Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

School counselors perceived importance of counseling technology competencies

Russell A. Sabella a,*, Timothy A. Poynton b, Madelyn L. Isaacs a

a Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL, USAb Suffolk University, Boston, MA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online 27 January 2010

Keywords:Educational psychologyEducational/vocational counseling andstudent servicesSchool counselingTechnology adaptationTechnological literacy

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.014

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 239 590 7782; faxE-mail address: rsabella@fgcu.edu (R.A. Sabella).

The purpose of this study was to determine levels of perceived importance of technological competenciesamong school counselors, school counseling students, supervisors, and counselor educators as the com-petencies relate to their work. Results indicated that technology competencies relating to Ethical Stan-dards and Data Management practices were rated as most important. Technological competencies ratedlowest for level of importance related to Multimedia and Web Development. Four of the other subscaleswere very similar in overall average ratings and included Word Processing, World Wide Web, Communica-tion and Collaboration, and Operating Systems. In addition, findings indicate that neither the participant’sage, level of practice, or position (e.g., graduate student vs. practitioner) affects the perceived importanceof technological competencies included in this survey. Implications for practice, training, and futureresearch are included.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

What do school counselors know and what are they able to dowith technology that helps them to be more effective and efficientin their work? How do school counselors implement technology tohelp them better achieve their comprehensive school counselingprogram’s mission and goals? How have school counselors, super-visors, students, counselor educators, and others achieved minimal(or ideal) levels of technological literacy as it relates to their work?These are important questions for school counseling in the 21stcentury although the research has only shed a paucity of light onthe answers. Perhaps the lack of research in the area of schoolcounseling and technology is understandable, given the rapidchanges in technological advances (Tyler & Sabella, 2004), the dif-ficulty in accessing relevant and meaningful professional develop-ment in this area (Owen & Weikel, 1999), and the so called‘‘shyness” that many counselors seem to exhibit towards technol-ogy (Fabry & Higgs, 1997; Sabella, 2003).

Given the rich array of potential technologies and the hefty de-mands on professional development they pose, research in the areaof school counseling and technology should help to establish asharper and highly relevant focus on technology (and related com-petencies) that is useful for ultimately advancing our students’ per-sonal, social, career, and academic growth. According to Richey(2008, p. 24) ‘‘Educational technology (also called learning technol-ogy) is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and

ll rights reserved.

: +1 239 590 7770.

improving performance by creating, using and managing appropri-ate technological processes and resources” (Educational Technol-ogy, 2009). Educational technology is typically viewed as abroad-based term that encompasses software and hardware, aswell as Internet applications and activities. School counseling tech-nology then, as a corollary, could be conceived as the study andethical practice of facilitating the academic, personal/social and ca-reer development of students by creating, using, and managingappropriate technological processes and resources. This would fitwell as one of the methods that school counselors use in counsel-ing, collaborating, coordinating, managing, leading, and advocatingfor their school counseling programs (ASCA, 2005). As a prelude tolearning more about what counselors can do with technology, it isimportant to know, given the many possibilities, more about whatareas of technology and exactly which technological competenciesschool counselors find most important in their work. This is the fo-cus of the current research.

What do we already know about what school counselors mayperceive to be important when it comes to technology in theirwork? We can derive from several sources a glimpse into whatthe answer might be. For instance, we may get a better under-standing from already established counseling-related competencystandards developed by experts. We may discern what schoolcounselors believe to be important from how they are alreadyusing technology. Or, we may simply ask them to rate the impor-tance of a set of technological competencies already establishedas common among educators. But first, clarification of the differ-ence between technological competencies and technological liter-acy is needed.

610 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617

2. Difference between competency and literacy

Some of the professional literature in the area of counseling tech-nology focuses on technological (or sometimes referred to as techni-cal) competencies and other times on technological literacy. What isthe difference? Competencies are what school counselors are ableto demonstrate or do with technology such as ‘‘insert a table into adocument” or ‘‘compute a correlation between two variables usingMicrosoft Excel™.” Bandura (1986) calls these ‘‘subskills.” In otherwords, competencies are skills that can be observed, measured,and are part of an individual’s overall ability to perform a task.

Comparatively, technological literacy is far more than theknowledge one has about the appropriate use of available techno-logical tools and processes. Technologically literate citizens em-ploy systems-oriented thinking as they interact with thetechnological world, cognizant of how such interaction affects indi-viduals, our society, and the environment. Technological literacy isthe knowledge of when using technology is advisable and efficientin day to day counseling situations. Citizens of all ages benefit fromtechnological literacy, whether it is obtained through formal orinformal educational environments (ITEA, 2003; Poynton, 2005).Thus, technological literacy is the ability to understand and evalu-ate technology. It complements technological competency, whichis the ability to create, repair, or operate specific technologies,commonly computers (NationMaster, 2009).

Specialized technological competencies or skills do not guaranteetechnological literacy or efficacy. Counselors who know every oper-ational detail of a Student Information System, for instance, or whocan troubleshoot a software glitch in a personal computer may nothave a sense of the risks, benefits, and trade-offs associated withtechnological developments generally and may be poorly preparedto make choices about other technologies that affect their work orlives. Furthermore, one may have skills and an understanding ofthe broader implications of technologies but may not connect theskill with the specific use for a specific project (e.g., creating and dis-seminating a Closing the Achievement Gap Results Report).

Taking into consideration various definitions of technologicalliteracy in areas of education and educational technology (e.g., Fan-ning, 1994; ITEA, 2000; and Saskatchewan Education, 2002), Tylerand Sabella (2004) developed one specifically for counselors:

The intellectual processes, abilities and dispositions needed forcounselors to understand the link among technology, them-selves, their clients, and a diverse society so that they mayextend human abilities to satisfy human needs and wants forthemselves and others.

This raises a more theoretical discussion about competency, liter-acy and efficacy. Specifically, this speaks to the concept of technolog-ical literacy and is related to Bandura’s notion of self-efficacy.

