Week 2 Assignment

RESEARCH

Group Leader Reflections on Their Training and Experience: Implications for Group Counselor Educators and Supervisors

Jonathan H. Ohrt Elizabeth Ener Jessica Porter

University of North Texas

Tabitha L. Young University of Mississippi

Effective group leaders possess specialized counseling skills and abilities; how- ever, attention to group leadership training appears to be lagging behind that of individual counseling. In this phenomenological study we explored group leaders’ perceptions of their training and experience. Twenty-two professional counselors participated in semi-structured interviews in which 7 primary themes within 2 cat- egories were identified: (a) group counseling practice, (b) observation of group leadership, (c) supervision of group leadership, (d) experiential group participation, (e) academic/instruction, (f) group leader role, and (g) group process and dynam- ics. We discuss implications for counselor educators and supervisors and future research.

Keywords: counselors-in-training; group leadership; supervision

Group counseling is widely accepted as an effective treatment modal- ity that results in positive client outcomes in a variety of settings (Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Mosier, 2003; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1999, 2001; McRoberts, Burlingame, & Hoag, 1998). For instance, in a meta-analytic review of 111 group counseling studies over a 20- year period, Burlingame et al. (2003) found significant improvements for clients who participated in group counseling over wait-list control groups. In addition to clinical benefits, the cost-effectiveness of the

Manuscript submitted June 30, 2013; final revision accepted December 19, 2013. Jonathan H. Ohrt, Ph.D., is an assistant professor; Elizabeth Ener, M.A., is a doctoral student; and Jessica Porter, M.Ed., is a post-baccalaureate student in the Department of Counseling and Higher Education at the University of North Texas. Tabitha L. Young, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the College of Leadership and Education at the University of Mississippi. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jonathan H. Ohrt, Department of Counseling and Higher Education, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #310829, Denton, TX 76203. E-mail: [email protected]

THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK, Vol. 39 No. 2, June 2014, 95–124 DOI: 10.1080/01933922.2014.883004 © 2014 ASGW

95

96 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

group modality indicates it is likely to continue to be a standard thera- peutic intervention (Dies, 1992). Additionally, the group modality is fre- quently used in both community and school settings (Steen, Bauman, & Smith, 2007). Considering the efficacy, efficiency, and widespread use of the group modality, it is imperative that counselors-in-training receive high quality group work education. However, attention to effective group work training appears to be lagging behind individual counseling (Markus & King, 2003).

To date, most training models in counselor education are specific to the individual counseling modality (Buser, 2008; Paladino, Barrio, & Kern, 2011; Urbani et al., 2002). For example, Carkhuff’s (1971/2000) model consists of role-play in which counselors-in-training rotate as counselor, client, and observer. The counselor and client role play a counseling scenario and the observer debriefs the triad and provides feedback following the session. In Ivey’s (1971) microcounseling model, counselors-in-training role-play and reflect on specific skills. Further, in Interpersonal Process Recall (Kagan, Krathwohl, & Miller, 1963) counselors view session recordings and process what happened in the moment.

Researchers have found success for individual models in promoting counselors’-in-training interpersonal skills and cognitive development. For example, in a meta-analytic review of skill performance out- comes, Baker, Daniels, and Greeley (1990) found a large effect size (1.07) for Human Resource Training/Human Resource Development training (Carkhuff, 1971/2000), a medium effect size (0.63) for Ivey’s (1971) microcounseling program, and a small effect size (0.20) for Interpersonal Process Recall (Kagan et al., 1963). More recently, Paladino et al. (2011) developed an Interactive Training Model (ITM) that consists of a role-play session including a counselor, client, client advocate, counselor advisers, and an audience. The client brings a pre- senting concern to the session, while the client advocate (typically a course instructor) provides reinforcing or corrective statements dur- ing the course of the role play. The counselor advisers provide support for the counselor and the audience notes the skills used and pre- senting concerns expressed by the client. The authors found support for the ITM in increasing counselors’-in-training autonomy, self and other awareness, and overall development. Despite the support for various training models, research on individual counseling cannot be generalized to the group modality (Rubel & Kline, 2008).

Although evidenced-based training models are essential in sup- porting counselors’-in-training’ individual counseling skills, they need to possess specialized skills in order to effectively facilitate groups (Markus & King, 2003). In fact, Furr and Barret (2000) proposed a two-course sequence at the master’s level in order to meet professional

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 97

training standards. Barlow (2004) summarized four components of group leader training including: (a) academic, (b) observation, (c) expe- riential, and (d) supervision. The author suggested addressing the components through a combination of lectures, readings, observa- tions of experienced group leaders, group participation as a member, and supervision of group skills. The components are reinforced by the Council for Accreditation for Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2009) which emphasizes the importance of group work within its training standards. For example, group work is one of the eight common core curricular experiences within the CACREP Standards (2009; Standard G.6) and is required as part of counselors’- in-training internship experience. Content in a group class typically includes the types of groups, group dynamics, group development, ther- apeutic factors, and group stages (Corey, Corey, & Corey, 2014; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Additionally, CACREP (2009) requires students to participate as a group member for at least 10 clock hr (Standard 6.e).

The ASGW outlines essential training and practice elements within its Training Standards (ASGW, 2000), Best Practice Guidelines (Thomas & Pender, 2008), and Multicultural and Social Justice Competency Principles (Sing et al., 2012). For example, within its training standards the ASGW recommends 20 hr of observation or participation as a group member or leader/co-leader and at least one graduate course in group work that addresses group leadership, group process and dynamics, group development, and types of group work (Standard I). More specifically, Thomas and Pender (2008) emphasized that group leaders be competent in attending to therapeutic condi- tions and group dynamics (Standard B.4), helping members develop goals (Standard B.6) and derive meaning from the group (Standard B.5), and evaluating member progress and outcome (Standard C.3). Additionally, the authors emphasized the importance of group lead- ers engaging in self-assessment of how their own knowledge, beliefs, and values influence the group (Standard A.3.a), and being sensitive to client differences while developing competence in working with diverse groups (Standard B.8).

Singh et al. (2012) further emphasized the importance of training group leaders who understand how multicultural and social justice concepts affect aspects of group work. The function of a group (e.g., processes, dynamics, client outcome) is influenced by multiculturalism and social justice issues. Additionally, oppressive systems affect group members’ functioning in various ways. Thus, group leaders are respon- sible for developing awareness of their own multicultural identity and the identity of their group members as well as how the identities influence the group process. Further, group leaders develop strate- gies and skills for planning and facilitating multicultural and social

98 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

justice sensitive groups, and work as social justice advocates for their group members (Singh et al., 2012). Although group leaders partici- pate in continuing education and professional development, counselor educators are responsible for providing counselors-in-training with a foundation in multicultural and social justice group work com- petence (Ibrahim, 2010). Therefore, group leader training typically includes multiple instructional strategies and experiential learning activities intended to assist counselors-in-training in developing spe- cialized skills and an ability to conceptualize groups and individual members from a diversity-sensitive perspective.

