FOR MORE OF THIS COURSE AND ANY OTHER COURSES, TEST
BANKS, FINAL EXAMS, AND SOLUTION MANUALS
CONTACT US
PART II
Teaching Group
Counseling Courses
and Training
Group Leaders
Introduction
It is common
practice to combine both the didactic and the experiential aspects of learning
in group work courses, but doing so requires that educators address a number of
ethical considerations. Group work
educators must manage multiple roles and fulfill many responsibilities to their
trainees. In experiential training,
participants engage in self-exploration and deal with interpersonal issues
within the training group/class as a way of learning how to best facilitate
groups. The potential risks of
experiential methods are offset by the clear benefits to participants who
become personally involved in experiential group work as a supplement to
didactic approaches in group courses.
Many group work educators see a need for an experiential component to
assist students in acquiring the skills necessary to function as effective
group leaders.
Below
are the CACREP (2009) Standards that apply to the field of group work. Note that section “e” specifies that students
should participate in a small group activity for a minimum of 10 clock hours
over the course of one academic term. This small group experience is typically
an integral part of the one group course that most programs require. Instructors handle this small group aspect in
many different ways, and there are some potential ethical issues that focus
around this experiential aspect of the group course. This article addresses many of these ethical
concerns that group work educators and students are often challenged by and
have concerns about.
GROUP WORK -
studies that provide both theoretical and experiential understandings of group
purpose, development, dynamics, theories, methods and skills, and other
group approaches in a multicultural society, including all of the following:
a. principles of group dynamics, including group
process components, developmental stage theories, group members’ roles and
behaviors, and therapeutic factors of group work,
b. group leadership or facilitation styles and
approaches, including characteristics of various types of group leaders and
leadership styles,
c. theories of group counseling, including
commonalties, distinguishing characteristics, and pertinent research and
literature,
d. group counseling methods, including group
counselor orientations and behaviors, appropriate selection criteria and
methods, and methods of evaluation of effectiveness, and
e. direct experiences where students participate
in a small group activity, approved by the program, for a minimum of 10 clock
hours over the course of one academic term.
Training
Standards for Group Trainees
For proficient
group leaders to emerge, a training program must make group work a
priority. Unfortunately, in some
master’s programs in counseling not even one group course is required. In some programs such a course is still an
elective. In those programs that do
require course work in group counseling, there is typically one course that
covers both the didactic and experiential aspects of group process. While some counselor training programs have
more than one group course, many have only one course devoted to teaching
knowledge and skills for group counselors (Wilson, Rapin, Haley-Banez, 2004). It is a major undertaking to adequately train
group counselors in a single course!
When it comes to
training doctoral level psychologists, there is evidence that suggests that
comprehensive training standards have not been universally or rigorously
followed. In a survey of group psychotherapy
training during predoctoral psychology internship, Markus and King (2003) found
that, much like graduate school programs, predoctoral clinical psychology
internships do not routinely provide adequate group therapy training. The results of Markus and King’s survey
suggested that there is lack of depth and breadth of group therapy didactic
offerings to psychology interns.
For
practitioners to become competent group facilitators specialized training is
essential as a way to obtain proficiency and expertise in group process (Markus
& King, 2003). The Association for
Specialists in Group Work (ASGW, 2000) specifies basic aspects in the education
and training of group counselors: didactic course work, being involved in
experiential group activities, leadership opportunities, and receiving
competent supervision. The revised Professional Standards for the Training of
Group Workers (ASGW, 2000) specifies
two levels of competencies and related training. A set of core knowledge competencies and skill
competencies provide the foundation on which specialized training is built.
At a minimum, one group course should be included in a training program,
and it should be structured to help students acquire the basic knowledge and
skills needed to facilitate a group. These
group skills are best mastered through supervised practice, which should
include observation and participation in a group experience. The Council for Accreditation of Counseling
and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2009) standards call for students in
an entry-level program to have a theoretical knowledge and an understanding of
group process. This knowledge includes
the purpose of groups, developmental stages of a group, group dynamics, theory
applied to practice, methods in group work, styles of group leadership, and
ethical and legal issues in group work.
The standards also call for skill development necessary to facilitate
groups.
Both CACREP and
ASGW training guidelines include an experiential component to training group
leaders. CACREP (2009) has a 10-hour
requirement for direct experience as a participant in a small group. ASGW (2000) requires a minimum of 10 hours of
observation and participation in a small group as a member or a leader, with 20
hours being recommended.
The core competencies
delineated in the ASGW (2000) training standards are considered the benchmarks
for training group workers. The current
trend in training group leaders focuses on learning group process by becoming
involved in supervised experiences. Both
direct participation in planned and supervised small groups and clinical
experience in leading various groups under careful supervision are needed to
equip leaders with the skills to meet the challenges of group work. Barlow (2004) describes a strategic 3-year plan
to teach beginning, intermediate, and advanced group skills. Her article describes 4 ways designed to
teach group skills: experiential, supervision, observation, and academic. Van Velsor (2004) describes her training
program for students working with children’s groups. Her course combines a didactic component with
observation, an experiential component involving facilitation of children’s
groups, and a supervision component done in pairs and also in groups.
Markus and King
(2003) maintain that comprehensive training must include intensive supervision
by a competent group therapist. Although
Markus and King endorse group supervision of group therapy as a powerful
cognitive and emotional learning experience, they report that the majority of
internships that provide supervision of group trainees tend to use the
one-to-one model rather than offer opportunities for group supervision. In addition to one supervisor working with
one supervisee, there are other models for supervision of group
leadership. Group supervision of
multiple group leaders is one alternative that has many advantages in terms of
learning about group process as well as getting supervision (DeLucia- Waack and
Fauth, 2004).
Wilson, Rapin,
and Haley-Banez (2004) indicate that during the past 20 years, ASGW has
developed three foundational documents to guide training and practice in group
work. These documents include: (a) Best Practice Guidelines (ASGW, 2008),
which address guidelines in the planning, implementation, processing, and evaluation
of group work practice; (b) Multicultural
and Social Justice Principles for Group Work (ASGW, 2012); and (c) Professional Standards for the Training of
Group Workers (ASGW, 2000). In their
article, Wilson, Rapin, and Haley-Banez (2004) describe the contents of these
foundational documents and discuss how they can be used in training group
workers.
One
controversial ethical issue in the preparation of group workers involves the
combining of experiential and didactic methods in training group leaders, which
is a common practice. Merta, Wolfgang, and McNeil (1993) found that a large
majority of counselor educators continue to use the experiential group in
preparing group counselors. Furthermore, there is significant variation in
using alternative training models, and numerous safeguards are employed. Many
group counselor educators consider the experiential component to be essential
in the teaching of group-counseling courses. Although there are certain
problems in teaching students how groups function by involving them on an
experiential level, these difficulties can be resolved. Clear guidelines need
to be established so that students know what their rights and responsibilities
are. This arrangement does put a bit more pressure on both the instructor and
the students. It calls for honesty, maturity, and professionalism.
