{"title":"签名教学法:咨询师教育的教学基础框架","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":"{\"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}","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}
Signature Pedagogies: A Framework for Pedagogical Foundations in Counselor Education
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.