International Counseling Doctoral Students' Teaching Preparation: A Phenomenological Study

Researchers-as-Instrument Statement

As a research team, we both are Asian international counselor educators in the United States. Since the beginning of our training in counseling as international students, we experienced the uniqueness of our international identity as related to learning and teaching. We assumed that this uniqueness was shared and identifiable across international counseling students. We also had a bias that teaching preparation was more challenging for international students, compared with their domestic counterparts, given the cross-cultural and sometimes cross-linguistic differences. Our assumption and bias may expose us to higher risks of seeking confirming evidence while overlooking incompatible experience. However, they may simultaneously open a door for us to touch and illuminate the essence of participants' experience. We were mindful of this lens and took steps to address our subjectivity, as described in the Trustworthiness section.

As authors of this study, we uphold the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm. Specifically, we take an ontological stance that there exist multiple, constructed realities; reality is subjective and influenced by contexts (Ponterotto, 2005). Epistemologically, we believe that reality is socially constructed, and the relational interactions between participant (the “knower”) and researcher (the “would-be knower”) are crucial to capturing and describing participants' lived experiences (Ponterotto, 2005). We believe our shared experience with participants in transcultural learning and teaching can enhance our understanding of their teaching preparation. Accordingly, we used transcendental phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994) to guide our discovery of what is knowable concerning what and how participants experienced the phenomenon of teaching preparation.

Sampling and Participants

This study was approved by the university institutional review board prior to data collection in 2018. A recruitment announcement was posted on Counselor Education and Supervision Network Listserv (or CESNET-L). Participants who were at least 18 years of age, enrolled in counseling doctoral programs in the United States, and on an F-1 student visa status were eligible for participation. Within the first month of this recruitment initiative, 12 participants responded to the informed consent and demographic questionnaire on Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com), the platform we used to create our survey. After reviewing the first interview protocol, one participant decided to withdraw from research. A total of 11 participants completed the first round of semistructured interviews via Zoom; eight of the 11 also completed the second-round interviews. Please see Table 1 for the detailed demographic information of participants.

Nine participants were enrolled in counselor education programs, and two were in counseling psychology programs. Despite the differences between the two programs, the cross-cultural training background and counseling-related teaching experience was common to all participants. Participants had varied lengths (from 1 semester to 3.5 years) and forms (i.e., in person and online) of teaching experience at either the undergraduate or the master's level. The courses with which they had teaching experiences were predominantly master's-level counseling courses, with a few undergraduate-level courses as follows: counseling techniques, group counseling, mental health counseling, prepracticum, internship lab, supervision in school counseling, crisis and trauma, introduction to counseling psychology, counseling for career issues, communication skills for youth-serving professionals, interpersonal skills for behavioral health professionals, human services, and global education.

Data Collection and Data Analysis

We developed an interview protocol targeting two main areas: (a) participants' experiences in teaching preparation (the phenomenon) and (b) contexts that may have influenced participants' experiences of teaching preparation (Moustakas, 1994). The first author pilot tested interview questions with an international faculty member who was not one of the participants to ensure that the questions were clear and could elicit relevant responses within the targeted time frame. Updated questions (based on the pilot feedback) were sent to participants for review at least 48 hours prior to their scheduled interviews. Specific questions encompassed participants' teaching experience, factors that could affect their teaching self-efficacy and competencies, areas for growth in teaching, how their teaching might (or might not) relate to their international background and experiences, and suggestions for other international students and counselor educators. The first author conducted the first-round interviews, which lasted for approximately 1 hour each. Then, transcripts were sent back to respective participants for member checking. In the follow-up interviews with eight participants (approximately 30 minutes each), the first author discussed with participants issues that could entail further clarification or elaboration on emerged themes from earlier interviews.