In addition to
the challenges of combining didactic and experiential approaches, those who
teach group counseling courses are faced with many challenges in their attempt
to meet the professional standards for the training of group workers (Guth
& McDonnell, 2004). According to
O’Halloran and McCartney (2004), a major challenge in teaching group counseling
in an entry-level program is effectively covering the standards set forth by
ASGW (2000) and CACREP (2009). Akos,
Goodnough, and Milsom (2004) address the challenge of maximizing a single group
course in preparing counselors for doing group work in the schools. Akos and her colleagues recommend a number of
strategies in training school counselors, one of which is infusing group
concepts throughout the curriculum. They
also recommend selecting practicum and internship sites based on opportunities
to use group work. Killacky and Hulse-Killacy (2004) make a case for teaching
generic group competency skills across the counselor education curriculum. Other writers stress the importance of
incorporating multicultural issues in training group counselors (Bemak &
Chung, 2004; DeLucia-Waack &
Donigian, 2004). The Association for
Specialists in Group Work has published the Multicultural
and Social Justice Principles for Group Work (ASGW, 2012) that enable group
workers to sensitively address issues of classism, sexism, racism,
heterosexism, and ableism. Indeed, there
is increased recognition that all group work should address multicultural and
social justice issues, and thus, effective training of group counselors implies
addressing these dimensions (Hays, Arredondo, Gladding, and Toporek, 2010; DeLucia-Waack
and Donigian, 2004; Ivey, Pedersen, and Ivey; 2008).
Multiple
Roles of Group Work Educators
Faculty who teach group courses often function in
multiple roles: facilitator of a group, teacher, evaluator, and supervisor. At
various times educators may teach group process concepts, lead a demonstration
group in class, set up an exercise to illustrate an intervention in a group
situation, and evaluate students’ work. Educators may have a monitoring
function, especially in identifying and intervening when students demonstrate
bizarre behavior, are unable to give or receive feedback, or are unable to
relate to others in even the most basic manner. Group educators have a
responsibility to the students, the profession, the community, and to the
training institution, to act in those cases where students in a group course
give evidence that they are personally not suited to working as group
facilitators. Faculty members who teach group classes often assume a
supervisory role, observing trainees as they facilitate a group. If an
instructor also facilitates a process group, or an interpersonal
process-oriented group, this person will at times carry out therapeutic roles
and functions with these same students. Although the instructor may avoid
becoming a therapist for a student group, he or she might be called upon to
assist participants in identifying personal problems that are likely to
interfere with their ability to function effectively in group work. Although
blending these roles does present potential ethical problems, the literature
reveals that various strategies are being employed in the preparation of group
counselors to mitigate these problems. Merta,
Wolfgang, and McNeil (1993) admit that no one training model or combination of
safeguards is apt to solve the dilemma of protecting students from adverse dual
relationships and at the same time providing them with the best possible
training.
Educational
and therapeutic dimensions are often blended in group courses to enable
students to obtain both personal benefits and conceptual knowledge and to
acquire leadership skills. Sometimes, the person teaching a group course may
have no formal preparation or course work in group counseling, may never have
been a participant in a group, and may not have had any opportunity to be
supervised leading a group. One core ethical issue is the level of competence
of the person teaching the group course.
Faculty sometimes functions in multiple
roles and relationships with students and trainees without establishing and
clarifying appropriate boundaries. One example of such an abuse involves group
work educators who accept students as therapy clients in their private
practices. Other potential areas of abuse include professors who reveal
personal disclosures of students in a training group to other faculty, professors
who are unable to establish appropriate professional boundaries, and professors
who use the training group as a forum for dealing with their own personal
problems. Faculty have sometimes demonstrated poor judgment or misused power,
improperly managed multiple roles and relationships, or acted in some other way
to bring harm to a student. Some students who have been in a group course have
talked about the experience as being anything but growth-producing or a
positive learning experience. These students have learned what not to do in
their own groups as a result of participating in a group course. For example,
in some cases students have not been given any preparation for a group
experience and no attempt has been made to provide for informed consent. In other
cases, students are sometimes left alone to form their own process group, which
is a required part of the group course, with very little guidance and no
supervision from the faculty member
teaching the course. Undirected group experiences have the potential for being
aimless or even damaging. Conflicts may not be properly addressed, and
scapegoating of a particular member may take place. There may also be undue
group pressure for members to reveal personal secrets and hidden agendas can
result in the group getting stuck.
Some
professional educators have expressed concern about the potential pitfalls of
experiential training or about the multiple roles and relationships involved in
teaching group work. Davenport (2004) observes that the practice of having
professors or supervised doctoral students lead experiential groups for
students in masters-level group counseling courses is widespread. She raises
ethical concerns over this practice and suggests an alternative training model. One aspects of Davenport’s program is a
prerequisite for students taking the advanced group counseling class to be in a
semester-long growth group experience, which is led by a licensed
professional. These groups are not led
by either a program instructor or an advanced student. Staff members from her university’s student counseling
center often provide this service.
In
writing about ethical dimensions of teaching group counseling, Kottler (2004)
observes that dual and multiple relationships are not necessarily problematic
and that they can add richness and complexity to life. He adds that multiple
relationships in training become problematic when they are exploitive and when
educators misuse their power by taking advantage of others in a dual role. Kottler lists the following as ways to
safeguard trainees in an experiential group: providing informed consent, so
that students know what they are getting into;
offering trainees the right to pass; and not evaluating students on what
they say or do not say. Kottler makes a
very important point in teaching group counseling when he says that the key is
not what we are doing, rather how we are doing it.
Although
some abuses in the attempt to train group workers using experiential approaches
have been documented, I do not think that this warrants the conclusion that all
such experiences are inappropriate or unethical. Furthermore, it is a mistake
to conclude that group work educators should be restricted to a singular role
of providing didactic information. From my point of view, some faculties who
have negative attitudes toward anything but a didactic approach to teaching
group counseling are not recognizing the potential benefits of this approach.
Overcorrection of a problem of potential abuse does not seem justified to me.
Teaching group process by involving students in personal ways is the best way
for them to learn how to eventually set up and facilitate groups. I am in agreement with Stockton, Morran, and
Krieger (2004) who indicate that there is a fine line between offering experiential
activities and safeguarding against gaining information that could be used in
evaluating students. Faculty who use
experiential approaches are often involved in balancing multiple roles, which
requires consistent monitoring of boundaries.
Stockton and colleagues emphasize that group work educators need to
exert caution so that they offer training that is both ethical and effective.
Although it is essential to secure informed consent at the outset of a member’s
participation in a group, various aspects of the consent process may need to be
revisited at different phases of a group.
When informed consent is done effectively, it helps promote individual
autonomy, engages members in a collaborative process, and reduces the
likelihood of exploitation or harm (Barnett, Wise, Johnson-Greene, & Bucky,
2007; Wheeler & Bertram, 2012).
The
Scope of My Work
Currently, I teach group courses on both
the undergraduate and graduate levels, and in addition, I offer training and
supervision workshops in group facilitation for both students and mental health
professionals. In each of these courses or workshops I blend didactic and
experiential approaches, and in doing so I assume multiple roles. In many
cases, the courses and workshops that I conduct are composed of voluntary
participants, and this brings a different dimension to these experiences than
if I were teaching a required course. In addition to teaching group process as
a part of the undergraduate program, I also function as a supervisor of
students in small groups (as a part of the group course). I facilitate groups
in which students in these classes are exploring their personal concerns and a
variety of interpersonal issues that emerge during the unfolding of the group.
The
students who sign up for my undergraduate human services program group course
are highly motivated and generally willing to engage in significant
self-exploration in the context of the group course. In my role as a professor, I am required to
grade students, but I am not expected to evaluate students for retention in the
major. If I were on a committee charged with making determinations regarding
acceptance or dismissal from a training program, and if I was expected to use
this information about students that I acquired from the group courses, this
might prove to be ethically problematic.