Table 1ACES technology competencies for counselor education students (version 1, 1999).

(1) Be able to use productivity software to develop web pages, group presenta(2) Be able to use such audiovisual equipment as video recorders, audio recor(3) Be able to use computerized statistical packages(4) Be able to use computerized testing, diagnostic, and career decision-makin(5) Be able to use email(6) Be able to help clients search for various types of counseling-related infor

opportunities, educational and training opportunities, financial assistance/(7) Be able to subscribe, participate in, and sign off counseling-related listserv(8) Be able to access and use counseling-related CD-ROM data bases(9) Be knowledgeable of the legal and ethical codes which relate to counselin(10) Be knowledgeable of the strengths and weaknesses of counseling services(11) Be able to use the internet for finding and using continuing education opp(12) Be able to evaluate the quality of internet information

Bandura (1986) defines competent functioning as requiring ‘‘bothskills and self-beliefs of efficacy to use both effectively. Operativeefficacy calls for continuously improvising multiple subskills tomanage ever changing circumstances . . . Perceived self-efficacy isa judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of perfor-mance.” (p. 391). Thus efficacy may be an intervening variable tocompetence and literacy which impacts any notion of importance.

3. Standards of technological competence

Previous efforts to establish some standards of minimum levelsof technological competencies for all counselors have been avail-able for some time. In 1999, the Association for Counselor Educa-tion and Supervision (ACES) developed the Technical Competenciesfor Counselor Education Students: Recommended Guidelines for Pro-gram Development (ACES, 1999). The competencies included a listof 12 general areas of technological competencies that studentsshould have at the completion of a counselor education program(see Table 1). The document did provide an important beginningset of guidelines for counselor training although still left somecounselor educators with questions such as, ‘‘Exactly which techni-cal skills in each area are most important, what do they look like,and how do we measure proficiency?” In response, Tyler andSabella (2004) wrote a book entitled Counseling in the 21st Century:Using Technology to Improve Practice which uses the ACES compe-tencies as a framework and provides extensive examples and re-sources for use in each competency area.

In 2007, ACES updated the technical competencies which signif-icantly expanded the original guidelines by (a) consolidating thecompetencies to eleven instead of twelve; (b) addressing Masterslevel technical competencies versus Doctoral level; (c) providinga rationale for each competency; and (d) and including examplesof each technical competency at different levels including basicknowledge, basic competence, and integrated competence.

Basic knowledge focuses on the graduate’s ability to recognizeand be informed regarding technology as it applies to the counsel-ing profession. Basic competence refers to technology skills that areessential for current master’s graduates entering counseling prac-tice. ACES suggests that all master’s graduates demonstrate basiccompetence across each of the 11 technology competencies. Theintegrated competence level, although beyond the current reach ofmany counselor education and training programs, suggests an ad-vanced level of ability in technology that only some graduates willacquire or possess (ACES, 2007).

4. How are school counselors already using technology?

A review of the relevant literature does include some examples ofhow school counselors are using technology, although many (if notmost) of the examples are clearly dated (Hayden, Poynton, & Sabella,

tions, letters, and reports.ders, projection equipment, video conferencing equipment, and playback units

g programs with clients

mation via the internet, including information about careers, employmentscholarships, treatment procedures, and social and personal informations

g services via the internetprovided via the Internetortunities in counseling

R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617 611

2008). For instance, counselors who have used computers to assistthem in their work have done so in areas such as computer-assistedlive supervision (Froehle, 1984; Neukrug, 1991); discussions ofcounseling issues with other counselors (Rust, 1995); supervision(Myrick & Sabella, 1995); advocacy (Stone & Turba, 1999); counselortraining (Cairo & Kanner, 1984); school counseling program promo-tion (Sabella & Booker, 2003); as part of counselor interventions withchildren (D’Andrea, 1995; Glover, 1995; Shulman, Sweeney, & Ger-ler, 1995) and counseling simulations (Sharf & Lucas, 1993). Proba-bly the most extensive use of computers in counseling so far hasbeen in the area of career development and guidance (e.g., Bobeket al., 2005; Chapman & Katz, 1983; Friery & Nelson, 2004; Haring-Hidore, 1984; Harris, 1972; Katz & Shatkin, 1983; Kivlighan, John-ston, Hogan, & Mauer, 1994; Pyle, 1984).

Moore (1992) explored school counselors’ use of computer appli-cations and found that about 30% of the counselors in Arkansas usedcomputers for counseling-related tasks. Owen and Weikel (1999)found that counselors working in middle schools and secondaryschools used computers more frequently than counselors workingin elementary schools. The authors also found that 88 percent ofschool counselors report having an assigned computer in school tosupport the counseling program. Through a 7-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (lacking all confidence) to 7 (having total and com-plete confidence), the researchers asked respondents to indicatethe degree to which they felt confident using a computer. The meanscore was 4.86, suggesting that school counselors can benefit fromfurther professional development with technology applications.

Chandras (2000) surveyed the attitudes of counselor educatorsand counselors toward technology use, and whether counselortrainees were mastering necessary technological competencies bythe completion of their graduate programs. The survey listed tech-nological competencies, such as skills in utilizing word processingsoftware, statistical packages, email, ability to help clients by usingthe Internet, and knowledge of the legal and ethical issues pertain-ing to Internet use. The article concluded that counselor educatorsas well as the counselors-in-training possessed many of the above-mentioned technological competencies; however, in future studies,further development is needed to identify which technologicalcompetencies should be acquired by students in counselor trainingprograms (Berry, Srebalus, Cromer, & Takacs, 2003).

Sabella (1996) suggested specific time-saving tips and high-lighted how counselors can utilize computers to expedite routinetasks and manage heavy student caseloads and work loads. Morerecently, Van Horn & Myrick (2001) suggested that the work ofcounselors’ in the areas of distance learning, college and careersearching, counseling interventions, training and supervision, net-working and support systems, and information retrieval and dis-semination is affected by technology. For example, by creatingmultimedia presentations that can be distributed over the Internet,school counselors can increase the speed by which information iscommunicated to large numbers of people. Sabella and Booker(2003) wrote about how to use technology to promote a guidanceand counseling program among stakeholders, and suggested thatusing technology may have many potential advantages, such asthe ability for information to be instantaneously updated and re-ceived by all stakeholders in a cost effective manner, enhanced col-laboration capabilities, and the ability to present visuallyappealing, informative, and creative presentations.

