While reading Brown (2016), there were a lot of career choice and development theories based on learning theory that were mentioned. A few of the theories that were discussed were Krumboltz theory and Lent and colleagues. According to Krumboltz, there are four factors that influence individual development and the career decision of the individual. The first one included genetic endowment and special abilities. Krumboltz recognizes that inherited characteristics can be facilitative and restrictive influences on an individual’s function (Brown 2016). I was able to notice this in the genogram activity. Music was very prevalent on my mother’s side but not as much on my father’s side. To some extent, I believe that this is something that lies in the DNA. Krumboltz also believed that environmental conditions and events as well as learning experience play a huge role on the career choice of people. I also was lucky to witness this in my genogram activity. My mother’s side was primarily factory works from Mt. Carmel. Since this is what the environment provided, it ended up being one of the only things that these people knew how to do. Krumboltz lastly thought task approach skills, which include standards and values were important in shaping a career.
Lent, Brown, and Hackett place increased emphasis on self-regulatory cognitions, particularly those associated with self-efficacy expectations. I really believe that the interaction between the environment is dynamic and career-related interests are influenced by several factors. I also believe that one’s gender, race, physical health and disabilities are all important factors that influence one’s career path. One of the big differences between these two theories is I believe Lent and colleagues believe that your career choice can change through time. I’m especially interested in interviewing my person about their career change. I got in contact with this person today and I think I will be able to apply some of these theories to his situation! This is applicable stuff!
I could be making far fetched connections from the article we read, but it makes sense to me! When reading the Savickas (1995) article, and this continues to be the case, career indecision is a big issue. All the time, students will come to the guidance office and really not have an idea of what they want to become. One of the things we can do as counselors is give meaning to crisis points in their lives (Savickas, pg. 363, 1995). I feel like this could connect to solution focused counseling because you can ask a client what worked for them in those specific situations. “What’s worked for you,” and “what is your skeleton key,” are questions that I thought could connect to the article. By using the ideas presented by Savickas (1995), which are solidified by the case study, this should be something we as counselors can add to your bag of tricks when helping students find an appropriate career. As many students will come into your office as being undecided, we can now have ideas to sit down with them (if time permits!) and go through their history. While this is a great idea, it might not always be practical; if you have a case load of 600 students, its going to be hard to hear every student’s life history!
References
Brown, D. (2016). Career information, career counseling, and career development (11thed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 978-0-13-391777-2.
Savickas, M.L. (1995). Constructivist counseling for career indecision. Career Development Quarterly, 43(1), 363-373.
No comments:
Post a Comment