Practicum
in Group Leadership Course
One of the undergraduate courses I
regularly teach at California State University, Fullerton, is Practicum in Group Leadership (see
Corey, 1981, 2012a, 2012b; Corey, Corey, & Corey, 2014). In this course,
students get a balanced experience of didactic material on group process and
theories of group, opportunities to lead and co-lead self-directed groups where
they can apply what they are learning, supervised experience in group
leadership, experiential learning involving working on their own personal
issues in a group, and supervision sessions that are therapeutic as well as
educational. Thus, in a single course students are exposed to a variety of ways
of learning about groups, both cognitive and experiential. I cite this class as
an example of the many group-leadership courses that typically combine academic
learning with opportunities for personal learning.
In
the Practicum in Group Leadership course students are screened both individually
and in a small group before they are allowed to enroll in the course. The
course includes supervised experience in co-leading a group-oriented class on
the campus and students meet for weekly supervision as a group with the faculty
person supervising their work as co-leaders. In addition, students meet with me
once a week for a 3-hour class session. Each class meeting begins with a
didactic focus: a short lecture on group process issues or a consideration of a
specific theory of group work and a demonstration group that I lead to
illustrate the practice of a particular theoretical orientation. During the
second half of the class session, the class is divided into two groups
(generally not more than 12 students in each small group) with an experiential
focus. The students co-lead this group for the first 45 minutes of the session,
which is followed by 30 minutes of processing time with a supervisor. Another
faculty member assists me in supervising these small groups.
A
Weekend Training and Supervision Group
In addition to the regular class meetings
each week of the Practicum in Group
Leadership course, and the one time each week that they meet for group
supervision with another supervisor, students are asked to enroll in a 3-day
training and supervision workshop during the first weekend of the semester.
This is a separate course (Group Process and Membership) in which students are
given one semester unit of credit. The course does not carry a letter grade but
is evaluated simply as “Credit” or “No Credit,” removing the evaluative
component from this kind of experiential group training. This residential
workshop includes about 25 hours of group work with many opportunities for
students to function as group members and as co-leaders of their own small
groups during the weekend.
In
addition to my role in this weekend workshop, five other faculty members also
function as supervisors during this workshop. Before students enroll in this
workshop, they are informed of the nature, purpose, and structure of the class.
They indeed do get involved in self-exploration and in dealing with
interpersonal issues that grow out of the emergence of the group process.
Students each have at least two opportunities to co-lead a group during the weekend,
and each of these sessions is directly supervised. Students co-lead for the
first hour and spend the next 30 minutes discussing group process with the
supervisor of that particular session.
Preparing
Students to Co-Lead Small Groups. When students and supervisors initially meet for the weekend
workshop, an orientation meeting is held for the entire group. We offer
suggestions aimed at helping students get the maximum benefit from their
experience, both as members and as facilitators of their small groups. We urge
students not to be overly concerned about making mistakes and encourage
participants to share what they are thinking, feeling, perceiving, and
experiencing in the here-and-now of the group session. We emphasize that there
is no such thing as a “bad group,” because everything that occurs in this kind
of workshop is an opportunity for learning. We also allow some time for
participants to express and explore their concerns, as well as ask us questions
about the workshop. Students often mention a fear of getting stuck and not
knowing what to do; concern about being left unfinished; the difficulty they
expect to face in switching from member to leader; wondering how far to go with
personal issues; and their anxieties about the responsibility of co-leading a
group. During this time we do our best to create a safe climate where
participants will feel free enough to practice leading and where they will feel
trusting enough to share themselves in personal way so that they can become a
working group.
The Small-Group
Sessions. During the
first small-group session, our main goal is to assist participants in
continuing to talk about any fears or expectations they have pertaining to the
workshop. We encourage them to identify themselves to one another, which is
partly done by defining their personal goals. Through getting acquainted in
their small group, participants begin to actively create a trusting environment
where they can engage in the self-disclosure necessary for a working group.
Another agenda we have for this session is to help the group come up with
themes they can use as a focus for their sessions.
Prior
to attending the workshop, students are expected to read Group Techniques (Corey, Corey, Callanan, & Russell, 2004) as a
way to familiarize them with ways of using and evaluating techniques in
facilitating groups. Also, before
students attend the workshop, they are told that each of the 90-minute sessions
will be structured around themes taken from the book I Never Knew I Had a Choice (G. Corey & Corey, 2014), which
they have read prior to this workshop.
Participants are asked to read this book prior to attending the
workshop, but they are not expected to stick rigidly to these themes in a given
session; rather, these themes are points of departure and topics for focus.
Generally, it is hoped that the student leaders learn that their own personal
fears, problems, and unresolved issues will affect the way they lead groups.
Other here-and-now issues surface and are dealt with, especially matters such
as students’ anxiety about not knowing enough to lead groups effectively, fears
of being seen as incompetent, discomfort with intense emotions, fears of making
mistakes, and concerns about being able to work well with a co-leader.
At this preliminary
meeting, students are given guidelines regarding how they can actively
participate in their small groups. There are at least two levels on which they
can use their time in small groups effectively. On the first level, there is
the focus on the here-and-now, which pertains to students’ reactions to what is
going on in their training group. Students are told that they will be asked to
reflect on what they are thinking and feeling in the here-and-now as it
pertains to being in their small group and will have the opportunity to express
their fears, concerns, and hopes related to participation in the group.
On the second
level, there is the focus on students’ personal goals, or the personal topics
they are willing to explore during the workshop. Students hear about the
importance of establishing specific and meaningful personal goals. They are asked to pay special attention to
personal topics that have relevance to how an issue is likely to impact their
work as counselors or group leaders. The
topics in I Never Knew I Had a Choice
(Corey, G. & Corey, 2014) are especially important as material for
exploration in the small groups. Some of
these topics include the following:
·
Where are you in your journey
toward personal growth?
·
What were some significant
turning points in your childhood?
·
What were some significant
turning points in your adolescence?
·
How does your past influence
the person you are presently?
·
Do you have struggles in the
area of autonomy?
·
How is wellness a concern of
yours?
·
Do you have concerns over your
bodily identity?
·
How well are you managing
stress in your life?
·
What concerns do you have in
the area of intimate relationships?
·
What are some relationships
that you would most like to change?
·
What changes would you most
like to make in your life?
·
Are themes of loneliness and
solitude important to you?
·
How are death and loss
potential concerns of yours?
·
What are your struggles
pertaining to meaning and values?
In small groups, we tend to focus on
exploring self-defeating cognitions these students bring to the workshop. For
instance, many students burden themselves with perfectionistic demands that
they should already know everything there is to know about a group before they
even take the class. Student trainees worry a great deal about their performance
and how the supervisors will judge them. Some students are convinced that the
supervisors will “discover them” and tell them they cannot continue in the
course. They fear being exposed as incompetent. All these concerns make
excellent material to work on in the sessions, for it is what is presently on
many of their minds. Some of the most useful themes pertain to their concerns
about doing well in this workshop and in the group course. We caution
participants to avoid discussing such themes in abstract and impersonal ways,
and we encourage the leaders to facilitate in a manner that will help members
apply these themes to themselves and explore them in personal ways.
During
the first hour of group working time, the supervisors take notes that we later
share with the students when we process the group. These details can serve as
excellent teaching points during the process commentary time that immediately
follows. Many aspects of what is going on in the group get our attention: How
do the co-leaders open the group? How do they introduce techniques? If there is
a theme, do the co-leaders facilitate group interaction and assist members to
deal with the theme in a personal way? Are co-leaders able to drop an agenda to
pick up on an emerging theme in the group, such as lack of trust? What
leadership skills are the co-leaders demonstrating? Are they able to
orchestrate member interaction, or do they focus on the first person who speaks
and ignore others? What are the results of certain interventions? Are the co-leaders
paying attention to nonverbal language? Are they able to move from one person
to another in a natural way? What are the co-leaders modeling? How is conflict
dealt with in the group? How are the co-leaders working together? Do they pick
up on each other’s interventions? What leadership skills do they need to
acquire or refine?
