Promoting student development through psychoeducational groups: A perspective on the goals and process matrix

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide a reaction to the Waldo and Bauman (1998 [this issue]) goals and process (GAP) matrix for groups article in terms of its usefulness to student development educators leading psychoeducational groups. To do so, the context within which student development educators do psychoeducational group work will be briefly described. Then, a perspective on applying the proposed matrix and problems with the proposed matrix will be provided. Article: THE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT EDUCATORStudent affairs professionals work on college and university campuses providing programs and services designed to support the academic mission of the institution by assisting students in reaching their educational, personal, and career goals (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 1992; as cited in Keim & Graham, 1994). Student &airs professionals work in a variety of campus settings, including residence halls, dean of students offices, student unions, career centers, services for students with disabilities, services for returning adult students, services for minority students, community service/service learning programs, and judicial affairs (Komives & Gast, 1996).

The utility of change models in the design and delivery of thematic group interventions: Applications to a self-defeating behaviors group.

“…The diversity of these alternatives has led some to develop classification systems to delineate therapeutic groups into general categories on the basis of their focus on accomplishing identified group goals, providing psychoeducation, or assisting with interpersonal problem solving (Association for Specialists in Group Work [ASGW], 1992; Waldo & Bauman, 1998). Attempts at classifying group interventions carry a clear limitation inherent in many nomenclatures: Group work rarely involves just one of the aforementioned focus areas but instead has a blend of therapeutic processes involving the provision of knowledge and skills, interpersonal support, and reconstruction of the self (Taub, 1998). A group therapeutic approach that provides growth potential in each of these areas may prove widely beneficial, particularly if opportunities are tendered within a context where cohesiveness may develop around a desire to address a specific, shared thematic domain (Burden & Gottlieb, 1987; Fenster, 1996; Hazzard, Rogers, & Angert, 1993; Perrone & Sedlacek, 2000).…”