To address the group leader training gap, Smaby et al. (1999) developed the Skilled Group Counselor Training Model (SGCTM). The SGCTM consists of three sequential phases: (a) exploring, (b) under- standing, and (c) acting. The exploring stage consists of identifying group member concerns. The understanding stage focuses on develop- ing member goals, while the acting stage focuses on how to reach the goals. Within each phase students learn: (a) six interpersonal skills, (b) two group processes, and (c) one purpose (Smaby et al., 1999). Thus, the model teaches 18 lower-level (e.g., eye contact) and higher-level (e.g., confrontation) counseling skills, empathy, and decision-making skills. The authors found that the SGCTM was effective over a comparison group in interpersonal skill acquisition among counselors-in-training in a simulated group setting.

In addition to standardized training models, authors have described various pedagogical strategies to infuse when teaching group work. For example, Riva and Korinek (2004) discussed modeling group leader skills within the classroom. The authors recommended conceptualiz- ing the class in stages (i.e., early, mid, end) that are parallel to group. In the early stage, the teacher models building trust and rapport. In the mid-stage, the teacher facilitates cohesion, increased spon- taneity, greater risk-taking, and deeper discussion. Finally, in the end-stage, the teacher facilitates reflections on course progress and class closure. Torres-Rivera et al. (2004) described a model for train- ing psychoeducational group leaders that included lecture, discussion, role play, demonstrations, and video. The trainees also participated in a psychoeducational group as a member. Author-created evaluations indicated positive ratings of the training by the trainees.

Another common component of group leader training is an experi- ential group in which counselors-in-training are members (Shumaker, Ortiz, & Brenninkmeyer, 2011). Group member participation is fre- quently cited as a necessary and valuable part of group leader devel- opment (Corey et al., 2014; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Ieva, Ohrt, Swank, and Young (2009) found that counselors-in-training who participated in a personal growth group believed they could better empathize

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 99

with their clients and were more confident in facilitating groups as a result of seeing leadership modeled. Additionally, Ohrt, Robinson, and Hagedorn (2013) found that counselors-in-training who participated in either a personal growth group or a psychoeducational experien- tial group reported increased group leader self-efficacy from pretest to posttest. Young, Reysen, Eskridge, and Ohrt (2013) found that counselors-in-training who participated in a personal growth group experienced significant increases in their beliefs in their competence and ability to set personal goals. Therefore, there is some evidence to support experiential groups as an effective group work training strategy.

Despite the evidence supporting various group work training strate- gies in counselor education, additional research is needed to evaluate training effects on specialized skills and transferability to natural settings (Buser, 2008). Steen, Bauman, and Smith (2008) investi- gated school counselors’ training experiences related to group work and found that most students had one course in group work and few students were able to observe or co-lead groups with children or adolescents. The authors also found that students valued super- vised practice experiences during their internship phase. In a study with expert group leaders, Rubel and Kline (2008) found experiential influences, leadership resources, and leadership process to be emer- gent concepts describing group leaders’ experience. Nevertheless, there is limited research investigating practicing group leaders’ develop- ment in relation to their training experiences. Whereas examining students’ perceptions of critical incidences related to their growth as developing counselors clarifies counselors’-in-training needs both in the classroom and beyond (Skovholt & McCarthy, 1988), exploring more experienced counselors’ perceptions of their training and expe- rience may provide useful information for group counselor educators in designing group training experiences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore group leaders’ perceptions of their group work training and experience. Our specific research questions were: (a) what are group leaders’ perceptions of their group training experience? and (b) what are the critical aspects (e.g., challenges, therapeutic elements) of leading a group?

METHOD

Because we were seeking to understand group leaders’ unique experiences of their group work training and experience, we approached this study from a phenomenological perspective (Creswell, 2012; Moustakas, 1994). This method allowed us to gain a deep

100 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

understanding of how experienced group leaders individually and col- lectively experienced their group leader training in relation to their experience (Wertz, 2005). Rather than attempting to generate a the- ory through data saturation, we sought to understand the participants’ subjective accounts of their group work training (Hays & Singh, 2012). We followed Moustakas’ (1994) transcendental phenomenology by set- ting aside our own experiences and focusing on the participants’ descriptions of their experiences. Consistent with the phenomenologi- cal tradition, our purpose was to uncover the central underlying mean- ing of the participants’ experience through interviews by bracketing our assumptions, reducing data, analyzing specific statements, search- ing for all possible meanings, and creating meaning units (Creswell, 2012).

Research Team

Our research team consisted of two counselor educators, one counselor education doctoral student, and two master’s level counselor education students in the internship phase of their training. The first author is a White male and the second, third, and fourth authors are White females. The additional investigator is also a White female. The first and fourth authors have multiple years of experience facilitating groups, teaching group counseling courses, and have conducted mul- tiple research studies related to group work. The second author has experience facilitating various groups and has participated in several research studies related to group work. The third author and addi- tional investigator have a defined interest in group work practice and have facilitated multiple counseling groups. The fourth author served as a peer debriefer and was not involved in data collection or analysis. The additional investigator served in the initial data collection pro- cess and was not involved in the analysis process. The first and fourth authors have training in qualitative research through a doctoral-level counseling course and have published multiple qualitative research articles. The second author also has doctoral-level qualitative research training.

We bracketed our positions prior to collecting data. We sought to set aside our own experiences and refrain from adding our own judgments (epoche) in order to view the phenomenon from a fresh perspective (Hays & Singh, 2012; Moustakas, 1994). This process consisted of an initial meeting to discuss and record our own experiences, beliefs, and assumptions about group leadership training. We recognized that we all have positive views of group work, believe strongly in experien- tial learning components of group work, and believe there should be a greater emphasis on group work training. We also discussed our beliefs about what is helpful about group work training and how our own

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 101

courses in group work are structured. We acknowledged that we hoped participants would validate the training components that we use in our courses. We continued to revisit our assumptions throughout the data collection and analysis processes in order to maintain as much objectivity as possible.

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), we purposefully recruited participants based on their experience con- ducting group work using criterion-based and snowball sampling procedures (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002). We contacted local area counselors in private practice, schools, and community agencies via: (a) phone, (b) email, or (c) in-person, to invite them to participate in the study. In order to be eligible for the study, potential participants must have had at least one course in group work at the graduate level. Additionally, they were required to be currently leading at least one group as part of their practice. After discussing the purpose of the study with participants and obtaining informed consent, we arranged times to conduct individual, face to face interviews with each participant.

Participants

This study included the unique, subjective experiences of 22 counselors with group leadership experience. The group leaders were post-master’s level counselors who were working in a community setting, school, and/or private practice. The leaders were 18% male (n = 4) and 82% female (n = 18). In addition, the racial composition was 68% White (n = 15), 4.5% Latino (n = 1), 13.6% Black (n = 3), 9% Asian (n = 2), and 4.5% Native American (n = 1). The group lead- ers’ ages ranged from 25 to 77 (M = 40.27). Overall, the group leaders had an average of (7.5) years of counseling experience (range = 1–40). Finally, the percentage of time that each group leader spent facilitat- ing groups during their clinical practice ranged from 5% to 30% of their total case load (M = 14.3). The counselors completed their grad- uate training at 10 different universities in the Southwest. We include participant demographics and pseudonyms in Table 1.

