Signature Pedagogies: A Framework for Pedagogical Foundations in Counselor Education

Eric R. Baltrinic, C. Morris
{"title":"Signature Pedagogies: A Framework for Pedagogical Foundations in Counselor Education","authors":"Eric R. Baltrinic, C. Morris","doi":"10.7290/tsc020201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Twenty years ago, in a special section of Counselor Education and Supervision (CES), Thomas Sexton (1998) identified a lack of research on the fundamental pedagogical assumptions used in counselor education to prepare counselors and counselor educators. Specifically, he noted that the manner in which counseling content was delivered and the use of developmental and theoretical models to guide teaching efforts in counselor education had “largely gone unexplored” (Sexton, 1998, p. 66). In fact, Nelson and Neufeldt (1998) were unable to find any scholarly articles on pedagogy in the counseling literature, which was justifiably concerning. Fortunately, there is now some evidence in the counselor education literature addressing this concern (e.g., Association for Counselor Education and Supervision [ACES], 2016; Barrio Minton et al., 2014). Recently, Barrio Minton et al. (2018) found a sharp increase in empirical articles in counselor education articles between 2001–2010 and 2011–2015 incorporating pedagogical foundations, potentially due to the expansion of doctoral-level teaching and learning curricula and internships required by the 2016 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Program (CACREP) Standards (2015). Korcuska (2016) cautioned that simply grounding the rationale for pedagogy studies in the CACREP standards could lead authors to overlook the underlying pedagogical structures and lead to studies without “heft or staying power” (p. 156). It is plausible to presume that it is uncertain if, as a profession, we are asking the “right” questions, and studying the “best” things to increase our collective understanding of the pedagogical foundations in counselor education. Overall, both Korcuska and Barrio Minton and colleagues (2014) recommended that more research be conducted on the processes (i.e., pedagogy) for preparing teachers in counselor education, and examining the links between pedagogy, effectiveness in the classroom, and preparing students for professional practice.","PeriodicalId":74907,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and supervision in counseling","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and supervision in counseling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7290/tsc020201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Twenty years ago, in a special section of Counselor Education and Supervision (CES), Thomas Sexton (1998) identified a lack of research on the fundamental pedagogical assumptions used in counselor education to prepare counselors and counselor educators. Specifically, he noted that the manner in which counseling content was delivered and the use of developmental and theoretical models to guide teaching efforts in counselor education had “largely gone unexplored” (Sexton, 1998, p. 66). In fact, Nelson and Neufeldt (1998) were unable to find any scholarly articles on pedagogy in the counseling literature, which was justifiably concerning. Fortunately, there is now some evidence in the counselor education literature addressing this concern (e.g., Association for Counselor Education and Supervision [ACES], 2016; Barrio Minton et al., 2014). Recently, Barrio Minton et al. (2018) found a sharp increase in empirical articles in counselor education articles between 2001–2010 and 2011–2015 incorporating pedagogical foundations, potentially due to the expansion of doctoral-level teaching and learning curricula and internships required by the 2016 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Program (CACREP) Standards (2015). Korcuska (2016) cautioned that simply grounding the rationale for pedagogy studies in the CACREP standards could lead authors to overlook the underlying pedagogical structures and lead to studies without “heft or staying power” (p. 156). It is plausible to presume that it is uncertain if, as a profession, we are asking the “right” questions, and studying the “best” things to increase our collective understanding of the pedagogical foundations in counselor education. Overall, both Korcuska and Barrio Minton and colleagues (2014) recommended that more research be conducted on the processes (i.e., pedagogy) for preparing teachers in counselor education, and examining the links between pedagogy, effectiveness in the classroom, and preparing students for professional practice.
签名教学法:咨询师教育的教学基础框架
20年前,在《辅导员教育与监督》(CES)的一个特别章节中,Thomas Sexton(1998)指出,缺乏对辅导员教育中用于培养辅导员和辅导员教育者的基本教学假设的研究。具体而言,他指出,在辅导员教育中,提供咨询内容的方式以及使用发展和理论模型来指导教学工作“在很大程度上没有得到探索”(Sexton,1998,第66页)。事实上,Nelson和Neufeldt(1998)在咨询文献中找不到任何关于教育学的学术文章,这是有理由的。幸运的是,现在咨询师教育文献中有一些证据解决了这一问题(例如,咨询师教育与监督协会[ACES],2016;Barrio Minton等人,2014)。最近,Barrio Minton等人(2018)发现,2001-2000年至2011-2015年间,辅导员教育文章中纳入教学基础的实证文章急剧增加,可能是由于2016年咨询和相关教育项目认证委员会(CACREP)标准(2015)要求的博士级教学课程和实习的扩大。Korcuska(2016)警告说,仅仅将教育学研究的基本原理建立在CACREP标准中,可能会导致作者忽视潜在的教育学结构,导致研究缺乏“分量或持久力”(第156页)。可以假设,作为一个职业,我们是否在问“正确”的问题,并研究“最好”的事情,以增加我们对辅导员教育教学基础的集体理解,这是不确定的。总的来说,Korcuska和Barrio Minton及其同事(2014)都建议对教师在辅导员教育中的准备过程(即教育学)进行更多的研究,并检查教育学、课堂有效性和学生专业实践准备之间的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信