Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to compare Thai and Korean college students on their perceptions of the roles and functions of school psychologists. One hundred and ninety-three Thai college students and 238 Korean counterparts participated in this study. Students rated the importance of various roles/functions of a school psychologist and specified who should assume those roles/functions in the absence of a school psychologist. Results indicated that Thai education students rated the roles/functions of counselling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents, significantly higher (p < 0.01) than their Korean counterparts. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups on the assessment role (p > 0.05). Thai students expected their relatives and school personnel and other related people outside of the schools to fill in the vacuum of a school psychologist significantly (p < 0.01) more than their Korean counterparts did in all roles and functions.
School psychology in Thailand
School psychology in Thailand was first mentioned officially when a division of school psychology was established at the College of Humanities, Chiang Mai University (Ayawongse & Pungah, 1984). Subsequently, the first Thai master’s degree programme in school psychology was offered by the division. Due to a limited job market for school psychologists in Thailand, the degree programme in school psychology was eventually closed. However, there has long been undergraduate and graduate educational psychology (rather than school psychology) programmes producing educational psychologists and guidance teachers who provide school psychological and school counselling services.
In Thailand, guidance teachers are the only personnel in educational psychology who work directly with students and teachers in the schools. The ratio of guidance teachers to students is approximately 1: 500 (see Jimerson, Oakland, & Farrell, 2007; Jimerson, Steward, Skokut, Cardenas, & Malone, 2009). Responsibilities of guidance teachers include individual inventory, counselling, information, placement, as well as follow-up and evaluation services. The major responsibility of guidance teachers in Thailand is vocational counselling. Currently, there are guidance teachers only in secondary schools. Although they are needed in elementary schools, there are insufficient graduates in educational psychology to fill this need. Most schools fill their open positions with teachers who have not received formal training in psychology (Booncheon, 2006). Guidance teachers usually consult educational psychologists or medical psychologists for help with students suspected of psychological problems.
There are no school psychologists practicing in Thai schools. This is probably because there is no legal mandate for them, unlike many other countries. However, there is greater awareness developing about the importance of school psychological services, because courses involving school psychological services are included now in the curriculum of undergraduate educational psychology majors. There have been recent studies examining potential roles and functions for school psychologists in Thailand (see, for example, Archwamety, McFarland, & Tangdhanakanond, 2009; Tangdhanakanond, 2009; Tangdhanakanond &Archwamety, 2010). There is an urgent need for respected educational organizations to lobby the Thai Government for the establishment of school psychology positions in schools.
School psychology in South Korea
School psychology in South Korea has had a long post-gestation period; yet remains in its infancy. Its origin occurred in the 1980s when US-trained doctoral-level school psychologists returned to Korea and were employed by universities to help create the country’s first graduate level school psychology programmes (Jimerson et al., 2007). Only three universities, Yonsei University, Chonnam National University, and Ewha Womans University currently offer graduate-level school psychology programmes. These programmes provide courses related to assessment, academic and behavioural intervention, counselling, consultation, and research.
To this point no school psychology graduates have secured a position labelled as a school psychologist as there is no such job title in South Korea (Chung & Shin, 2007). A few graduates work as a practicing psychologist at public or private counselling centres; others work as researchers at universities or government-funded institutions. Services and activities traditionally provided by school psychologists have been performed by school counsellors and clinical psychologists. However, the history of these services is relatively recent and dates from an Education Law passed in 2009. Awareness of the importance of school psychological services has recently increased in response to the needs of educators for assistance in providing assessment and intervention services in general education and special education settings in South Korea (Tangdhanakanond, Lee, Archwamety, Oakland, & Lee, 2011). Before 2009, rudimentary services were available from regular or special education teachers. Licensed professionals work as youth counsellors, mental health clinical psychologists through a credentialing process established by the South Korean government. In contrast to professionals in counselling and clinical psychology, the school psychologist’s title is not protected and the nature of their services is not well defined. This situation poses serious challenge, lowering the quality of services, and limiting job opportunities for school psychologists (Shin, Kim, & Lyu, 2004).
The emergence of school psychology from its infancy to a more mature status requires the Korean School Psychology Association (KSPA) to assume leadership. The KSPA was formed in 2002 and currently consists of very small body of professionals in school psychology as a division of the Korean Psychology Association (KPA; which plays an instrumental role in helping define and promote roles and functions of psychological specialties, establishing standards to credential professional competencies, and lobbying governments and other sources for needed support).
Relatively little research on the delivery of psychological services to children in schools has been conducted comparing countries in Asia. This provides an opportunity to examine whether roles and functions of school psychologists as perceived by Thai and Korean education students are different according to the different cultural contexts (Poulou, 2003). The purpose of the present study was to compare Thai and Korean college students’ perceptions about the roles and functions of school psychologists.
Method
Participants
Four hundred and thirty-one sophomores and juniors from the colleges of education in the leading universities of Thailand and South Korea participated in this study—193 Thai students (45 male, 148 female) and 238 Korean students (82 male, 156 female). Multistage random sampling was employed to obtain samples from each country. Stratified random sampling was conducted first using student status (sophomore and junior) as a stratum. Then, a simple random sampling was used to acquire samples from sophomore and junior groups.
