Abstract
The
purpose of this study was to examine the preferred learning styles of
counselors-in-training along with their attitudes toward computers and
technology use to determine if there is a relationship between their preferred
learning styles and technology use. Participants were from 6 CACREP accredited
programs. They completed the demographic questionnaire, the Computer
use survey, and the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. The results indicated no
significant findings with regard to the learning styles of
counselors-in-training and ratings of technology-related competencies and
modes of instruction. However,
when rating their preferred mode of instruction, it was found not one
participant checked online instruction as their preferred mode of instruction.
Computer use by counselors has dramatically increased over recent years
(Granello, 2000;
Hardesty & Utesch, 1994; Myrick,
1997; Sabella, 1996; Walz,
Harris-Bowlesbey, Dinkmeyer, Carlson, & Nelson, 1990).
The Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES)
acknowledges the importance of the increase in technology use as well as the
need for competency in technology for counselor trainees.
ACES provides technology use guidelines, which identify tasks that
students should complete prior to graduation (ACES,
1999a). Commensurate with
this, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP) also has recognized the importance of computer competency in
the 2001 standards of CACREP.
A study by Hayes and Robinson (2000) examined the
attitudes of counselor education students toward computer technology.
Graduate students at a Southern University, taking an introductory
counseling techniques class, were asked to participate in the study.
The weekly classes used a multimedia instructional approach in which
text material and classroom activities were provided to students by a computer
software program. Only the instructors used computers and the students were
not informed of the type of classroom instruction used upon registering for
the course. The Attitude Survey
of Misfeldt and Stahl (1991) was used to examine the
attitudes that these students had toward computers.
Their findings suggested that students have a positive attitude toward
using computers and many reported that computer use had increased the
productiveness of their educational experience.
However, it was found that more students disagreed than agreed with the
question of “I prefer computer assisted instruction over traditional
classroom instruction.” This
finding may not have been valid due to the inconsistent wording of the
question. Students, however, were favorable toward the use of multimedia
instruction.
Lundberg (2000) examined the use of online
communications by counseling students. In
this study, the students were given multiple tasks that utilized various
computer technologies. They were
required to open a computer account and send their e-mail address to their
instructor. Next, the students
were required to use the computer accounts to do web searches.
These searches consisted of exploring certain Internet sites (e.g.,
American Counseling Association, etc.) to find information concerning
Kohlberg’s stage model. The
students would then write their reactions as a word-processed file and e-mail
their reaction to the instructor. The students completed surveys before the
course and at the end of the course in which they rated themselves on how
proficient they were in using computers.
The computer proficiencies examined were spreadsheet use, e-mail use,
searching the Internet for information, and using presentation programs. After the completion of the course, students’ attitudes
toward online communications in comparison to traditional forms of instruction
were examined.
The results of the survey found that students reported higher
proficiencies in word processing than the other areas of computer use (Lundberg
2000). Also, students
reported becoming more computer proficient in searching the Internet and using
e-mail, but not more proficient in the use of presentation and spreadsheet
software. Students also reported the use of e-mail and the Internet to be
valuable experiences; however, there was no relationship between these
findings and students’ reported desire to become a counselor. It was found, however, that other courses unrelated to
computer use did increase student desire to become a counselor. The results
also showed that 84% of the students preferred to do research via the Internet
than the library. When comparing e-mail and written assignments, most students
reported a preference for e-mail assignments.
This brief review of the literature has demonstrated the importance of
computer and technology-related competencies for professional counselors.
However, only a few studies of limited scope exist regarding the
technology-related skills of counselors-in-training. It may also be that the
technology use investigated today are below standards advocated by ACES.
In addition, little is known regarding the learning styles of
counselors-in-training and whether such forms of instruction as online
coursework are suitable to the learning styles of the trainees.
Therefore, it was the purpose of this investigation to examine the
following questions.
- What
are the preferred learning styles of counselor trainees, as measured by
the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory?
