As a former graduate of a Counselling Psychology Department, I can relate to what Rod is saying. I remember having to study all these approaches, which left me with little in terms of tools to deal with clients. I had to wait until my degree was over to actually get out there and study what I believed was more useful. I took on to read on Solution Focussed therapy, and have found it to be very straight-forward and effective.
I like your idea of a two part course, where the classics are taught, and then more actual forms of therapy. Going through the course, I also felt like the materials had been washed way too many times, and it felt empty, void of content. Perhaps it's time for a new counselling book to be written? Anyone out there interested? Jean-Marc --- "Hetzel, Rod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Nancy is on target with her points. > Cognitive neuroscientists > have made a lot of contributions to our > understanding of human behavior > and I often find that students in my Abnormal > Psychology classes have a > poor understanding of brain-behavior relationships. > This thread is > particularly interesting to me as I've lately been > thinking about other > ways to teach my Theories of Counseling course. > Most of the > undergraduate-level texts in this area focus on > theories that have very > little to no empirical support. The typical text in > this area usually > covers: > > Freudian therapy > Neo-Freudian (Jung to Horney to Kohut) therapy > Adlerian therapy > Existential therapy > Person-centered therapy > Gestalt therapy > Transactional analysis > Reality therapy > Behavior therapy > Cognitive-behavior therapy > Family systems therapy > Feminist therapy > > Of these theories, some have received a bunch of > empirical support > (behavioral and cognitive-behavioral, in particular) > whereas others have > very little (for instance, existential and gestalt > therapies). > Moreover, the layout of these texts seems to be > different than the > current empirical trends in clinical psychology that > are focusing on > common therapeutic factors (therapeutic alliance, > client expectations, > etc.) and the development of specific treatment > approaches for specific > disorders (exposure and response prevention for OCD, > CBT or IPT for > depression, etc.). > > Does it make sense to teach our students theories > that have a place in > the history of psychology, but that are being > replaced by more > contemporary approaches? Personally, I am very fond > of existential and > Adlerian therapies and consistently find them to be > helpful when working > with clients. However, when I am working with a > client experiencing > panic attacks, an ethical approach is to use a > treatment that has been > shown to be efficacious through empirical research. > On the other hand, > there is an art as well as a science to therapy and, > like most of life, > our clients usually don't fit into nice little > diagnostic categories. > Having knowledge and skills in approaches that may > not be > empirically-supported is often extremely useful in > therapy. As Irvin > Yalom (2002) notes in his most recent text: > > "...non-validated therapies are not invalidated > therapies. Research, if > it is to be funded, must have a clean design > comparable to research > testing drug efficacy. Design demands include > "clean" patients (that > is, patients with a single disorder without symptoms > of any other > diagnostic groups--a type of patient uncommonly seen > in clinical > practice), a brief therapy intervention, and a > replicable, preferably > manualized (that is, capable of being reduced to a > step-by-step written > manual) treatment mode. Such a design heavily > favors CBT and excludes > most traditional therapies that rely on intimate > (unscripted) > therapist-patient relationship forged in genuineness > and focusing on the > here-and-now as it spontaneously evolves...Analysis > of results of > empirically-validated therapy (see Weston and > Morrison) indicates far > less impressive outcomes than has generally been > thought. There is > little follow-up at the end of one year and almost > none at two years. > The early positive response of empirically-validated > therapies (which is > found in any therapeutic intervention) has led to a > distorted picture of > efficacy. The gains are not maintained and the > percentage of patients > who remain improved is surprisingly low. There is > no evidence that > therapist adherence to manuals positively correlates > to improvement--in > fact, there is evidence to the contrary. In > general, the implication of > the empirically-validated therapy research has been > extended far beyond > the scientific evidence." (pp. 223-224) > > Despite these controversies, I've been thinking > about alternative ways > of teaching a Theories of Counseling course. The > ideal format would be > a two-course sequence. The first course could teach > the traditional > theoretical approaches and techniques. The second > course could focus on > empirically-validated therapies (although these > types of approaches are > given some attention in Abnormal Psychology > courses). In the meantime, > it would be great if we had a text that gave more > attention to > empirically-validated treatments. > > How do others on the list teach theories of > counseling? > > Rod > > > Reference: > Yalom, I. D. (2002). The gift of therapy: An open > letter to a new > generation of therapists and their patients. New > York: HarperCollins. > > ______________________________________________ > Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. > Department of Psychology > LeTourneau University > Post Office Box 7001 > 2100 South Mobberly Avenue > Longview, Texas 75607-7001 > > Office: Education Center 218 > Phone: 903-233-3893 > Fax: 903-233-3851 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel > <http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel> > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:10 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: Kohlberg et al > > > It was written: > > "I wonder if there are differences of opinions on > this issue > among listserve members along the lines of > professional training. At > the risk of forcing a dichotomy that doesn't exist > (some of us, myself > included, are trained as scientist-practitioners), > are there differences > on this issue between the the "experimental" > TIPSters and the "clinical" > TIPSters?" > > For the record, I started off as a clinical > psychologist. > Although I understand that some of Freud forms a > basis for useful > theory, I am far more impressed by the contributions > of cogntive > neuroscientists than those of object-relations > theorists. Impressed in > that these provide me with useful ways to understand > human behavior and > experience in a way that very little of the old > school, pre-scientific > psychology does. If Freud made great contributions > to Western culture > but relatively small ones to psychology (at least > the future of > psychology) maybe his work should be taught in other > disciplines. > > I also know plenty of instructors who don't teach > the brain > because it is somewhat more difficult to learn and > communicate while > Freud remains "sexy" and conceptually simple. I am > not saying that this > is why some are defending him here on the list; I am > mentioning it > because I am deeply disturbed that I need to teach > brain basics in more > advanced psychology classes to students who passed > psychology 1. These > students also have much greater knowledge of Freud > than the brain. They > are not being adequately prepared for upper division > work, IMO. > > Nancy Melucci > LBCC > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ===== Jean-Marc Perreault Arts & Sciences Yukon College Whitehorse, Yukon 867-668-8867 ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