These
are a few examples of what the supervisors focus on during the first hour of
each session that the students are co-leading. We find that participants are
most receptive to learning about group process when they have just experienced
what we hope to teach.
The Process
Commentary Time. The second part of each
small-group session (approximately 30 minutes) begins with our request that the
co-leaders talk to each other about what they were thinking and feeling during
the past hour. We then ask the student group members to briefly summarize their
experience. Then, as supervisors, we share our observations in such a way that
participants are encouraged to interact with us through questions and
discussion. During the process commentary, we emphasize that many appropriate
clues can be picked up on and explored during a group session. What a leader
decides to focus on is not a matter of “right” or “wrong”; rather, it is often
a function of the leader’s interest at the moment. Leaders might make a certain
intervention (or avoid doing so) because of their theory, the lack of comfort
with certain emotions, their personal blocks, or the mood that seems present in
the group. We tend to focus on what the co-leaders had in mind with certain
interventions and sometimes talk about alternative ways of intervening.
During
this process commentary time, we might ask co-leaders open-ended questions
designed to help them reflect on their own experience as they were leading.
Some of these key questions include the following: What was going on with you
when . . . ? Were you aware of thinking or feeling something that you did not
say? What hunches did you have when . . . ? Where might you go if you were to
continue in the next session? Why did you introduce this particular technique
at this time? As we discuss the proceedings and provide feedback, we try to be
constructive, honest, and sensitive. We encourage students to build on their
strengths and try not to discourage them from trying out new ideas and
approaches.
Our
experience in doing training workshops has shown us that the participants learn
best when the material arises from what they actually experience in a session.
This kind of ongoing teaching/learning process seems to have an impact on
students: what they are conceptualizing has its roots in a problem they have
actually faced as either a member or a leader of their training group.
At
times we have to give difficult feedback, yet we say what needs to be said in a
respectful and sensitive way. We notice that after the first small group and
our process commentary, the participants relax greatly and feel much less
anxiety. They watch the way we give feedback and see that we treat them with dignity.
We respect their level of experience, whatever that may be, and give them room
to learn by trial and error. Also, we encourage students to be patient with
themselves and not to burden themselves with unrealistic expectations of having
to be perfect.
Leading by the
Supervisors- The other supervisors and I
typically co-lead the small groups during the evening session. During these
sessions, participants have no leadership responsibilities. This is their time
to bring up any issues that surfaced for them during the day and to go further
with them if they choose. Our leading provides a safeguard against members
opening up issues without having a means to explore them in greater depth. The
participants have an opportunity to work with any personal matters that are
unsettled, with anyone in the workshop whom they might have reactions to, or
with any of their concerns pertaining to their participation in their small
group (either as a member or a facilitator). We realize that going from one
session to another, being alternately a member of a group and a leader, working
on a feeling level and then a cognitive level, and being in a personal working
group and then shifting to a process-oriented discussion group can be
unsettling and often demands adjustment.
Our
leading during the evening is one way of attending to the feelings that arise
from the intense and demanding activities of a typical day in the workshop. It
also gives the participants a chance to observe and experience each
supervisor’s style of leadership. However, we caution students against merely
observing what we are doing and studying us. They are reminded that the best
way to learn how to lead a group is by getting fully involved as a member, and
then later conceptualizing and discussing what they experienced.
In
the last small-group session, supervisors lead the groups and help the
participants to review and integrate what they have learned during the
workshop. During this last review session, our focus can be discerned in the
kinds of questions we suggest: What did each of you learn about yourself as a
member? as a leader? What stopped you? What facilitated you individually and as
a group? What was helpful? not helpful? How would it be if you had a group
composed largely of members like yourself? What did you learn about group
process that you can apply to groups you lead? We are basically concerned with
helping the participants review and consolidate their learnings, both about
themselves personally and about how groups function.
We
conclude the workshop by meeting as an entire group to review and discuss the
experiences of the weekend, with particular emphasis on ways participants can
apply what they have learned to the groups they will lead. Time is allowed for
debriefing and for talking about the meaning this workshop had for each person.
Process Paper
for the 3-day Weekend Workshop. This workshop
is a separate one-unit course that is graded on a “Credit/No Credit” basis. To
obtain credit, students are required to attend all of the sessions for the
weekend (24 contact hours) and also to write a thoughtful reflection paper that
conceptualizes their learnings based on this group experience. Below are the directions to students for this written
assignment.
To obtain credit
for Huser 416 (Group Process and
Membership) a paper dealing with both your personal learnings and group
process learnings is due the third week of class. This paper will not receive a
letter grade, but will be evaluated on the basis of satisfactory or
unsatisfactory. To receive credit for the workshop course, it is necessary to
attend the pre-workshop orientation meeting, to attend all the sessions of the
three-day weekend workshop, and to complete a satisfactory paper in a timely
manner. This paper should be about 12
pages. It should reflect a conceptualization of your learnings from the weekend
workshop, and is to reflect the application of the book Groups: Process and Practice (9th edition) to your
weekend workshop. You are asked to focus on stages of group, techniques and
practice, and group process concepts and the evolution of the group process.
Apply your readings to an analysis of your own experience in the workshop
group. Do a process commentary from the perspective of both a group leader and
a group member. Do not give a report of events, but do write about key group
process issues that unfolded in your group. Please don’t be riveted to the
guidelines given below in writing about your learnings and experience in the
workshop. The main point is to write a comprehensive, honest, and clear report
on what you learned and how you learned it. Focus on conceptualizing the themes
of the workshop experience. Avoid mentioning others in the group by name on all
of your papers. Below are some guidelines that will hopefully be useful in
structuring your paper.
·
What
did you learn about yourself through this process? Focus on the qualities about
yourself that might either enhance or detract from your effectiveness as a
group leader.
·
Concretely, what did this workshop teach you
about being a group member? about group leadership? about how groups function or malfunction? about the stages of a group?
about techniques?
·
Comment
on the evolution and development of your supervision group over the weekend.
How did your group begin and end? Any key transitions? Any turning points? Any
highlights in your group?
·
How
did the presence of the supervisor affect your group? How did the rotation of
student co-leaders from session to session affect your group?
·
What
group norms developed? How were these norms shaped? Were these norms explicit
or implicit?
·
Comment
on the level of cohesion in your group.
·
What
did you learn about techniques and skills at this weekend supervision and
training workshop?
·
What
factors contribute to a working and productive group?
·
How
is trust generated within a group?
·
When
do groups get stuck, and how can they get unstuck?
·
How
is resistance best dealt with in groups? How about anxiety?
·
How
is conflict therapeutically dealt with in groups?
·
What
have you learned about groups from this workshop that you can apply to groups
that you’ll lead during this semester?
Dual Purpose Cautions. Learning about group counseling through
coursework and didactic instruction alone is not considered sufficient. A survey of 82 master’s-level counseling
programs suggests that experiential group training is evolving, alive, and an
accepted form of training group leaders (Shumaker, Ortiz, & Brenninkmeyer,
2011). In conducting a didactic and experiential workshop to develop group
leadership skills, several cautions must be kept in mind. It is difficult to
combine a skills development and cognitive framework of group process with
personal involvement for therapeutic purposes. Both the students and the
supervisors/instructors need to remind themselves that the workshop has a dual
purpose. One aim of the workshop has a didactic or teaching focus: learning how
groups function, learning about group dynamics, and acquiring specific skills
necessary to lead groups effectively. The other aim is experiential training.