- What
attitudes do counselors-in-training hold toward computer and technology
use?
- What
are the preferred modes of instruction for the research sample?
- Is
there a relationship between the preferred mode of instruction and the
preferred learning style of counselor trainees?
Method
In the study being reported, the investigators randomly selected 12
CACREP-Accredited Counselor Training Programs, and contacted the chairs of
these programs to request participation in the study. If the chair approved the participation of the program, the
principal investigator requested the name of an instructor with a class of
beginning trainees with an enrollment of 10 students or more. The designated
professors were contacted for participation and asked if they would be willing
to devote class time for students to complete the instruments for the study.
Upon agreement, the surveys were mailed in bulk to the instructor, who
also returned completed instruments in bulk to the principal investigator.
The professors who agreed to participate were in 6 CACREP-Accredited
Programs. There was at least one program from each region of the United
States. Thus, it was believed that the investigation utilized a national
sample of counselor trainees.
The
instruments used in the study included a demographic data sheet, and a
computer use survey similar to the one used by Chandras (2000), and The
Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (1984).
The demographic datasheet, besides including demographic information
(e.g., age, gender, race, and marital status) also included items assessing
amount of experience with computers, participant satisfaction with their
training program, and their preferred mode of instruction. For the latter,
participants were asked to check their preferred mode from the following:
lecture, discussion, small group, role-playing, programmed instruction, or
online instruction. Participants could check as many modes as they preferred,
however most selected a single mode of instruction.
The
Computer Use Survey, taken from an unpublished research study of Takacs
(2000), asked participants to rate on a 5-point scale their general computer
knowledge and their ability to use different types of computer software. This
following types of software were examined: word-processing, e-mail, web
browsing, multimedia/hypermedia, programming, spreadsheet, content-area,
authoring and database. In
addition, the participants also were asked to rate their experiences with
regard general computer knowledge. An
example of item 9 on this survey was written in the following manner: “I
would rate my experience with e-mail
software (e.g., GroupWise, PINE, ELM, America Online) as:”.
The participants were then asked to rate their experience between 0 and
5 according to their present level of experience, with 5 being considered the
most experience, and 0 considered the least experience.
The
Kolb Learning Styles Inventory has twelve items in which individuals rank four
sentences according to his/her preference for learning.
For example, item one on this inventory is written as: “When I learn:
___I like to deal with my feelings, ___I listen to and watch and listen, ___I
like to talk about ideas, and ___I like to do things.”
The participants were them asked to rank each sentence between 1 and 4,
with 1 being the sentence that describes the least like the way they would
learn, and 4 that describes how they learn best.
Sewell (1986) examined reliability for the Kolb
Learning Styles Inventory and found that the reliability coefficients were
between .54 and .83, using the Spearman Brown, with Cronbach alphas between
.29 and .71. Test-retest
reliability also was assessed and was found to be between .34 and .73.
The
Kolb Learning Styles Inventory measures four learning modes that individuals
may utilize: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984).
Individuals who take this inventory are found to have higher scores in
one of these categories, which suggests that their learning style matches the
category that they score the highest. Kolb’s
Learning Style Inventory, in addition to assessing four learning styles, also
measures four learning modes: convergent, divergent, assimilative, and
accommodative. Convergent
individuals learn through comprehending and through action (abstract
conceptualization and active experimentation).
However, divergent individuals learn through feeling and then changing
their feelings to thoughts (concrete experience and reflective observation).
Individuals who are found to be assimilative learn through
comprehending and then changing what they have learned into thought (abstract
conceptualization and reflective observation).
Finally, accommodators learn through feeling and then by acting on
these feelings (concrete experience and active experimentation).
Results
From the 6 CACREP-Accredited programs 102
counselor trainees participated in the study. Counselor educators, who
administered surveys to their classes, indicated near unanimous participation
by their students. The participants used in the investigation were mostly
single (88%) and female (84%) with a mean age of 30 years. They were
predominantly European-American (75%) with African-American trainees
constituting the next largest group (12%). Participants reported a mean of
11.13 years of computer use (SD = 5.11), and when asked regarding their
satisfaction with their training program, they either reported being
"Very Satisfied" (49%) or "Fairly Satisfied (45%).
