Furr - Structuring the Group Experience
Furr - Structuring the Group Experience
To cite this Article Furr, Susan R.(2000)'Structuring the group experience: A format for designing psychoeducational groups',The
Journal for Specialists in Group Work,25:1,29 — 49
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01933920008411450
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01933920008411450
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL GROUP WORK
~~
29
30 JOURNAT, FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / March 2000
Drum and Knott (1977) described one of the first frameworks for
designing structured 'groups and stated that such groups had a prede-
termined plan and goals. Topics for the group are predetermined and
use discussion stimulus leads, structured activities, or a highly struc-
tured series of questions (Berg, Landreth, & Fall, 1998). Intentionally
structured groups promote specific goals within a planned framework
that is time specific (Winston, Bonney, Miller, & Dagley, 1988). Corey
(1990) stated that structured groups serve the purposes of "imparting
information, sharing common experiences, teaching people how to solve
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 01:58 10 June 2009
problems, offering support, and helping people learn how to create their
own support systems outside of the group setting" (p. 11).Meichenbaum
and Navaco (1985) evolved a model that included cognitive preparation
and skill acquisition, rehearsal, application, and practice. These models
have in common a preselected theme, specific goals, teaching of mate-
rial, and activities to illustrate the material.
The model for design of a structured group presented in this article
was originated by FUR and Fulkerson (1982)and entails two phases of
development. The first phase is the conceptual phase that includes
three steps: (a)statement of purpose, (b) establishing goals, and (c) set-
ting objectives. The second phase is the operational phase that also
includes three steps: (d) selection of content, (el designing experiential
activities, and (f) evaluation. The design process moves from a broad
conceptual framework to implementation of specific content. A unique
feature of this model is that the foundation of the conceptual phase is
counseling theory. Whereas other design models have goal setting as a
first step, this model emphasizes the need to build the group on sound
theoretical principles. When goals evolve from a theoretical perspective
of the topic, the group design will be more cohesive and sequenced in a
logical progression. Each topic and activity w ill provide the foundation
for the next topic.
Another feature of this model is its emphasis on processing the activi-
ties. Although process is implied by other models, this model is explicit
in having the leader determine the direction of the processing prior t o
conducting an experiential activity. DeLucia-Waack (1997a) indicated
the need for descriptions of group activities to include directions for
processing. She stated that although group activities in the professional
literature are often described in great detail, little attention is given to
the processing of the activities. In this model, a balance is maintained
among the didactic, experiential, and processing components of the
group. The outcome of following this model is the development of a
clearly articulated group that ensures the group content will remain
32 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK/ March 2000
whether that population sees a need to make a change. "he group may
focus on teaching behavior-change skills without examining the values
associated with the behavior. Unless the participants see the group
goals as congruent with their own values, they will not commit to the
change process. For example, a group on job-seeking skills may empha-
size the importance of making eye contact that may be in direct conflict
with the social values of a cultural group. Both the leader and the par-
ticipants could experience frustration if pertinent cultural values were
not recognized.
In determining goals, the designer needs t o be realistic in what can be
accomplished in a time-limited setting. It is tempting to focus on long-
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 01:58 10 June 2009
range change when in reality, short-term goals are the essence of what
can occur during the group. "he designer may find it helpful to visualize
the group as a springboard for future change by providing the members
with tools for future growth. If a group is designed effectively, the short-
range goals will provide successivesteps that will enable the participant
to reach long-range goals.
can choose from many creative approaches to meet the objectives. If the
objectives are successfully implemented, the goals will be met. Because
change can occur on multiple levels (behavioral, cognitive, affective,
existential, and physical), objectives need t o reflect the level being tar-
geted. Although many concepts involve change on multiple levels, an
objective often will focus on only one component of change. For example,
improvinga person’s self-esteem may be related to developingan uncon-
ditional positive regard for one’s self as well as changing negative cogni-
tions. Because both components need to be addressed, two separate
objectives would be developed to ensure that change is facilitated on
affective and cognitive levels.
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 01:58 10 June 2009
would invite participants to share their ideas of the concept and then
weave these comments into the definition the leader wanted t o convey.
Participants can be asked to provide personal examples of how the
material applies to their own lives so that the information becomes more
than an intellectual exercise.
These didactic mini-lectures typically range from 10 to 15 minutes
but may be less depending on the age and attention span of the partici-
pants. The leader must be careful not to overload the participants with
more information than they are able t o process. Each lecture segment
builds on previous segments until the concept being introduced is fully
examined. The didactic segment begins with the simplest aspect of the
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 01:58 10 June 2009
leader to think through the purpose of the exercise and evolve questions
that facilitate member understanding of the experience. Processing
may include discussion about what happened in the activity;what were
participants’ reactions to the activity; what thoughts, feelings, or
insights were generated; and how these insights can be applied to the
participants’ lives outside of the group. Kees and Jacobs (1990) sug-
gested that processing questions begin with the concrete level and move
t o the abstract level. Initially, questions focus on processing what hap-
pened in the activityitself and then move t o reflection on reactions t o the
exercise. Questions then can address how the activity has affected the
group process. Later questions examine the impact of the exercise on
members’ feelings, thoughts, and insights as well as ways the experi-
ence can be applied to their lives outside of the group.