Data Collection

Prior to participating in the semi-structured interviews, the partici- pants completed a demographic questionnaire that included questions related to their age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, and group experience. Our data collection method consisted of interviews with

102 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

Table 1 Participant Demographics

Pseudonym Age Sex Race

Kelly 53 Female White Doris 25 Female Black Vincent 32 Male Black Beverly 30 Female White Nadine 39 Female Native American Bill 45 Male White Darlene 40 Female Asian Steve 44 Male White Perla 27 Female Hispanic Megan 27 Female White Mary 51 Female White Kerry 40 Female Black Stacy 37 Female White Joshua 77 Male White Casey 34 Female White Marina 66 Female Asian Susan 62 Female White Dorothy 37 Female White Carolyn 41 Female White Michelle 28 Female White Wanda 26 Female White Kara 25 Female White

participants who have experienced the phenomenon of participating in group work training and leading groups with clients (Polkinghorne, 1989). We developed an individual, face-to-face, semi-structured inter- view protocol that consisted of open-ended questions (Patton, 2002). We asked participants general questions about their experiences of the phenomenon and influences on their experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Additionally, we developed other open-ended questions. Examples of interview questions included: “Reflecting on your graduate training, what aspects were helpful in preparing you as a group leader?” “What aspects of group counseling do you find most difficult as a leader? (e.g., planning, preparation, in session)?” and “What aspects of group counseling do you believe are most helpful for members?” We audio- recorded and transcribed the interviews, which each lasted between 45 min and 1 hr.

Data Analysis

We used a phenomenological data analysis procedure developed by Moustakas (1994) in order to analyze the data. The process consisted of:

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 103

(a) bracketing our assumptions about group leader training; (b) iden- tifying all non-repetitive, non-overlapping statements related to the phenomenon (horizontalization); (c) grouping significant statements into clusters of meaning and creating a textural description (descrip- tion of participants’ experience); and (d) seeking multiple meanings and variations in the descriptions and creating a structural descrip- tion (Creswell, 2012). In our first meeting we discussed our experiences with group work (discussed in the research team section), discussed our perspectives and biases, and bracketed our assumptions about group work training. Next, we each independently read through all of the individual interview transcripts to get a sense of the data. We then individually reviewed the transcripts and listed out significant state- ments related to the research questions (horizonalization). We then combined our lists and met face to face to decide on a final list of all significant statements. We reviewed the statements to ensure there were no repetitive statements. After creating a list of non-repetitive, non-overlapping statements, we grouped the statements into meaning units and created a textural description of the experience. During this step, the coding team met multiple times to reflect on the descrip- tions, revisit the meaning units, and subsequently decide on our identified themes and subthemes. Finally, we reflected on the textural descriptions and explored the context and meaning of the participants’ experience and discussed any tensions in the data to create structural descriptions.

Trustworthiness

We used multiple verification procedures to enhance the trust- worthiness of the study (Creswell, 2014). For example, we monitored our biases by bracketing our assumptions and beliefs about group work in order to view the data as objectively as possible. Prior to collecting and analyzing the data, we explored our personal beliefs and assumptions. We continued to revisit our biases as we met to develop themes to help ensure objectivity. Additionally, we participated in multiple weekly research team meetings to share our independent analyses results and come to a consensus on statements, meanings, and themes. We presented the findings using thick, rich descriptions. We used member checking by presenting the meanings and descrip- tions to the participants and soliciting feedback about the accuracy of our findings. After we developed the themes and descriptions, we sent each participant an electronic copy and asked them to review the docu- ment. We considered the feedback. Finally, the fourth author served as a peer debriefer who reviewed and asked questions about the research

104 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

study, including review the transcripts and themes to ensure the find- ings resonated with someone with a different perspective of the study (Hays & Singh, 2012).

FINDINGS

The purpose of this study was to explore experienced group lead- ers’ experiences and perceptions of their training in relation to their development. After analyzing the data, we discovered themes that we grouped into two broad categories: (a) training influences, and (b) crit- ical aspects. Training influences include the participants’ beliefs about what was most and least helpful about their graduate training in group leadership. Within training influences, five main themes emerged: (a) group counseling practice, (b) observation of group leadership, (c) supervision of group leadership, (d) experiential group participation, and (e) academic/instruction. Critical aspects encompass participants’ perspectives about the most important aspects of group counseling. Within critical aspects, two themes emerged: (a) group leader role, and (b) group process and dynamics. Multiple subthemes emerged within each primary theme for critical aspects. We present the categories, themes, and subthemes in Table 2. In the following section, we discuss the themes and subthemes and illustrate them with direct quotations from the participants.

Table 2 Categories, Themes, and Subthemes for Group Leader Training and Experience

Category Themes Subthemes

Training Influences Group Counseling Practice Observation of Group

Leadership Supervision of Group

Leadership Experiential Group

Participation

Critical Aspects Group Leader Role Co-leadership; Structure; Leader Style; Leader Awareness

Group Process and Dynamics Progress; Interactions; Cohesion; Universality; Interpersonal Learning; Managing Conflict

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 105

Group Counseling Practice

When reflecting on their graduate training experiences in group counseling, participants expressed appreciation for opportunities to practice leading groups both in the classroom and outside of class at various sites in the community and schools. Participants acknowledged that nothing can replace real world experience and actually “getting in there and doing it.” They valued having actual group leadership responsibilities as part of their course requirements. Megan partici- pant succinctly stated, “I think the most helpful aspect of my training was actually leading groups.” Another participant, Beverly, mentioned the benefits of practice facilitation in class, “When we practiced lead- ing groups that was really helpful. Just learning what it feels like to practice and kind of be attentive and get a feel and get feedback on our skills as a group leader.” Doris reflected on experiences co-leading a group outside of class:

Actually having to lead a group during that class was the most helpful because it actually got me into the real situation. Initially when I started the group training here in the group class, the professor ran it like a group, and so I was like yeah this is easy. I was getting little tips and things like that until I actually got to the site where I was leading my group and I realized it was a lot more challenging than I thought. But I learned so much from the co-leader that I worked with during that time. I think that was the most helpful. I mean, reading the textbook and all that was helpful and being in class, but there was nothing like actually getting in there and getting my feet wet and doing it . . .

Overall, participants appeared to learn most from actually experi- encing groups in action in multiple formats. Participating as a member, co-leading with an experienced leader, and actually leading were all considered helpful aspects of training.

Observation of Group Leadership

Participants reported benefits from observing other, more experi- enced group leaders in action through multiple learning activities. For example, participants learned from having group leader skills mod- eled in the classroom by the professor. Carolyn stated, “I think he (the professor) did a really great job of modeling what it meant to be an effective group leader and counselor overall.” Several participants com- mented that it was beneficial that “The class itself was run as a group.” Additionally, they appreciated watching videos of more experienced group leaders. When responding to the question about helpful aspects of training, several participants mentioned watching videos of other groups in action. Further, several participants mentioned that they

106 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

learned by co-leading groups with a more experienced group leader. Darlene responded that she liked “Being with someone who has more experience that you can learn from in the moment. Not like reading from a textbook, but being in the moment.” Megan recognized that a more experienced group leader played a vital role in her development when commenting, “I also think it really helped to have a co-leader who was more experienced than I was at the time as she pushed me to move forward.” Participants had an opportunity to view firsthand, different ways to handle complex situations. However, seven partici- pants did not report observation as a beneficial practice. Nevertheless, many of those who didn’t find it beneficial did mention desiring more observation opportunities. For example, Beverly mentioned, “Watching other groups to help really talk through as it’s happening.” Participants appreciated viewing groups in action and conceptualizing the delicate situations that can occur in a group setting.