Hayden et al. (2008) conducted a study that revealed how 49school counselors used various technologies to accomplish theirgoals in a more effective, efficient, and professional manner. In thisstudy, school counselors reported using technology in each of thefour components of the ASCA National Model’s Delivery System(ASCA, 2005), particularly within the school guidance curriculumand system support components. This study was based on data col-lected by Sabella (2005) via an informal email survey of approxi-

mately 18,000 eNewsletter readers entitled ‘‘What are schoolcounselors doing with technology?”

Holcomb-McCoy (2005) conducted a study to find out howschool counselors make use of computer technology. She foundthat school counselors primarily use computers for word process-ing and email. Email was used for communication with parents andteachers frequently, but infrequently for making contact with stu-dents. Database software was also used in moderation. Other typesof computer work, such as software for presentation and webpagedevelopment, were used sparingly.

Rainey, McGlothlin, and Guillott Miller (2008) reported on theresults from 640 practicing school counselors on the Computer Atti-tude Scale and another instrument measuring perceived compe-tence and experience with various forms of technology. Overall,the attitudes of school counselors were positive toward the useof computers.

The remainder of this article describes the current study, inwhich school counselors were asked to rate their perceived levelof importance for a set of 144 potentially useful technological com-petencies in school counseling. Specifically, this study endeavoredto answer the following questions:

(1) What technological competencies do school counselors per-ceive to be most important?

(2) What technological competencies are least familiar to schoolcounselors?

(3) Which categories of technological competencies are rated asmore important than others?

(4) What is the relationship among demographic variables (e.g.,age, sex, years of experience, and position) and how schoolcounselors perceived the importance of technologicalcompetencies?

5. Methodology

5.1. Participants

An email list of 32,292 school counselors, school counseling stu-dents, and counselor educators was compiled from various onlinesources (see Table 2). Emails that ‘‘bounced back” because of invalidaddresses numbered 4743 and thus resulted in a final delivery of27,549 email invitations. The number of invitations delivered, how-ever, is still an approximation as some emails may have been misi-dentified as unsolicited mail (spam) and automatically deleted bya potential participant’s email server. Some recipients may also havedeleted the email without reading the invitation to participate. Also,the authors are aware that some participants, typically Directors ofGuidance and Counseling, forwarded the invitation to participatein this research to all the counselors in their school district. No infor-mation other than email addresses from the various databases wascollected and so the demographic data for the list of invitees was un-known with one exception: the American School Counselor Associa-tion online directory was divided into regions and the number ofemails from each of those regions was noted.

Eleven percent (n = 3038) of those estimated to have receivedthe invitation visited the survey website. Of those who visitedthe survey website, 15 percent (n = 467) did not finish the entiresurvey, as evidenced by lack of response to the last page of ques-tions and the demographic items. Of the 27,549 participants whoreceived an invitation, 2571 provided usable data, yielding a 9.3%response rate overall.

5.2. Demographics

The participants in the study were primarily female schoolcounselors who worked at the high school level. Eighty-three per-

Table 2Description of participant email address sources.

Description of source Number of emailaddresses

SchoolCounselor.com e-Newsletter. An electronic publication designed to advance counselors’ level of technological literacy, application, andintegration. Created by one of the authors

16,354

Counselor Education and Supervision Network Listserv (CESNET-L). An unmoderated listserv concerning counselor education and supervision 1222International Counselor Network (ICN). An unmoderated discussion list for counselors and others working with children and young adults 978American School Counselor Association (ASCA). Online Member Directory – MIDWEST region 3890American School Counselor Association (ASCA). Online Member Directory – SOUTHERN region 5954American School Counselor Association (ASCA). Online Member Directory – NORTH ATLANTIC region 4298American School Counselor Association (ASCA). Online Member Directory – WESTERN region 3790

Total 36,486Number of duplicate email addresses removed 4194Adjusted total 32,292Email bounces 4743Final number of email addresses 27,549

612 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617

cent (n = 2139) were female, 16% (n = 415) were male, and lessthan 1% (n = 17) did not answer this question. In terms of the re-ported position held, 75% (n = 1939) were school counselors, 12%(n = 309) were graduate students, 4% (n = 113) were counselor edu-cators, 3% (n = 65) were district supervisors, and less than 1%(n = 8) were state consultants. Four percent of the participants(n = 105) were in a position not included as one of the choices,and 1% (n = 32) did not answer this question. Participants reportedworking in a variety of school contexts; 32% (n = 820) were in highschools, 24% (n = 617) were in elementary schools, 20% (n = 502)were in middle schools, 8% (n = 197) were in a K-12 environment,5% (n = 137) were in a postsecondary environment, 4% (n = 95)were in a K-8 environment, and less than 1% (n = 24) were in avocationally-oriented school. Five percent of the participants(n = 133) worked in a school environment not described, and 2%(n = 46) did not answer this question. The mean age of the samplewas 43.7 years (SD = 12.2), and the average amount of experiencein the school counseling profession was 10.6 years (SD = 8.9).

5.3. Instrumentation

The School Counselors and Technology Survey (SCTS, 2009) is a 149item survey (144 items about technology competencies and 5 itemsabout demographics) across eight categories of technological com-petencies (see Table 3) developed for the purpose of this research.Participants were asked to provide a rating across a five point Lik-ert-type scale from which included three anchors: Not Important(1), Somewhat Important and (3), Very Important (5) and answersthe question, ‘‘How important is this competency in your work?” Par-ticipants were also instructed to check ‘‘Not Sure” if they were notcertain about the competency the item described, and were providedwith space to leave comments at the end of each section.

