Counseling Article Review

Special Issue: School Counseling Leadership in Practice

School Counselors as Curricular Leaders: A Content Analysis of ASCA Lesson Plans

Caroline J. Lopez1 and Erin C. M. Mason2

Abstract The authors examined school counselors design of classroom curriculum lessons through a content analysis of lesson plans located on the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Scene website. The analysis coded 139 lesson plans based on 12 lesson plan component categories and types of instructional strategies used. Findings address the frequency of topics related to the three ASCA domains, grade levels, and scores on 12 lesson components including overall total score. The article includes implications for school counselor leadership and training.

Keywords classroom guidance, counseling curriculum, core curriculum, lesson plan, school counselor, school counselor leadership

The purpose of this study was to add to the body of literature

that seeks to understand school counselors’ design of classroom

curriculum lessons. By conducting a content analysis of lesson

plans from the American School Counselor Association

(ASCA) Scene resource center, this study focuses on the curri-

culum design of school counselors, including (a) the types of

classroom lessons that are used in the profession, (b) the quality

of classroom lessons, (c) school counselors’ competence in the

development of classroom guidance lessons, and (d) types of

instructional activities employed by school counselors. We dis-

cuss the application of principles of leadership to curriculum

design and delivery and implications for school counselor prac-

tice and preparation.

Implementing a Comprehensive School Counseling Model as a Function of Leadership

Multiple studies suggest that a fully implemented comprehen-

sive school counseling program has a positive overall impact

on schools and, most important, on student achievement

(Dahir, Burnham, & Stone, 2009; Mason, 2010; Richard,

2001). School counselors who lead change efforts within the

school to improve outcomes for all students are demonstrating

horizontal leadership (Young & Miller Kneale, 2012). To drive

change efforts at any level, counselor leaders must be knowl-

edgeable about systems and know how to maneuver strategi-

cally within them (Saginak & Dollarhide, 2006). Gaining

systemic support for the counseling curriculum, both in and

outside the school, necessitates that school counselors enact

their roles as leaders.

School counselors who take an active role in

planning, preparing, delivering, and evaluating the

core counseling curriculum for all students

demonstrate their roles as leaders.

Within the comprehensive school counseling model, curri-

culum planning is a fundamental leadership responsibility. In

the School Leadership That Works framework, the school

counselor leader remains focused on established goals and core

beliefs and advocates for the program as a whole (Marzano,

Waters, & McNulty, 2005). School counselors who understand

instructional practices, especially those that support the

school’s vision and the standards of the time, create a counsel-

ing curriculum that is critical both to the school and to students’

education. As a change agent, the school counselor is involved

in curriculum design and implementation and in monitoring the

effectiveness of school practices that impact student learning

(Marzano et al., 2005). Amatea and Clark (2005) identify the

innovative school leader as one who designs and implements

curriculum as part of efforts to implement a comprehensive

program.

1 California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach CA, USA 2 Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Caroline J. Lopez, PhD, California State University, Long Beach, CA 90840,

USA.

Email: [email protected]

Professional School Counseling Volume 21(1b): 1-12

ª 2018 American School Counselor Association

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/2156759X18773277 journals.sagepub.com/home/pcx

School counselors who understand instructional

practices, especially those that support the school’s

vision and the standards of the time, create a

counseling curriculum that is critical both to the

school and to students’ education.

Defining Counseling Curriculum and Classroom Curriculum

As school counseling has evolved as a profession, terminology

used in the field has shifted, so we clarify several terms for the

sake of this article. As identified by the ASCA National Model

(ASCA, 2012), “counseling curriculum” is inclusive of the

school counseling–related content that all students should

receive through the school counseling program. This content

is outlined at the national level by the ASCA Mindsets &

Behaviors for Student Success: K-12 College- and Career-

Readiness for Every Student (ASCA, 2014a), which is recog-

nized as the current set of standards for students. The delivery

mode or format may vary and the counseling curriculum can be

delivered during advisory periods, in study halls, in large

grade-wide assemblies, in groups, or most commonly, in class-

rooms. For the purpose of this article, classroom curriculum

will refer specifically to the counseling curriculum that is deliv-

ered in the classroom.

Significance and Effectiveness of Classroom Curriculum

Delivery of the counseling curriculum has increasingly become

an important leadership function of school counselors because

it reaches all students, a guiding principle of the ASCA

National Model framework (ASCA, 2012). Counseling curri-

culum, in the form of classroom curriculum in particular, con-

sists of structured lessons intended to help students attain the

desired mind-sets and behaviors for their developmental level.

Classroom curriculum has been identified as an efficient use of

time for addressing developmental issues within the academic,

career, and social/emotional domains (Dahir & Tyson, 2014).

ASCA (2012) recommends that, at the elementary level, school

counselors devote 35–45% of the counseling program to imple- menting curriculum; at the middle school level, 25–35%; and at the high school level, 15–25% should be devoted to curriculum.

Teachers and administrators also recognize the impact of

classroom curriculum lessons on student success. Specifically,

teachers (Clark & Amatea, 2004) and principals (Zalaquett,

2005) report that classroom curriculum is one of the most

essential functions of school counselors. Elementary school

counselors have reported that classroom curriculum is a critical

component of their role (Mau, 2008); however, it has received

little attention in the research (Whiston & Quinby, 2009).

Given the emphasis on classroom curriculum as a means of

reaching large numbers of students, the increased need for

accountability, and curriculum design as a vehicle for school

counselor leadership, the profession’s examination of the

lesson planning and classroom curriculum design practices of

school counselors is critical.

Studies have shown that classroom curriculum can posi-

tively impact students’ academic, social/emotional, and career

development. For example, Lee (1993) found that classroom

curriculum lessons on school success positively influenced aca-

demic achievement in math, and Sink and Stroh (2003) found

that schools with comprehensive counseling programs that

included classroom curriculum had higher academic achieve-

ment than schools that did not. Furthermore, classroom curri-

culum lessons using Student Success Skills were found to have

positive effects on standardized test scores (Villares, Lember-

ger, Brigman, & Webb, 2011). However, most of the literature

on the effectiveness of classroom curriculum outcomes focused

on established, commercial, and evidence-based curriculum

rather than school counselor–generated lessons.

School Counselors and Curricular Design and Development

Among school counselors are those who have come to the

profession as former teachers or with school-based experience

and those who have not. Today, few states still require that

school counselors have prior teaching experience, although

historically this was the norm. According to ASCA (n.d.), only

six states (Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon,

and Texas) require school counseling candidates to hold a

teaching license. School counselors with a background in

teaching may be more readily accepted as curricular leaders

by their teacher colleagues and thus may have a leadership edge

over those without a teaching background (Criswell, 2005).