The authors followed step-by-step Moustakas's (1994) modification of the van Kaam method of phenomenological analysis to code the data. During the first step of horizonalization, the first author listed every expression pertaining to participants' experience with teaching preparation. To determine the invariant constituents, each expression was tested against two criteria: (a) whether the expression captured a moment of participants' experience that was a necessary and sufficient constituent for understanding their teaching preparation and (b) whether it was possible to abstract and label the expression. Expressions that met both requirements were retained as the invariant constituents (horizons) of their experience; whereas overlapping, repetitive, and vague expressions were eliminated for future analyses. Next, the horizons were clustered and labeled. The second author engaged in independent coding of selected transcripts, following the same procedure. Both authors reached a consensus on the number and name of thematic labels, which comprised the core themes of participants' experience. In validation, the invariant constituents and their accompanying themes were checked against the complete record of each participant to ensure that they were either explicitly expressed or compatible. Finally, the first author constructed for each participant a textural (what the participant experienced) and structural (how the participant experienced it in terms of the conditions, situations, or contexts) description of the meanings and essences of their experience. These were then collapsed into a composite description of the meanings and essences of participants' experiences with teaching preparation.

Trustworthiness

We used multiple strategies to ensure trustworthiness. The first author kept an audit trail, which included a chronological documentation of all research activities throughout the process (starting from the emergence of the research question); incidents that influenced data collection and analysis; emerging themes; and analytic memos that captured the first author's hunches, interpretations, queries, and notes (Morrow, 2005). The audit trail was examined by and discussed with the second author. The first author also kept a self-reflective journal that recorded the ongoing reactions, thoughts, experiences, and any assumptions or biases that came to the author's awareness (Morrow, 2005) as related to this study. This documentation was frequently consulted for data analysis. In addition, one participant reviewed the manuscript for a second-round member check and feedback.

International Identity Becomes Salient in Teaching

All participants (N = 11) reported that their international identity interfaced with their teaching preparation in counseling programs, which became salient at the cross-cultural and/or cross-linguistic levels.

At the cross-cultural level. More than half of participants (n = 6) used themselves as instruments in teaching. As Eli highlighted, “This is who I am, and it's kind of impossible to teach something totally separate than who you are.” Both Eli and Ela used their personal stories to teach what it meant to be a minority in a culture, and what discrimination, privilege, oppression, and racism may look like at the individual level. Ela shared,

For Aabha, being international allowed her to be more comfortable addressing multicultural issues and bringing them up more in teaching and supervision. Fei similarly expressed that, as an international student, “I do believe that in many ways I can bring even more safety to the classroom by setting up the ground rules to be inclusive to all students of their nationality, race, gender, and other formats of that.” Given her cross-country education and work experience, Claire said, “I naturally gravitate towards giving world examples versus U.S. examples” in teaching. Likewise, Alex intentionally exposed his students to his own collectivistic worldview to enhance mutual understanding and multicultural awareness in class.

However, more participants (n = 9) expressed the discomforts encountered or anticipated to occur because of cross-cultural differences. For instance, both Eli and Le disclosed feeling disconnected when students were engaged in conversations that may be readily relatable in U.S. culture but unfamiliar to individuals from other cultures. Le said,

Eli further explained this disconnection as “I was not able to provide those kind of examples or associations to them to make it easier for them to understand or memorize.” In addition to unfamiliar informal conversations, both Lily and Le expressed insecurities about the lack of awareness or systematic training in some issues (e.g., historical, social, and political references in racism and sexism), given their international background. Lacking exposure to other races in her home country, Xin felt, “It's easier for me to recognize, like, a face from Asia, but from [a] different race, I have [a] harder time.”

