APPENDIX E

AN EXAMPLE SIMULATION OF AN ECOSYSTEM PROJECT

FOR COUNSELING CENTER PERSONNEL*

This appendix provides a brief description of a one-day workshop for a counseling center staff, which was designed to both teach about ecosystem methodology and to obtain support for an ecosystem project. While the staff had been included in the earlier discussion about the project, only two members of the staff had been involved with the planning team. As a result, most of the staff did not feel any identification with the project. In addition, there was evidence, from the absence of staff response to requests for input about the project, that there may have been negative reaction or divisiveness on that staff that led to lack of support for the project.

The workshop was divided into two major segments. The first was primarily didactic, covering the theories and models underlying the ecosystem concept. The second segment was primarily experiential, providing the staff with an actual experience of conducting a mini-ecosystem project.

Theory

During the didactic or theory session, three different models or perspectives were presented and integrated. The first of these was based on a 1971 article in The Counseling Psychologist entitled, "A Preventative and Developmental Role for the College Counselor" (Morrill and Hurst, 1971). This paper stresses the interaction of both the individual and the environment as variables that influence the outcome of college. Thus, to affect the outcomes of college it is important to study the environment and modify it as well as to counsel or help students adjust to the environment. The second model that was presented was the "Cube" model which identifies alternate targets, purposes, and methods for counseling center interventions (Morrill, Setting, and Hurst, 1974). The third model was based on the WICHE publication entitled "The Ecosystem Model: Designing Campus Environments" (1973) and on an article in The Personnel and

*The Example Simulation was written by Weston H. Morrill, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, and is based on a workshop he prepared and conducted in conjunction with an on-campus model application.

Guidance Journal by Banning and Kaiser (1974). It notes the importance of the "transaction between the student and his or her environment" (p. 371) and suggests that the goal of student personnel should not focus on adjusting people alone, but also on adjusting environments. Banning and Kaiser described a seven-stage ecosystem design process which is useful in conceptualizing this ecosystem model.

Experience

The remainder of the workshop involved the participants in carrying out an actual ecosystem project. The environment that they studied was that of the counseling center in which they all work. This portion of the workshop involved three major activities. These were (1) development of an instrument to measure the environments (2) the collection and summarization of data about the environment using the instrument; and (3) action planning, based on the obtained data, designed to bring about changes to make the environment more compatible with members' needs and goals.

Development of an Instrument. The first step in the development of an instrument was the presentation of an item format to be used in this mini experience. Each participant was provided with copies of the item format presented in Figure I. This format, adapted from the Institutional Goals Inventory, is only one of a number of possible formats. It was chosen because the format provides information about how important a goal is, how well the center is achieving a goal, and about the discrepancy between the two.

Figure I. The Item Format for the Ecosystem Instrument

Directions: For each of the goal statements you are to make ratings. First, how important does the goal seem to be in actual practice as you experience working in the counseling center? Mark this rating on the "is" row. Second, how important do you think the goal should be? Mark this rating on the "should be" row.

Each of the participants was asked to write ten goal statements to be used as potential items for the ecosystem instrument. They were given examples of goal statements and asked to write five of the goal statements as output goals and five as support goals. Output goals were defined as those goals of the counseling center that were task oriented. These had to do with the mission or purpose for the existence of the center. The support goals were defined as those goals that were internal to the counseling center and had to do with the maintenance of a climate that fostered the achievement of the output or task goals. These support or maintenance goals deal with such concepts as freedom, governance, feelings of community, interpersonal relationships, support, intellectual stimulation, etc.

During a break, the approximately 100 goal statements that were written by the staff were sorted into several piles based on similarity of concept. The entire staff then participated in the selection of a small number of items to be used in the actual instrument. Eleven items were selected for inclusion in the final instrument. These items clearly represented those areas that were of the most concern to members of the staff. As a result, the actual items that were selected were those on which a maximum discrepancy would exist. The following are examples of the type of items that were written:

•To provide complete and accurate information to students regarding class selections (Output goal)

•To have a counseling center environment that is conducive to enjoyable and caring work relationships. (Support goal)

Collection and Summarization of the Data. Once the staff had selected the items that they thought had the highest priority for them at that time, the resulting instrument was read. Staff members wrote down their responses in two ways to each of the selected goal statements. First, they indicated how important the goal seemed to be in actual practice as experienced at the counseling center. Then they rated how important they thought that the goal should be (see Figure I). Once this task had been completed for all of the items, the staff members were given instructions to obtain environmental referents. The instructions were as follows:

Identify those items on which there is a difference of two or more spaces between your "is" and "should be" responses. For each of the items where the discrepancy is two or more, answer the following two questions: (1) Why do you think this discrepancy exists, and (2) What do you think could be done to reduce the discrepancy? Be as specific as possible.

While the staff members were writing their environmental referents, the answer sheets for the objective portion of the questionnaire were collected and the results summarized. Table I presents the summary of the results of the questionnaire. It should be pointed out that, during the workshop, there was only enough time to compute the mean discrepancy scores. This provided the information that was needed for the identification of those items on which there was the greatest discrepancy.

Table I. Summary of Staff Responses to Workshop Ecosystem Instrument (N=11)

Action Planning. During the action planning stage of the workshop, the staff read those items on which they had the greatest discrepancy and selected one item on which to plan an intervention to reduce the discrepancy. It was for this process that the environmental referents were necessary.

The first step of the action planning was to define the problem as completely as Possible. This was accomplished by reading all of the environmental referents that had been given in response to the question, Why do you think this discrepancy exists?

After these had been read, the group spent time discussing the problem area and defining and clarifying the causes of the "is/should be" discrepancy.

Once the problem had been sufficiently defined, the next task was to identify possible courses of action to improve the situation. The initial process was to read all of the environmental referents given in response to the question, What do you think could be done to reduce this discrepancy? Once this had been accomplished, the staff discussed alternate intervention approaches.* The intervention chosen was based on some assessment of the feasibility of the intervention and its potential effectiveness. This cost/benefit consideration is important in any intervention planning. Also, in order to ensure follow-through, it was crucial that the action planning be detailed and specific in terms of what was to be done, who was to do it, when it was to be done, and what other resources were necessary to accomplish the intervention.

As a result of this workshop, the staff expressed a much greater understanding of the ecosystem process and developed a plan to begin helping themselves improve their counseling center environment.

References

Banning, J. H., and Kaiser, L. An ecological perspective and model for campus designs The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1974, 52, 370-375.

Morrill, W. H., and Hurst, J. C. A preventative and developmental role for the college counselor. The Counseling Psychologist, 1971, 2(4), 90-95.

Morrill, W. H., Oetting, E. Ros and Hurst, J. C. Dimensions of counselor functioning. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1974, 52, 354-359.

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. The ecosystem model: Designing campus environments. Boulder Colo., 1972.

*A useful process would be to use the "Cube" model (Morrill, Oetting, and Hurst, (1974) and have the staff brainstorm as many intervention methodologies as possible by considering alternative targets, purposes, and methods.