Furthermore, school counselor preparation programs may have

inconsistencies with regard to curricular development. School

counseling evolved out of a model in which individual counsel-

ing services were the most common and many counselors may

not have backgrounds as educators; therefore, lack of training

in curricular design is likely. The Council for the Accreditation

of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP),

the primary accrediting body for counselor training programs,

lists only one standard that addresses curricular development or

design. The 2016 CACREP standards include “core curriculum

design, lesson plan development, classroom management stra-

tegies, and differentiated instructional strategies” (CACREP,

2016). Classroom curriculum is a stated component of a com-

prehensive school counseling program (ASCA, 2012), and a

2008 study found that 44 of 50 states suggest the implementa-

tion of the comprehensive model as a statewide standard, up

from 24 states just 10 years prior (Martin, Carey, & DeCoster,

2009). For these reasons, school counselors without a teaching

background may have to work harder or longer to develop as

curricular leaders than their counterparts with a teaching back-

ground. Preservice exposure to curriculum design, lesson plan-

ning classroom management, and differentiated instruction

strategies via didactic school counseling leadership classes and

2 Professional School Counseling

field experiences is critical to school counselors’ development

as curricular leaders.

Despite the increased time dedicated to the delivery of les-

son plans and curriculum development, school counselors have

limited training with both. Desmond, West, and Bubenzer

(2007) examined the mentorship experiences of novice school

counselors with no teaching experience and found that novice

school counselors reported the need for assistance with lesson

planning and delivery. Furthermore, school counselors have

ranked classroom activities as the most important topic for

continuing education (Anctil, Smith, Schenck, & Dahir,

2012; Knight, 2015). According to Sink (2005), good teaching

is essential for the efficient delivery of classroom curriculum

lessons. Because of this, a closer examination of the lesson

planning practices of school counselors, as functions of school

counseling program implementation and school counselor

leadership development, is necessary.

Using Leadership to Gain Support for the Counseling Curriculum

School counselors who take an active role in planning, prepar-

ing, delivering, and evaluating the core counseling curriculum

for all students demonstrate their roles as leaders. Research

shows that school counselors who reported having more fully

implemented, comprehensive, developmental programs also

reported higher leadership practices than those who did not

report as high on program implementation (Mason, 2010;

Mason & McMahon, 2009). A 2016 survey of 693 school

counselors showed that those who use classroom curriculum

to implement a comprehensive program exhibited a greater

degree of confidence in their ability as counselors and rated

themselves highly regarding self-efficacy (Mullen & Lambie,

2016). Further, when others in the school value the role of the

school counselor as a leader, the school counselor is more

likely to be seen as someone who contributes to positive stu-

dent outcomes (Stone & Dahir, 2006). As leaders, school coun-

selors must have the disposition to challenge the status quo

while staying deeply connected to the members of the school

community (Marzano et al., 2005). A key strategy in serving

the needs of the school community is to connect the school

counseling program to school-wide initiatives.

Connecting to school-wide initiatives. One strategic way school counselors can take the lead is to connect the core curriculum

to initiatives related to multitiered systems of support, a recent

but widely adopted framework in schools for providing aca-

demic and behavior interventions (ASCA, 2014b). Through

these avenues, the core curriculum can become standardized

as a part of a school-wide improvement plan for implementing

Tier 1 interventions (Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011).

School-based strategic plans or improvement plans may pro-

vide data and goals from which to develop ideas for annual

classroom curriculum. Furthermore, the advisory council,

which is included in the management component of the ASCA

National Model (ASCA, 2012), can serve to help the counselor

or counseling team to connect the curriculum to school-wide

initiatives.

Gaining buy-in through collaboration. Necessary leadership skills for gaining buy-in for providing classroom lessons may include

knowledge of the systemic nature of schools (DeVoss &

Andrews, 2006), cultural proficiency (Lindsey, Robins, & Ter-

rell, 2009), self-efficacy (Mullen & Lambie, 2016), and nego-

tiating strategies and proposal pitching (Dollarhide, 2003). Part

of these negotiation efforts includes working with multiple

stakeholders, of whom classroom teachers are most important.

By working and collaborating with teachers, all of whom reg-

ularly design and develop curricula, school counselors can

enhance and strengthen their position as curricular leaders in

the school building. These skills recall Bolman and Deal’s

(2008) Four Framework approach, which conceptualizes lead-

ership through structural, human resource, political, or sym-

bolic constructs. The school counselor leader knows who

wields influence in the building or district (political) and pos-

sesses the communication skills to build relationships (human

resource) with stakeholders to develop resources (structural)

for the counseling program (Dollarhide, 2003). Young (2013)

expands the school counselor leadership tool kit to five char-

acteristics: resourceful problem-solving, systemic collabora-

tion, interpersonal influence, social justice advocacy, and

professional efficacy. Young’s framework shares much with

Bolman and Deal’s conceptualization of leadership, not least

of which is collaboration, especially considering that skills in

collaboration and coalition building advance the school’s mis-

sion and align with a comprehensive school counseling model.

According to Tollerud and Nejedlo (2004), school counselors

can also train teachers in the delivery of classroom curriculum

lessons and assist them in identifying ways to incorporate social/

emotional, academic, and career objectives into their subject

matter. In the process of helping their colleagues become aware

of school counseling standards like the ASCA Mindsets & Beha-

viors (ASCA, 2014a), school counselors aid in legitimizing

themselves and their work in delivering classroom lessons.

School counselors who collaborate with colleagues on curricu-

lum development and who share their lessons as examples (e.g.,

via professional development swaps, the ASCA Scene, Teacher-

sPayTeachers, CounselorCreated) may be seen as leaders in their

respective professional communities.

Lesson Planning, Effective Teaching, and Data Collection

Vernon (2010) contends that in creating curriculum, school

counselors need to assume a leadership role in developing the

scope and sequence of the program. If school counselors are to

spend a significant portion of their time in the classroom, the

development of a detailed plan of instruction is critical. Begin-

ning with a curriculum action plan, school counselors detail

how they plan to design and deliver the counseling curriculum

and achieve the desired results. The curriculum action plan

Lopez and Mason 3

includes the lesson taught, competencies addressed, curriculum

used, time lines, projected students, evaluation methods, and

the person responsible (ASCA, 2012).