Table 1: Preferred Learning Styles of Participants (N = 79)
|
Accomodator
|
Assimilator
|
Converger
|
Diverger
|
|
38%
|
19%
|
18%
|
25%
|
Results from the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory are presented in Table
1. For this sample of counselor trainees the most common learning style was
Accomodator (38%). As mentioned earlier, Accomodators " learn through
feeling and then by acting on these feelings.”
The learning style of the Diverger also represented a fairly high
percentage of this sample (25%). These
individuals “learn through feeling and then changing their feelings to
thoughts”. Lastly, the learning
styles of Assimilator (19%) and Converger (18%) were found to be represented
fairly equally among the population of counselors-in-training.
Individuals with an assimilative learning style “learn through
comprehending and then changing what they have learned into thought,”
whereas, individuals found to have convergent learning styles “learn through
comprehending and through action.”
Responses of the counselor trainees to the
Computer Use Survey are presented in Table 2. The reader will recall that
participants rated their level of experience with 10 different types of
computer software on a scale from 0 to 5 with 0 indicating little experience
and 5 indicating a high level of experience.
Table 2: Participant Computer Use
|
Item
|
Mean
|
Stan. Dev.
|
|
General
Computer Knowledge
|
3.42
|
1.14
|
|
Content
Area Software
|
2.37
|
1.23
|
|
Multimedia/Hypermedia
Software
|
2.19
|
1.32
|
|
Word-Processing
Software
|
4.19
|
1.12
|
|
Database
Software
|
2.32
|
1.41
|
|
Spreadsheet
Software
|
2.45
|
1.46
|
|
Programming
Software
|
1.12
|
1.12
|
|
Authoring
Software
|
.77
|
1.18
|
|
E-mail
Software
|
3.63
|
1.43
|
|
Web-Browsing
Software
|
4.00
|
1.24
|
The results shown in Table 2 suggest that trainees are most proficient
with word-processing, web-browsing, e-mail, and operating system software.
Software programs that trainees report little experience with include
programming and authoring software.
Table 3: Participant preferences for different modes of
instruction
Modes of
Instruction
|
|
Lecture
|
Discussion
|
Small
Group
|
Online
Inst.
|
Role
Playing
|
Programmed
Instruction
|
|
36%
|
52%
|
34%
|
0%
|
13%
|
5%
|
Table 3 presents the percentages of participants
selecting a preferred mode of instruction.
Because some endorsed more than one mode the total percentages exceed
100%. It was found
that most of the counselor trainees reported that discussion (52%), followed
by lecture (36%) and small groups (34%) were their preferred modes of
instruction. It was surprising
that not one counselor trainees selected online (0%) instruction as their
preferred mode of instruction. Also,
it was unexpected that only 13% of the participants reported that role-playing
was their preferred mode of instruction, since role-playing is so widely used
in counselor training programs. Also,
a very low percentage of counselors-in-training (5%) checked programmed
instruction as their preferred mode of instruction.
Finally,
Chi-square analyses were conducted comparing preferred learning style with
preferred mode of instruction. No significance was found. Learning style and
preferred mode of instruction were not related in this study.
Discussion
Three primary findings emerge from this study. First, not one counselor
trainee out of a nationwide sample of 102 selected online instruction as his
or her preferred mode of instruction. Second, counselor trainees from this
nationwide sample preferred traditional, classroom-based modes of instruction
with primary emphasis on discussion and lecture. Together these findings can
be interpreted as sending a message to technology-oriented counselor
educators: infuse technology in courses and student satisfaction may decline.
