Critical Incidents in Counselor Education. Группа авторов
content and structure of the course (George et al., 2015).
An essential characteristic of SL projects is students’ reflections on their SL experiences (Caruso et al., 2006; Kaye, 2004). Professor Edwards included reflection assignments before and after the SL project, which is key to ensuring that students incorporate SL experiences into their own identity development (Caruso et al., 2006; Kaye, 2004). Examples of reflection prompts before a SL project might include “What do you anticipate your relationship with your SL supervisor will be like?” or “What do you hope to learn or accomplish?” (Cavazos Vela, 2020). Examples of reflection prompts after a SL project might include “What did you learn from your SL project?” or “In what ways did the project influence the development of your professional counselor identity?” (Cavazos Vela, 2020). In addition, Kaye (2004) recommended that students complete daily written reflections during the project. It is essential for students to continually reflect on what they are learning and how it is affecting their values, learning, identity, and feelings. Written daily reflections help students make connections between their experiences and course content and promote the incorporation of learning into their identity development. Instructors should require students to submit these reflections as they are completed so they can continually support and monitor performance in a timely manner throughout the experience.
Instructors should ensure that they maintain good relationships with school and community partners (Lloyd-Hazlett, 2018). Cavazos Vela (2020) recommended giving partners the opportunity to provide feedback on the quality of their relationship with the student, feedback on the quality of the student’s performance, and recommendations for improving SL projects. Requesting feedback communicates that community partners are valued and strengthens relationships. This case illustrates the importance of maintaining open communication throughout the SL experience. Professor Edwards could have achieved this by providing the SL supervisor with an evaluation form to complete at the project midpoint, including questions related to the student’s strengths and challenges and recommendations for improvement. It is also good practice to schedule intermediate conversations in which SL partners can share their impressions of the student’s performance. These measures strengthen communication and the quality of the relationship between the instructor and SL supervisor and improve the quality of support provided to the SL student. In the present case, the quality of this relationship was not good, and Beth’s developmental needs were underserved.
Finally, instructors should recognize that student evaluations are based on the quality of their reflections and related assignments (e.g., papers, poster sessions) rather than the quality of their on-site performance (Cavazos Vela, 2020). In the current case, Professor Edwards recognized that it would be unfair to evaluate Beth on the basis of the quality of her performance at CMS. In addition, it is worth noting that the SL supervisor’s illness and the lack of communication between Professor Edwards and Ms. Mitchell were beyond Beth’s control. Professor Edwards’s emphasis on the quality of her reflections was appropriate, and it also potentially ameliorated Beth’s feelings of embarrassment and shame. As a result, Beth was more likely to be able to fully reflect on and process her decisions and actions and to learn from her SL project.
Conclusion
SL projects have the potential to contribute to meaningful learning. Instructors are responsible for providing students with adequate preparation prior to SL projects, structuring during projects, and reflective opportunities throughout projects (Cavazos Vela, 2020; Kaye, 2004). The quality of reflections should be used as the primary criterion for evaluating student performance (Cavazos Vela, 2020). In addition to maintaining open communication with SL site supervisors, instructors are advised to comment on students’ written reflections and meet with students during projects to provide ongoing support and supervision.
Reflection Questions
1 What additional content might be added to training sessions to better prepare SL students for working effectively with students from diverse populations?
2 How could Ms. Mitchell have used Beth’s interest in working with Quetzal to intentionally promote Beth’s professional development?
Critical Incident Response
Kathryn L. Henderson
Unanticipated issues are bound to pop up when creating assignments as detailed and involved as SL projects. The author identified several critical issues related to ethical principles and standards and critically examined how the roles and actions of the SL supervisor and instructor either supported or hindered Beth.
Examining the scenario through the lens of the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) is critical for ethical practice. The author identified Beth’s boundaries of competence as a student who is not yet an intern, potential harm to her SL clients, and her lack of cultural competence and awareness. He also highlighted the ethical principle of veracity, which has important implications for Beth’s decision-making process. Beth’s lack of disclosure to Ms. Mitchell regarding her decision to hold individual sessions with Quetzal is dishonesty by omission. Failure to truthfully initiate contact with supervisors can impact trust and lead to a rupture in the relationship. Not only did Beth ignore the rules of the SL site, but she did not appear to realize that her independent decision-making and subsequent action were inappropriate or outside the boundaries of her competence. These factors speak to the ethical principle of fidelity; Beth’s actions could lead to Ms. Mitchell not trusting her. This scenario could result in dismissal from the SL site.
The site supervisor’s absence created a space for this ethical dilemma to occur. The author provided a thorough analysis of Ms. Mitchell’s lack of adequate supervision during her absences. This circumstance has implications for the instructor’s role in planning for supervisors’ absences. As he might for an internship, Professor Edwards could have developed clear, preventive parameters for site supervisor absences that applied to all students.
Given the ethical violations that occurred, Professor Edwards might also consider formal remediation for Beth. Professor Edwards did ask Beth to reflect on her actions through the lens of the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014), which can be regarded as summative evaluation and informal remediation. However, additional options are available. The student’s performance at the site was not included in the evaluation of the assignment. One way to address how students’ behaviors impact their performance is through gatekeeping and remediation. The ACA Code of Ethics instructs counselor educators to remediate students when necessary (ACA, 2014, p. 15). One way to determine whether students’ behavior warrants remediation is by consulting with faculty; consultation with peers is best practice as well as ethical practice (ACA, 2014). Questions for Professor Edwards to consider during consultation include the following: Is Beth demonstrating similar or new problems in other courses? If Beth repeats these behaviors, would there be different outcomes or consequences? If Beth behaved in a similar way during her clinical internship, what would be the consequences?
The author identified many ways in which Professor Edwards could better prepare students for the SL assignment. In addition, he could have clarified at the beginning that students would not be engaging in counseling, which is outside the boundaries of their competence. This clarification is often made in skills-based courses prior to practicum to reinforce that students are practicing skills and not offering counseling. Professor Edwards could also have provided an overview of ethical principles and standards pertinent to the SL experience. Beth was concurrently learning ethics in a different course, but she may not have been exposed to ethical standards relevant to SL sites. Professor Edwards should consult with his colleagues prior to the start of the SL assignment about what content on ethics has already been covered. Any content on ethics not yet taught should be included in Professor Edwards’s course prior to the beginning the SL project.
The very enriching nature of SL demands complex considerations of instructors and students unique to these assignments. Beth’s dilemma highlights the unique opportunities and challenges inherent in SL. The aftermath of such dilemmas provides space