Womack, Hannah, and Bell (2012) examined the effective-

ness of pre-service teachers and found that four main factors

contributed to teaching effectiveness: lesson planning, teacher

and student reflection, safe school environment, and teacher

professionalism. The majority (41%) of effective teaching was found to be in lesson planning (Womack, Hannah, & Bell

2012). Danielson (2007) stated, “Content must be transferred

through instructional design into sequences of activities and

exercises that make it accessible to students” (p. 27). Further-

more, lesson plans help school counselors stay task oriented so

that learning objectives are met and desired outcomes are

achieved (Tosado, 2014). Lesson planning and preparation

ensure that school counselors take the most thoughtful

approach to get students where they need to be (Merlin &

Knoblich, 2016).

Designing lesson plans. Rather than selecting instructional meth- ods based on convenience, comfort, or trends, school counse-

lors should select learning activities, materials, and strategies

that are appropriate for both the specific competency and the

student (Vernon, 2010). McIver, Fitzsimmons, and Flanagan

(2016) suggested a knowledge-in-practice approach to select-

ing instructional activities. Taking this approach, the school

counselor identifies the underlying knowledge structure of the

learning objective and matches this knowledge structure with

the most appropriate instructional method. For example, learn-

ing objectives classified under the knowledge structure enacted

information (where the information itself is the primary driver

of learning) might benefit from instructional methods such as

lecture, readings, flash cards, and quiz games. Danielson

(2007) contended, “a teacher’s role is not so much to teach,

but to arrange for learning” (p. 27). That is to say, school

counselors who are skilled in instructional design demonstrate

an understanding of the subject they teach, the important prin-

ciples and concepts within that subject, and how these compo-

nents relate to one another and the selected learning activities

(Danielson, 2007).

Components of an effective lesson plan. The school counseling literature describes several critical components to instructional

design (Goodnough, Perusse, & Erford, 2010; Merlin & Kno-

blich, 2016; Myrick, 1997; Vernon, 2010). Tosado (2014) rec-

ommended that school counselors consider the needs of

students and school; local, state, and national mandates; mate-

rials required; and methods of evaluation. Furthermore, lesson

plans should include necessary information including the title

of the lesson, the grade level or age-group, and the length of

time required to complete the lesson. Lesson plans should align

with the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors, which describe the atti-

tudes, knowledge, and skills that students need to achieve aca-

demic success, college and career readiness, and social/

emotional development (ASCA, 2014a).

Johnson (2000) recommended a five-step lesson planning

process consisting of (a) the development of learning objec-

tives, (b) introduction, (c) input, (d) activity, and (e) closure.

The first component in lesson plan design is measurable learn-

ing objectives, which help the school counselor determine what

students should be able to do after participating in the lesson

and which measure progress in student learning (Goodnough

et al., 2010). Once identified, these learning objectives guide

the direction of activities known as procedures. The second

component is the introduction, which provides interest and

motivation to focus students’ attention on the lesson, and its

purposes, and links new ideas to what students already know.

The third element, input, is also known as direct teaching and

involves the presentation of new material related to the learning

objectives (Tosado, 2014). Input can take the form of new

vocabulary, skills, and concepts. The fourth component is an

activity that allows students to demonstrate their understanding

of the new information. Guided practice activities (teacher

questioning, sample problems, graphic organizers, and concept

webs) and independent practice activities (role-play, debate,

report, homework, poem, skit, or project) help students build

their understanding of the new content. The last component,

closure, consists of a short review of main ideas and processing

what was learned (Johnson, 2000; Tosado, 2014). It provides an

opportunity for formative assessment and helps the school

counselor decide whether additional practice is necessary or

whether students can move on to the next part of the lesson.

Although guidelines exist for the development of classroom

curriculum lessons, primarily in school counseling textbooks

(Dollarhide & Saginak, 2017; Goodnough et al., 2010; Myrick,

1997; Vernon, 2010; Ziomek-Daigle, 2015), research on school

counselor competence in designing and developing classroom

curriculum is minimal. A content review of lesson plans can

serve as a means of evaluating school counselors’ development

in classroom curriculum design. School counselors submit

these lesson plans and a review of them can act as a method

for self-reflection and professional development. Information

from a review can provide valuable information regarding the

extent to which school counselors currently implement best

practices for classroom curriculum and lesson plan design.

Data collection and accountability. The ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012) emphasizes the need for data collection in the

school counseling program as part of the accountability com-

ponent. With regard to classroom curriculum, a review of rel-

evant data (needs assessments, school-wide data, surveys, etc.)

should be a precursor to planning and designing lessons

(ASCA, 2012). Aligning program goals with the appropriate

mind-sets and behaviors assists the school counselor in writing

lesson plan objectives (Ziomek-Daigle, 2015).

As a part of the program evaluation process, classroom cur-

riculum can incorporate short-term, formative assessments and/

or more long-term, summative assessments (Hatch, 2013). For-

mative assessment involves checking for learning in order to

modify instruction for student understanding prior to reaching

4 Professional School Counseling

the end of the lesson, and summative assessment is used to

evaluate student learning at the end of a unit (Danielson,

2007). Data collection methods used for these often include

pre-/posttests, exit tickets, and so on, for gathering perception

data. Finally, broader outcome data such as grades, test scores,

attendance rates, and/or disciplinary records contextualize the

effectiveness of the classroom curriculum (ASCA, 2012).

Method

We conducted a content analysis of school counselor–

generated lesson plans using a 12-category rubric on a

4-point Likert-type scale. Coded data were further analyzed

using descriptive statistics. We collected lesson plans via

the ASCA Scene. This study used an extant database with

no identifying data.

Participants and Procedures

The research team coded the lesson plans using a 12-category

rubric adapted from the Making Connections lesson plan rubric

(Louisiana Department of Education, n.d.). Both deductive and

inductive procedures were utilized to generate and describe

categories. We generated elements of the rubric deductively

based on an examination of the school counseling literature

on curricular design (Goodnough et al., 2010; Tosado 2014;

Vernon, 2010). Then, the three coders met and discussed the

items and used inductive procedures to further refine the cate-

gories. Two reviewers then provided feedback on the rubric: a

school administrator with experience evaluating teacher lesson

plans at both the elementary and middle school levels and a

practicing school counselor with experience in developing and

implementing lesson plans.

