CareerSteer – careers test for career choice                                               www.careersteer.org



        Guidance Skills and Processes Assignment: Summer 1998.
        
        
        Diploma in Careers Guidance, College of Guidance Studies, Swanley.
        

	  Cole Davis
        
           Analyse  ways in which the skills of SUMMARISING,  CHALLENGING 
        and HELPFUL QUESTIONING can impact positively on the process of a 
        guidance group work session. 
        
           Critically   evaluate  your  own  professional  practice   and 
        identify  how these skills may impact on and enhance the  process 
        of  guidance  for  the client through group  work.   (It  may  be 
        helpful to focus on a specific piece of group work that you  have 
        undertaken recently).
        
           This piece of work should include recommendations for your own 
        professional development in the area of group work.
        
           The assessment should be approximately 2000 words in length.
        
                
             "Education  is what survives when what has been  learnt 
             has been forgotten."    (B. F. Skinner, 1964).
        
        
           Methodology is only valid when applied towards a purpose.   An 
        analysis of skills, therefore, must necessarily be preceded by an 
        overview of the function of group work within careers guidance.
        
           Careers  work  in schools has emerged as a  requirement  (Law, 
        1996b).  Groups characterise careers education more than guidance 
        (Law,  1996a) and will primarily be considered in  this  context.  
        While the growth of computer-aided guidance may reduce the  cost-
        effectiveness  of  the mass imparting  of  information  (Killeen, 
        1996),  a wide range of potential functions exist along the  DOTS 
        model (Law and Watts, 1977).
        
           Decision-making  and  transitions  may be seen as  part  of  a 
        guidance   culture  within  education.   Self-awareness   -   and 
        relationships with others - may be more representative of liberal 
        education.    Whilst opportunities may now be more the  stuff  of 
        library and computer work - arguably - vocational education  also 
        includes the development of skills and competences (Law, 1996a).
        
           While diverse, it may be argued that this rather  personalised 
        learning  content  could  best  be  achieved  by  student-centred 
        methods.   Law  (1996a)  suggests that  varied  methods  increase 
        student   interest;  that  they  provide  'depth,   breadth   and 
        progression'  -  this is supported by  psychological  experiments 
        demonstrating  the superiority of 'elaborative' methods of  human 
        memory storage (e.g. Craik & Lockhart, 1972) - and that they  may 
        cater for different learning styles (c.f. Kolb, 1984).
        
            Assuming   that  a  variety  of  teaching  methods  is   most 
        effective,  therefore,  group work should be  both  experiential, 
        grounded in personal and social experience (Reynolds, 1994),  and 
        participative (Law, 1996a).
        
           Once such a route has been embarked upon, the nature of  group 
        dynamics needs to be considered.  While providing conditions  for 
        human  growth,  groups  are  full  of  potential  pitfalls;  this 
        volatility  is  illustrated  by one model of  group  formation  - 
        'forming, storming, norming and performing' (Tuckman, 1965).
        
           Variables  may include individual personalities  and   status, 
        such  as opinion-leaders (Klein, 1963) and  scapegoats  (Douglas, 
        1978).  "Attitudes, opinions, feelings, beliefs, and emotions are 
        manifested in the actions and words of group members, which often 
        lead to rewarding relationships.  However, they sometimes can  be 
        the  source  of  frustration for both the people  and  the  group 
        process."  (Stech and Ratliffe, 1976).
        
           When working with these attitudes, both as the raw material of 
        the  educator  and  as potential barriers, it  is  important  for 
        practitioners  to consider the process as well as the content  of 
        sessions.  
              
           Group  workers  need  to observe, interpret and  then  to  act 
        (Milson,  1973).  A model that may be adapted to  both  long-term 
        relationships  with groups and to single sessions is that of  the 
        ground-breaking  social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1948).   Changes 
        in attitude may occur in three phases: the unfreezing of previous 
        attitudes, changing attitudes and refreezing of new attitudes.
        
           Unfreezing an 'unskilled group', where participants are unused 
        to  group  work, requires the group to determine  its  own  needs 
        (Maier,  1953).   More  specifically for  our  current  purposes, 
        interventions  may be needed to help members learn social  skills 
        (Johnson and Johnson, 1996).
        