This interpretation may require examination. Finally, the third finding of
this study is that counselor trainees represent different learning styles with
no truly dominant style among them. It may be futile to expect a relationship
between learning style, at least as measured by the Kolb Learning Styles
Inventory, and counselor trainee preferences for mode of instruction. That
counselor trainees do not reflect a dominant learning style, and that
instruction cannot be tailored to one dominant learning style, may be a fact
counselor educators have to accept.
But, what about trainees preferred modes of instruction? How can
counselor trainee preferences for instructional modes be explained? One can
only speculate. Did the survey
instrument affect outcome, because it did not specify whether participants
were to select all or only one preferred mode of instruction? Are they simply
victims of "techno-phobia," and thus would not be comfortable with
online instruction? Do trainees need to be desensitized to their computer
anxiety? Is online instruction inferior to other instructional modes, at least
as offered in counselor education? Do trainees prefer traditional modes of
instruction because they reflect what they are used to, and have thus grown
comfortable with, because they have little experience with technology-assisted
instruction? Or, is their experience that counselor educators do a better job
with lecturing, guiding discussions, and organizing small group activities in
class? Thus, trainees prefer the modes of instruction that are delivered best
in their counselor education programs.
The fact that the
participants in the study report an average of over 11 years of computer
experience and confidence in their ability to use computers, including the use
of computer operating systems, word-processing, e-mail, and web browsing, does
not support a high degree of "techno-phobia" and disinterest in
computers. Yet these experienced computer users unanimously do not endorse
online instruction as a preferred mode of instruction.
Without the
"techno-phobic" explanation, we have to attend to the
technology-based instruction the participants may have been exposed to.
Unfortunately, this investigation did not assess the quality and quantity of
technology-based instruction provided participants, either before or during
their counselor education programs. Follow-up studies could provide evidence
that might help determine if zero or low preference for online instruction is
related to trainee-perceived exposure to low quality online instruction.
Evidence does exist
suggesting counselor educator computer competencies being below those of
counselor trainees--part of the gap among generations with respect to computer
use and competence (The
American College Teacher, 1999; Magner, 1999).
If this is true, what a middle-aged counselor educator can produce with
respect to online instruction may not meet the expectations of a generation of
more computer-competent trainees. This could lead to trainee estimation that
online instruction in a counselor education program will not be of as high
quality as some other form of instruction, possibly a more traditional
lecture/discussion class. Thus, when one asks a trainee to indicate preferred
mode of instruction, is not one asking them to rate the quality and
effectiveness of those modes of instruction in their counselor education
programs? If true, the quality of online instruction in general is below the
quality of traditional classroom instruction that utilizes discussion,
lecture, and small group activities.
The results of this study
also challenge the ACES Technology Competency standards. Because counselor
trainees report low interest in technology-based instruction, should counselor
educators demand that they increase their technology-use skills? In response
to this, we might look at history and how counselor educators have long-used
role-playing as an important tool in strengthening competence and in
demonstrating that competence. Yet role-playing is a low preference mode of
instruction for the trainees used in this study. This suggests that counselor
educators may need to persist in using, and even increase the use of
technology-based forms of instruction, such as online and web-enhanced
instruction. It is not the popularity of something that determines its value
as much as its need. The need for increased technology competence for
counselors has sufficient documentation for ACES to publish training
standards. Counselor educators may simply need to insure that trainee
experience with technology-based instruction equals the quality of traditional
classroom instruction. Researchers may need to document whether or not this is
or has happened.
Finally, if future research
documents that online and web-enhanced instruction in counselor education
programs may require improvement, resources would need to be directed toward
this goal. Promotion and tenure and merit pay guidelines may require change to
reward the counselor educator, who invests the extraordinary effort required
to create quality technology-enhanced instruction.
References
Association for Counselor Education and
Supervision (ACES). (1999a).
Technical competencies for
counselor education students: Recommended guidelines for program development.
Retrieved September 1, 2002, from the World Wide Web, http://filebox.vt.edu/users/thohen/competencies.htm.
Chandras,
K.V. (2000).