To develop the SCTS, the authors, all of whom are knowledge-able in the area of school counseling and technology, first createda comprehensive list of all technological competencies thought tobe at least somewhat important in the work of the school coun-

Table 3Survey subscales, number of items, and observed means and standard deviations.

Subscale Number of items Mean/SD

Website Development 9 3.27/1.43Multimedia 17 3.38/1.11Operating Systems 26 3.92/.89Communication and Collaboration 17 3.94/.64World Wide Web 16 3.96/.92Word Processing 24 3.97/.91Data Management 28 4.04/.97Ethics 7 4.74/.45

selor. The original list included 260 technological competenciesacross 10 categories. The source of the competencies included acombination of both author experience/expertise and an exhaus-tive online search of already developed technological competen-cies for educators as established by various school districtsthroughout the country and by various professional organizations(e.g., International Technology Education Association, 2000; Inter-national Society for Technology in Education [ISTEA, 2008]; andSchool Technology and Readiness [STAR; CEO Forum on Educationand Technology, 2001]). To make the survey more succinct, theauthors then independently marked items for deletion, discussedthese, and finally removed those items which showed unanimousagreement. In addition, the number of categories was collapsedto eight from the original ten.

The eight subscales of the SCTS contain items to assess the per-ceived importance of various computer-related technologies. Eachof the subscales are described below, and include information ob-served in this study regarding the inter-item reliability as calculatedusing Cronbach’sa. A commonly used criteria for acceptable reliabil-ity using Cronbach’s a is .7 or higher (Nunnally, 1978).

5.3.1. Communication and CollaborationThe 17 items in this subscale assessed the perceived importance

of various tasks largely related to email, chat, discussion boards,and listservs. Examples of items are ‘‘Setup an e-mail program(e.g., Thunderbird or Outlook Express),” ‘‘Participate in an onlinemeeting,” and ‘‘Send e-mail to a listserv.” The subscale evidencedgood reliability characteristics (Cronbach’s a = .84, n = 2376).

5.3.2. Data ManagementTwenty-eight items assessing spreadsheet and database related

tasks (e.g., Using Microsoft Excel), and computer-assisted data col-lection and analysis tools (e.g., ‘‘Using spreadsheet formulae or anelectronic calendar.”) comprised this subscale. Examples of itemsare ‘‘Import data from my school’s database to a spreadsheet onmy personal computer,” ‘‘Disaggregate data by various categories(e.g., sex, grade, race, teacher),” and ‘‘Calculate percentages.” Verygood reliability was evidenced (Cronbach’s a = .96, n = 2239).

5.3.3. Ethical issues of school counseling and technologySeven items assessing the ethical implications of computer-re-

lated technology were included in this subscale, which evidencedadequate reliability characteristics (Cronbach’s a = .79, n = 2527).Examples of items are ‘‘Understand the limitations of copying anddistributing digital content (e.g., fair use),” ‘‘Understand FERPA reg-ulations and how they apply to client confidentiality with referenceto electronic communication (electronic records and transmission),”and ‘‘Advocate for equal access to technology for all students.”

R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617 613

5.3.4. MultimediaSeventeen items regarding the importance of creating and edit-

ing audio and video material (e.g., slideshow presentations, pod-casts, video) were included in this subscale. Examples of itemsare, ‘‘Edit a video on my computer,” ‘‘Include narration (i.e., myvoice on each slide) on a multimedia show such as Microsoft Pow-erPoint,” and ‘‘Create a music CD from a set of music files.” Verygood reliability was evidenced (Cronbach’s a = .96, n = 2414).

5.3.5. Operating SystemsTwenty-six items pertaining to the general use of a computer’s

operating system (e.g., managing files, maintenance tasks, connect-ing peripherals) were included in this subscale, which evidencedvery good reliability (Cronbach’s a = .95, n = 2,339). Examples ofitems are ‘‘Install plug-ins and add-ons available for a particularsoftware,” ‘‘Check computer resources such as memory usage andfree disk space,” and ‘‘Use firewall software.”

5.3.6. World Wide WebThe 16 items contained in this subscale assessed competencies

in the use of the Internet (e.g., searching, downloading, bookmark-ing websites). Examples of items are ‘‘Enable or disable cookies,”‘‘Locate specific software on the web (freeware, shareware, or com-mercial downloads),” and ‘‘Use academic databases (e.g., psychlit,ebscohost, academic premier).” Very good reliability was evi-denced (Cronbach’s a = .92, n = 2415).

5.3.7. Website DevelopmentNine items assessing the importance of tasks specific to creating a

website (e.g., inserting links, using FTP, creating a webpage) were in-cluded in this subscale. Examples of items are ‘‘Transfer files fromone place to another using FTP (File Transfer Protocol),” ‘‘Registeran internet domain name,” and ‘‘Insert a hyperlink into a web page.”Very good reliability was evidenced (Cronbach’s a = .94, n = 2480).

5.3.8. Word ProcessingThe 24 items in this subscale assessed tasks related to using

word processing software such as Microsoft Word (e.g., insertinga footnote, using search and replace, inserting a table, etc.). Exam-ples of items are ‘‘Use mail merge (e.g., create mailing labels, cus-tom letters, custom e-mails),” ‘‘Insert watermarks,” and ‘‘Insert

Table 4Twenty SCTS items with highest mean importance ratings.