At the cross-linguistic level. Nearly all participants (n = 10) discussed the impact of cross-linguistic differences on their teaching preparation. For instance, Xin spent considerable time preparing her lectures via pronunciation practice, deliberate word selection, and content rehearsal, compared with her domestic counterparts. Saki felt less confident in teaching when her students had a harder time understanding her accent, particularly those “growing up in extremely English-dominant environment.” Even Alex, whose first language was English, said,

Notably, most participants (n = 7) indicated that their language-related challenges in teaching mainly stemmed from their self-perceptions about language differences, or from others' perceptions of the participants based on language differences, which went beyond the actual differences across languages. For example, Xin shared, “I don't like asking questions because my worry is, if I ask some questions and they give me [a] response, what if I don't understand what they say?” Eli echoed Xin's concern, identifying the unknowns from students' responses as one of her biggest fears. Lily brought up a term, foreign language anxiety, that affected her teaching self-efficacy. She explained, “We wonder how other people think about us or, you know, if we make mistakes, we wonder if people will make fun of us or teasing at us or laughing at us.” She referenced a study where she found that foreign language anxiety, compared with acculturation, was a stronger predictor of international students' counseling self-efficacy. In tandem with these self-perceptions, Eli, Fei, and Ela believed that language- and accent-related stereotypes could lead to perceived discrimination from their students. Eli added, “Whenever I open my mouth, in just a second, it reveals that I am from somewhere else. So that can trigger some stereotypes, maybe positive or negative or maybe some prejudices.” Ela even witnessed a situation in which students did not like a professor because of that professor's accent.

Acculturation Occurs in Teaching

Ten participants discussed the pronounced differences of teaching styles and practices in their countries of origin from those in the United States. Most of them (n = 8) grew up with the structured, teacher-centered, and lecture-based teaching that was didactic in nature, with a heavy focus on knowledge acquisition. Educators were predominantly viewed as authorities in their home countries. In the face of these differences, these participants all intentionally adjusted their teaching to accommodate students' needs in U.S. classrooms.

Some participants found more value in U.S. student-centered teaching and thus consciously shifted their teaching paradigm and the relative positioning of students and teachers, which was parallel to the assimilation strategy (i.e., identification with the new host culture; Berry, 1997) in acculturation. For example, Saki said, “I don't feel like I'm higher than a student. I'm more like, how I can be lower than them.” This positioning of students and teachers was totally reversed in her home country. She believed that students will be more empowered by active (wanting to) rather than passive (being pushed to) learning.

In contrast to Saki's active assimilation, Alex sometimes felt forced to assimilate:

Alex expressed the hope that counselor educators would validate international students both as individuals and in terms of their experience. Alex further stressed the importance for counselor educators to understand that international students come with their own histories, backgrounds, values, and lifestyles, all of which can be assets to learning communities. For example, he perceived the collectivistic worldview, a salient identity originating from his culture, as conducive to students' understanding of multiculturalism in counseling as well as of himself as a person.

Some participants noted the strengths of both teacher- and student-centered teaching styles; thus, they managed to integrate both styles through the integration strategy (i.e., preserving the old while embracing the new; Berry, 1997) of acculturation. For instance, Jing found the value of student-centered teaching accrued through her experiences in the United States, but simultaneously upheld the merit of structured teaching whereby educators assumed more responsibilities in students' learning. She said, “It's my responsibility to give you what you need.” Strengths of teaching practices from both countries motivated Jing to actively balance the two approaches in her future teaching.

Among the multitude of cross-cultural teaching differences, several participants (n = 4) accentuated that evaluating students' work (i.e., grading and providing feedback) was an area that sometimes entailed considerable adjustment from previous practices. Both Eli and Ela were used to giving direct feedback and focusing on what was wrong or not working, an approach that stood in striking contrast to the “sandwich” (placing the critique between two positives) or “sugarcoating” approach to feedback commonly practiced in the United States. According to Eli, “What I'm used to from my culture is always [to] say the things that are wrong or negative. It's very rare to get positive feedback, so I actually did not learn giving or providing positive feedback in my culture.” Similarly, Ela was socialized in a culture where people were expected to do well and thus “doing well” would not be pointed out. With increased mindfulness in providing feedback, Ela sometimes had to double review what she wrote to ensure that her feedback was acceptable according to U.S. cultural standards. Likewise, Lily reflected, “I was educated that if we give people critical feedback, that means good for them; it's going to be helpful for their growth, for their learning.” She initially highlighted critical feedback in U.S. classrooms, but soon learned that students would drop her class if she continued to only focus on critical feedback. Through balancing the critical and the positive, Lily strived to create a middle ground where her feedback could be perceived as acceptable by her students. Similarly, Jing thought grading should be an accurate reflection of students' ability and work, driven by the concept of “harsh love” typically seen in her culture. After processing this with her supervisor, Jing began to integrate encouraging grades into students' work with more narrative feedback on where and how students could learn and think at a deeper level.