Supervision of Group Leadership

Throughout the interviews, participants frequently discussed the benefits of receiving supervision and feedback on their group leader- ship skills. Participants found value in conceptualizing their groups with a more experienced leader (e.g., their professor) and also appre- ciated constructive feedback on their specific skills. In particular, participants emphasized the importance of good supervision for groups that they led outside of class. For instance, Nadine described the most helpful part of her training:

I think the practical use under guidance. You know, being able to run a group and come back in supervision and talk about what worked, what didn’t work, what could be done different in order to bring the group where I want them to go. I think the supervision part is the most helpful.

However, not all participants reported benefits from supervision and feedback. In fact, most participants reported wanting more super- vision. Megan expressed a desire for more intensive supervision, including reviewing session recordings, “I also think having hands- on supervision where we review tape of my group with the professor would have also been helpful. It’s hard to get effective supervision when we’re just relying on my perspective in the group.” Doris reit- erated this perspective, “if we could record our session, which I know is already hard, but record those sessions and maybe every class period 2–3 members show their video, and then we get feedback from the pro- fessor; some supervision in class.” Bill expressed a similar sentiment, “we had supervision meetings, but it wasn’t recorded. Recording of the

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 107

groups would be helpful, but I know there’s a big trade off for that regarding confidentiality.” Collectively, participants appeared to appre- ciate the supervision and feedback process and strongly desire more of it. Participants were genuinely open to constructive feedback in order to continue developing their leader skills.

Experiential Group Participation

The theme “experiential group participation” is a description of par- ticipants’ accounts of being a member of a group as part of their group leader training. Participants mentioned multiple benefits of being a member in the groups, often despite some initial hesitation. Many par- ticipants in this study were required to be full members of a group that was led by doctoral students or a course instructor. Viewing a group leader in action, learning about group dynamics, and experi- encing personal growth all appeared to be beneficial aspects. Dorothy stated:

I think one thing that was helpful was actually being part of a group in class because I had never been through a group so being a group member and watching how our group leader moderated was really helpful. . . . I think our group was very close and so it was a good way to see the group dynamics.

Carolyn commented:

I thought one of the most helpful things was definitely being part of a group when our class was split into two separate groups and we went off and did that during class time. I thought what was beneficial for me was that I was already comfortable with a lot people in the class . . . and the group that I got put into, I actually wasn’t as familiar with those people in the program and so I felt like I really got more of the experience as a group member coming in and not know thing these people as well and not comfortable with them so having a more authentic group experience . . . . And then along with that, seeing the stages of the group form.

Participants valued their experiential groups in terms of learning about group in addition to experiencing personal growth and having therapeutic experiences.

Academic/Instruction

Another theme that emerged during the interviews was “academic/ instruction.” Participants vocalized genuine appreciation for the con- tent that was covered in their group course. Participants discussed learning about leadership styles, member roles, group dynamics, group

108 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

stages, and how to design a group as important content they learned in class. Wanda stated: “Class itself was helpful just in learning about group counseling and the different stages, member roles, leadership styles.” Carolyn spoke positively about a specific assignment when stating:

Something else I really thought was helpful was doing the group curricu- lum project and creating our own, you know, hypothetical, group situation and doing the research and forming a curriculum for it and activities for it. I thought that was helpful because it really integrated everything from our class that we had learned about and put it into more of a practical application.

Participants often discussed how it would be helpful to have more than one group counseling course. Kerry responded that there should be “More than one semester of group.” While another participant stated that, “Integrating a couple more classes would be helpful.” Steve remarked that, “There should be more at the master’s level, if not another course, more drawn out or lengthy to integrate what’s been learned.” Finally, Megan articulated the importance of group work when stating, “Group counseling is a planet all on its own and it needs to be tended to and cultivated more often than it is.” Participants appeared to be interested and enthusiastic about course material and reported a desire to learn more of the foundational content that guides the practical application.

Group Leader Role

We identified the next theme, “leader role” from participants’ discus- sions of critical aspects of group leadership. This theme includes the various leader responsibilities that participants believe to be impor- tant. It also encompasses the thoughts, feelings, and actions that participants experience as they prepare for and lead a group. Four subthemes were identified: (a) co-leadership, (b) structure, (c) leader style, and (d) leader awareness.

Co-leadership. Participants frequently mentioned co-leadership responsibilities as a critical aspect of group leadership. Some areas that were discussed included concerns about leaders’ compatibility and interactions in the group. Megan emphasized the importance of attend- ing to co-leadership, “Co-leading is something that a lot of counselors don’t put much thought into, but it’s something that can make or break a group.” Steve mentioned some thoughts when co-leading, “If I’m leading with a co-leader, I think a lot about that relationship and who that other person is, what they’re expecting of the group, what

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 109

they’re approach to group is, what’s mine, how do we fit?” Although many participants discussed benefits of co-leadership, Megan reported some caution when co-leading, “I also think the subject of co-leading can be difficult as well. I actually love having a co-leader, as I think it really helps the process; however, I’ve also been in groups where me and my co-leader were not compatible and it actually hurt the group process.” Overall, participants believed co-leading could be very posi- tive, but were aware that it is a relationship that needs to be attended to and developed.

Structure. Structure is characterized by participants’ attention to the logistics of the group as well as their challenge to balance provid- ing structure and maintaining flexibility over the course of a group. Participants discussed aspects of planning for the group such as screen- ing to ensure members are a good fit, planning material from week to week, and being mindful of time limitations. Participants also men- tioned sometimes struggling with “sticking to a plan” or allowing the group to go where it needs to go within sessions. For example, Casey reported:

Although I am more comfortable in structured environments, I have learned and am now aware that group sessions will not always go exactly how I have planned them and that I need to be flexible in order to adapt my leadership technique to most effectively assist group members. And also, just because I’m more comfortable with structure does not mean that I can assume that my group members will prefer structure as well.

Other members reported difficulty with how to know how much structure to provide in the group in order to help members become aware of expectations and feel safe. Steve remarked:

I think one of my areas for growth is in providing structure. Because I think I do value so much spontaneous relationship between group mem- bers, I can, in fact I know at times, I’ve provided less structure than members need to feel comfortable in a group process. So I’ve found at times we have to go back and kind of do work over again sort of re- establishing that structure. So sometimes I underestimate how much structure it needs.

The responsibility to maintain an appropriate balance was particu- larly challenging. Wanda stated:

I started out with too much structure in the beginning of my first group so letting go of my agenda and learning to let the group be flexible was a bit challenging for me . . . at the same time, balancing my control and flexibility as a leader was challenging because the group members could easily get off topic.

110 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

Leader style. Participants discussed considerations about develop- ing their own personal leadership style and how to integrate their personality into their leadership. Megan emphasized the importance when stating, “I feel I bring a lot of myself into groups and through- out my development it is something that has really helped me become a more successful counselor.” Participants mentioned thinking about how their style influences the group, how they fit in with the group, and how members might respond to their style. When discussing a spe- cific group, Wanda stated, “I would also think about how I fit in as a leader in each group and how the girls’ interactions with me were.” Participants also acknowledged that their style may need to change and adapt throughout the course of the group as Carolyn responded that she thinks about “How my leadership role and style will change throughout the group,” and” how I need to switch over from teacher to counselor role” when leading psychoeducational groups. Finally, Carolyn acknowledged the challenges involved in adapting to the group leader role when commenting that it’s about “challenging myself to be more extraverted and having the confidence to get up there and stand in front of a group of people.”