Item (subscale)

Take appropriate and reasonable measures for maintaining confidentiality of studenttransmitted over electronic media including although not limited to fax, electroni

Send file attachments via email (Communication and Collaboration)While working with students on a computer or similar technology, take reasonable a

objectionable and/or harmful online material (Ethics)Understand FERPA regulations and how they apply to client confidentiality with refeSave an email attachment to your computer (Communication and Collaboration)Make appropriate decisions about the use of technology as defined by counseling ethUse basic proofing tools (Word Processing)Advocate for equal access to technology for all students (Ethics)Locate my school’s Acceptable Use Policies regarding technology (Ethics)Set up print options (Data Management)Understand the limitations of copying and distributing digital content (Ethics)Create new folders (Operating Systems)Change formatting for document appearance (Word Processing).Open portable document files (World Wide Web)Use proper email etiquette (Communication and Collaboration)Create numbered or bulleted lists (Word Processing)‘‘Undo” unwanted changes (Operating System)Set up an email program (e.g., Thunderbird or Outlook Express) to retrieve my mail (Use Carbon Copy or (CC) field in email (Communication and Collaboration)Cancel a print job (Operating System)

* Respondents who indicated ‘not sure’ were excluded from analysis for this item.

endnotes or footnotes.” Very good reliability was evidenced (Cron-bach’s a = .95, n = 2325).

5.4. Procedures

An initial email was sent to the participants in the research data-base described above with a link to the online survey which washoused on a secure server at the first author’s University. A followup email was sent again to all participants 2 weeks later thankingthem if they already took the survey and, if they had not, inviting themto complete the survey. An additional statement, ‘‘Students, Counsel-ors, and Counselor Educators are all welcome to take this survey. Pleaseforward this to appropriate others,” was also included after severalemails from counseling students and counselor educators were re-ceived requesting clarification for the appropriateness of them takingthe survey. A third and similar email invitation was sent out two moreweeks after the initial reminder. The survey was accessible and openfor a total of 6 weeks. The majority of respondents completed the sur-vey in response to the initial email invitation (n = 1928). The first re-minder yielded an additional 587 participants, while the remaining56 participants completed the survey after the final reminder.

5.5. Data analysis

After the data were downloaded from the online database, twoversions of the data file were created to ensure that the ‘not sure’responses were coded as missing for statistical analyses which as-sume the data are interval or ratio in nature. The first two researchquestions were answered by analyzing all 144 items of the SCTSand examining the response patterns of the sample for each indi-vidual item. SCTS subscale means were computed for each partic-ipant in the study, and used to represent categories of technologycompetencies for the final two research questions. All statisticalanalyses were performed with SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS, 2008).

6. Results

To determine the SCTS items rated as most important by oursample of school counselors, means and standard deviations werecalculated for all items and ordered from highest to lowest by themean rated importance. The 20 items rated as most important are

N* Mean/SD*

information and educational records stored orc mail and instant messaging (Ethics)

2549 4.91/.38

2555 4.84/.50nd appropriate measures to protect students from 2529 4.83/.55

rence to electronic communication (Ethics) 2486 4.83/.532557 4.77/.60

ical standards (Ethics) 2526 4.71/.642547 4.67/.692517 4.58/.812516 4.57/.802540 4.57/.812476 4.56/.782540 4.55/.782551 4.55/.782506 4.52/.832530 4.52/.862542 4.51/.802550 4.5/.84

Communication and Collaboration) 2532 4.48/.142451 4.47/.912549 4.46/.85

Table 5SCTS items least familiar to participants.

Item (subscale) Number of ‘not sure’ responses Percent of sample (%)

Use pivot tables (Data Management) 1365 53.1Use an RSS feed reader (World Wide Web) 1226 47.7Use EZAnalyze along with Microsoft Excel (Data Management) 1113 43.3Create or Record a macro (Word Processing) 1006 39.1Use wild cards (i.e., * or ?) to narrow or expand searches on my computer (Operating Systems) 766 29.8Compare and mark up documents (Word Processing) 708 27.5

614 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617

provided in Table 4, which includes all seven items from the Ethicssubscale, five items from the Communication and Collaborationsubscale, three items from the Operating Systems subscale, threeitems from the Word Processing subscale, one item from the WorldWide Web subscale, and one item from the Data Management sub-scale. None of the items from the Multimedia or Website Develop-ment subscales were rated as important enough by participants tobe included in this list.

The competencies least familiar to school counselors weredetermined by selecting the SCTS items at least 25% of the sampleresponded ‘not sure’ to, and are presented in Table 5. Each of theitems in Table 4 could be considered intermediate or advancedknowledge of the subscale it is included in, and not typically beencountered in the daily work of most school counselors.

The perceived importance of categories of technological compe-tencies was determined by examining the subscale means for thesample (see Table 3). The Ethics subscale, which evidenced thehighest mean importance, was rated as ‘very important’(M = 4.74, SD = .45), while the Web Development subscale wasrated as ‘somewhat important,’ and evidenced the lowest meanimportance of all the subscales (M = 3.27, SD = 1.43). The ratedmean importance of the remaining subscales, from highest to low-est, was: Data Management (M = 4.04, SD = .97), Word Processing(M = 3.97, SD = .91), World Wide Web (M = 3.96, SD = .92), Commu-nication and Collaboration (M = 3.94, SD = .64), Operating Systems(M = 3.92, SD = .89), Multimedia (M = 3.38, SD = 1.11), and WebsiteDevelopment (M = 3.27, SD = 1.43).

To assess the relationship between the categorical demographicvariables and SCTS subscale means, a three way MANOVA was per-formed. The subscale means were the dependent variables, andgender (male, female), school level (elementary, middle, second-ary, postsecondary, vocational technical, K-8, K-12, or other), andposition (school counselor, district supervisor, counselor educator,state consultant, graduate student, or other) were the independentvariables. No statistically significant differences were observed forthe main or interaction effects, indicating that none of the groupsformed by the independent variables were different enough fromone another to be meaningful.

The relationship between the demographic variables age andyears of experience and the SCTS subscales were analyzed usingstandard Pearson correlation procedures. While nearly all of theobserved correlations among these demographic variables andthe subscale means were significant at the p < .05 level, all werevery weak, with observed r’s for statistically significant correla-tions ranging from a low of .06 to a high of .14.

7. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine levels of perceivedimportance of technological competencies among school counsel-ors, school counseling students, supervisors, and counselor educa-tors as the competencies relate to their work. In addition, theauthors also sought to learn more about which technological com-petencies are least familiar to school counselors, which competen-cies are most important, and the nature of the relationship among

demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, years of experience, and po-sition) and the technological competencies.