This requires a climate of support and challenge that encourages students to
get personally involved sufficiently to acquire some tools to continue taking
an honest look at themselves as persons and to assess how their personal
characteristics might either facilitate or inhibit their ability to lead
groups. Both aims must be kept in mind to provide balance in the overall
experience.
When participation in an experiential group is a part of a
program, it is important that safeguards are put in place to manage boundaries
and to reduce risks of harm to students.
Shumaker, Ortiz, and Brenninkmeyer’s (2011) survey of experiential group
training in master’s programs in counseling resulted in their recommending
systematic instructor self-reflection, the informed consent of students, and
self-disclosure training as “the most promising and critical safeguard elements
dedicated to promoting a positive experiential group experience” (p. 127).
There
are two tendencies that might occur in such a workshop. On one extreme, the
focus may be directed toward acquiring cognitive knowledge, skills, and
techniques. If the personal investment of dealing with real issues is lacking,
this group becomes artificial. If the group is characterized by artificiality,
any meaningful learning of leadership skills and techniques becomes difficult.
On the other extreme is the tendency to forget matters of group process and
learning and practicing those skills and to become simply an “experiential
group.”
My
colleagues and I take care to combine both the experiential and didactic
dimensions, based on our conviction that such a balance is essential for
learning how to lead groups. However emotionally intense the groups may become,
we do not abandon the educational aspects. Participants can be involved in
personal self-exploration and still put their learnings into a cognitive
framework. The focus on exploring their own struggles stems from our assumption
that leaders cannot inspire others to do what they are not willing to do themselves.
Ethical
Considerations and Informed Consent- Prior to
the time students enroll in this course, a 3-hour pre-meeting (as a class) is
scheduled. This preliminary meeting focuses on what students can expect to
learn and what will be expected of them as participants in this form of
learning. Students are given a detailed course syllabus, which we go over
during this preliminary meeting. If students determine that they do not want to
participate as a member of a group as well as learning about group facilitation,
they are certainly free not to enroll in the course. By going over all of the
components of the course described in the course syllabus, students are
prepared for the weekend workshop and all of the academic and personal
requirements associated with it. With
this information, students are in a position to determine if this is the kind
of learning experience they want for themselves.
At
this preliminary orientation session, I discuss with the students some of the
potential problems and challenges inherent in a course that combines both
academic and personal learning. As a part of the course, students will be
co-facilitating (with another student) a process group, or a self-exploration
group, that meets each week on the university campus. Students are informed
that the experience of leading groups, even under supervision, often touches
them in personal ways and brings to the surface their own personal conflicts
and struggles. It is essential that they be willing to take their own journey
toward self-knowledge if they intend to pursue group work. Generally, students
hear that they will not be able to encourage future clients to deal with pain
in their lives if the students have not become aware of unresolved personal
issues and dealt with their own personal pain. Thus, students are encouraged to
consider seeking some form of personal counseling as a way to deal with the
personal issues that emerge for them as group trainees. Students will have
opportunities for working on their personal issues in a training group. I tell
students that this is not a therapy group designed for extensive exploration of
their personal problems.
Grading and
Evaluation- During the preliminary meeting
students are also informed about the basis for grading and evaluation. For
example, the weekend training workshop is a credit/no credit course (1 unit).
Students are not graded in any way on the quality of their participation either
as a group leader or as a member of their group. (See the description above for
the process paper that students write for this 1-unit course). The
Practicum in Group Leadership course (3 units) is a graded course, and
again their participation in their group as a member or as a leader is not a
criterion for determining the grade. Neither is their participation as a member
or a co-facilitator of the weekend training group a factor in determining their
grade for the Practicum in Group
Leadership course. Weekly reactions papers to assigned readings, a major
paper toward the end of the semester, and an objective-type final examination
are the criteria for assigning the course grade.
One
way many educators attempt to minimize the conflict inherent in being both a
professor and a counselor is to avoid grading students on their participation
in the experiential activities that are part of the course. Forester-Miller and
Duncan (1990) provide some viable solutions, one of which is the use of a blind
grading system. In group courses that have an experiential component, I agree
that it does put students in a bind if we use their participation in the group
as a factor in determining the course grade. Doing this would seem to encourage
“performances” by striving to become a “good group member.” Although
performance in the experiential group should not be graded, students can be
required to attend regularly and to participate.
Informed
Consent- One of the primary reasons for holding
a pre-meeting for the group courses that I teach is to provide a basis for
informed consent. I believe that students have a right to be informed of the
specific nature of course and program requirements before they enter a program.
In experiential training, participants engage in self-exploration and deal with
interpersonal issues within the training group/class as a way of learning how to
best facilitate groups. Below is a form
that I have devised, “Informed Consent Statement on
Experiential Learning,” for some of my group courses. This statement is an example of how students
can be informed of the program’s policy on self-exploration.
|
Some
Safeguards to Protect Students
It is my
position that the potential risks of experiential methods are offset by the
clear benefits to participants who become personally involved in experiential
group work as a supplement to didactic approaches to group courses. A number of factors in the design of my group
courses reduce the chances of students being harmed by the experience. These
measures include the following:
·
The screening, selection,
orientation, and preparation process results in students who have a clear idea
of the nature and requirements of the group leadership course they are
considering. The preliminary meeting is particularly useful in helping students
become acquainted with one another as well as become oriented to what will be
expected of them in a course that is academically rigorous and personally
demanding.
·
The fact that this course is an
elective allows for a more intensive learning experience than if it were
required. Students take this kind of group course because they are genuinely
interested in learning more about themselves as well as learning skills in
facilitating a group.
·
The fact that other
professionals besides myself serve as supervisors for both the weekend workshop
and also the entire semester offers students diverse perspectives on group
process and leadership styles.
·
Students in the course are
informed that they can decide for themselves the nature and extent of their
self-disclosures in the group pertaining to their private lives. The focus of
such a group is often on here-and-now interactions within the group context
rather than an exploration of outside concerns of the participants. Students
have plenty to explore in reference to dealing with one another as it pertains
to building a cohesive learning group. It is not necessary for students to
delve into intimate details of their personal lives.
·
In the class and in their
supervision group, students frequently explore their anxieties and concerns
about being a leader. Because students have opportunities to co-lead a small
group with supervision, they are typically very anxious about performing in
front of their peers and the supervisor/instructor. Doing this kind of work can
be highly personal and provides genuine material for exploration in the here-and-now
context of the group situation. In addition to students’ fears and concerns
about being a member or co-facilitator of a small group, students have
opportunities to express their reactions to resistance they encounter with the
members of the groups they are leading outside of the course. They may want to
explore ways that assuming total responsibility as a group leader frequently
burdens them and hinders their functioning in their group.
·
The basic rationale of the
course is presented and clarified from the outset. The assumption the course is
built upon is that the best way to learn about group process is to participate
in the group and learn firsthand about issues such as the creation of trust,
dealing with conflicts, and challenging one’s resistances. Conceptual learning
about groups is integrated with learning that grows out of actually
experiencing a group. With this kind of understanding, students are educated
about helpful boundaries that will enhance their learning.
The
question could be asked: “Would this format be ethically and practically
acceptable if it were a required group course in a graduate program?” If this
were the case, I would make some modifications in the structure of the course.
First of all, I would hope that there would be other sections of this course
taught by other professors who use alternative or more traditional approaches.
