By Jeffrey Swan
University of Texas at Austin
Associate Editor’s note: Jeffrey Swan is a student in the
doctoral program in counseling psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. In this
piece, he shares his observations about the impact of a recent APA site visit upon
students and faculty. As a means of facilitating discussion about the visit among students
and faculty, Swan designed and distributed a survey assessing student perceptions of the
quality of their training. This survey might be used by students at other programs as a
means of preparing for such visits. For a copy of the survey, please contact the education editor.
In early November, my doctoral program in counseling psychology
was visited by a team of evaluators from APA. An APA site visit can be a mixed blessing.
There is the initial anticipation of scrutiny and a feeling that we, as a program, must
get all of our ducks in a row.
This involves a push for the faculty to analyze how and why they
do things the way that they do, as well as a push for the students to think about the
strengths and weaknesses of their program. While these are good things to do (and should
be done on a regular basis), the down side is that we find ourselves having to do these
things with the impending evaluation of strangers looming in the not-so-distant future.
This extra incentive brings ambivalence.
In preparing for our November site visit, the students of our
program circulated a survey designed to help us begin thinking about the questions that
the visitors might ask, as well as the real issues facing the program. While we found
little more than we already knew, there were mixed feelings about bringing up any less
than sparkling information about our program at such a vulnerable time.
Three camps emerged among the students. One group felt as though
there were quite a few issues that needed to be discussed and resolved about the program,
and that we could do that immediately after the site visit. The primary concern of this
group was that we not expose ourselves to the possible ramifications of a negative
evaluation by the site team.
Another group expressed concern about certain aspects of the
program and wanted to have those concerns voiced, if not addressed, as soon as possible.
This group consisted mainly of students in their middle years (4th and 5th), whose issues
centered around the depth and breadth of the clinical training provided by both the
program and practicum training sites.
The third group felt ambivalent about the issues facing the
program. Most members of this last group reported that they did not see the complaints
about the program as being significant or as different from the problems facing other
programs.
The problem is not that there was, and is, a split in the way that
students view the strengths and weakness of the program. Rather, the issue becomes how to
use the information gathered by faculty, students and the team of evaluators to strengthen
our program. It is this continuation of the effort that makes a site visit worthwhile, as
opposed to the idea that it is a static moment in time to be revisited in 5 years when a
new team comes to visit.
To date, there has been no "post-visit" discussion
between the faculty and students as to the impact of the site visit on the program. It is
my hope that our program, as well as others facing an accreditation review, can resist the
temptation to view the site visit as a passing moment in which we must look our best.
Rather, students and faculty might move to a model where there is an ongoing and fearless
evaluative process that leads to positive changes, regardless of who is coming to visit.
This article first appeared in the Winter 2000 Edition of the APAGS Newsletter, Vol.
12(1)