We collected information about the learners from the lesson

plan and included information such as the ASCA domain in

which they would receive instruction (academic, social/emo-

tional, and career), the school level (elementary, middle, or

high school), and the specific grade level (K through 12). We

then used the rubric to evaluate the lesson plan based on the

quality and presence of the 12 lesson plan components. Com-

ponents included standards, learning objectives, materials,

introductory activity, learning activities, and closure. We also

evaluated the overall design of the lesson plan, including the

description of procedures, the alignment of activities to stan-

dards, the developmental appropriateness of the lesson and its

ease of use, accommodations, evaluation methods, and creativ-

ity and innovation. Criteria were rated using a 4-point Likert-

type scale (0 ¼ ineffective, 1 ¼ developing, 2 ¼ effective, 3 ¼ highly effective). Last, we examined the types of instructional

strategies used in the lesson. These strategies included activi-

ties such as guided practice, independent practice, modeling/

demonstration, cooperative learning, debate/dialogue, technol-

ogy, role-play, recitation, and bibliotherapy.

The coders for this study were a school counseling master’s

student, a teacher education master’s student (the first author),

and an assistant professor of school counseling. To determine

interrater reliability, a practicing school counselor with a back-

ground in teaching participated as a fourth coder to assist in the

agreement of coding. The first author trained the coders. The

researchers calculated interrater reliability based on the per-

centage of agreement of coding responses for each of the three

coders and the fourth coder on four lesson plans. Each coder

coded all the lesson plans and the percentage agreement

between coders was calculated. Once interrater reliability

reached 90%, all lesson plans were coded by the three coders (an assistant professor and two master’s students). Coded data

were analyzed by SPSS using descriptive statistics (frequency,

percentage, mean, and standard deviation [SD]).

Results

The purpose of this study was to examine school counselors’

design of classroom curriculum lessons. We conducted a con-

tent analysis of multiple lesson plans in an effort to understand

(a) types of classroom lessons that are used in the profession,

(b) the quality of classroom lessons, (c) school counselors’

competence in the development of classroom guidance lessons,

and (d) types of instructional methods employed by school

counselors.

The research team found and collected a total of 139 lesson

plans from the ASCA Scene. Lesson plans were at all school

levels. Table 1 illustrates the frequency and percentage of les-

son plans (a) in each of the three domains, (b) at each level, and

(c) at each level within each domain. For example, Table 1

shows that among lesson plans at all levels, 86.3% (n ¼ 120) were in the social/emotional domain, 7.2% were in the academic domain (n ¼ 10), 4.3% were in the career domain (n ¼ 6), and 2.1% (n ¼ 3) were in more than one domain. The percentage of lesson plans at each level were 1.4% (n ¼ 2) preschool, 68.3% (n ¼ 95) elementary school, 6.5% (n ¼ 9) middle school, 9.4% (n ¼ 13) high school, 2.1% (n ¼ 3) com- bination of levels, and 12.2% (n ¼ 17) level unknown. The rubric was used to evaluate the quality and presence of the

12 lesson plan components. Table 2 describes the lesson plan

component scores by percentage as well as the total score. The

results of each component and the total score ratings are dis-

cussed below.

Lesson Plan Components

Standards and learning objectives. The research team examined and rated each lesson plan based on its stated standards base.

Ineffective lessons (28.1%, n ¼ 39) did not provide any stan- dards. Lessons scored as developing (38.1%, n ¼ 53) incorpo- rated too many standards for a singular lesson. Effective

lessons (32.4%, n ¼ 45) incorporated an appropriate number of ASCA standards, and highly effective lessons (1.4%, n ¼ 2) incorporated both ASCA and state standards. Lesson plan

objectives were rated based on the extent to which learning

objectives highlighted the specific conditions and standards

Lopez and Mason 5

of student learning and performance. More than half of the

lesson plans (55.4%, n ¼ 77) did not have learning objectives and scored as ineffective. Lesson plans with objectives that

made no reference to what students will know and be able to

do as a result of the lesson were scored as developing (7.9%, n ¼ 11). Those with student-centered objectives that were stated clearly and concisely were scored as effective (31.7%, n¼ 44). Plans with objectives that were student centered and written to

include at least one higher order thinking skill were scored as

highly effective (5%, n ¼ 7).

Materials. The researchers examined the materials section of each lesson plan and rated it for completeness. Lesson plans

identified as ineffective in this category did not list any mate-

rials (7.9%, n ¼ 11). Plans scored as developing (5.8%, n ¼ 8) did not identify all necessary materials or their use was not

specified. Effective lesson plans (72.7%, n ¼ 101) included all necessary materials and their use was specified in the activities,

and highly effective lesson plans (13.7%, n ¼ 19) incorporated a variety of audio/visual materials that allowed students to

acquire information/skills via a variety of modalities.

Introduction, learning activities, and closure. The introduction sec- tion was rated based on whether it focused students’ attention

on the objectives and purpose of the lesson and linked their

previous knowledge on the topic. Of the 139 lesson plans, 29

were void of any introduction and assessed as ineffective

(20.9%). Twenty-two lesson plans had introductions that were somewhat disconnected from the objectives/standards and dis-

tracted from the students’ learning; these scored as developing

(15.8%). Sixty-seven plans contained introductions that set the stage for the lesson and connected to the objectives/standards

but lacked in motivational or bridging value and were recorded

as effective (48.2%). Last, 20 lesson plans (14.4%) were scored as highly effective; these contained introductory activities that

were relevant to the objective and provided a creative and

motivating background in which to begin the lesson. The intro-

duction as written provided an opportunity for active student

participation and bridged what would be learned with previous

knowledge or personal experiences.

Learning activities were scored based on their alignment

with the learning objectives and whether or not the activities

built upon each other. Plans with learning activities that were

disconnected and not focused on the objectives were scored as

ineffective (4.3%, n ¼ 6). One quarter of the lesson plans contained activities focused on the objective but disconnected

from each other; these were recorded as developing (22.3%, n ¼ 31). Lesson plans earning the effective score (54.7%, n ¼ 76) contained activities that aligned with the objective(s) and

were appropriately paced and built upon each other. These

plans included three of the following four activities: (a) intro-

duction of a new concept or skill, (b) demonstrations and exam-

ples, (c) guided and/or independent practice, and/or (d)

application of the information to students’ own lives. Lesson

plans that contained all four activities were categorized as

highly effective (18.7%, n ¼ 26). The closing was rated on the presence of an activity sum-

marizing what was taught. More than one third of lesson plans

had no closing activity and were scored as ineffective (37.4%, n ¼ 52). Those with poorly developed closing activities were recorded as developing (28.1%, n ¼ 39). Lesson plans with closing activities in which the recap of what was taught and

learned was done primarily by the counselor were categorized

as effective (25.2%, n ¼ 35). Highly effective ratings were given to plans (9.4%, n ¼ 13) if the closing activities were done primarily by the student.