           Foremost intervention models are 'client-centred', based  upon 
        Rogers'  client-centred counselling (1942), which is  idiographic 
        (as  opposed to nomothetic), stressing the ability of the  person 
        to  make  conscious and responsible decisions, and  to  construct 
        reality.   This  approach  centres  on  the  emotional  and   the 
        immediate;  embodied  within the approach  are  practical  skills 
        which are widely applied in guidance and in counselling, often as 
        part of an eclectic process model.  
        
           One  such  process model is Egan's  'skilled  helper'  (1998), 
        which  itself  fuels the 'Swanley Model' (Fielding  and  Vautier, 
        1994).     Rogerian techniques emphasise listening to the  client 
        with   empathy,  transparency/congruence  (Rogers,   1961),   and 
        'unconditional positive regard' (Masson, 1992, considers these to 
        be  irreconcilable attitudes).  While these may be  preconditions 
        for  effective guidance, they need to be applied at the level  of 
        technique.
        
           Questioning  may be used for a variety of  purposes:  starting 
        conversation,  expanding  on  points,  obtaining   illustrations, 
        checking perceptions and obtaining information.  These should  be 
        used sparingly and carefully, using open and closed questions  as 
        appropriate.   (Brammer and MacDonald, 1996).   
        
           Helpful  questioning means not merely 'probing' (Egan,  1998), 
        but  encouraging  individuals to participate.  This may  free  up 
        group  members who are resistant to sharing their perceptions  of 
        issues,  as  well  as helping the  reluctant  to  feel  included.  
        (Richardson,  1967).   Questions  starting  with  'what  do   you 
        think ...' and 'can you tell me about ... ' are typical.
        
           Questioning may also stimulate self-awareness and interactions 
        beneath the threshold of challenging.   'Why' and 'how' questions 
        may  be  used, however, both to focus content  and  to  challenge 
        unsupported (or unsupportable) assertions.
        
           While Egan once postulated "confrontation as invitation ... to 
        examine  his or her interpersonal style - emotions,  experiences, 
        and behaviors" (1977), he now adopts the term 'challenging' as  a 
        more  responsible approach to changing  dysfunctional  attitudes, 
        thoughts and behaviours - 'blind spots' - which clients have  not 
        seen fit to alter themselves (1998).  
       
           Egan  (1998)  considers  challenging  to  include  information 
        sharing,   helper   disclosure,   immediacy,   suggestions    and 
        recommendations, as well as confrontations.
        
           Immediacy, direct mutual talk, focuses on particular events in 
        a  session,  maybe  including direct praise  or  criticism  of  a 
        comment  or behaviour (Egan, 1998).  This may be  appropriate  in 
        periods of tension and other episodes within group dynamics.
        
           Although  clearly a part of Rogerian  client-centred  therapy, 
        this  may also be considered in terms of behavioural  and  social 
        learning   perspectives   (immediate  reinforcers    and   cues).  
        Psychodynamic theories also suggest wariness - and use of -  such 
        dynamics as the transference and countertransference.   
        
           These  interactions  need  to take into  account  the  general 
        ability  and developmental stage of the group: this includes  the 
        previous   experiences  of  the  participants.   Some   form   of 
        assessment must be made 'on the hoof'.  
        
          Challenging  may  be appropriate in  counteracting  unrealistic 
        expectations, which may be based on distorted perceptions of  the 
        world,  perhaps emerging from community influences.   The  latter 
        may include attitudes to equal opportunities.
        
           If questioning, perhaps in Socratic style, may be used in  the 
        unfreezing  process,  and challenging used to  change  attitudes, 
        then  summarising  may  be  used  to  consolidate  on   learning, 
        refreezing  new  attitudes at the end of a session  and  allowing 
        reflection to reinforce learning (Kolb, 1984).
        
           In  practice,  however,  summarising may be  used  at  various 
        points  in  the progress of a session.  It  may  clarify  content 
        already  covered, placing disparate ideas in focus,   demonstrate 
        mutual  understanding  and  herald new  directions  (Brammer  and 
        MacDonald,   1996;   Nelson-Jones,  1993).   Egan   (1998)   also 
        recommends  summarising  early on, when interactions seem  to  be 
        going nowhere or clients get 'stuck'.
        