Technology-enhanced
counselor training: essential technical competencies.
Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 27, 4, 224-227.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and
Related Educational Programs (CACREP) (2001).
The 2001 Standards.
Retrieved September 1, 2002 from the World Wide Web, http://www.counseling.org/cacrep/2001standards700.htm.
Granello, P.F.
(2000).
Historical
context: The relationship of computer
technologies and counseling. Counseling and Personal
Services (CG030192), 1-11.
Hardesty, G., &
Utesch, W. E.
(1994). Counselors and
computers: a survey of
compatibility and use. Counseling and
Personnel Services (CG025838), 1-16.
Hayes, B., G., & Robinson, E. H. (2000).
Assessing counselor education
students’ attitudes toward computers and
multimedia instruction. Journal
of Humanistic
Counseling, Education and Development, 38,
3, 132-141.
Kolb,
D.A. (1984).
Experiential
learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lundberg,
D.J. (2000).
Integrating on-line technology into counseling curricula:
emerging
humanistic factors. Journal
of Humanistic Counseling, Education and
Development, 38,3, 142-151.
Magner,
D.K.
(1999, September 3).
The graying professoriate. The
Chronicle for Higher Education, XLV (2), A18-A21.
Misfeldt,
R., & Stahl, W. A. (1991). Attitudes toward computerization in
Canadian
universities (Tech. Rep. No. 4). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian
International
Development Agency. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338
229).
Myers,
J.E., & Gibson, D. M. (1999). Technology
competence of
counselor
educators. Counseling
and Personnel Services (CG029454), 1-11.
Myrick,
R. D. (1997). Traveling together
on the road ahead. Professional
School
Counseling,
1,
1, 4-8.
Sabella, R. A. (1996).
School
counselors and computers: specific time-saving tips.
Elementary School Guidance and
Counseling, 31, 2, 83-95.
Sewell, T. J. (1986).
The
measurement of learning style: A
critique of four assessment tools. (Research
Report). Green Bay: Wisconsin
University Assessment Center. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 247).
The American College Teacher.
(1999).
Higher Education Research Institute of the University of California.
Walz, G. R.,
Harris-Bowlesbey, J. , Dinkmeyer, Jr., D, Carlson, J., Nelson, R. C.,
Krockover, G. H.,
(1990).
A
technological world, Counseling and
Personnel Services (CG022269), 1-13.
Author
Biography
Traci A.
Berry, M.A. is
a Counseling Psychology doctoral student in the Department of Counseling,
Rehabilitation Counseling, and Counseling Psychology at West Virginia
University. She currently works
as the graduate admissions coordinator for the department.
Her research interests include: technology use in education, adolescent
addictions, and love relationships. Traci
can be contacted at traciberry78@hotmail.com.
David J.
Srebalus, Ed.D. is
a professor in the Department of Counseling, Rehabilitation Counseling, and
Counseling Psychology at West Virginia University. He teaches courses in
counseling theory and techniques and career counseling. Dr. Srebalus has been
using web-enhanced instruction since 1999. He can be reached at djsrebalus@mail.wvu.edu.
Philip W.
Cromer, M.A. is
a Counseling Psychology doctoral student in the Department of Counseling,
Rehabilitation Counseling, and Counseling Psychology at West Virginia
University. His research
interests include the use of technology in education, and counselor ethics.
He also teaches an introductory course in Gerontology, and works as a
therapist for the Carruth Center for Counseling and Psychological Services at
West Virginia University. Philip
can be reached at pcromer@mix.wvu.edu.
James
Takacs, Ed.D.,
is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology in the School of
Education at the University of Michigan-Dearborn). Prior to coming to UM-D,
Dr. Takacs worked as Manager and Director of the Teaching and Learning
Technologies Center at West Virginia University. Dr.Takacs currently teaches
technology integration courses to pre-service teachers in the teacher
preparation program at UM-D. He
can be contacted at jtakacs@umich.edu.