If the program determined that the group course should be taught in a manner
that involves students exploring personal concerns, then this can be disclosed
to students before they make a decision to enroll in the graduate program. This
can partly be done through the “Informed Consent
Statement on Experiential Learning” described earlier. Students should know about the kind of
courses and experiences that will be a part of their program, prior to making a
decision to enroll in the program. I
would still want to meet with students before they enroll in my section so that
they would know what the course would cover and how it would be taught. The usual way I do this is by building into
the structure of a course a pre-meeting where I go over the course outline
before the class actually begins. In
this way, if students do not want to participate in the group class I am
describing, they can make use of alternatives.
Teaching
Group Counseling on the Graduate Level
In addition to teaching undergraduate group courses, I teach a number of
intensive graduate group courses utilizing a workshop format at different
universities. In one of these courses at
Mississippi College, a colleague, who regularly teaches at the college, meets
with the students who want to enroll in Techniques
of Group Counseling for two 6-hour sessions on two different Saturdays
prior to the intensive portion of the course, which meets for 6 continuous
days. These preliminary class sessions are used to address various topics such
as introduction to group work, the group counselor as person, ethical issues in
group counseling, and stages of a group.
During these two preliminary class meetings my colleague gives special
attention to preparing students for the small groups that they will be
co-leading with our supervision during the intensive portion of the
course. We have written a very detailed
course syllabus that spells out the nature of the didactic and experiential
aspects of the course. Before the week of the intensive workshop, students are
expected to read two group textbooks: Groups:
Process and Practice, (Corey, Corey, & Corey, 2014), and Group Techniques, (Corey, Corey, Callanan,
& Russell, 2004). Recommended is I
Never Knew I Had a Choice, (G. Corey & Corey, 2014). Prior to the
beginning of the intensive portion of the course, students are also required to
view and study the educational self-study program, Groups in Action: Evolution and Challenges, DVD and Workbook
(Corey, Corey, & Haynes, 2014). Students take an examination on the
readings during part of the second Saturday class session. We do this because
we want to ensure that students have done the required reading prior to the
beginning of the intensive portion of the course. With this kind of advanced preparation,
students are prepared both cognitively and emotionally to actively participate
in a variety of approaches to learning about how groups work.
The intensive week consists of class sessions from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. for 5 days. The morning sessions are devoted to didactic presentations of
group counseling, demonstrations of group sessions done by the instructors,
viewing of DVD programs on groups and teaching based on the DVDs, and
discussion of topics from the readings. Each afternoon of the intensive course
is devoted to students co-leading their small group, with supervision. This
process is very similar to the structure of the weekend training workshop described
earlier. Once the workshop week is completed, the course is far from being
over. Students then have at least a month to continue their reading program, to
write notes based on their experience during the workshop, to write a
comprehensive paper conceptualizing their learning about themselves and about
group process, and to take a comprehensive objective-type final examination on
the assigned readings. A full day follow-up group meeting is scheduled about a
month after the workshop to process what students learned and to put the course
into perspective.
This type of intensive course
is quite demanding of students, both from an academic and a personal learning
perspective. Each year students have given us the feedback that the challenge
was well worth their efforts.
The
Benefits of Experiential Group Work
Whether on the undergraduate or graduate
level, I strongly endorse participation in a group as part of a leader’s
training. Learning from books and lectures is important,
but has its limitations; certain skills can be learned only through
experimentation. Struggling with trusting a group of strangers, risking
vulnerability, receiving genuine support from others, feeling joy and
closeness, and being confronted are all vital learning experiences for future
group leaders. If for no reason other than because it provides a deep
understanding of what clients face in groups, I think that group experience for
leaders is indispensable.
According to Goodrich
(2008), too much attention has been given to the potentially negative aspects
of experiential training. Goodrich contends that the group work literature does
not lend support to the assumption that dual relationships are inherently bad.
Rather, dual relationships can be beneficial to students in their personal and
professional development because they allow students to work through these
ethical concerns and learn how to manage duality in a training program. Many
group work educators see a need for an experiential component to assist
students in acquiring the skills necessary to become effective group leaders.
The potential risks of experiential methods can be offset by the clear benefits
to participants who become personally involved in experiential group work as a
supplement to didactic approaches to group courses. Instead of dwelling on all of the risks,
hazards, and drawbacks associated with the multiple roles of group work
educators who involve students in experiential group training, I prefer to
highlight the potential benefits of experiential training. Here are a few of
these benefits:
·
Student trainees get a better
sense of what their own group members experience by being trained in group
experientially. They learn what it feels like to be challenged by others, they
gain a better appreciation for the importance of giving and getting feedback,
they have opportunities for dealing effectively with conflict, they get a sense
of the difficulties involved in expressing feelings rather than stuffing them,
they learn about the importance of specifying clear personal goals, they
experience getting stuck at times, they come to realize what it takes for them
to feel a sense of safety within the group, and they see how important their
active participation becomes to the overall success of the group.
·
Firsthand learning in an
experiential group is valued. If trainees are willing to get involved
personally, they tend to affirm that what they learned experientially could
never have been learned from a lecture or a book.
·
Students often express
reluctance to “open up” in front of their peers, and some worry about what
others may think of them if they make themselves emotionally vulnerable or if
they share problems they have faced or reveal personal concerns they are
struggling with currently. Experiential group training enables students to
develop a supportive network with their peer group, one they can rely on as
they go through the various phases of their training program. Often students
say how much they have appreciated getting to know others in their program on
more than a superficial level.
Kline,
Falbaum, Pope, Hargraves, and Hundley (1997) found that students who had a
group experience generally had positive reactions to it, even though their
group experience entailed some anxiety. The student reactions to their group
experience consistently indicated that they valued the opportunity to challenge
their interpersonal fears and that they were satisfied with the gains they made
from taking risks as a group member.
Kline
and his colleagues studied the reactions of participants to the group
experience by using both initial and follow-up questionnaires. Based on data
from their study, they developed a number of hypotheses regarding the benefits
of a group experience in counselor education programs, three of which are
listed here:
·
Concurrent group experiences
augment training in counseling skills by increasing awareness and encouraging
experimentation with interpersonal behaviors.
·
After an initial period of
anxiety, the group process can be helpful in teaching students how to give and
receive feedback.
·
The cognitive and emotional
awareness stimulated by the group experience develops a clearer understanding
of client experience, acceptance of others who are different, and increased
understanding and acceptance of their own emotional experience and that of
others.
Anderson
and Price (2001) conducted a survey of students in master’s-level courses in
group counseling to assess their attitudes toward the use of an experiential
group activity as a component of training, as well as the level of instructor
involvement in these experiential groups. Approximately 41% of the students in
this survey indicated that their instructor did not lead their experiential
group and did not observe the group, but did receive feedback about the group’s
process or members’ participation. About 33% of the students indicated that
their instructor did not lead their experiential group; however, he or she did
observe the group at times. Approximately 22% of the students indicated that
the instructor did not lead, observe, or receive feedback about their group.
Only 3% of the students indicated that their instructor led the experiential
group. Based on the students’ responses to the survey items, it is apparent
that the majority of the students (93%) believe that experiential groups are
necessary for their development as a group worker. Most of the students (92%)
indicate that they benefited from their involvement in the experiential group,
even though they felt anxiety and discomfort at times.
Below
are some issues that students either strongly
disagreed or disagreed with, and
the percentages who disagreed with each:
·
I experienced dual relationship
problems in my experiential group. (64%)
·
I felt pressure to bring up
personal issues relevant to my development as a group worker in the
experiential group. (70%)
·
The experiential group violated
my personal boundaries. (89%)
·
When I
think about participating in the group, I am concerned about issues of privacy
and confidentiality. (75%)
·
I am
upset about participating in an experiential group as part of this class. (94%)
·
When I
think about participating in the group, I am concerned about being evaluated or
criticized by others or by the facilitator. (67%)
From my perspective, any or all of the above issues
are highly relevant topics for exploration in an experiential group for
training purposes. If any of these issues are on the minds of participants,
they need to be openly discussed if a climate of trust is to be created and
maintained. This kind of discussion is a good example of being personal and
focusing on here-and-now issues as they emerge within the group.