Leader awareness. The subtheme, “leader awareness,” consists of participants’ self-talk within the group, thoughts about how to remain present and focused in the group, and concerns about how to main- tain attention to all of the different dynamics that are occurring. Participants consistently discussed challenges with becoming dis- tracted while in the group session. Casey mentioned “there is so much going on that it can be overwhelming as well.” Participants discussed needing to attend to each member’s needs and their development, while also attending to the group as a whole. Vincent responded that a chal- lenge in group is, “Meeting the developmental level of all group mem- bers simultaneously because different people are at different places and their perception and what they gain . . . they may all perceive it differently.” They also emphasized the importance of monitoring each member’s reactions (to other members and the group leader), level of understanding, and growth. A specific topic that emerged was balanc- ing attention to each member with attention to the whole group. Kara mentioned the difficulty in attending to multiple group members:

Group counseling is a lot like couples counseling where you have to focus on more than one individual and be aware of the emotions of two or more individuals, not just one. So focusing on more than one individual has always been difficult for me because I put everything I have into that one individual. Trying to be cognizant of my energy being evenly distributed was very distracting, and at some points all I could focus on. Because of my struggle with that, I found myself neglecting everyone in the group.

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 111

Kelly discussed similar thoughts about leading groups:

The first thing that comes to mind is sometimes I try to not think too much, because I can think too much and lose just the feel of the group. And not all people have this problem, but I can over-think. I get too thinky and I’m not feeling what they’re thinking . . . . I remind myself, I have the tendency to focus on the person talking, I naturally do that, and I forget to keep awareness of the people and how they’re reacting, because that is a big part of group.

Participants also discussed needing to be aware of their own pres- ence, reactions, and feelings in the group. Doris discussed making a conscious effort to become fully present in the group when stating:

I have to really give myself about 5 minutes to kind of like gather myself, make sure I’m okay and focused. Because I think group takes a lot out of you and so I want to be ready and make sure that I’m, that I can be fully present throughout the whole time.

Further, Steve commented on the process of being consciously aware of his own feelings and reactions in the group, and how the members are reacting to him:

I tend to put a lot of focus on how I’m feeling in a group and reactions I’m having to other group members or umm, I guess just kind of intuiting. So I spend, I pay a lot of attention to my reactions in the group, to help me get a sense for what’s going on for other people and oftentimes use my reactions in a group as a way to reflect genuineness, my experience in the group to help others feel comfortable that they can do that too, you know just put themselves out there, you know so they can feel safe to do that.

Group Process and Dynamics

The theme, “group process and dynamics,” emerged from the par- ticipants’ discussions about critical aspects of group that they must attend to in order to be successful. Participants discussed multiple aspects of group that they believe are the most important in promot- ing member improvement. Many of the aspects paralleled Yalom and Leszcz’s (2005) therapeutic factors and included the specific processes that occur within group sessions between members and the leader. Specifically,six subthemes emerged: (a) progress, (b) interactions, (c) cohesion, (d) universality, (e) interpersonal learning, and (f) managing conflict.

Progress. Participants discussed the importance of monitoring client progress and being able to assess the effectiveness of the group. For

112 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

example, Nadine mentioned appreciating, “Seeing how the participants really seem to get a lot out of it.” Additionally, Kelly stated, “I like when I see change.” Susan stated,

I love watching the progress. I love clients coming into group and saying . . . I don’t want to be in this group, I can’t understand why I’m in here, and then over time, it takes them a while, but watching the process of watching them blossom with their emotional skills. I just love that.

Other participants discussed how measuring progress can some- times be challenging. For example, Beverly commented on what’s difficult about groups:

I think, not always having a good understanding, like not, not always have a good understanding of how what they’re learning in group is transferring to life outside of the group for them. You know, I can look at, I can talk to parents, or I can sometimes have them tell me, but I’m not always really getting a good sense of that and how effective it really is for them.

Therefore, participants appeared to enjoy seeing group members improve, but also struggled with finding ways of measuring tangible outcomes or quantifying the members’ experience.

Interactions. Participants discussed needing to pay attention to how the members interact in the group and also needing to foster healthy, positive interactions among members. Susan stated, “Encounters with others in the room, confrontation, and in the room interactions are the most powerful aspect of group.” This subtheme also included atten- tion to members’ participation level and encouraging participation, particularly from quieter members. When speaking about things that she thinks about while leading a group, Michelle mentioned that she tries to

think about the different participants and how they interact with each other and maybe things I need to think about with either encouraging people to talk more or maybe encouraging people to talk less or getting people to interact more.

Participants talked about the challenges of working with quieter members. Kelly commented, “I find that really quiet person is challeng- ing in that they are hard to draw out sometimes.” Darlene commented that it is difficult, “When someone withdraws from the group and I have to attend to the ones who are being active as well as the one that is withdrawn.” However, participants also illustrated the importance of skillfully working through such issues, as Kelly stated, “It is also always exciting to see the person who has been reticent to speak to

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 113

speak and then the person who has had difficulty sharing feelings to be able to open up and trust.” Finally, participants discussed how mem- bers’ participation and interaction within group is a microcosm of their interactions outside the group, making appropriate modeling and prac- tice a critical aspect of the group. Stacy commented on often thinking about, “How the group is a microcosm of their interactions outside, and how to bring it to their attention in a way that is supportive, genuine, and honest.”

Cohesion. Participants discussed the importance of fostering a sup- portive environment in which members share a sense of belongingness, togetherness, and relatedness. Additionally, the subtheme includes participants’ emphasis on helping members develop safety and trust within the group. Participants believed promoting cohesion is one of the key roles for the group leader. For example, Megan commented on thoughts about, “How as a facilitator can I best link or connect the group members so that they feel connected to the group and myself.” Megan further stated, “I think what group members find most helpful are the connections they build in the group.” When discussing helpful aspects of group Wanda commented:

I think linking members feelings and experiences are helpful in that it creates room for processing for the group and creating cohesion. And even though it was a concern for me on one level, creating that trusting atmosphere is helpful and necessary so the girls could feel comfortable to self-disclose and open up to the group, otherwise I don’t believe the group could have been effective.

Universality. Participants discussed how members benefiting from being in a group with others who are facing similar concerns and circumstances. Participants discussed the importance of linking mem- bers’ experiences and helping them feel connected to each other. Megan emphasized the importance of promoting universality when remarking:

I think what group members find most helpful are the connections they build in the group. Coming to a place and realizing you’re not alone and that everything you’re feeling and experiencing is normal can be an incredible realization. It’s comforting knowing you’re not alone and that others have and continue to have similar feelings and experiences. It automatically lifts that burden and heaviness of carrying it all on your own shoulders-which is healing in and of itself. I think what drives people to mental illness is isolation and the group combats against that.