Overall Design

Lesson description and alignment. The research team examined and rated the lesson plan descriptions for the level of detail.

One lesson was missing a description of the procedures and

therefore scored ineffective (0.7%). Twelve lessons scored as developing (12%) due to procedures that were unclear and difficult to follow. Eighty-three lessons were rated effective

(59.7%) for lacking minor details, and 43 lessons scored as highly effective (30.9%) for having procedures that were clear and detailed.

Reviewers also assessed whether objectives and/or stan-

dards aligned with the major phases of the lesson plan.

Table 1. Frequency of Lesson Plans by Level and Domain.

School Level

All Domains Academic Career Social–Emotional Career/SE Academic/SE

% n % n % n % n % n % n

All levels — — 7.2 10 4.3 6 86.3 120 0.7 1 1.4 2 Preschool 1.4 2 0 0 0.7 1 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 Elementary 68.3 95 0.7 1 1.4 2 64 89 0.7 1 1.4 2 Middle school 6.5 9 0 0 0 0 6.5 9 0 0 0 0 High school 9.4 13 4.3 6 2.2 3 2.9 4 0 0 0 0 ES/MS 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 MS/HS 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 ES/MS/HS 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 0.7 1 0 0 0 0 Unknown 12.2 17 2.2 3 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 0

Note. ES ¼ elementary school; MS ¼ middle school; HS ¼ high school; SE ¼ social-emotional

6 Professional School Counseling

Ineffective lessons (10.1%, n ¼ 14) had no objectives and/or standards to make such a determination. Developing lessons

(18%, n ¼ 25) provided some but limited connection to objec- tives and/or ASCA standards. Effective lessons (57.6%, n ¼ 80) provided clear connections to objectives/ASCA standards

in some but not all major phases of the lesson plan. Highly

effective lessons (14.4%, n ¼ 20) were tightly focused on objectives/ASCA/Common Core/state standards in all major

phases of the lesson plan.

Developmental appropriateness and accommodations. Lesson plans were rated for developmental appropriateness, which

was defined in terms of a suitable time frame, amount of mate-

rial covered, and suitable topics and activities for the grade

level. Ineffective lessons (0.7%, n ¼ 1) were flawed in all of the following ways: time frame was too demanding, amount of

material presented was too extensive and appeared to be a

series of lessons, and topic and activities were not suitable for

the grade level. Developing lessons (5%, n¼ 7) were flawed in several of the aforementioned areas, and effective lessons

(15.8%, n ¼ 22) were flawed in only one. Highly effective lessons (77.7%, n ¼ 108) contained a suitable time frame, the amount of material presented was fitting, and the topic and

activities were applicable to the grade level.

Reviewers rated the presence of written directions of mod-

ifications of the lesson for diverse learners. Lesson plans that

did not have modifications for special needs students, learning

styles, English-language learners, and other considerations

were scored as ineffective (97.1%, n ¼ 135). One lesson plan had vague modifications and was scored as developing (0.7%, n ¼ 1). Lesson plans with some modifications were categor- ized as effective (1.4%, n ¼ 2), and the one lesson plan that included detailed modifications was scored as highly effective

(0.7%, n ¼ 1).

Evaluation. The evaluation portion of the lesson plan was rated for the presence of formative and summative assessments that

provided evidence that students had achieved the lesson objec-

tives. Forty-eight lessons had no method of evaluation and

were rated ineffective (34.5%). Thirty-two lessons assessed knowledge and behaviors that were inconsistent with the objec-

tives and were scored as developing (23%). Fifty-three lessons were rated effective (38.1%); they included only summative assessment that required students to apply knowledge or

demonstrate understanding; however, it provided limited evi-

dence that students had achieved lesson objective(s). Six les-

sons were scored as highly effective (4.3%) and included both formative and summative assessments. The highly effective

evaluation also required students to apply knowledge or

demonstrate and provide clear evidence that students had

achieved lesson objective(s).

Creativity and innovation. Reviewers assessed the creativity and innovation of the lesson plans. They rated as ineffective les-

son plans that were significantly flawed in their curricular

design (5%, n ¼ 7). Developing lesson plans needed further

development (20.9%, n ¼ 29) and effective lesson plans (67.6%, n ¼ 94) followed conventional instructional practice. Highly effective lesson plans (6.5%, n ¼ 9) caused major change to instruction design by incorporating new instruc-

tional strategies or learning activities not seen in conventional

instructional practice.

Descriptions of Total Score Ratings

To determine cutoff ranges for total score ratings, the first

author met with a consultant with expertise in quantitative

analysis. An underlying aspect of the authors’ study was to

conceptualize the definition of a good lesson plan via the rub-

ric. Therefore, this conceptualization was the basis for final

cutoff scores. First, we conducted descriptive statistics on the

total scores of each lesson plan based on the 12-category rubric.

We found a normal distribution (M ¼ 17.94, SD ¼ 4.3) and determined preliminary cutoff scores. Using the preliminary

cutoff scores as a guide, the first and second author met to

define each total score category and its score range (ineffective,

developing, effective, and highly effective). Adjustments were

made to preliminary cutoff scores to ensure that the final total

score ranges matched with the authors’ definition and scoring.

Last, for each of the categories, we randomly selected one

lesson plan from those scored in that category. The total scores

of each of these lesson plans were compared to the correspond-

ing category to see whether it matched the definition. For

example, a lesson plan that scored in the range of 0–11 was

randomly selected and compared to the corresponding ineffec-

tive category definition. Table 3 describes the four total score

categories and the numerical ranges. Based on these criteria,

7.9% (n ¼ 11) of lesson plans were categorized as ineffective, 64% (n¼ 89) as developing, and 28% (n¼ 39) as effective. No lesson plans scored highly effective.

Ineffective. Lessons that fell into this category ranged from 0 to 11 in total score and were largely lacking in many of the com-

ponents of the rubric. When an individual component was pres-

ent, it was unclear or incomplete as written or was not connected

to other components because those components were missing.

Developing. Developing lessons had total scores ranging from 12 to 20. These lessons typically had all components in the

rubric, but individual components were unclear or incomplete

as written or components were not connected to each other

(e.g., activities or evaluation was not connected to objectives

or standards).

Effective. Total scores of effective lessons ranged from 21 to 29. These lessons included all components in the rubric and indi-

vidual components were generally clearly described and com-

plete. Components in these lesson plans were usually

connected to each other and traditional in design but had room

for improvement in one of several areas such as accommoda-

tions, evaluation, or creativity.