To answer the first three research questions – ‘‘What technolog-ical competencies do school counselors perceive to be most impor-tant?”, ‘‘What technological competencies are least familiar toschool counselors?”, and ‘‘Which categories of technological com-petencies are rated as more important than others?” – meanimportance ratings on the SCTS subscales were rank ordered. Notsurprisingly, the items pertaining to the ethical and legal use oftechnology in school counseling were rated, by a large margin ofparticipants, as most important when compared to the other sevensubscales. Even if participants were ‘‘Not Sure” of the technologicalcompetency related to ethics, we suspect that they rated it ashighly important given the overall importance of ethical and legalissues in counseling.

The second highest rated subscale, also not surprisingly, wasData Management. Given the current emphasis on data driven deci-sion making, monitoring student progress, developing results re-ports, advocating, and accountability (ASCA, 2005; Isaacs, 2003;Poynton & Carey, 2006), using data in modern day school counsel-ing is an essential part of an overall comprehensive school counsel-ing program. We wonder, however, if the subscale of DataManagement would have been rated even more important if par-ticipants associated the tasks assessed by this subscale with con-temporary school counseling practice. Some participantscommented that this competency has little to do with counselingand more to do with research. For instance, participants wrotecomments such as, ‘‘All this is only important in a statistics/researchclass. Otherwise I never use data entry,” and ‘‘Geez, I’m a guidancecounselor, not a researcher! I mostly meet with students and teachclasses,” and ‘‘I went into counseling to hlep (sic) people not dissemi-nate data.”

Although still rated as important, the two lowest subscales in-cluded Multimedia (X = 3.38) and Website Development (X = 3.27).One explanation for this is that these two areas seem to includethe greatest level of perceived technological complexity as wellas required time to learn and implement. Developing multimedialessons, presentations, and reports as well as maintaining a web-site can be both time consuming and skill intensive for manyschool counselors. At the same time, however, these results seemcounterintuitive given the increasing importance of these twotypes of technologies for delivering information to children andstakeholders and advocating for the profession. Participant com-ments may shed light on the perceived level of importance forthese two subscales. One participant wrote, ‘‘I am not sure if theability to manipulate multimedia affects the core work of a schoolcounselor. It certainly adds to any presentation to be able to do all thisthings or add something to the school’s website, but I don’t know if it isnecessary.” Similarly, participants commented, ‘‘Who cares if coun-selors are competent in these areas?! Really?” and ‘‘This is not realisticin my settings because we do not have the equipment. This would bewonderful but again, this takes time from student contact. Do we wantcomputer experts or personal contact with students?” It is uncertainwhether the lack of perceived importance is valid or if it stemsfrom lack of use. As one participant wrote, ‘‘I selected not important

R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617 615

because I have not used that type of technology in my daily job tasks.”Future studies should investigate the relationship between per-ceived levels of importance for technological competencies and ac-tual levels of use or implementation of the competencies.

The four subscales not mentioned above were very similar inoverall average ratings and included Word Processing, World WideWeb, Communication and Collaboration, and Operating Systems.

The final research question this study sought to answer was‘‘What is the relationship among demographic variables (e.g., age,sex, years of experience, and position) and how school counselorsperceived the importance of technological competencies?” Ourfindings indicate that neither the participant’s age, level of practice,or position (e.g., graduate student vs. practitioner) affects the per-ceived importance of technological competencies included in thissurvey. This finding seems counterintuitive, as technological liter-acy is commonly perceived to be strongly related to age in partic-ular. That is, the younger the counselor, the greater that he or shehas been exposed to, grown up with, and integrated technologyinto his or her own life. Also, younger counselors are consideredto have training that is more ‘‘up-to-date” upon graduating witha graduate degree in counseling. In fact, many of the participantsin this study identifying themselves as students commented thatthey wished these competencies would be more a part of theircounselor education training. Since this study required participantsto rate technological competencies in terms of importance (as op-posed to ability or frequency of use), the finding that age, level ofpractice, and position did not influence the rated importance ofthe technological competencies indicates that all groups see thepotential costs and value of technology similarly.

7.1. Methodological issues

Several methodological issues in this study exist and may haveinfluenced the results. First, a significant number of responses wereleft unanswered and rendered as missing. One reason for this maybe that some participants were frustrated early on in the surveybecause of their lack of familiarity with the language used in theitems. Consequently, many may have abandoned the survey beforefully completing. Relatedly, even among those who did completethe survey, a significant number of items were answered by choos-ing ‘‘Not Sure,” probably because of a lack of understanding of thetechnology referred to in some items. Another plausible reason forwhy some participants answered ‘‘Not Sure” or rated a competencyas low in importance is when they deemed the competency impor-tant although not necessary, usually because they have someoneelse (e.g., IT person) doing it for them. For example, one counselorremarked, ‘‘The ‘‘not important” answers in the first section of ques-tions are marked so because we have a technology person that doesall that for us.” Another wrote, ‘‘Much of this is done for us by anITS, so, while it’s important, we may not directly need the compe-tency,” and ‘‘Much of the email settings (program, filters, etc.) areset up by our technical administrator. This competency is not necessar-ily important for me because there are others who do this for me, thus Ihave no reason to learn.”

Second, it may also be true that terms used in the survey werenot accurately recognized by the participants. For instance, a com-ment that one participant made (and similar to comments like thisfrom other participants) exhibits this sentiment, ‘‘I am not familiarwith the term listserv. We may use that, but under a different term.”

Third, level of importance ratings may have been influenced bythe respondent’s actual level of technological competency. As oneparticipant wrote so cogently: ‘‘I think that some of these thingswould be more important to me if I knew better how to use/do them.”Similarly, another participant wrote, ‘‘I think these items are proba-bly more important than I realize and really I just lack experience withthem!”