Teaching Is Relational

Participants (n = 6) indicated that teaching was a mutually enhancing process through which educators and students learned from each other—that is, teaching affected students and their learning, which in turn exerted an influence on educators and their teaching. This influence took on different forms. For example, Ela collected students' feedback to adjust her teaching:

Alex benefited from observing students' counselor identity development and their practices of counseling skills, which enriched his understanding of diversity in counseling. He further added, “I was able to also grow as a counselor and as an educator while almost simultaneously helping to impart them to be grounded in what their style will possibly be.” Likewise, Le expanded and solidified her knowledge base and understanding about multiculturalism through teaching.

Both Lily and Jing found that being genuine, sincere, and caring allowed them to relate to students. Lily shared,

For Jing, when she received positive feedback from students, her self-efficacy and self-worth were both boosted. Jing felt students' feedback was internalized in her, which made her feel rewarded through teaching, affirming her dedication to the profession and strengthening her bond with students. Students' feedback came in both positive and negative forms. When Le received pushback from students, she viewed that as an opportunity to challenge her own thinking paradigm, which allowed her to process multicultural nuances. For instance, when she engaged in advocating, she was “[not] only advocating for minority individuals but also hav[ing] some empathy for people who have privileges and who are not aware of those privileges.”

Support System Is Critical to Teaching Preparation

Participants highlighted the importance of supports that they received or wished they had obtained. Broadly, these supports came in two forms: people and teaching infrastructure. Xin, Le, and Fei spoke highly of the supports that they received from peers. Xin cotaught with her peers, which allowed them to share responsibilities. Le appreciated the opportunity to process teaching-related issues on a regular basis with a group of peers who taught independently through a seminar class. Fei felt tremendously supported by peers who passed down previous teaching materials and shared pedagogical skills. Despite the benefits of coteaching, Xin also expressed her wish to have taught courses independently. She said, “I get mixed messages from my students. But I think, that may be different if I get a chance to independently teach a class.” In addition, Eli expressed her concerns about coteaching with a more senior peer who was the primary instructor. This peer-teaching relationship tangled with seniority, creating “role confusion” in her.

Although not every participant reported having received significant faculty support, they all agreed upon the critical faculty roles in doctoral students' teaching preparation. For instance, Eli's advisor acted like a consultant in making himself available and approachable, providing support for a broad array of issues, such as syllabus development and decision-making in challenging situations. Ela cotaught with a professor who played the roles of both observer and coach. She helped Ela become aware of her initial lecture-based teaching style and taught Ela ways to engage students in class participation and conversations. Likewise, Jing benefited from coteaching with a professor who challenged her to rethink the relative positioning of students and educators and how the shifted paradigm could better empower students. Le encouraged other international students to reach out to international faculty or faculty of color for inspiration and mentorship, if available, given their shared experience in teaching in predominantly White classrooms and resonating feelings.