The CACREP
(2009) standards require students to gain at least 10 hours of experience in a
small group as a group member. This requirement is
typically met by structuring an experiential group as part of a group
counseling course. Students have an opportunity to be part of a group
experience and at times to facilitate the process of this group. Luke and
Kiweewa (2010) found that such participation had many benefits in the areas of
personal growth and awareness in addition to offering opportunities for
learning about group process. Students engaged in experiential training must be
willing to engage in self-disclosure, to become active participants in an
interpersonal group, and to engage themselves on an emotional as well as a
cognitive level.
Ieva, Ohrt,
Swank, and Young’s (2009) review of master’s students who participated in
experiential personal-growth groups supported the following assumptions:
• Experience
in a personal-growth group increases knowledge about groups and leadership
skills.
• Experience
in a personal-growth group enhances students’ ability to give and receive
feedback.
• Group
process is a beneficial aspect of training.
The Ieva et al. study suggests that some of the
benefits of participating in a personal-growth group include interpersonal
learning, knowledge about group process, self-awareness, empathy for future
clients, and opportunities to learn by observing group process in action.
Participants’ confidence in facilitating a group increased after having
experience as a group member, and the students believed their participation
assisted them in developing their own personal leadership style.
Anderson and Price maintain that there is research
support for the value of experiential groups and that these groups are an
effective and necessary part of the training of group counselors. The findings
of their survey also suggest that programs need to have safeguards in place
such as informed consent, pregroup preparation, and training in appropriate
self-disclosure that have been recommended in the literature (Forester-Miller
& Duncan, 1990; Merta, Wolfgang, & McNeil, 1993; Pierce & Baldwin,
1990).
Although it is
essential to secure informed consent at the outset of a member’s participation
in a group, various aspects of the consent process may need to be revisited at
different phases of the group. When
informed consent is done effectively, it helps promote individual autonomy,
engages members in a collaborative process, and reduces the likelihood of
exploitation or harm (Barnett, Wise, Johnson-Greene, & Bucky, 2007; Wheeler
& Bertram, 2012).
Student
Reactions to Experiential Training
Graduate students who participated in
various group process courses that I have taught by using a combination of
didactic and experiential approaches wrote about this experience in their
papers. Just about all of the students describe the fears and anxieties they
had about being personal in a group with their peers, and the fact that they
would continue to take other courses together once this group course ended.
Many of them describe their performance anxieties over the prospect of
co-leading their group with supervision. One student stated:
“Regardless
how much individuals know each other there is always an element of fear. In the
beginning I thought that I trusted my fellow students. Looking back, I realize
that I had an underlying sense of fear of judgment and criticism. There was the
possibility that my friends were going to find out aspects of my personal life
and that they would see me in a different light. This fear was so intense that
I was unable to work in the group until I finally addressed these concerns.”
A student described the evolution of the
group thusly:
“Our
group started the process with a strong tentativeness. During the first few
sessions we were establishing norms and trust. Each person had an opportunity
to speak. Members were afraid of taking up too much time and dominating the
group. It was as if we waited patiently for our turn. By the middle and ending
phase of the group, a completely different atmosphere was evident. Members
played off each other’s comments. There was a greater sense of flow. Though we
were still a little scared to dominate the group, everyone was joining in on
the conversation. It was amazing because this process happened so quickly.”
Another group member talked about the
common anxiety that characterized the group:
“The
entire group had two common themes regarding the fear of leading a group and
the fear of saying something too personal, for we knew we would continue to
have classes together. Questions I asked myself were: What will they think of
me if I share something too deep? How will I face them in future classes? These
fears were voiced by just about everyone in the group. Openly acknowledging
these fears actually contributed to our trust level rising so quickly because
it helped to know that others shared the same feelings.”
The same student described the empathy she
acquired by being a part of an experiential group, both as a member and as a
co-leader:
“Initially,
I was petrified at the thought of the experiential part of the class. I would
not have traded it for anything. I learned so much about myself, as a person, a
group member, and a group leader. Being a group member is an essential part of
becoming an effective group leader. As a leader, I will be able to be more
empathic to a group member’s situation. Having been a group member myself, I
know the feelings of being nervous and wondering how I will be accepted by the
group. I have experienced the fear of opening up too much too soon. I know what
it is like to be in a group experience for the first time. By working through
my fears I was able to overcome my doubts. I will be able to use this
experience for future groups that I lead.”
A different student described a similar
sense of empathy and compassion thusly:
“I
gained some important insight into how I am affected by others. As I observed
the work of others, I was most often overcome with compassion and love for
them. More often than not, there was some common element in what each of them
said that allowed me to truly empathize with them.”
Although some students had anxieties about
how their classmates would judge them if they knew them in personal ways, many
were pleasantly surprised with the acceptance they felt as they made themselves
known to others. One student described this initial sense of anxiety:
“Many
of us were unsure and distrustful as we checked in with our fears. I remember
expressing my fear of what would happen after the group was over and we had
shared personal matters that I would not typically reveal in most classes.”
By the end of the course, the same student
observed:
“I
learned that I am a halfway likable guy and that if I can let people in, they
can support me through the times I am scared. I found it to be a positive
experience to hear what my classmates thought of me. I was also inspired to
continue to be that kind of person.”
Yet another student stated:
“As
I began to share, however, I learned that instead of being met with snap
judgments and rejection, I was met with compassion, empathy, and
identification.”
This student was profoundly affected by the
group experience:
“Participating
in this therapeutic group experience has been a true watershed event in my
life. It has changed how I see myself and how I view therapy. I feel like I
have been exposed to a positive power source, one that can influence and impact
lives for the better.”
Over
the many years of reading student papers that conceptualize their personal
learning as well as what they learn about group process and facilitating a
group, I continue to find that the majority of students greatly benefit from
putting into action what they are learning from reading, lectures, and
discussions about group work. Students typically value the opportunities to
gain practical experience that result from combining didactic and experiential
approaches to learning.
Competence
of the Group Work Instructor
Certainly in a single group course there
are many demands on both the students and the professor. It is essential that
instructors are aware of the potential dangers inherent in dual relationships in
teaching group courses and they must be competent to teach group courses. I
have real ethical concerns about faculty who teach group courses who have never
experienced a group themselves as a member, or who are inadequately prepared to
teach group process. There is the potential for exploiting students if those
who teach group courses are using the group as a way of meeting their own
needs. There are issues of power and control, the undue use of pressure, and
bias that can cloud the instructor’s objectivity and judgment. It is essential
to be aware of the potential pitfalls that grow out of dual relationships and
to develop strategies to reduce chances of exploiting or harming students. It
seems clear to me that there is no way to completely eliminate the potential
for negative outcomes, especially if the form of learning is intense and
meaningful. Students who are informed of their rights and responsibilities have
a significantly less chance of being exploited. Adequate informed consent prior
to admission to the program and prior to taking courses that rely on
experiential approaches is the key to successful learning experiences.
My
colleagues and I have found that most serious students who are sincerely
interested in becoming professionally qualified as group leaders are very
willing to invest themselves in membership in a therapeutic group. It is our
challenge as educators to provide the best training available, keeping in mind
the safeguards mentioned earlier. If students are denied opportunities to experience
a group from a personal perspective, it seems to me that they are indeed being
deprived in their education and that their group class will have limited value.