           I  generally summarise within my  own group sessions to  check 
        understanding of what has been covered before moving to the  next 
        topic.   In a session with a  group of emotional and  behavioural 
        disturbed  adolescents,  I found that I would  have  consolidated 
        learning  - or 'refreezed' (Lewin, 1948) - by summarising in  the 
        conclusion.   Even  more  usefully  for  the  internalisation  of 
        learning,  participants  could  have  summarised  what  they  had 
        learned.  (My limited version of this was to work collaboratively 
        at  agreeing  three  general  principles  for  approaching   work 
        constructively, but this was not presented as a clear   summary).  
        ('What  do  employers  expect  of  you?',  11/5/1998;  assessor's 
        feedback enclosed as an appendix).
        
          The  same  session  included  helpful  questions  for   various 
        purposes.   As  well as interacting with the  more  active  group 
        members,  who  had  taken up my  invitation  to  participate  and 
        question  me,  I needed to include two other people.   One  young 
        person  merely  seemed  quiet,  whilst  another  seemed  actively 
        resistant to participating, slouching and avoiding eye contact.

          I  asked individual content-related questions of both of  these 
        young  people, the quieter one gaining confidence and  increasing 
        participation, the other at least paying desultory attention.   I 
        did not increase the frequency of questioning the latter  person; 
        beyond the usual careful and sparing usage  of questions (Brammer 
        and  MacDonald,  1996),  there was the danger of  provoking  this 
        individual, who may well have perceived this as victimisation.
        
           In his case, I had found myself confronting him - I think this 
        is  the most accurate term - early in the session.   Whilst  this 
        runs   counter  to  the  usual  relationship-building   preceding 
        challenging, it was necessary in terms of building the parameters 
        of the group work relationship.  He had carried a newspaper  into 
        the  room and had started to read it during my  introduction.   I 
        asked him to put it in his bag, explaining that it would distract 
        him from his task.  Giving reasons often leads to consent.
        
           Whilst  this  challenge  was  necessary  for  any   meaningful 
        transactions  to take place, there was always the risk of  adding 
        friction  to  the previous disengagement (although  his  mode  of 
        withdrawal  was blatant enough to be construed as  a  challenge).  
        In  order to improve our relationship, I maintained friendly  eye 
        contact before venturing my question, and continued to send  non-
        verbal messages of inclusion.
        
           More  conventional challenging within this session took  place 
        when one of the more outward-going participants referred to  'gay 
        queers'.   I  said  that such a  statement  would  be  considered 
        inappropriate  within the workplace, my challenge thus  retaining 
        relevance to the learning content; immediacy was sustained by  my 
        adding  "and, dare I say it, here".    My reaction  was  received 
        without  rancour by the person concerned, with whom  rapport  had 
        already been established.
        
           Previous criticisms of my group sessions had been that, whilst 
        I  provided  a  relaxed  atmosphere, I  rather  let  more  lively 
        participants  'walk all over me'.  My last session  clearly  took 
        account  of  that.    Within future sessions, I need  to  find  a 
        balance  between  lacking  control  and  being  over   assertive.  
        Integral  to  this is the agreement with participants  of  ground 
        rules;  the  agreement  is  to  inserted  as  part  of  Stage   1 
        (contracting;   Fielding   and   Vautier,   1994).     Practising 
        opportunities  include  the forthcoming D.C.G. Part  I  summative 
        assessments  and also Part II observed sessions; in  both  cases, 
        observing   practitioners  will  evaluate  challenges  (real   or 
        potential) and read lesson plans.
        
           Similar  opportunities  may  be used to  evaluate  my  use  of 
        summaries,  which are vital to the effective running of  guidance 
        interactions, and questions.  I have occasionally noticed  myself 
        using  closed  questions more than necessary,  although  I  would 
        defend  their use for occasional directing of conversations  that 
        are  drifting,  for  initiating  discussions  by  eliciting  easy 
        responses  and  for  challenging.   I  can  continue  to  monitor 
        excessive  use of closed questions, following up with  more  open 
        ones.  Observers are likely, given the nature of their  training, 
        to notice overuse; it is then up to me to respond accordingly  in 
        future sessions.

           Another  clear objective to emerge from the above analysis  is 
        the  need to provide effective, transparent summaries.   Students 
        should  be  clear  about  what they  have  learned;  to  optimise 
        reinforcement of appropriate learning, they should be  encouraged 
        to  participate in these.  Again, it is my intention  to  include 
        this in lesson plans (as part of Stage 3), which may then be seen 
        by observers.
        