Lopez and Mason 7

Highly effective. Lesson plans rated with a total score of 30–36 were categorized as highly effective. These lesson plans were

clearly and substantively detailed. Components of the lessons

were connected to each other and sophisticated in engaging

students in areas such as materials, activities, and evaluation.

These lessons were highly student focused, creative, and had

objectives designed for higher order thinking and application of

skills addressed in the lesson.

Instructional Methods

We examined the lesson plans to identify the types of

instructional methods utilized by school counselors. Table

4 illustrates the frequency of instructional methods and the

percentage of lesson plans that used these instructional

methods. A single lesson plan could include multiple types

of instructional methods. The type of instructional method

and the percentage of lesson plans that included this method

were, in descending order, dialogue/discussion (75.6%, n ¼ 105), bibliotherapy (62.6%, n ¼ 87), independent practice

(50.4%, n ¼ 70), guided practice (28.8%, n ¼ 40), lecture (19.4%, n ¼ 27), cooperative learning (12.9%, n ¼ 18), role-play (8.6%, n ¼ 12), technology (5.8%, n ¼ 8), model- ing (3.6%, n ¼ 5), debate (2.9%, n ¼ 4), and performance (.7%, n ¼ 1).

Table 4. Frequency of Instructional Methods.

Instructional Methods Frequency

Dialogue/discussion 105 Bibliotherapy 87 Independent practice 70 Guided practice 44 Lecture 27 Cooperative learning 18 Role playing 12 Technology 8 Modeling 5 Debate 4 Performance 1

Table 2. Lesson Plan Component Scores by Percentage.

Category

Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective

% n % n % n % n

Standards 28.1 39 38.1 53 32.4 45 1.4 2 Learning objectives 55.4 77 7.9 11 31.7 44 5 7 Materials 7.9 11 5.8 8 72.7 101 13.7 19 Introduction 20.9 29 15.8 22 48.2 67 14.4 20 Learning activities 4.3 6 22.3 31 54.7 76 18.7 26 Closure 37.4 52 28.1 39 25.2 35 9.4 13 Lesson description 0.7 1 8.6 12 59.7 83 30.9 43 Aligned activities 10.1 14 18 25 57.6 80 14.4 20 Developmentally appropriate 0.7 1 5 7 15.8 22 77.7 108 Accommodations 97.1 135 0.7 1 1.4 2 0.7 1 Evaluation 34.5 48 23 32 38.1 53 4.3 6 Creativity 5 7 20.9 29 67.6 94 6.5 9 Total score 7.9 11 64 89 28 39 0 0

Table 3. Lesson Plan Total Score Rating Guide.

Ineffective (0–11) Developing (12–20) Effective (21–29) Highly Effective (30–36)

Lesson plans were largely lacking in many of the components of the rubric. When an individual component was present, it was unclear or incomplete as written or was not connected to other components because those components were missing.

Lesson plans typically had all components in the rubric but individual components were unclear or incomplete as written or components were not connected to each other (e.g., activities or evaluation not connected to objectives or standards).

Lesson plans had all components in the rubric and individual components were generally clearly described and complete. Components in these lesson plans were usually connected to each other and traditional in design but had room for improvement in one of several areas such as accommodations, evaluation, or creativity.

Lesson plans were clearly and substantively detailed. Components of the lessons were connected to each other and sophisticated in engaging students in areas such as materials, activities, and evaluation. These lessons were highly student focused, creative, and had objectives designed for higher order thinking and application of skill addressed in the lesson.

8 Professional School Counseling

Discussion

The ASCA National Model emphasizes the implementation of

a comprehensive school counseling program promoting lead-

ership, advocacy, collaboration, and systemic change as themes

to enhance student achievement and success (ASCA, 2012).

One service delivery method for influencing student achieve-

ment and success is the core counseling curriculum. Data from

the present study indicate that the majority of lesson plans

submitted to the ASCA Scene website were developed for the

elementary school level. This is consistent with ASCA’s rec-

ommendation that school counselors at the elementary level

(compared to middle and high school levels) devote a greater

portion of their time to implementing curriculum (ASCA,

2012). The fact that the large majority of lessons were within

the social/emotional domain suggests that greater attention

must be given to helping students develop the attitudes, knowl-

edge, and skills within the academic and career domains. This

is particularly important if school counselors are to lead their

school in current educational initiatives such as Reach Higher

(Duncan, 2014) and Common Core (Achieve, Inc., National

Association of Secondary School Principals, & National Asso-

ciation of Elementary School Principals, 2012) that emphasize

the role of school counselors in academic success and college

and career readiness.

Findings from the current study indicate both strengths

and weaknesses in school counselors’ competence in lesson

design. We were encouraged to find that overall, school

counselors are effective in describing individual components

of a lesson plan, including describing lesson procedures,

designing developmentally appropriate lessons, listing

instructional materials, and developing creative lessons.

Furthermore, the majority of school counselors were able

to describe introducing the lesson, develop effective learn-

ing activities, and align learning activities to the standards

or objectives. Findings indicate that school counselors need

further training in incorporating standards and developing

learning objectives.

Overall, school counselors are effective in

describing individual components of a lesson plan,

including describing lesson procedures, designing

developmentally appropriate lessons, listing

instructional materials, and developing creative

lessons.

Results of this study also indicate the need for improve-

ment within particular components of a lesson plan, overall

lesson design, and instructional strategies. Areas in need of

improvement include developing closing activities and eval-

uating student learning. Given that standards and learning

objectives enable good assessment of student learning

(Danielson, 2007), weak evaluation outcomes are understand-

able for lesson plans created by school counselors who did not

have training as teachers. Poor learning objectives due to lack

of knowledge or experience with lesson plan construction

may also explain school counselors’ weakness in developing

closing activities. Without developing clear objectives, creat-

ing a closing that highlights the key points of the lesson may

be difficult.

Results of this study indicate the need for

improvement within particular components of a

lesson plan, overall lesson design, and instructional

strategies.

The ASCA Ethical Standards (2016) state that school

counselors must “Affirm the abilities of and advocate for the

learning needs of all students. School counselors support the

provision of appropriate accommodations and accessibility.”

The overwhelming majority of lessons reviewed did not have

accommodations. Given the importance of ensuring that the

core curriculum is accessible to all students, this is an area

with the greatest need for improvement from school

counselors.