Instrument
A questionnaire titled ‘Survey of Education Students on the Profession of School Psychologists’ was first written in Thai; it was then translated into Korean by a Thai-Korean bilingual, then back-translated by a different Thai-Korean bilingual for validation. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part one asked respondents to supply their demographic information (i.e. students’ gender, status, major field of study, and age). It also asked the respondents to rate their familiarity with the profession of school psychologists on a five-point rating scale (5 = most familiar, and 1 = least familiar). Part two of the questionnaire asked the respondents to rate using a five-point rating scale (5 = most important, and 1 = least important) on the importance of each function of school psychologists (i.e. assessment, counselling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents). In part three, respondents were asked to specify from an array who should perform those functions in the absence of a school psychologist. For assessment functions, the administration of standardized achievement tests and that of psychological scales (i.e. IQ test, scholastic aptitude test, and personality test) were mentioned. As for counselling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents functions, students’ behavioural, educational, and mental health problems were mentioned in each function (Jimerson et al., 2007). The content validity of items in this questionnaire as determined by the Item-Objective Congruence index (IOC) was 1.00. The reliability of the questionnaire determined by Cronbach’s generalizability (G) coefficient (see Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, & Rajaratnam, 1982) were 0.92 and 0.93 for the Thai and Korean versions, respectively. The Cronbach alphas from former related studies (Archwamety et al., 2009; Tangdhanakanond & Archwamety, 2010) in which the same questionnaire was employed were 0.86 and 0.92.
Procedure
The questionnaires were administered to Thai and Korean respondents in educational psychology classes of Thai and Korean universities. A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures on one factor was employed to compare Thai and Korean education students on the perceived importance of the various roles and functions of a school psychologist. Additionally, independent sample t-test was used to analyse the difference of the mean ratings by Thai and Korean students on their familiarity with the school psychology profession. A Chi-square analysis was employed to compare Thai and Korean education students on who they thought should perform the various roles and functions in the absence of a school psychologist.
Results
Thai education students reported that counselling students was the most important role/function of a school psychologist. However, Korean education students perceived that consultation with parents was the most important role/function. The interaction between group (Thai vs. Korean) and role/function of school psychologist (assessment, counselling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents) was statistically significant, F(4,1716) = 4.992, p < 0.01. Thai education students rated counselling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents significantly higher (p < 0.01) than their Korean counterparts. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups on the assessment role (p > 0.01). The mean importance ratings of the various roles and functions of a school psychologist by Thai and Korean education students are available (Table 1; see supplemental material).
Mean importance ratings of the various roles and functions of a school psychologist by Thai and Korean education students were calculated. The interaction between group (Thai versus Korean) and role/function of school psychologist (assessment, counselling students, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation with parents) was statistically significant, p < 0.01. The analyses of the mean ratings by Thai and Korean students on their familiarity with the school psychology profession revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the Thai and Korean students on their familiarity with school psychology profession (p > 0.05). The mean ratings by both Thai and Korean students are at a low level (M = 2.14, SD = 0.94, and M = 2.03, SD = 0.89).
Thai students expected their relatives and school personnel and other related people outside of the schools to fill the school psychology vacuum significantly (p < 0.01) more than their Korean counterparts in almost all roles and functions. Indeed, family involvement in Asian countries is not surprising given cultural mores. Significant differences did not occur (p > 0.05) between Thai and Korean students regarding the opinion on teachers as to the personnel who should: (a) Provide assessment services such as the administration of psychological scales; (b) perform counselling to student for education and mental health; and (c) consult with teachers to help students solve their educational problems. The results on who should perform the various roles and functions of a school psychologist when a school psychologist is not available are provided (see Table 2; see supplemental material).
Discussion
Thai and Korean students’ perceptions of the importance of the various roles and functions of school psychologists
Both Thai and Korean students rated the assessment role as the least important role of school psychologists compared with other services (Table 1; supplemental material) perhaps because Thai guidance teachers and Korean school counsellors are not authorized to administer psychological tests. Generally, students suspected of having learning difficulties are referred to a psychiatrist for diagnosis using psychological tests. Thus, students may think that assessment is a psychiatric responsibility rather than a role for guidance teacher (in Thailand) or a school counsellor (in South Korea). This might be why respondents rated assessment as the least important role. This is in contrast to most studies completed in the USA (Jimerson et al., 2007; Watkins, 2001). Interestingly, the result of this study also indicated that Thai education students rated student counselling, intervention, consultation with teachers, and consultation-with-parents significantly higher than did their Korean counterparts. This may be because the Thai education curriculum now includes several courses related to school psychological services.
The findings mentioned here provide implications for education colleges in Thailand and South Korea. Both countries should place greater emphasis on the assessment function in those educational psychology courses required for undergraduate students. In addition, greater emphasis should be put on counselling, intervention, and consultation services in South Korean education colleges.
Footnotes
Note
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