Another aspect of the processingcomponentis the sharing of the lead-
er’s observations about the activity. WhiIe participants are engaged in
the experiential component, the role of the leader is to observe the group
interactions and to note issues and concerns that arise for participants,
These issues and concerns then can be shared and examined during the
process component. During this time, cognition and affect become inte-
grated and assimilated into the participant’s frame of reference. When
the leader does not devote enough time to this component,the chance for
transfer of learning to occur decreases.
The amount of time devoted to each of the three components is
dependent on the dimension the leader is addressing (cognitive, behav-
ioral, affective, physical, or existential). “he dimension chosen as the
primary focus depends on the theoretical perspective selected for the
group. Some dimensions require more emphasis on the didactic,
whereas others need to concentrate on the experiential and/or process-
ing. In general, cognitive and behavioral dimensions focus more on the
teaching aspect and are followed by practice activities. Affective and
existential dimensions demand more experiential activities and exten-
sive processing. The physical dimension needs to focus on the
38 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN‘GROUP WORK/ March 2000
Imagery. The use of imagery exercises allows the designer to move be-
yond the constraints of the immediate setting (Heppner, O’Brien,
Hinkelmen, & Humphrey, 1994;Myrick & Myrick, 1993).By encourag-
ing the participant to use his or her imagination, an exercise can take
the participant to a setting specific to his or her own issue. Imagery exer-
cises can focus on either behavior or affect. Visualizing how one is sup-
posed t o act can actually improve performance. The use of imagery in
systematic desensitization also is well documented (Renneberg, Gold-
stein, Phillips, & Chambless, 1990).
Imagery increases intrapersonal awareness on both the affective and
existential dimensions. Suppressed emotions may be brought to the sur-
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 01:58 10 June 2009
face through reliving experiences, and life meaning may become clearer
as one projects his or her life into the future.
Otherwise, participants will not gain the full value of the activity, and
the opportunity to provide corrective feedback is lost.
Exercises are not limited to the categories previously described.The
designer is limited only by his or her imagination. The importance of
well-designed (and well-processed) activities cannot be overempha-
sized. It is the exercises that personalize the information for the partici-
pant and facilitate the integration of the concepts into the participant’s
cognitive framework. Without exercises, the psychoeducational group
would become a vehicle that only conveys information rather than
changes perceptions and behavior. As discussed previously, the experi-
ential activities must be thoroughly processed to realize the maxixnum
benefit.
Step 6: Evaluation
An essential part of any structured group is evaluation. If a group is
to be effective, the designer must test the ideas and determine which
components facilitate change.Process evaluation refers t o the effective-
ness of the session-to-session activities, whereas outcome evaluation
Iooks at the degree of individual change. Process evaluation is an ongo-
ing activity and is important because members’ perceptions of their con-
nectedness to the group often predict who will drop out and who will find
the group effective (DeLucia-Waack, 1997b).Throughout the group, the
leader needs t o consult with members about their perceptions of the
group and its activities. This type of evaluation may occur informally as
the leader asks whether the informationpresented has been helpful or if‘
an activity was meaningful. The leader may decide t o have a brief
evaluation midway through the group to see if group needs are being
met. Although a group design may not be able to be adapted t o every sug-
gestion, the leader often can make minor adaptations t o respond to a
member request. A number of process measures have been developed to
evaluate group leadership behavior, group climate, therapeutic factors,
42 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / March 2000
RECOMlVlENDATIONS
A pitfall for many new designers is having a focus for the group that is
too broad. Initially, a topic such as building self-esteem appears t o be an
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution] At: 01:58 10 June 2009
exciting prospect for a structured group. Once the designer begins writ-
ing goals and objectives, it will become evident that only a limited
number of the main concepts can be incorporated into the group. One
way of dealing with containing the scope of a group is to consider design-
ing sequential groups on the same topic. The first group could establish
the foundation concepts with subsequent groups building more complex
skills. Another approach is to design parallel groups that complement
one another. For example, a group that concentrates on assertion train-
ing could follow a group with a self-esteemfocus because assertiveness
is a skill helpful for maintaining a healthy self-esteem.
Another challenge for designers is making the time commitmentnec-
essary for documentation of the group design. Designers usually get
excited about creating the ideas but lose some interest when the design
process becomes tedious. If the documentation is to be complete enough
for repetitive use, the designer must be willing to include substantial
detail. It is very easy for the designer t o assume that he or she will
remember what was intended by a brief phrase or abbreviation only to
realize much later that he or she cannot recall the meaning of a n activ-
ity. Ideally, instructions should be written in enough detail so that
another professional with similar training can lead the group without
confusion.