Interpersonal learning. The subtheme, “interpersonal learning,” emerged from participants’ reports about the learning members obtain

114 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

through self-disclosure, feedback, and hearing others’ perspective. Participants described the importance of effectively using interventions to promote feedback and growth-enhancing opportunities for members. Steve commented on the importance of interpersonal learning when stating:

For me it all goes back to the interpersonal piece, I think that’s the most helpful. Even if you’re very doing a very structured psychoed model where there’s a lot of teaching or a lot of sharing of information, if that’s all you were really doing you could pass out papers one-on-one, but there’s a reason people bring people together. So I think the real value of group is the interpersonal learning. Just getting honest feedback; being okay with that. Risking it, risking hearing it, and then what do you do with for the rest of your life. For me that’s the crux of group, no matter what your goal is, we all have to learn from any group of people.

Managing conflict. Participants emphasized the importance of effec- tively working through various conflicts within the group. They dis- cussed how conflict resolution is vital for both the group process and for members to learn how to deal with conflict outside of group. However, participants also acknowledged that this aspect of group leadership also can be very challenging. Megan commented:

Conflict is always a challenging piece as a group leader. I know it’s neces- sary for change, but it can be scary at times, mostly because a lot hangs on how effective the group leaders are at attending to and facilitating the process of the conflicts.

Later in the interview she elaborated:

Also, conflicts, though they occur in every group, they happen differently every single time. How I managed a conflict in one group will look very different to how I manage a conflict with another group. . . . I think the biggest issue would be not addressing it. I do think conflict is necessary for change, both conflict with myself and other group members, but it is something that has to be carefully addressed.

Overall, participants reported many helpful instructional strategies that appear to be consistent with the ASGW training standards and proposed models. It was interesting that participants from different training programs across time mentioned similar strategies. However, not all participants had only positive experiences throughout their training programs. For example, supervision and feedback was a theme in which the experiences varied. Yet, participants who did not report having adequate supervision also expressed a desire for more super- vision and feedback. It was also interesting that leaders of different ages and experience levels discussed similar thoughts about challenges

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 115

(e.g., managing conflict) and leader role (e.g., providing structure, infus- ing their own style, and focusing on the dynamics occurring in the group). Finally, it was surprising that issues related to diversity were not discussed during the interviews. Given that all groups are diverse by nature, we believed it would be more predominant in the discussion.

DISCUSSION

The findings in this study are primarily consistent with previous literature regarding group leader training and experience, yet provide further direction for training future group leaders. Previous authors (e.g., Barlow, 2004; Torres-Rivera et al., 2004) recommended infus- ing multiple instructional strategies when training group leaders. Academic, observation, experiential, and supervision are recommended training components and emerged as beneficial by the participants in this study. Within the academic realm, participants expressed satisfac- tion with course content including attention to group stages, dynamics, member roles, which appear to be similar to that presented by authors such as Corey et al. (2014). Participants even suggested requiring more than one course in group work, which is consistent with Furr and Barret’s (2000) suggestion to teach group over a two-course sequence, allowing more opportunities for content elaboration and practice oppor- tunities. In fact, given the complexities of group training and the inherent time restriction in a single semester, a two-sequence may help allow more opportunities to address multiple components that were endorsed by participants this study.

Participants in this study valued various opportunities for observa- tion both in the classroom through demonstration or video, or live with an experienced co-leader. Consistent with Riva and Korinek’s (2004) format of teaching the class as a group, participants appreciated see- ing leadership modeled in the classroom. This finding also supports the ASGW’s (2000) recommendation that counselors-in-training observe or co-lead a group for 20 hr. Participants relished the opportunity to co- lead groups with an experienced leader and appreciated the modeling and mentoring they received. It appears that counselors-in-training may benefit from as much modeling as possible, both in the class- room and in clinical practice. In addition to observing, participants found value in practicing leadership, both in the classroom in role play and in community and school settings with actual clients. The par- ticipants’ positive experience with role-play practice reinforces many aspects of the individual training models that include role play (e.g., Carkhuff, 1971/2000; Ivey, 1973; Paladino, Barrio, & Kern, 2011) as well as the SGCTM (Smaby et al., 1999). Structured experiences that

116 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

allow for practice, feedback, reflection, and processing in a controlled environment appear to be key aspects of group leader development. Additionally, participants appreciated being required to actually lead a group outside of class. This finding is in support of CACREP’s (2009) requirement that students have an opportunity to lead groups. The finding is also consistent with that of Rubel and Kline (2008), who found that leaders’ experience was a primary influence in increasing their knowledge and confidence. However, in this study participants appeared to report mostly benefiting from co-leading a group with a more experienced leader. This suggests that counselors-in-training may be best served by co-leading with an experienced leader before leading on their own.

Whereas participants reported benefits from leading groups, the benefits appeared to be mediated by effective supervision and feed- back. Although participants viewed feedback as helpful, the amount, frequency, and intensity appear to vary greatly. Participants’ satisfac- tion with feedback with in-class practice supports components of the individual training models (Carkhuff, 1971/2000) and the SGCTM; however, supervision of groups outside of the classroom seems to be more difficult to structure. These findings are similar to those of Steen et al. (2008) who found observation and supervised practice to be train- ing needs for professional school counselors who lead groups. Perhaps supervision of groups is not addressed enough in group classes or during practicum and internship supervision. For example, partici- pants voiced concerns over providing only their perspective on the group in supervision, citing a desire for supervisors to watch recorded sessions.

Next, participants’ accounts of positive experiences in experien- tial groups are consistent with previous literature and support the CACREP (2009) group participation standard. Similar to previous research (e.g., Ieva et al., 2009), participants valued viewing a group leader in action. They also gained confidence in their own ability (Ohrt et al., 2013) and appreciated being able to experience the group dynam- ics and stages. Overall, the participants reported the groups to be growth enhancing experiences. Although much of the research with experiential groups has been with master’s level students, we found that participants continued to value their experience as they continued their group work practice.

Participants frequently discussed thoughts about the leader role and specifically reflected on their leadership style and awareness of members. Participants discussed having an awareness of their own personalities and wanting to integrate their personality within their leadership. Other participants discussed challenges around structure. The subtheme, “structure,” appears to be linked to participants’ level

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 117

of comfort with ambiguity within the group and their preferences for directive leadership styles. Undoubtedly, the amount of structure pro- vided in a group will shape the groups dynamics. The subthemes of “leadership style” and “leader awareness” are similar to Rubel and Kline’s (2008) finding, “perceiving,” in which participants reported an awareness of their own reactions and emotions as well as the members’ reactions. Participants in that study also discussed using the infor- mation from multiple sources (e.g., their own emotions and reactions, member reactions, member interactions) to guide their perceptions of the group. Participants in our study described their difficulty in pro- cessing all those aspects of the group within “leader awareness.” Based on our findings, it appears that processing one’s own reactions while simultaneously attending to all group members may be a skill that needs to be developed with time and experience.

An aspect of group leadership that often is neglected is group co-leadership. However, participants in this study emphasized the importance of a good co-leader relationship. Although many partici- pants believed co-leadership is an extremely beneficial practice, they reported awareness that it can also be potentially damaging to the group if co-leaders are not on the same page. Similar to Okech and Kline’s (2005) findings, participants in this study acknowledged that a co-leader relationship must be fostered through reflection, feedback, and open communication and should be a focus starting with graduate training.

