Professional Self Managed Plan Phase 1

David Profitt
EDC 511
Professional Self Managed Plan Phase 1

On 9/3/03 and 9/10/03 I participated as a “fictional” consultant in real-from-life dyadic meetings with fellow classmates. The meetings concerned students from the consultees’ real life experiences with a myriad of problems. The sole goal of the first meeting was problem identification; the second meeting covered all the phases in working with a problem, including problem identification, analysis, treatment implementation, and treatment evaluation. These were my first attempts to act in the role of a consultant.

Assessment:

I felt optimistic about the meetings, though there were positive and negative points. On the plus side, I felt that the clients and myself, though we had never met before this class, fell into quick rapport. Also, throughout the sessions, I felt I did a good job at summarizing what was being said and asking for more specific information when generalities were given. We discussed several specific examples of the problem behaviors and agreed upon a method of counting the behaviors so that a baseline could be established. A fictional second meeting was set for one week from the date of the first meeting on 9/03/00 and the second meeting (9/10/03) was fictitious in all re-meeting accounts, as we did one right after the other. Specifically from the 9/10/03 meetings, I felt I did a better job of funneling information to arrive at the most severe need. Also, I felt I did a better job at identifying antecedent and consequence information than I had a week earlier.

Negatively, I shall look at the two meetings separately, as they did occur in two different class periods. During the first class, I had a difficult time not thinking “I have no idea how to solve this problem.” The obsessive point was somewhat moot, as solving the problem was not the purpose of this meeting. Also, because there was a myriad of issues with the child in question, I should have worked more at narrowing down or prioritizing the behaviors in an attempt to pick one as the first and most important focus. This would have enabled us to focus on manageable problem to address. As it was, there were too many behaviors to fight in the first stage of the intervention. Also, because the school year was new, we did not discuss in detail existing procedures already used to combat this problem. The topic was addressed, but no answers were given. More probing into what actions occurred before and after may have led to unrealized procedures which may have been in place, even if unintentionally. We discussed consequences, but nothing was mentioned which seemed to work – increasing my mental distraction of not knowing how to solve the problem.

Because by the time of the second meeting I had already considered the above factors for a week, I felt I had improved in some of the issues, but there were new negativities I had not noticed before. First, I believe I could have done a better job at building rapport with the client. Even with hellos, we did seem to jump right to the thought of “so, what brings you in to see me today.” Just a few more seconds in conversation before moving into the actual meat of the meeting may make a client feel more comfortable. Also, better use of the client’s name throughout the meeting would have been beneficial. As it is, I’m not sure if I used the client’s name once, which could create distance and possibly a lack of trust in a real life situation.

Goal Setting:

Just as in the first meeting I should have funneled out the most crucial goals, I feel I need to do the same here. There are three goals which are most obvious. First, the mental distraction of the uniqueness and severity of the problem behaviors needs to be diminished. If working on problem identification, I need to focus all my attentions on the correct task at hand. Second, I need to work on narrowing down the problem into manageable bites. Finding out what the consultee considers the most severe behaviors will benefit my future counseling strategies. Other issues, such as discussing antecedent and consequence behaviors will have a better fit once I have worked on funneling the problem for the most serious issues. Then, discussion of the antecedents and consequences of that specific behavior can be discussed. Finally, even though I felt I had good rapport in my fictional meetings, I believe this area needs to be improved. Improving name use and a few more seconds of additional time before “getting down to business” will aid in this area.

Strategy Selection:

At this point, I think simply noting my goals should be sufficient. As this was my first two attempts in a consulting session, and since I had not really studied on the procedures before the first of these attempts, knowing that I need to focus better and narrow down the problem may work. Better rapport building and focus should come as I continue to practice the techniques. If these issues continue to plague me, I will have to re-evaluate this strategy. Additionally, reviewing, memorizing the points, and utilizing the “Observation Guide” will help in achieving my goals.

Evaluation plan:

The fact that these sessions were done in front of peers was greatly helpful. The suggestions of my peers were insightful and beneficial and I have already used their reviews in improving my second session. I look forward to utilizing my peers’ suggestions in future practice consultation sessions. Also, immediate comparison of my personal observations of a session with the “Observation Guide” will show me where I have missed points. Finally, as I have now begun in-school practicum work, witnessing others in a professional setting should show me areas I need to improve on myself. This will be because I will see something and say “I should have done that,” or because I will see something and say “they should have done this, and so should I.” Either way, I’ll be learning by observing others.

Filed under: EDC 510-511 Consultation in Schools and Practicum
Copyright: September, 2003 - David Profitt