In addition to the support from people, teaching infrastructure–related supports at the departmental and institutional levels were crucial to participants' perceived readiness for teaching. For instance, when Fei first started teaching, he had to figure out on his own a constellation of logistical issues, such as where to find the printers, how to book the rooms, how to ensure that enough resources were reserved for students, and how to deal with challenging situations with students. He was frustrated: “I have to ask so many people around to figure out logistics because they don't have that manual or setup.” The one-time orientation for teaching assistants was far from enough to prepare them at the practical level. The presence on campus of a Center for Teaching Excellence, which offered optional teaching workshops and trainings, did not effectively engage Fei to reach out for supports when needs arose. This, to some extent, justified Xin's suggestion that attendance at these teaching-related events be required for all students who teach.

Some participants (n = 4) also mentioned the pedagogy courses that they took about teaching and learning in higher education. Eli spoke highly of the course that taught her how to teach; specifically, how to create learning objectives, how to create assessments, how to match objectives and assessments, how to apply Bloom's taxonomy to teaching, how to develop syllabi and PowerPoint slides, how to make teaching materials accessible, and how to implement all of them on Blackboard. Similarly, Le expressed her appreciation of a course that targeted learning theories and theories about instruction. Nonetheless, Lily and Xin both perceived this course as too theoretical, with limited implications for enhancing teaching skills in practice.

Implications for Counselor Education

International students' status may be easily identifiable or dismissed depending on their physical appearance or the way they speak English, among other aspects, but their international identity frequently interfaces with various aspects of their training. Unfortunately, the salience of this identity was easily filtered through “a deficit-oriented depiction of international students” (Woo et al., 2015, p. 298). Despite transcultural differences, the international identity in and by itself enriched diversity that was increasingly valued in counselor education (Ng & Smith, 2009) and higher education (Ku et al., 2008). Some participants in our study used themselves as instruments for teaching, not only as additional examples of multiculturalism but also as models to exemplify the coexistence of differences and to enhance mutual understanding and respect. However, the newly experienced differences in culture and training, particularly for those early on in their education abroad, coupled with the literature gap about this population, can easily perpetuate stereotypes about and in international students. We call for counselor educators' validation of international students' personhood and individuality, their values, and the enrichments that they bring to counselors' training programs. Accordingly, external validation may be transformed to internal validation in international trainees.

Teaching comprises a core area of doctoral-level training in counselor education and is critical to the preparation of future counselor educators. Our participants reported feeling underprepared in teaching, despite its key role, even in the presence of pedagogy-related courses and actual teaching practices. Doctoral training programs may explicitly communicate this expectation to prospective doctoral applicants through program webpages, admission interviews (if offered), and structural orientations of the program at the onset of students' training. To maximize the class time for teaching preparation, counselor educators may consider incorporating a “teaching lens” (i.e., how to teach the newly learned information) into their own teaching, with the aim of cultivating doctoral students' teaching mindset. For instance, counselor educators may encourage counselor trainees to brainstorm or practice ways to teach the newly delivered course content in a future class where the trainees intend to work, either within or outside the United States. Although contexts may vary, this mindset-shifting practice can maximize the class time to prepare trainees for teaching, stimulate thinking about cross-contextual teaching practices, and enhance transcultural comparisons between international and domestic trainees if applicable. Faculty and peers may serve as support systems for international students and may also help them access other agencies (e.g., supports at program, department, college, and university levels) conducive to their learning. Counselor educators should strive for building a safe, inclusive environment by setting healthy ground rules and modeling a respectful way of providing constructive feedback, both of which may promote trainees' understanding of the relational nature of teaching and learning.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Our data set may be enriched if a sample of each participant's teaching could be incorporated to help illuminate the essence of their experiencing teaching preparation in respective doctoral programs. We aimed to reveal the lived experiences of international counseling students as a homogeneous group; yet future research may be conducted to examine differences within students across training levels, specialty areas, cultures of origin, and acculturation levels. To enhance international counseling doctoral students' learning experience and professional preparation for academic positions, an in-depth inquiry into each of the five core training domains (i.e., teaching, research, counseling, supervision, and leadership; CACREP, 2016), independently and collectively, is more than warranted.