consultation, and assessment" (p. 78). With such a wide definition of role and function it is clear that training and supervision must extend beyond the typical target of individual counseling skills to include the unique cognates and skills required of these other functions (Borders, 1991; Boyd & Walter, 1975; Schmidt & Barret, 1983; Wilson & Remley, 1987). The current study was designed to investigate the degree to which on-site supervision time of school counseling practicum students is allocated to these various roles and functions and to identify factors associated with any differential time allocation. HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "Method " Method A three-page questionnaire (see Appendix A) was piloted by three school counselors, representing all levels, who had served as site supervisors for more than 5 years. This group met to provide feedback on format, clarity of definitions and instructions, and wording of items. After revisions, the questionnaire was mailed to 197 Pennsylvania public school counselors. The participants had been identified as previously providing site supervision for practicum students for at least one semester during the past 5 years in a Pennsylvania public school. Some 41 follow-up phone contacts were made one month after the initial mailing. Of the original 197 surveys mailed, 119 (68%) were collected and analyzed. In addition to this data, qualitative data from structured telephone interviews of 12 of the participants were analyzed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the results (see Appendix B). These participants--approximately matched to the larger sample considering variables such as gender, age, ethnicity, school level, and years of counseling experience were specifically selected because of their course work or certification in supervision and their extensive supervision experience. The typical respondent was a female site supervisor (67.2%), averaging 45 years of age with an average of 9.8 years of counseling experience. Five respondents were African Americans, two were Hispanic, and the remainder were White. Respondents were equally divided among the three school levels. Of special note was the fact that three-quarters (74.8%) of the respondents were providing supervision for the university where they had received their counseling training. This, in spite of the fact that 71.6% reported receiving no formal supervision training. HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "Results " Results HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "Focus of Supervision " Focus of Supervision In line with previous research and observations on supervision of school counselors (Borders et al., 1991), respondents indicated that they spent slightly more than half of their supervision time on the functions of individual and group counseling (34.1%) and consultation (21.9%). The remainder of time was divided among developmental and career guidance (17.3%), coordination (15%), and evaluation and assessment (11.2%). These five functions are represented on an ordinal scale with the same participants providing a proportional ranking for each of the five functions. Consequently, the Friedman two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), a nonparametric statistical test, was used because the subjects were not randomly selected or otherwise sampled parametrically. This test assumes that the variable of counselor function has at least an underlying ordinal distribution. The two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences (chi2 (4,N = 119) = 169.4, p < .05) in the percentage of time spent among the five functions. Next, post-hoc chi square analyses were performed to identify which counseling functions were significantly different from each other. These tests indicated that a significantly greater percentage of supervision time was spent on the counseling function compared to consultation, developmental and career guidance, evaluation and coordination. Although site supervisors devoted less time to consultation than counseling, the percentage of time spent on consultation was greater than the remaining three functions. Finally the time spent on developmental and career guidance was found to be significantly greater than the time spent on assessment and evaluation, but not greater than on coordination. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether there were significant differences in the percentage of time spent supervising various counselor functions considering supervisor variables (i.e., age, gender, certification, and supervision experience, and course work) and site variables (i.e., school level, school demographic description, and caseload). This nonparametric test also assumes data that are at least ordinal in distribution. Using an alpha level of .05, significant differences were found in the variables of certification (chi2 (2,N = 119) = 6.0, p < .05), school level (chi22 (2,N = 34) = 13.1, p < .05), and school demographics (chi2 (2,N = 34) = 7.3, p < .05). Follow-up chi square analyses were performed to determine which specific supervisor and site variables produced differences. Those supervisors with secondary counseling certification and dual counseling certification (elementary and secondary) spent significantly more supervision time on the function of counseling than those certified as elementary counselors. Middle school supervisors spent more supervision time on the function of counseling than elementary or high school supervisors. Finally, suburban and rural supervisors spent significantly more supervision time on the function of coordination than urban supervisors. HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "Interview Results " Interview Results Interviewees' responses were consistent with the percentage of supervision time allotted to functions by the larger sample. Elementary school supervisors noted that their supervision percentages were similar to the amount of time spent on these functions in their actual job performance; however, middle school supervisors generally reported an increase in the actual time spent in counseling compared to