At times, the designer must let go of an exercise that he or she views
as extremely powerful but that does not fit the goals and objectives of a
particular session. Too often, a leader begins with the exercise and tries
t o build the session around it. “his approach forces the designer to
evolve the goals from the exercise rather than from the theory, resulting
in inconsistency among the sessions.Deducingthe content from the the-
ory allows the content to flow easily from one sessiont o another and sup-
ports a logical sequencing of material.
The designer needs to recognize that a natural evolution of the group
exists and that the nature of sessions will change as the group pro-
gresses. Early sessions need t o provide members with a sense of safety
44 JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTSIN GROUP WORK I March 2000
APPENDIX
Structured Group on Building Self-Esteem
The group, Building Self-Esteem, is designed for college students who desire
to develop more positive feelings about themselves. The group design is based on
the assumption that self-esteem is learned through interactions with others.
Self-esteem is defined as the ability to know one’s self, both strengths and limi-
tations, and to accept and value one’s self unconditionally. Individuals are not
born with positive or negative esteem but with the capacity to develop in either
direction.
Step 2: Goals
1. To develop an understanding of the relationship between self-talk and
self-esteem and to learn to modify inappropriate self-talk.
2. To develop an awareness of how feelings relate to self-talk with special
emphasis on the ways people use self-talk to cancel out positive feelings.
3. To help participants understand how beliefs, self-talk, and feelings influ-
ence behavior and to assist participants in identifying changes that can
lead to behavior change.
Step 3: Objectives
Objectives for Goal 1:
Step 4: Content
Self-talk andselfesteem. At this point, the concept ofself-talk and its involve-
ment in self-esteem is explained. What one says to one’s selfis one ofthe most ac-
cessible factors to an individual in changing his or her level of esteem. As a way
46 JOURNAL FOR SPECLALISTSIN GROUP WORK I March 2000
of illustrating this point, have the group think about getting back a test paper
with a poor grade and then ask them what things they say to themselves that
keep them from maintaining their self-esteem. Emphasize that being aware of
what they say to themselves is what the group will be working on in the remain-
ing sessions. Explain the principle: Changing self-talk changes feelings about
one's self.
Step 6: Exercises
Changing self-talk
Step 6: Evaluation
a. Process evaluation:At conclusion of second session, ask members to iden-
tify what they had learned from the activities and how they can use this
information to meet their individual goals for change. In addition, ask
memberswhat activitiesand information had not been helpful to them.
b. Outcome evaluation: Compare pretest evaluation on definitions of self-
esteem and self-talk with posttest evaluation.
c. Outcome evaluation: Give participants a list of negative statements and
have them change the statements to positive or coping Statements.
Furr / STRUCTURING PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL GROUPS 47
REFERENCES
Hall.
Heppner, M. J., OBrien, K. M., Hinkelmen, J. M., & Humphrey, C. F. (1994).Shifting the
paradigm: The use of creativity in career counseling. Journal of Career Development,
21,77-a6.
Ivey, A. (1976).The counselor as teacher.Personne1 and Guidance Journal, 51,591-597.
Kagan, N., Kagan, H., & Watson, M. (1995).Stress reduction in the workplace: The effec-
tiveness of psychoeducational programs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4471-78.
Kaminski, P., & McNamara, K.(1996).A treatment for college women at risk for bulimia:
A controlled evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74,288-294.
Kees, N . L., & Jacobs, E. (1990).Conducting more effective groups: How to select and pto-
cess group exercises. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 15,21-29.
la Salvia, T. (1993).Enhancing addition treatment through psychoeducational groups:
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 10,439-444.
Lawson, D. M.(1989).Using family sculpting in groups to enrich current intimate rela-
tionships. Journal of College Student Development, 30,171-172.
McWhirter, J . (1995).Emotional education for university students. Journal of College
Student Psychotherapy, 10,21-38.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977).Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative approach. New
York Plenum.
Meichenbaum, D., & Navaco, R. (1985).Stress inoculation: A preventive approach. Issues
in Mental Health Nursing, 7,419-435.
Morrill, W., Oetting, E., & Hurst, J. (1974).Dimensions of counselor functioning. Person-
nel and Guidance Journal, 53,354-359.
Myrick, R. D., & Myrick, L. S. (1993).Guided imagery: From mystical to practical. Elemen-
tary School Guidance and Counseling, 28,62-70.
Passons, W . R. (1975).Gestalt approaches in counseling. New York Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Pomeroy, E., Rubin, A., Van Laningham, L., &Walker, R. (1997)."Straight talk": The ef-
fectiveness of a psychoeducational group intervention for heterosexuals with
HIVMDS. Research on Social Work Practices, 7,149-164.
Renneberg, B., Goldstein, A. J., Phillips, D., & Chambless, D. L. (1990).Intensive behav-
ioral group treatment of avoidant personality disorder. Behavior Therapy,21,363-377.
Rice, A. (1995).Structured groups for the treatment of depression. In K. R. MacKensie
(Ed.),Effective use of group therapy in managed care (pp. 61-96).Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Rogers, C. (1961).On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mi&.
Shear, M. (1995).Psychotherapy for panic disorder. Psychiatric Quarterly, 66,321-328.
Furr / STRUCTURING PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL GROUPS 49