If a therapeutic group is offered as a resource for the personal development
of counselors, and if students are given the freedom to determine their goals
and the structure of the experience, most students will be eager for and will
appreciate such a resource. My preference is to require a therapeutic group
(that is conducted by a group practitioner who is not on the full-time faculty
and who does not have evaluative responsibilities in the program) prior to the
time that the student will enroll in a group counseling course. I am convinced that students can greatly
benefit by participating as members in their own therapeutic group before they
take their course in group counseling.
This experience as a group member gives them a background to better
understand what a group is about and the challenges that need to be dealt with
in a self-exploration group.
For a more detailed discussion of
the challenges involved in learning how to manage multiple roles and
responsibilities in a variety of training contexts, and for a discussion of
other aspects of teaching group counseling courses, refer to the following
resources: Association for Specialists
in Group Work (March, 2004), Akos, Goodnough, and Milsom (2004), Anderson and
Price (2001), Barlow (2004), Davenport (2004), Goodrich
(2008), Guth and McDonnell (2004), Herlihy and Corey (2006), Ieva, Ohrt,
Swank, and Young’s (2009), Kottler (2004), Luke and
Kiweewa (2010), Riva and Korinek (2004),
Shumaker, Ortiz, and Brenninkmeyer’s (2011), Sonstegard and Bitter, with Pelonis (2004),
and Stockton, Morran, and Krieger (2004). Luke, M.,
& Kiweewa, J. M. (2010).
References
Akos, P., Goodnough, G. E., & Milsom, A. S. (2004). Preparing
school counselors for group work. Journal
for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 127-136.
Anderson, R. D., & Price, G. E. (2001). Experiential groups in
counselor education: Student attitudes and instructor participation. Counselor Education and Supervision,
41(2), 111–119.
Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2008). Best practice
guidelines. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 23(3), 237–244.
[Access from Website for a copy of this document]: http://www.asgw.org/best.htm
Association for Specialists in Group Work.
(2012). Multicultural and social justice competence
principles for group workers. Retrieved from http://www.asgw.org/
[Access from Website for a copy of this document]: http://www.asgw.org/diversity.htm
Association for Specialists in Group Work. (2000). Professional
standards for the training of group workers. Group Worker, 29(3), 1–10.
[Access from Website for a copy of this document]: http://www.asgw.org/training_standards.htm
Association for Specialists in Group Work. (March, 2004). Special Issue on Teaching Group Work. Journal
for Specialists in Group Work. Volume 29, Number 1.
Barlow, S. H. (2004). A strategic three-year plan to teach
beginning, intermediate, and advanced group skills. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 113-126.
Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C-Y. (2004). Teaching multicultural group counseling:
Perspectives for a new era. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 31-41.
Corey, G. (1981). Description of a practicum course in group
leadership. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work. 6(2), 100–107.
Corey, G. (2012a). Theory and
practice of group counseling (8th ed.), and Manual. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Corey, G. (2012b). Instructor’s
Resource manual for theory and practice of group counseling (8th Ed.).Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage
Learning.
Corey, G., & Corey, M. (2014). I never knew I had a choice (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole,
Cengage Learning.
Corey, G., Corey, M., Callanan, P., & Russell, J. M. (2004). Group techniques (3rd ed.).Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Corey, G., Corey, M., & Haynes, R. (2014). Groups in action: Evolution and challenges, DVD and workbook (2nd
ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole,
Cengage.
Corey, M., & Corey, G., (1986). Experiential/didactic training
and supervision workshop for group leaders. Journal
of Counseling and Human Service Professions, 1(1), 18–26.
Corey, M., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2014). Groups: Process and practice (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole,
Cengage Learning.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Programs
(CACREP, 2009). CACREP accreditation manual: 2009 standards. Alexandria, VA:
Author.
Davenport, D. S. (2004). Ethical issues in the teaching of group
counseling. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 29 (1), 43-49.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L., & Donigian, J.
(2004). The practice of multicultural group work: Visions and perspectives from
the field. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.
DeLucia-Waack, J. L., & Fauth, J. (2004).
Effective supervision of group leaders: Current theory, research, and
implications for practice. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, D. Gerrity, C. R.
Kalodner, & M. T. Riva, (Eds). Handbook
of group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 136-150). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Forester-Miller, H., & Duncan, J. A. (1990). The ethics of dual
relationships in the training of group counselors. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15(2), 88–93.
Goodrich, K. M.
(2008). Dual relationships in group training. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 33(3), 221–235.
Guth, L. J., & McDonnell, K. A. (2004). Designing class
activities to meet specific core training competencies: A developmental
approach. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 29 (1), 97-107.
Hays, D.G., Arredondo, P., Gladding, S.T., & Toporek, R.L.
(2010). Integrating social justice in group work: The next decade. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,
35(2), 177-206.
Herlihy, B., & Corey, G. (2006). Boundary issues in counseling: Multiple roles and responsibilities (2nd
ed). Alexandria, VA: American
Counseling Association.
Ieva, K. P., Ohrt, J. H., Swank, J. M., &
Young, T. (2009). The impact of experiential groups on master’s students
counselor and personal development: A qualitative investigation. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 34(4), 351–368.
Ivey, A. E., Pedersen, P. B., & Ivey, M. B.
(2008). Group microskills: Culture-centered group process and strategies. Hanover,
MA: Microtraining Associates.
Killacky, J., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2004). Group work is not
just for the group class anymore: Teaching generic group competency skills
across the counselor education curriculum. Journal
for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 87-96.
Kline, W. B., Falbaum, D. F., Pope, V. T., Hargraves, G. A., &
Hundley, S. F. (1997). The significance of the group experience for students in
counselor education: A preliminary naturalistic inquiry. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 22(3), 157–166.
Kottler, J. A. (2004). Realities of teaching group counseling. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1),
51-53.
Luke, M., &
Kiweewa, J. M. (2010). Personal growth and awareness of counseling trainees in
an experiential group. Journal for Specialists
in Group Work, 35(4), 365–388.
Markus, H. E., & King, D. A. (2003). A survey of group psychotherapy training
during predoctoral psychology internship.
Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 34(2), 203-209.
Merta, R. J., Wolfgang, L., & McNeil, K. (1993). Five models for
using the experiential group in the preparation of group counselors. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18(4),
200–207.
O’Halloran, T. M., & McCartney, T. J. (2004). An evaluation of
the use of technology as a tool to meet group training standards. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1),
65-74.
Pierce, K. A., & Baldwin, C. (1990). Participation versus
privacy in the training of group counselors. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18, 200–207.
Riva, M. T., & Korinek, L. (2004). Teaching group work: Modeling
group leader and member behaviors in the classroom to demonstrate group theory.
Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29
(1), 55-63.
Shumaker, D., Ortiz, C., &
Brenninkmeyer, L. (2011). Revisiting experiential group training in counselor
education: A survey of master’s-level programs. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 36(2), 111–128.
Sonstegard, M. A., Bitter, J. R., with Pelonis, P.
(2004). Adlerian group counseling and therapy: Step-by-step. New York:
Brunner-Routledge (Taylor & Francis).
Stockton, R., Morran, D. K., & Krieger, K. M. (2004). An overview of current research and best
practices for training beginning group leaders. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, D. Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T.
Riva, (Eds). Handbook of group counseling
and psychotherapy (pp. 65-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Velsor, P. (2004). Training for successful group work with
children: What and how to teach. Journal
for Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 137-147.
Wilson, F. R., Rapin, L. S., & Haley-Banez, L. (2004). How teaching group work can be guided by
foundational documents: Best practice guidelines, diversity principles,
training standards. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 29 (1), 19-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment