Full-time Faculty Member 95 3.76 1.049
Adjunct Faculty Member 65 3.82 1.014
Doctoral Student 23 3.26 1.322
Other 36 3.75 1.079
110
Item 37 of the Survey of Student Attitudes and Instructor Participation in Experiential Groups invited participants to share their comments and personal experiences in regard to participating in the experiential group. Of the 330 participants who completed the Survey of Student Attitudes and Instructor Participation in Experiential Groups, 38% chose to respond. The responses were analyzed resulting in the identification of 3 major themes in addition to 3 sub-themes. The themes are listed in Table 24.
The most prominent theme that emerged was an overall negative experience from participating in the experiential group (45%). Within this theme, 3 sub-themes emerged which categorized why participants described their experience as negative. The 3 sub –themes included ethical concerns, ineffectiveness of experiential group, and feelings of stress/anxiety. Within the 45% of participants who described their overall experience in the experiential group as negative, 67% of participants reported it was due to ethical concerns. Nine participants believed the facilitator of the experiential group was incompetent to lead the group. This corresponds with the frequency data from Item 15 in Table 5 which indicated that 5.7% of all participants strongly disagreed or disagreed that the facilitator was competent to lead the group. An additional 9 participants felt they were uncomfortable with the amount of personal information disclosed by other group members. This corresponds with the frequency data from Item 24 which indicated that 8.8% of participants strongly disagreed or disagreed that they felt comfortable with the amount of personal information disclosed by group members. Other noteworthy ethical concerns reported by participants included: being uncomfortable disclosing personal information (4
participants), being uncomfortable with peer dual relationships (4 participants), being uncomfortable with the dual relationship of the facilitator (3 participants), believing the
111
facilitator was ineffective as a group leader (3 participants) and not understanding that personal disclosure affected his/her grade in the course (3 participants). Twenty percent of participants, who indicated their overall experiential group experience was negative, indicated it was due to feelings of stress and/or anxiety. Three participants indicated they suffered long-term stress due to the experiential group, corresponding to Item 34 in Table 6 stating that 3.2% of participants suffered long-term stress due to the experiential group. One participant stated, “I still have moments where I feel physically sick and shaky from the experience.” Another student described his/her experience as “Very stressful, I still ruminate sometimes 2 years later.” The remaining 13% of participants who shared they had a negative experience indicated it was due to the ineffectiveness of the experiential group to teach group counseling skills.
The next theme that emerged was those participants who had an overall positive experience in the experiential group (40%). Participant responses included “Being part of the experiential group gave me great insight into the group process” and “I believe an experiential component is critical to successful training in group work.” The final theme that emerged was those participants who had an initial negative experience but who were able to see the benefits of the experience (15%). This is exemplified by one participant who stated, “I think being part of an experiential group was imperative to my success as a group leader; however, part of that was being vulnerable and experiencing emotional distress which is hard to do.”
112
Table 24
Themes of Open-Ended Question Inviting Comment on Personal Experience in the Experiential Group Theme n % Negative experience 56 45.0 Ethical concerns 38 67.0 Feelings of stress/anxiety 11 20.0 Ineffectiveness of exp. group 7 13.0
Positive experience 49 40.0
Negative experience with benefits of exp. group 19 15.0
Item 38 invited participants to share their recommendations for improving the
experiential component in the group work course. Of the 331 participants who completed the
Survey of Student Attitudes and Instructor Participation in Experiential Groups, 38% chose to respond. The responses were analyzed resulting in the identification of 26 themes. The themes are listed in Table 25.
Table 25
Themes of Open-Ended Question Seeking Recommendations to Improve Experiential Group Component
Theme n %
Group members should assume character roles 9 9.0%
Group member self-disclosure should be limited 9 9.0% Group members should not be fellow peers 8 8.0%
113
Table 25 Continued
Students should participate in a therapy group of their choosing not affiliated with the counseling program
8 8.0%
Students should be screened by faculty for readiness before being allowed to participate in experiential group
6 6.0%
The instructor of the group work course and the facilitator of the experiential group should be two different
individuals
6 6.0%
6 6.0% The facilitator of the experiential group should be
competent and have understanding of how to stop inappropriate group member behavior
The facilitator of the experiential group should not be a faculty member
6 6.0%
If the group members are the facilitators of the experiential group, the instructor should be actively involved
5 5.0%
More time should be allowed to process individual group member reactions
4 4.0%
Group work should consist of more than one course 4 4.0% The experiential groups should be longer in length and
more intense
4 4.0%
The facilitator of the experiential group should thoroughly discuss expectations, confidentiality, and the purpose of the group
4 4.0%
The group work course should not be taken in the beginning of the program
3 3.0%
Additional knowledge and experience in group leadership 3 3.0% The experiential group should consist of a “small”
number of students
114
Table 25 Continued
The facilitator of the group should not change weekly 3 3.0% Additional knowledge of how to facilitate theme-oriented
groups such as grief, sexuality, and addiction groups
2 2.0%
The experiential group facilitator should be culturally sensitive
1 1.0%
Students should be required to observe a therapy group in the community
1 1.0%
Online group work course members should have to meet at least once to practice skills as a live group
1 1.0%
The instructor of the course should be able to observe the experiential group and provide live feedback and
supervision
1 1.0%
Students should be required to keep a journal 1 1.0% Increased discussion on the roles group members
assumed
The experiential group should not be lengthy in time and should be less intensive
1
1
1.0%
1.0%
SUMMARY
The results of the study were presented in this chapter. The first research hypothesis that anticipated differences in the strength of concern of master’s level students regarding the dual roles held by the experiential group facilitator and experiential groups facilitated by a full-time faculty member, adjunct faculty member, and a doctoral student was not supported in this study. No significant differences were found between these two groups.
115
The second research hypothesis that anticipated differences in the strength of concern of master’s level students regarding issues of confidentiality and experiential groups facilitated by a full-time faculty member, adjunct faculty member, and a doctoral student was not supported in this study. No significant differences were found between these two groups.
The third research hypothesis that anticipated differences in strength of level of comfort participating in the experiential group between master’s level students who believed their experiential group facilitator was competent and master’s level students who believed their experiential group facilitator was not competent was supported in this study. The results of the univariate analysis revealed significant differences between master’s level students who believed their experiential group facilitator was competent and master’s level students who believed their experiential group facilitator was not competent. Master’s level students who believed their experiential group facilitator was competent had a stronger level of comfort participating in the experiential group. The relationship between master’s level student’s comfort level and their belief that their experiential group facilitator was competent was strong, as indicated by an effect size of .132.
The fourth research hypothesis that anticipated differences in strength of ethical concerns of master’s level students regarding the experiential group and experiential groups facilitated by a full-time faculty member, adjunct faculty member, and a doctoral student was not supported in this study. No significant differences were found between these two groups.
The fifth research hypothesis that anticipated differences in the strength of the belief that the experiential group was instrumental in their development as a group counselor between master’s level students who were not concerned with ethical issues in the experiential group and
116
master’s level students who were concerned with ethical issues in the experiential group was supported in this study. The results of the univariate analysis revealed significant differences between master’s level students who believed the experiential group was instrumental in their development as a group counselor and master’s level students who did not believe the
experiential group was instrumental in their development as a group counselor. Master’s level students who believed that the experiential group was instrumental in their development as a group counselor had fewer ethical concerns regarding the experiential group. The effect sizes of all significant dependent variables were large, ranging from .098 to .232, which indicated a strong relationship between master’s level student’s ethical concerns and their belief that the experiential group was instrumental in their development as a group counselor.
The sixth research hypothesis that anticipated differences in strength of the comfort level experienced by master’s level students when participating in the experiential group and
experiential groups facilitated by a full-time faculty member, adjunct faculty member, and a doctoral student was not supported in this study. No significant differences were found between these two groups.
The seventh research hypothesis that anticipated differences between experiential groups facilitated by a full-time faculty member, adjunct faculty member, and a doctoral student on master’s level students’ experience of the experiential group was not supported in this study. The results of the MANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences in the personal experiences of master’s level students from participation in the experiential group and the academic status (full-time faculty member, adjunct faculty member, doctoral student) of the facilitator of the experiential group.
117
The results are discussed in Chapter 5. The relationship between the findings of this study and existing research is presented. Information pertaining to limitations of this current study and implications for future research are presented.
118
CHAPTER 5