7.2. Limitations

As an initial in-depth exploration to understand counselor per-ceptions about the many technical and diverse tools that are for-eign to many counselors, limitations were anticipated. The rangeof possible technical tools had to be limited. Yet, limiting the num-ber of tools explored in a field that is rapidly changing may havebeen a limitation in itself. As well, the study experienced a rela-tively low response rate against the number of invitations distrib-uted. Although a large number of participants were invited toparticipate in this study (27,549), only 2571 provided usable datayielding a 9.3% response rate overall. However, 2571 participantsis still a large number of respondents when compared to survey-based studies in the school counseling profession overall. Giventhe ease with which email and other electronic communicationmethods allow researchers to send research participation invita-tions en masse, it may be that final response rates for electroni-cally-based surveys will ultimately be the subject of newstandards. This notion has not yet been significantly debated orestablished in the professional literature, and is perhaps an urgentcall to all social science and education researchers as well as to theschool counseling profession. In any case, the reader is cautionednot to generalize the results with a high degree of confidence.

7.3. Conclusion

The authors recognize that technology is not meant to changethe face of school counseling nor substitute for critical schoolcounseling skills. Technologically literate school counselors knowwhen to use technology to meet the demands of educational andschool counseling reform with greater ease, enjoyment, and effi-ciency. Thus, the study of technology integration must accountfor the technology competencies school counselors have (or needto acquire to professionally develop and effectively participate)and the literacy to know how and when best to use those skillsappropriately. School counselors may have many technologicalsubskills that they do not perceive as either important to performor doubt their efficacy to perform effectively. As well, if they do notperceive such skills as important, they will never engage in learn-ing them or about them sufficiently to test whether they are appro-priate to add and maintain in the school counselor’s toolbox.

One survey participant commented, ‘‘I feel like I am just lettingyou know what I use. If I used it a lot, I think it is important. If I donot, it is not important to me” which seems to capture the crux ofour dilemma as a profession. Which comes first, competence or lit-eracy? Once established, how does importance fit with each ofthese concepts? Finally, how will standards for technological com-petence and literacy be incorporated into an accepted set of stan-dards for professional practice and preparation that leads to asense of efficacy for counselors in this area?

These indications of uncertainty about the importance or natureof the competencies presented suggest a continuing lack of efficacyand literacy in some areas. In all, school counselors have not inte-grated technology into their daily work lives as a profession in anyconsistent way. The results were discrepant with original expecta-tions concerning length of time in the field and recency of traininggiven the nature of the particular competency area; i.e., an area par-ticularly associated with younger and more recently trained profes-sionals. As well, some participants expressed confusion concerning‘‘importance” vis-à-vis their level of use and perceived competence,and is a notable finding. While school counselors can clearly benefitfrom using technology to work more efficiently and effectively, toextend their reach, and to meet many of the standards set by ASCAand states for accountability and management, there is not consis-tent use, perception, training, or integration of technology as a meth-od of achieving school counseling standards, goals and outcomes.

616 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617

Related to discrepant findings was the area identified as mostimportant, ethics. Ethics is largely about literacy rather than com-petence or efficacy. Thus this finding supports the confusion aboutwhat counselors need to know how to do versus what counselorneed to know about with regards to technology.

Since there were no differences in responses among practicingprofessionals and their supervisors, counselor educators or theirstudents, our findings have implications to develop a coherentset of standards that will define emerging and evidence-basedpractices for preservice and practicing counselors.

7.4. Future research

Research in the area of ‘‘counseling technology” is in its infancyand perhaps overlooked given technology’s pervasiveness andimportance in everyday life. This study may serve as the first of aseries of studies which endeavor to answer other related questionssuch as: How do counselors perceive their own levels of technolog-ical competence and literacy as compared against the standard ofimportance to their work? This overarching question spawned anumber of more focused areas of inquiry. How do school counsel-ors’ level of technological literacy compare to that of other educa-tors, counselors, and professionals in similar professions? What isthe relationship between counselors’ level of technological literacyand the development of comprehensive school counseling pro-grams? What types of professional development opportunities inthe area of technology do school counselors already have? Whattypes of school counseling technology training is still needed?The results have added a new and perhaps more important layerto this inquiry. That is, whether counselors see technology as crit-ical to their ‘‘toolbox” or as a critical to the areas they can directothers who are more directly charged with technological responsi-bilities (for example, instructional technologists, IT support profes-sionals, administrative support staff)? This more primary questionwould add significantly to our understanding of technology stan-dards for practicing professionals, emerging professionals, andthe integration of technology tools, especially as they support allaspects of the ASCA National Model.

The authors also believe that further research is needed fordesigning a valid and reliable instrument for assessing appropriateschool counselor technological competencies, literacy, and efficacywith the possible specification of each area as it relates to the un-ique needs of counselors working at different levels. Also, whilethis study endeavored to ascertain perceived importance of techno-logical competencies among school counselors, it should be consid-ered as a prelude to understanding the frequency that importantcompetencies are actually implemented or used.

References

American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: Aframework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES). (2007). Technicalcompetencies for counselor education: Recommended guidelines for programdevelopment. Available from <http://www.acesonline.net/>.

Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES). (1999). Technicalcompetencies for counselor education students: Recommended guidelines forprogram development. Available from <http://ehe.osu.edu/paes/couned/technical_competencies.htm>.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berry, T., Srebalus, D. J., Cromer, P. W., & Takacs, J. (2003). Counselor traineetechnology use skills, learning styles, and preferred modes of instruction.Journal of Technology in Counseling, 3(1). Available from <http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol3_1/Takacs/Takacs.htm>.

Bobek, B. L., Robbins, S. B., Gore, P. A., Harris-Bowlsbey, J., Lapan, R. T., Dahir, C. A.,et al. (2005). Training counselors to use computer-assisted career guidancesystems more effectively: A model curriculum. Career Development Quarterly,53, 363–371.

Cairo, P. C., & Kanner, M. S. (1984). Investigating the effects of computerizedapproaches to counselor training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 24,212–221.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). The CEO Forum school technologyand readiness report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21stcentury. Available from <http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf>Retrieved 21.02.02.