Group process and dynamics emerged as a theme in which par- ticipants discussed the specific aspects needing to be attended to for the group to be successful. The subthemes: (a) progress, (b) inter- actions, (c) cohesion, (d) universality, (e) interpersonal learning, and (f) managing conflict are consistent with Yalom and Leszcz’s (2005) conceptualization of group therapeutic factors and important aspects at various group stages (Corey et al., 2014). Similar to Rubel and Kline’s (2008) study, participants emphasized the importance of attend- ing to effective and ineffective interactions among group members. The group leaders in this study emphasized that a group’s success is often contingent upon appropriate, balanced, and constructive mem- ber interactions which often need to be facilitated by the group leader. Further, participants discussed the importance of appropriately man- aging conflict. The theme “managing conflict” was characterized by some anxiety by group leaders in addressing it and recognition that is a necessary aspect of change and movement for the group. It also appears to be related to the theme, “interpersonal learning,” in that participants believed insight can be gained from constructive feedback between members. Participants discussed the benefits members expe- rience from hearing others’ perspective. This finding is consistent with

118 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

Morran, Stockton, and Whittingham’s (2004), assertions that feedback is linked to greater insight and a more positive group experience.

Additionally, participants discussed “cohesion” and described the importance of creating a safe and trusting environment where mem- bers feel a closeness and openness to other group members. When the group environment is safe, combined with high levels of interaction and constructive feedback exchange, members may feel more comfortable to disclose on a deeper level, providing the opportunity for connections and potentially feelings of universality, another subtheme in this study. Riva and Korinek’s (2004) framework for teaching group work through modeling safety, trust, support, and cohesion in the classroom is sup- ported by this finding. Overall, the participants’ discussion supports aspects of Smaby et al.’s (1999) model that requires counselors-in- training to focus on group process as well as skills. Finally, participants’ discussed wanting to assess the group progress. Incorporating holistic strategies to evaluate group process and outcome remains important for counseling training programs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR GROUP COUNSELOR EDUCATORS AND SUPERVISORS

Based on our findings in this study and previous research, we have the following recommendations for group counselor educators and supervisors to enhance counselors’-in-training educational experience.

Balance Content With Experiential Learning

In general, we found support for Torres-Rivera et al.’s (2004) approach that incorporates lecture, discussion, role play, demonstra- tions, and video in group counselor training, as all these components emerged as helpful aspects. Although a group counseling course is naturally well-suited to be experiential, participants genuinely appre- ciated the course content and discussed the importance of learning aspects such as group stages, therapeutic factors, and member roles. The knowledge was helpful for participants to use to conceptualize the group and decide what skills and interventions to use. Thus, the cogni- tive knowledge should not be neglected. As several participants noted, it may be helpful to have two courses in group work. If training pro- grams have room in their curriculum, faculty may consider offering two courses in group (Furr & Barret, 2000). Perhaps a first course could be more content focused and a second course could be clinically focused (e.g., group practicum). Part of the experiential component can be met through participation in the experiential group. Although some ethical

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 119

considerations have been discussed in the literature, our findings in addition to the previous research suggest that the benefits outweigh the risks. Additionally, content in the group course should include instruction on how to measure client progress through quantitative and qualitative methods.

Provide Observation Opportunities

A prominent theme in the study was “observation.” Observations took place in a variety of ways. First, course instructors have a unique opportunity to model group leader skills in the classroom (Riva & Korinek, 2004). Although class discussions do not have to be ther- apeutic, instructors can model various skills (e.g., check-ins, rounds, linking, drawing out) and processes (e.g., cohesion, universality, feed- back). Instructors also can use videos to show experienced leaders facilitating actual groups (Torres-Rivera et al., 2004) When possible, instructors may consider finding opportunities for students to observe actual groups, although conflicts with privacy and confidentiality must be considered. Finally, counselors-in-training may benefit from co- leading a group with a more experienced leader at first in order to actively observe the leader in action.

Provide Practice Opportunities

Participants valued opportunities to practice leading groups both in the classroom and in clinical settings. As previously noted, didac- tic components are important; however they should not make up the entirety of the course. Similar to a class on individual counseling (e.g., helping skills, counseling techniques), group courses should include opportunities for in-class practice (Barlow, 2004; Smaby et al., 1999). Course instructors may consider using components of individual train- ing models (e.g., role play, reflection, feedback) and expand them to be appropriate for group work. As part of the course, instructors should strongly consider requiring counselors-in-training to facilitate a group with actual clients. Counseling programs with clinics could offer supervised groups for counselors-in-training to lead. Alternatively, counseling programs could consider building collaborative relation- ships with trusted group leaders in communities and schools who are willing to have student co-leaders. It is important to ensure the groups are developmentally appropriate for novice group leaders, and as previously mentioned counselors-in-training may benefit must from co-leading first with an experienced leader.

120 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

Emphasize Supervision and Feedback

Based on our findings, counselors-in-training practice experience may be heavily influenced by the quality of supervision. Participants desired more supervision, which appeared to be neglected compared to individual counseling supervision. First, instructors could create oppor- tunities for structured feedback during in-class practice (Paladino, Barrio, & Kern, 2011). For example, counselors-in-training could lead mock groups with fellow class members to practice skills, record the session, and get feedback from the professor and potentially peers. Additionally, to the extent possible, instructors should consider requir- ing counselors-in-training to record groups that they lead off campus during practicum or internship so the sessions can be reviewed. This would provide the instructor and student with opportunities to reflect on leadership skills and group processes. At the very least, groups should be given equal attention during practicum and internship supervision meetings.

Focus on Leadership Responsibilities as Well as Group Dynamics

Participants discussed critical aspects related to leadership quali- ties as well as the processes and dynamics that occur in the group. These aspects should be addressed both in content sections of group training as well as the clinical portions. For example, instructors could discuss different leadership styles (e.g., authoritarian, demo- cratic, laissez-faire), effective co-leadership relationships, therapeutic factors, and group dynamics during didactic training. Counselors-in- training could reflect on how their personality and leadership style fit into group and where they need to grow or be flexible during class discussions. During clinical activities (e.g., practice facilitation, actual group leadership), counselors-in-training and their supervisors could utilize Interpersonal Process Recall (Kagan et al., 1963) when view- ing recorded group sessions. During supervision counselors-in-training and supervisors could watch the session and discuss their leadership style, how it was influencing the group, and what they were thinking in the moment. Supervisors also could ask to counselors-in-training to identify members’ levels and patterns of interactions and things the CIT missed to help build leader awareness. Together the CIT and supervisor could brainstorm strategies for addressing group dynam- ics (e.g., conflict, encouraging participation, creating cohesion) and increasing leader awareness (e.g., identifying missed opportunities and strategies for improvement).