           Other   objectives,   to  be  evaluated   similarly,   include 
        contracting over the purpose of the session, choosing appropriate 
        DOTS topics (Law and Watts, 1977), ensuring contingency materials 
        and structuring sessions to ensure effective guidance.  As I have 
        not   usually  had  problems  along  these  areas,  I  have   not 
        elucidated.   These  are, however, necessary in  maintaining  the 
        quality  of all group work sessions and thus  require  continuous 
        attention.
        
        
        
                                  REFERENCES
        
        
        Brammer,   L.   M.  and  MacDonald,  G.   (1996)    The   Helping 
        Relationship: Process and Skills.   London: Allyn & Bacon.
                                        
        Craik, I.F.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972)  Levels of processing:  a 
        framework  for memory research.  Journal of Verbal  Learning  and 
        Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671-84.
        
        Douglas, T. (1978)  Basic Groupwork.  London: Tavistock.
        
        Egan, G. (1977)  You and Me.  Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
        
        Egan,  G. (1998) The Skilled Helper (6th. edn.).  Pacific  Grove, 
        CA: Brooks/Cole.
        
        Fielding,  A.  &  Vautier,  E.  (1994)   Guidance  Explored:   An 
        Integrated  Approach to Guidance Interventions.   Swanley,  Kent: 
        The College of Guidance Studies.
        
        Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, F. P. (1996)  Joining Together: Group 
        Theory and Group Skills.  London: Allyn & Bacon.
        
        Killeen,  J.  (1996)   The  learning  and  economic  outcomes  of 
        guidance.   In Watts, A.G., Law, B., Killeen, J, Kidd,  J.M.  and 
        Hawthorn, R.  Rethinking careers education and guidance.  London: 
        Routledge.
        
        Klein, J. (1963)  Working with Groups.  London: Hutchinson.
        
        Kolb,  D.A. (1984)  Experiential Learning Experience as a  Source 
        of  Learning  and  Development.  Englewood  Cliffs,  New  Jersey: 
        Prentice Hall.
        
        Law,  B.  (1996a) Careers education in a curriculum.   In  Watts, 
        A.G.,   Law,  B.,  Killeen,  J,  Kidd,  J.M.  and  Hawthorn,   R.  
        Rethinking careers education and guidance.  London: Routledge.
        
        Law,  B. (1996b) Careers work in schools.  In Watts,  A.G.,  Law, 
        B.,  Killeen, J, Kidd, J.M. and Hawthorn, R.  Rethinking  careers 
        education and guidance.  London: Routledge.
        
        Law,  B. and Watts, A.G. (1977)  Schools, Careers and  Community. 
        London: Church Information Office.
        
        Lewin, K. (1948)  Resolving Social Conflicts.  New York: Harper.
        
        Maier,  N.  R. F. (1953)  An experimental test of the  effect  of 
        training on discussion leadership.  Human Relations, VI.
        
        Masson, J. (1992)  Against Therapy.  London: Harper-Collins.
        
        Milson, F. (1973)  An Introduction to Group Work Skill.   London: 
        Routledge & Kegan Paul.
        
        Nelson-Jones,  R.  (1993)   Practical  Counselling  and   Helping 
        Skills: How to Use the Lifeskills Helping Model. London: Cassell.
        
        Reynolds, M. (1994)  Groupwork in Education and  Training:  ideas 
        in practice.  London: Kogan Page.
        
        Richardson,  E.  (1967)   Group  Study  for  Teachers.    London: 
        Routledge & Kegan Paul.
        
        Rogers,  C.  (1942)  Counseling and Psychotherapy.   Boston,  MA: 
        Houghton-Mifflin.
        
        Rogers, C. (1961)  On Becoming a Person.  London: Constable.
        
        Skinner, B. F. (1964).  New Scientist, 21 May.
        
        Stech, E. and Ratliffe, S. A. (1976)  Working in Groups.  Skokie, 
        Illinois: National Textbook Company.
        
        Tuckman,  B. W. (1965)  Developmental sequences in small  groups.  
        Psychological Bulletin, 54, 229-49.  

 

CareerSteer – careers test for career choice                                               www.careersteer.org