supervision percentages while high school supervisors reported more coordination activities in the actual performance of their job. Consistently interviewees reported prioritizing the percentage of time spent on the various functions according to the needs of the practicum student. One middle school supervisor expressed the desire to provide students with exposure to all functions, noting that they may not perform all of them when employed. Another interviewee's goal was to limit the "overwhelming paperwork" while increasing direct exposure to the student population. A majority of the high school supervisors observed student skill deficits in the area of coordination, noting the need for knowledge in areas such as computer scheduling, community resources, and technical training. However, others countered that such knowledge was site specific and frequently could not be applied in another job setting. For students with no teaching experience, more than half of the interviewees noted the need to increase supervision time at the beginning of the practicum on consultation and coordination. In addition to lacking experience working with parents and teachers, these students needed to understand the school as a system and the learning process. Interviewees with supervision training noted that the training enhanced their abilities to set supervision goals based on students' needs. Such training also better allowed them to view supervision as a process, use supervision time more effectively, and be more effective in the roles which they assumed within the supervisory relationship (e.g., supervisor, consultant, and teacher). When questioned about possible supervisory training offered by cooperating universities, interviewees consistently responded affirmatively to such a program. They noted possible benefits as providing consistent administrative procedures (e.g., requirements, letters, forms, and logistical procedures), providing skill renewal (e.g., listening skills and brief therapy), and improving communication between university and site. Finally, such training would allow participants to learn from other's supervisory experiences. HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "Summary and Discussion " Summary and Discussion In an effort to further the knowledge of field-site supervision of school counseling students, this study describes how site supervisors spent their supervision time divided among five counseling functions. Results of this study may be viewed as a descriptive model of field-site supervision. The percentages of supervision time on function are encouraging when compared to how supervision time of practicing school counselors is proportioned (Roberts & Borders, 1994). These findings demonstrate less administrative supervision and are more congruent with the time on task in actual job performance of practicing school counselors. However, almost three quarters of this sample had no formal supervision training, and many of these counselors provided supervision for the same university that trained them. This raises questions regarding university-based training and preparation of supervisors. Results suggest the need for a differential emphasis of supervisory focus. The emphasis given to counseling and consultation appears consistent across supervisor and site variables. These results were consistent with the current view of the evolving role and percentages of time actually spent on these functions in job performance. The literature on the role and function of the school counselor has consistently confirmed the priority of counseling (Gibson, 1988; Partin, 1993; Roberts & Borders, 1994; Wilgus & Shelley, 1988) and the evolving priority of consultation (Ginter, Scalise, & Presse, 1990; Miller, 1989; Wilgus & Shelley, 1988). That counseling would consume a larger percentage of supervision time for those supervisors with secondary counseling certification and those with secondary and elementary counseling certification, yet not for those supervisors only certified in elementary counseling, also is consistent with the school counselor role literature (Ginter et al., 1990). Tennyson, Miller, Skovholt, and Williams (1989) have proposed that reliance on one-to-one counseling at the secondary level with a minimal developmental focus may be due to a school structure and an administration that is incompatible with a developmental perspective. This explanation was supported by those respondents interviewed for this study. Further, it is possible that traditional secondary training programs that do not emphasize building skills in the areas of developmental guidance, career assessment, or consultation may also explain higher percentages of time on counseling. Significantly more supervision time also was found to be spent on counseling by middle school supervisors as opposed to high school and elementary school supervisors. Data from the structured interview point to the numerous developmental crises of students this age and to school schedules that could not easily accommodate other functions such as group counseling and guidance as possible explanations for this noted difference. Another distinction regarding allocation of supervisor time was noted in relation to the issue of coordination. Suburban and rural supervisors spent significantly more time in supervision on coordination than did urban supervisors. While the data do not provide a clear indication as to the cause for this noted difference, it may be that suburban and rural school sites, with district resources, have been able to increase counseling-related programs such as Student Assistance Programs and Instructional Support Teams. With such additional programs comes the need for additional coordination activities. Although urban schools are involved in such programs, due to larger bureaucracies, these program may be typically coordinated by administrators. However, additional research needs to be done to more fully identify the possible factors influencing this differential supervisory focus. HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "Implications and Limitations " Implications and Limitations While the