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 121

Emphasize Multiculturalism and Social Justice Concepts

Training future group leaders to be competent in multicultural and social justice concepts related to group work is a primary role of group counselor educators (Ibrahim, 2010; Singh et al., 2012; Thomas & Pender, 2008). However, participants failed to mention this important aspect when reflecting on their training and practice. Group counselor educators could infuse multicultural and social justice concepts dur- ing all aspects of group training. Educators may consider including ASGW documents (e.g., Singh et al., 2012; Thomas & Pender, 2008) as required reading. Educators could also facilitate reflection on how multiculturalism and social justice affect group during various activi- ties. For example, counselor educators could facilitate discussion when watching group counseling videos in class. Additionally, counselors-in- training could reflect on multiculturalism and social justice in relation to their own practice sessions in class or when observing or facilitating groups outside of class.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although we discuss some meaningful findings and implications, it is important to acknowledge the study limitations. First, the inter- views were conducted with a small sample of participants. Although we obtained great depth of information, readers should be mindful that findings cannot be generalized beyond our sample and may not be applicable to all counselor training programs. Specifically, this study included primarily white, female group leaders from the Southwest. Additionally, the study lacked representation from Hispanic group leaders. This may be due to the lack of Hispanic counselor educa- tion student enrollment in the programs that are close in proximity to where we conducted this study. Future researchers may benefit from interviewing more diverse samples of group leaders. An additional limitation is that we only obtained information from one data source (interviews). Not all participants are equally articulate through verbal communication. Thus, it may have been helpful to collect information from other sources (e.g., observations, reflective journals) or main- tain prolonged engagement with the participants in order triangulate the data. Further, the researchers’ presence may have influenced the participants’ responses during the interviews. We acknowledged that we hoped the participants would discuss our preferred group leader training methods as effective strategies and may have unintentionally influenced participants or interpreted their responses as favorable to our desired response.

122 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

Future researchers may consider more thoroughly testing the avail- able training models on counselors’-in-training group leader train- ing outcomes. Alternatively, group instructors and researchers may develop new models and evaluate the effectiveness on counselors-in- training student learning outcomes. Researchers could evaluate leader confidence, self-efficacy, and knowledge after participating in the group leader training models. Further, researchers could evaluate leader effectiveness on client outcomes based on participation in a training model. Additional researchers could explore clients’ experiences of their group leaders as an additional source of information to guide training.

REFERENCES

Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW). (2000). Association for specialists in group work: Professional standards for the training of group workers. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 25, 327–342.

Baker, S. B., Daniels, T. G., & Greeley, A. T. (1990). Systematic training of graduate level counselors: Narrative and meta-analytic reviews of three major programs. Counseling Psychologist, 18, 355–421.

Barlow, S. H. (2004). A strategic three-year plan to teach beginning, intermediate, and advanced group skills. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29, 113–126.

Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Mosier, J. (2003). The differential effective- ness of group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 3–12.

Buser, T. J. (2008). Counselor training: Empirical findings and current approaches. Counselor Education & Supervision, 48, 86–100.

Carkhuff, R. (2000). The development of human resources. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (Original work published 1971)

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs: 2009 standards. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/doc/ 2009%20Standards%20with%20cover.pdf

Corey, M. S., Corey, G., & Corey, C. (2014). Groups: Process and practice (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dies, R. (1992). Models of group psychotherapy: Shifting through confusion. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 42, 1–17.

Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (1999). Does group psychotherapy work? In J. R. Price, D. R. Hescheles, & A. R. Price (Eds.), A guide to starting psychotherapy groups (pp. 81–98). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (2001). Group psychotherapy training and effective- ness. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51, 399–416.

Furr, S. R., & Barret, B. (2000). Teaching group counseling skills: Problems and solutions. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40, 94–104.

Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: Guilford.

Ohrt et al./GROUP LEADER REFLECTIONS 123

Ibrahim, F. A. (2010). Social justice and cultural responsiveness: Innovative teaching strategies for group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 35, 271–280.

Ieva, K. P., Ohrt, J. H., Swank, J. M., & Young, T. L. (2009). The impact of experiential groups on masters students’ counselor and personal development: A qualitative investigation. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 3, 351–368. doi:10.108001933920903219078

Ivey, A. E. (1971). Microcounseling innovations in interviewing training. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D. R., & Miller, R. (1963). Stimulated recall in therapy using videotape: A case study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10, 237–243.

Markus, H. E., & King, D. A. (2003). A survey of group psychotherapy training during predoctoral psychology internship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 203–209.

McRoberts, C., Burlingame, G. M., & Hoag, M. J. (1998). Comparative efficacy of individ- ual and group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 101–117.

Morran, D. K., Stockton, R., & Whittingham, M. H. (2004). Effective leader interven- tions for counseling and psychotherapy groups. In J. L. Delucia-Waak, D. Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 91–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ohrt, J. H., Robinson, E., & Hagedorn, W. (2013). Group leader development: Effects of

personal growth and psychoeducational groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 38, 30–51. doi:10.1080/01933922.2012.732982

Okech, J. E. A., & Kline, W. B. (2005). A qualitative exploration of group co-leader relationships. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 30, 173–190. doi:10.1080/ 01933920590926048

Paladino, D. A., Barrio Minton, C. A., & Kern, C. W. (2011). Interactive training model: Enhancing beginning counseling student development. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50, 189–206.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Polkinghome, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Hailing (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Plenum.

Riva, M.T., & Korinek, L. (2004). Teaching group work: Modeling group leader and member behaviors in the classroom to demonstrate group theory. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29, 55–63.

Rubel, D. J., & Kline, W. B. (2008). An exploratory study of expert group leadership. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33, 138–160. doi:10.1080/01933920801977363

Shumaker, D., Ortiz, C., & Brenninkmeyer, L. (2011). Revisiting experiential group training in counselor education: A survey of master’s-level programs. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 36, 111–128. doi:10.1080/01933922.2011.562742

Singh, A. A., Merchant, N., Skudrzyk, B., Ingene, D., Hutchins, A., & Rubel, D. (2012). Association for specialists in group work: Multicultural and social justice competence principles for group workers. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 37, 312–325. doi:10.1080/01933922.2012.721482

Skovholt, T., & McCarthy, P. (1988). Critical incidents: Catalysts for counselor develop- ment. The Counseling Psychologist, 67, 69–72.

Smaby, M. H., Maddux, C. D., Torres-Rivera, E., & Zimmick, R. (1999). A study of the effect of a skills-based versus a conventional group counseling training program. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24, 152–163.

124 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/June 2014

Steen, S., Bauman, S., & Smith, J. (2007). Professional school counselors and the practice of group work. Professional School Counseling, 11, 72–80.

Steen, S., Bauman, S., & Smith, J. (2008). The preparation of professional school counselors for group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33, 253–269.

Thomas, R. V., & Pender, D. A. (2008). Association for specialists in group work: Best practice guidelines 2007 revision. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33, 111–117.

Torres-Rivera, E., Wilbur, M., Roberts-Wilbur, J., Phan, L. T., Garrett, M. T., & Betz, R. L. (2004). Supervising and training psychoeducational group leaders. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 29, 377–394. doi:10.1080/01933920490516134

Urbani, S., Smith, M. R., Maddux, C. D., Smaby, M. H., Torres-Rivera, E., & Crews, J. (2002). Skills-based training and counseling self-efficacy. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 92–106.

Wertz, F. J. (2005). Phenomenological research methods in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 167–177. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167

Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Young, T. L., Reysen, R., Eskridge, T., & Ohrt, J. H. (2013). Personal growth groups: Measuring outcome and evaluating impact. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 38, 52–67. doi:10.1080/01933922.2012.745915

Copyright of Journal for Specialists in Group Work is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.