Total scores revealed that only one third of lesson plans

examined were considered effective and that no lesson plans

were rated as highly effective. This is alarming considering the

amount of time school counselors are expected to engage in

delivery of the core curriculum. The most frequent instruc-

tional activities utilized by school counselors were discussions,

bibliotherapy, and independent practice. The large drop in fre-

quency of other instructional methods indicates that school

counselors would benefit from additional training on instruc-

tional activities. Results from both the instructional activities

and total scores support previous research (Anctil et al., 2012;

Knight, 2015) that denote classroom activities as the most

important topic for continuing education.

Implications for School Counselors and School Counselor Educators

As counselors struggle to define their role in schools (Amatea

& Clark, 2005; Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, & Marshall, 2001;

Reiner, Colbert, & Perusse, 2009), the need is greater for

continuous improvement of counseling skills and knowledge

of interventions through professional development. Profes-

sional development is a viable means for enhancing the skill

set of counselor leaders, particularly through continuing edu-

cation (Wingfield, Reese, & West-Olatunji, 2010). Inclusion

in teacher professional development trainings on lesson

design, curriculum development, and instructional strategies

both at the school and district level might strengthen counse-

lors’ skill set. School counselors who have previous training

and experience as teachers also may be ideal resources to

provide professional development for their colleagues on the

design and construction of effective lesson plans. By partici-

pating in trainings to improve their practice, school counse-

lors would be demonstrating structural leadership (ASCA,

2012; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Dollarhide, 2003). Finally,

Lopez and Mason 9

school counselor training programs should examine courses to

determine whether they are meeting the training needs of

school counselors, particularly those who lack a background

in education.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This study examined the content of existing lesson plans

located on the ASCA Scene website. One limitation was that

these lessons may have included multiple submissions from the

same counselor. Future research could request lesson plans

directly from school counselors to control for multiple

submissions.

A future study could also focus specifically on lesson plans

with the ASCA Mindsets & Behaviors standards. The current

study examined the skills of practicing school counselors; how-

ever, researchers may wish to examine the lesson planning

skills of preservice school counselors. Last, because lesson

plans overwhelmingly lacked accommodations, additional

research should consider focusing on the ASCA core curricu-

lum with respect to diverse learners.

Conclusion

Herr, Heitzmann, and Rayman (2006) state that school coun-

selor leaders must be lifelong learners, immersed in the current

literature and research, and, at the same time, use professional

development to build “a team of school counselors who under-

stand the goals and practices that comprise their school coun-

seling program” (p. 85). School counselors should engage in

self-examination to determine areas of strength and growth

in curricular design. School counselors can then participate in

structural leadership through continuing professional develop-

ment to attain technical mastery of the core curriculum and

implementation of an effective school counseling program

(Dollarhide, 2003). By committing themselves to such leader-

ship practices, school counselors can build viable school coun-

seling programs.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Ms. Vanessa Diaz, graduate student in the

School Counseling Program at CSU Long Beach, and Mr. Todd Wal-

lenius, teacher and counselor in Kathmandu, Nepal, for their assis-

tance with coding and data entry. The authors also acknowledge Mr.

David Tucker, school counselor in Chicago, IL, for his contributions

to the literature search and development of the literature review.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achieve, Inc., National Association of Secondary School Principals,

& National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2012).

Implementing the common core state standards: The role of the

school counselor. Retrieved from https://www.achieve.org/publica

tions/implementing-common-core-state-standards-role-school-

counselor-action-brief

Amatea, E. S., & Clark, M. A. (2005). Changing schools, changing

counselors: A qualitative study of school administrators’ concep-

tions of the school counselor role. Professional School Counseling,

9, 16–27. doi:10.5330/prsc.9.1.w6357vn62n5328vp

American School Counselor Association. (n.d.). State certification

requirements. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/

school-counselors-members/careers-roles/state-certification-

requirements

American School Counselor Association. (2012). ASCA National

Model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.)

(pp 166–176). Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (2014a). ASCA mindsets &

behaviors for student success: K-12 college- and career-readiness

standards for every student. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved

from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/

MindsetsBehaviors.pdf

American School Counselor Association. (2014b). The school coun-

selor and multitiered systems of support. ASCA Position State-

ments. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/

media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_MultitieredSupportSystem.pdf

American School Counselor Association. (2016). ASCA ethical stan-

dards for school counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved

from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Ethics/

EthicalStandards2016.pdf

Anctil, T. M., Smith, C. K., Schenck, P., & Dahir, C. (2012). Profes-

sional school counselors’ career development practices and con-

tinuing education needs. The Career Development Quarterly, 60,

109–121. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2012.00009.x

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry,

choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, M. A., & Amatea, E. (2004). Teacher perceptions and expec-

tations of school counselor contributions: Implications for program

planning and training. Professional School Counseling, 8,

132–140. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42732615

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational

Programs. (2016). 2016 CACREP standards. Retrieved from

http://www.cacrep.org/for-programs/2016-cacrep-standards/

Criswell, R. (2005). School counselors with and without teaching

experience: Attitudes of elementary, middle, and high school

teachers (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and The-

ses Global (Order No. 3151903).

Dahir, C. A., Burnham, J. J., & Stone, C., (2009). Listen to the voices:

School counselors and comprehensive school counseling pro-

grams. Professional School Counseling, 12, 182–192. doi:

10.5330/psc.n.2010-12.182

Dahir, C. A., & Tyson, L. (2014). The ASCA national standards and

the ASCA National Model. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Professional

10 Professional School Counseling

school counseling: A handbook of theories, programs, and prac-

tices (3rd ed, pp. 166–176). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework

for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-

sion and Curriculum Development.

Desmond, K. J., West, J. D., & Bubenzer, D. L. (2007). Enriching the

profession of school counselling by mentoring novice school

counsellors without teaching experience. Guidance & Counseling,

21, 174–183.

DeVoss, J. A., & Andrews, M. (2006). School counselors as educa-

tional leaders. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Dollarhide, C. T. (2003). School counselors as program leaders:

Applying leadership contexts to school counseling. Professional

School Counseling, 5, 304–308. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.

org/stable/42732447

Dollarhide, C. T., & Saginak, K. A. (2017). Comprehensive school

counseling programs: K-12 delivery systems in action (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Ed.