Chandras, K. V. (2000). Technology-enhanced counselor training: Essential technicalcompetencies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 224–227.

Chapman, W., & Katz, M. R. (1983). Career information systems in the secondaryschools: A survey and assessment. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 32, 165–177.

D’Andrea, M. (1995). Using computer technology to promote multiculturalawareness among elementary school-age students. Elementary SchoolGuidance & Counseling, 30(1), 45–55.

Educational Technology (2009). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available from<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Educational_technology&oldid=286576711> Retrieved 5.05.09.

Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education:Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385–395.

Fanning, J. M. (1994). Integrating academics and technology: Uncovering staffdevelopment needs. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Technology andteacher education annual (pp. 331–334). Washington, DC: Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education.

Friery, K., & Nelson, J. G. (2004). Using technology to develop a high school careerawareness workshop: The REACH program. TechTrends: Linking Research &Practice to Improve Learning, 48(6), 40–42.

Froehle, T. C. (1984). Computer-assisted feedback in counseling supervision.Counselor Education and Supervision, 24, 168–175.

Glover, B. L. (1995). DINOS (drinking is not our solution): Using computer programsin middle school drug education. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 30,55–62.

Haring-Hidore, M. (1984). In pursuit of students who do not use computers forcareer guidance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 139–140.

Harris, J. (1972). Computer-assisted guidance systems. Washington, DC: NationalVocational Guidance Association.

Hayden, L., Poynton, T. A., & Sabella, R. A. (2008). School counselors’ use oftechnology within the ASCA National Model’s delivery system. Journal ofTechnology in Counseling, 5(1). Available from <http://jtc.colstate.edu/Vol5_1/Index.htm>.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2005). An examination of urban and suburban schoolcounselors’ familiarity with and usage of computer technology. Journal ofTechnology in Counseling, 4(1). Available from <http://jtc.colstate.edu/Vol4_1/Holcomb/Holcomb.htm>.

Isaacs, M. L. (2003). Data-driven decision-making: The engine of accountability.Professional School Counseling, 6, 288–295.

ISTEA. (2008). The ISTE national educational technology standards (NETS�T) andperformance indicators for teachers. Available from <http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS>.

ITEA (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment,professional development, and program standards (executive summary).International Technology Education Association. Available fromwww.iteaconnect.org/TAA/PDFs/AETLExecutiveSummary.pdf.

ITEA (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology.International Technology Education Association. Available from <http://www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/Publications/TAA_Publications.html>.

Katz, M. R., & Shatkin, L. (1983). Characteristics of computer-assisted guidance. TheCounseling Psychologist, 11(4), 15–31.

Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., Johnston, J. A., Hogan, R. S., & Mauer, E. (1994). Who benefitsfrom computerized career counseling? Journal of Counseling & Development, 72,289–292.

Moore, R. L. (1992). Computer applications by Arkansas school counselors inconducting K-12 guidance and counseling programs. Dissertations AbstractsInternational, 52, 2824 (University Microfilms No. AAC 9204727).

Myrick, R. D., & Sabella, R. A. (1995). Cyberspace: New place for counselorsupervision. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 30(1), 35–44.

NationMaster (2009). Technological literacy. Available from <http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Technological-literacy> Retrieved 4.01.09.

Neukrug, E. S. (1991). Computer-assisted live supervision in counselor skillstraining. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 132–138.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Owen & Weikel, D. (1999). Computer utilization by school counselors. Professional

School Counseling, 2(3), 1096–2409.Poynton, T. A. (2005). Computer literacy across the lifespan: A review with

implications for educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(12), 861–872.Poynton, T. A., & Carey, J. C. (2006). An integrative model of data-based decision

making for school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 10(2), 121–130.Pyle, K. R. (1984). Career counseling and computers: Where is the creativity? Journal

of Counseling and Development, 63, 141–144.Rainey, S., McGlothlin, J., & Guillott Miller, L. (2008). Technology: School counselor

attitudes, experiences, and competency. The Journal of Technology in Counseling,5(1). Available from <http://jtc.colstate.edu/Vol5_1/>.

Richey, R. C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the field.TechTrends, 52(1), 24–25.

Rust, E. B. (1995). Applications of the International Counselor Network forelementary and middle school counseling. Elementary School Guidance &Counseling, 30, 16–25.

R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 609–617 617

Sabella, R. A. (1996). School counselors and computers: Specific time-saving tips.Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31, 83–96.

Sabella, R. A. (2003). SchoolCounselor.com: A friendly and practical guide to the WorldWide Web (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

Sabella, R. (2005). What are school counselors doing with technology? Availablefrom <http://schoolcounselor.com/pdf/counseling-technology-activities.pdf>.

Sabella, R. A., & Booker, B. L. (2003). Using technology to promote your guidance andcounseling program among stake holders. Professional School Counseling, 6(3),206–213.

Sabella, R.A., Isaacs, M., & Poynton, T. (2009). School counselors and technologysurvey. Available from <http://www.schoolcounselor.com/sct-survey.pdf>.

Saskatchewan Education. (2002). Understanding the common essential learnings: Ahandbook for teachers. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.

Sharf, R. S., & Lucas, M. (1993). An assessment of a computerized simulation ofcounseling skills. Counselor Education and Supervision, 32, 254–266.

Shulman, H. A., Sweeney, B., & Gerler, E. R. (1995). A computer-assisted approach topreventing alcohol abuse: Implications for the middle school. Elementary SchoolGuidance & Counseling, 30, 63–77.

Stone, C., & Turba, R. (1999). School counselors using technology for advocacy. TheJournal of Technology in Counseling, 1(1). Available from <http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol1_1/advocacy.htm>.

Tyler, J. M., & Sabella, R. A. (2004). Using technology to improve counseling practice: Aprimer for the 21st Century. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Van Horn, S. M., & Myrick, R. D. (2001). Computer technology and the 21st centuryschool counselor. Professional School Counselor, 5(2), 124–130.