current research focused on a descriptive analysis of the allocation of supervisory time to function, a finding which deserves further investigation stems from the data depicting the profile of our respondents. The majority of respondent-supervisors have attained master's level-training with no training in supervision; and, the majority of site supervisors received minimal supervision of their own counseling. If we are to accept that supervision is a "distinct field of preparation and practice" (Dye & Borders, 1990, p. 32), then those performing this unique form of preparation need to be prepared and competently trained. Before a prescriptive model of supervision for school counseling trainees can be proposed, the following additional questions must be addressed: How does the coordination of supervision by site supervisor and faculty program coordinator improve the quality of supervision provided to the student? How can communication between the university and the school site be improved? How can site supervisors be provided training in supervision? As a majority of counselors, or at least those participating in this study, are supervising students from the same institution that trained them, numerous possibilities for supervision course work within the master's program or post-graduate workshops exist (Bernard, 1981, 1992). Such course work and ongoing professional development programming may serve as a tool for addressing the above questions. While the current study raises a number of questions regarding the practice of supervision of school-based counselors, several practical and methodological limitations must be considered when interpreting the data collected. As a result of the purposive sampling employed within this study, results cannot be generalized to a larger national sample of site supervisors. Further, the reliance on supervisors' self-reported time percentages rather than actual observations of supervision time may not accurately reflect reality of time allocation. Additional research utilizing actual observations of supervision time on function by site supervisor and university supervisor would be valuable in constructing an optimal field-site supervision model for school counselor trainees. HYPERLINK "" \l "toc" \o "References " References American Counseling Association. (1995). Code of ethics and standards of practice. Alexandria, VA: Author. American School Counselor Association Governing Board. (1990). ASCA role statement: The school counselor. Fairfax, VA: Author. Barret, R. L. & Schmidt, J. J. (1986). School counselor certification and supervision: Overlooked personal issues. Counselor Education and Supervision, 26, 50-55. Bernard, J. M. (1981). Inservice training for clinical supervisors. Professional Psychology, 12, 740-748. Bernard, J. M. (1992). Training master's level counseling students in the fundamentals of clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 10, 133-143. Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1992). Fundamentals in clinical supervision. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Borders, L. D. (1991). Supervision does not equal evaluation. The School Counselor, 38, 253-255. Borders, L. D., Bernard, J. M., Dye, H. A., Fong, M. L., Henderson, P., & Nance, D. W. (1991). Curriculum guide for training counseling supervisors: Rationale, development, and implementation. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 58-80. Boyd, J. D., & Walter, P. B. (1975). The school counselor, the cactus, and supervision. The School Counselor, 23, 103-107. Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (Eds.). (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Davis, J. L., & Mickelson, D. J. (1994). School counselors: Are you aware of ethical and legal aspects of counseling? The School Counselor, 42, 5-13. Dye, H. A., & Borders, L. D. (1990). Counseling supervisors: Standards for preparation and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 27-29. Gibson, R. L. (1988). High school principal's opinions of role, function and training of school counselors. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Ginter, E., Scalise, J., & Presse, N. (1990). The elementary school counselor's role: Perceptions of teachers. The School Counselor, 38, 19-23. Hart, G. M., & Falvey, E. (1987). Field supervision of counselors in training: A survey of the North Atlantic Region. Counselor Education and Supervision, 26, 204-212. Herlihy, B., & Corey, G. (Eds.). (1996). ACA ethical standards casebook. Alexandra, VA: American Counseling Association. Holloway, E. L. (1982). Characteristics of the field practicum: A national survey. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22, 75-80. Miller, G. (1989). What roles and functions do elementary school counselors have? Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 24, 77-88. Partin, R. (1993). School counselor's time: Where does it go? The School Counselor, 40, 274-281. Pitts, J. (1992). Organizing a practicum and internship program in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 196-207. Pitts, J., Miller, M., Poidevant, J. M., & Meyers-Arvin, M. (1990). Coordination of clinical supervision in practicum and internship programs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 29, 291-299. Roberts, E. B., & Borders, L. D. (1994). Supervision of school counselors: Administrative, program, and counseling. The School Counselor, 41, 149-157. Schmidt, J.J., & Barret, R.L. (1983). Who's in charge? School counseling supervision in North Carolina. Counselor Education and Supervision, 23, 109-116. Tennyson, W. W., Miller, G. D., Skovholt, T. G., & Williams, R. C. (1989). Secondary school counselors: What do they do? What is important? The School Counselor, 36, 253-259. Wilgus, E., & Shelley, V. (1988). The role of the elementary school counselor: Teacher perceptions, expectations, and actual functions. The School Counselor, 39, 259-266. Wilson, N. S., & Remley, T. P., Jr. (1987). Leadership in guidance: A survey of school counseling supervisors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 26, 213-220. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download