Duncan, A. (2014, June 30). Key policy letters from the education

secretary and deputy secretary. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.

gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/140630.html

Fitch, T., Newby, E., Ballestero, V., & Marshall, J. L. (2001). Coun-

selor preparation: Future school administrators’ perceptions of the

school counselor’s role. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41,

89–99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/

77e89f0b390533aeb9b3f4c831d1d55d/1?pq-origsite¼gscholar& cbl¼25206

Goodnough, G. E., Perusse, R., & Erford, B. T. (2010). Developmen-

tal classroom guidance. In B. T. Erford (Ed.), Transforming the

school counseling profession (3rd ed., pp. 154–177). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Hatch, T. (2013). The use of data in school counseling: Hatching

results for students, programs, and the profession. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Herr, E. L., Heitzmann, D. E., & Rayman, J. R. (2006). The profes-

sional counselor as administrator: Perspectives on leadership and

management of counseling services across settings. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Johnson, A. P. (2000). It’s time for Madeline Hunter to go: A new look

at lesson plan design. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 72–78. doi:

10.1080/01626620.2000.10462994

Knight, J. L. (2015). Preparing elementary school counselors to pro-

mote career development: Recommendations for school counselor

education programs. Journal of Career Development, 42, 75–85.

doi:10.1177/0894845314533745

Lee, R. S. (1993). Effects of classroom guidance on student achieve-

ment. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 27, 163–171.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42869065

Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2009). Cultural

proficiency: A manual for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Louisiana Department of Education. (n.d.). Making connections com-

prehensive unit plan. Retrieved from http://www.mcneese.edu/f/c/

107de2c7/spa_sec_planning.doc

Martin, I., Carey, J., & DeCoster, K. (2009). A national study of the

current status of state school counseling models. Professional

School Counseling, 12, 378–386. doi:10.5330/psc.n.2010-12.378

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leader-

ship that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Asso-

ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mason, E. C. M. (2010). Leadership practices of school counselors

and counseling program implementation. National Association of

Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 94, 274–285.

doi:10.1177/0192636510395012

Mason, E. C. M., & McMahon, H. G (2009). Leadership practices of

school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 13, 107–115.

doi:10.5330/psc.n.2010-13.107

Mau, W. J. (2008). Career development intervention schools. In

H. L. K. Coleman & C. Yeh (Eds.), Handbook of school counsel-

ing (pp. 497–515). New York, NY: Routledge.

McIver, D., Fitzsimmons, S., & Flanagan, D. (2016). Instructional

design as knowledge management: A knowledge-in-practice

approach to choosing instructional methods. Journal of Manage-

ment Education, 40, 47–75. doi:10.1177/1052562915587583

Merlin, C., & Knoblich, A. J. (2016). Needs assessment and unit/

lesson design. In J. Z. Daigle (Ed.), Classroom guidance for pre-

vention, accountability, and outcomes (pp. 118–152). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mullen, P. R., & Lambie, G. W. (2016). The contribution of school

counselors’ self-efficacy to their programmatic service delivery.

Psychology in the Schools, 53, 306–320. doi:10.1002/pits.21899

Myrick, R. D. (1997). Developmental guidance and counseling: A

practical approach (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational

Media.

Reiner, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Perusse, R. (2009). Teacher percep-

tions of the professional school counselor role: A national study.

Professional School Counseling, 12, 324–332. doi:10.5330/

psc.n.2010-12.324

Richard, T. L. (2001). Results-based comprehensive guidance and

counseling programs: A framework for planning and evaluation.

Professional School Counseling, 4, 289–299. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/?q¼EJ634444&id¼EJ634444 Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C. J., & Carroll, A. G. (2011). Response to

intervention: An opportunity for school counselor leadership. Pro-

fessional School Counseling, 14, 211–221. doi:10.5330/

psc.n.2011-14.211

Saginak, K. A., & Dollarhide, C. T. (2006). Leadership with admin-

istration: Securing administrative support for transforming your

program. Journal of School Counseling, 4. Retrieved from http://

jsc.montana.edu/articles/v4n10.pdf

Sink, C. A. (2005) Comprehensive school counseling programs and

academic achievement—A rejoinder to Brown and Trusty.

Professional School Counseling, 9, 9–12. doi:10.5330/

prsc.9.1.m2g9176x846618r1

Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2003). Raising achievement test scores of

early elementary school students through comprehensive school

counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 5, 350.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42732452

Lopez and Mason 11

Stone, C. B., & Dahir, C. A. (2006). The transformed school counse-

lor. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Tollerud, T. R., & Nejedlo, R. J. (2004). Designing a developmental

counseling curriculum. In A. Vernon (Ed.), Counseling Children

and Adolescents (pp. 391–423). Denver, CO: Love Publishing

Company.

Tosado, L. (2014) Developing lesson plans. In J. DeLucia-Waack, M.

Mercurio, S. Korta, K. Maertin, F. Colvin, E. Martin, . . . C. Giam-

brone (Eds.), School counselors share their favorite classroom gui-

dance activities: Guide to planning, conducting, and processing (pp.

57–63). Alexandria, VA: Association for Specialists in Group Work.

Vernon, A. (2010). Counseling children and adolescents (4th ed.).

Denver, CO: Love.

Villares, E., Lemberger, M., Brigman, G., & Webb, L. (2011). Student

success skills: An evidence-based school counseling program

grounded in humanistic theory. Journal of Humanistic Counseling,

1, 42–55. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2011.tb00105.x

Whiston, S. C., & Quinby, R. F. (2009). Review of school counseling

outcome research. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 267–272.

doi:10.1002/pits.20372

Wingfield, R. J., Reese, R. F., & West-Olatunji, C. A. (2010). Coun-

selors as leaders in schools. Florida Journal of Educational Admin-

istration & Policy, 4, 114–130. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.

gov/fulltext/EJ911435.pdf

Womack, S. T., Hannah, S. L., & Bell, C. D. (2012). Factor analysis of

intern effectiveness. Administrative Issues Journal: Education,

Practice & Research, 2, 147–157. doi:10.5929/2011.2.1.5

Young, A. (2013, July–August). Building-level leadership. ASCA

School Counselor, 52, 35–40.

Young, A., & Miller Kneale, M. (2012). Building school counselor

leadership capacity [Webinar]. American School Counselor

Association.

Zalaquett, C. P. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of elementary

school counselors’ role and functions. Professional School

Counseling, 8, 451–457. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/

stable/42732488

Ziomek-Daigle, J. (2015). School counseling classroom guidance:

Prevention, accountability, and outcomes. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Author Biographies

Caroline J. Lopez, PhD, is an assistant professor with the

Department of Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling,

California State University, Long Beach, CA.

Erin C. M. Mason, PhD, is an assistant professor with the

Department of Counseling and Psychological Services at Geor-

gia State University, Atlanta, GA.

12 Professional School Counseling