Featured Research

Professional School Counseling

Volume 22(1): 1-10
School Counselors’ Use of Technology ª 2019 American School
Counselor Association
Article reuse guidelines:
for Program Management sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2156759X19870794
journals.sagepub.com/home/pcx

Erin C. M. Mason1 , Catherine Griffith2, and Christopher T. Belser3

Abstract
The use of technology in school counseling remains largely underinvestigated. In this descriptive study, researchers surveyed
school counselors to examine ways in which they are using technology to manage their programs. Findings indicate that tech-
nology is underutilized by school counselors and is more likely to be used for program management tasks in the area of orga-
nization than for communication with and presentation of information to stakeholder groups. We discuss implications for
practice, preparation and training, and future research.

Keywords
program management, school counseling, technology

The use of technology in school counseling is an underre- Professional Standards & Competencies (ASCA, 2019) include
searched topic. However, the presence of technology in schools item B-PF2(i). Use current trends in technology to promote
is undeniable and constantly evolving. The role of the school student success. Moreover, the 2016 standards from the Coun-
counselor varies on any given day with time spent in multiple cil for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
tasks, serving multiple stakeholder groups. Technology, when Programs (CACREP, 2016) indicate that counselor education
used with intentionality and purpose, can expand the school programs must address the impact of technology on the coun-
counselor’s reach and efficiency in serving all students, and seling profession (e.g., F.1.j, F.5.e, F.4.c, F.5.d). In this
increase access to resources, thus contributing to overall stu- exploratory study, we sought to understand how school coun-
dent achievement. Keeping pace with technology is not only a selors use technology specifically for managing their programs.
matter of efficiency and expediency in program management
but also a point of advocacy, for which it is necessary to ensure
that stakeholders are receiving timely and consistent informa-
tion (e.g., testing deadlines, graduation requirements, scholar- Review of Literature
ship information, changes to policies that impact students) Technological advancements in recent decades have changed
through as many channels as possible (Hayden, Poynton, & the landscape of education, resulting in increased opportunities
Sabella, 2008; Sampson, Kolodinsky, & Greeno, 1997). Also, for educators to embrace technology for learning advancement
given the broad and ever-evolving landscape of technology in and productivity enhancement (Nandhini, 2016). Specifically,
education, the question of professional relevance comes to the the advent of Web 2.0, characterized as more interactive, user-
forefront. If school counselors do not follow technology trends driven Internet content (e.g., blogs, Wiki pages, social network-
and find ways to integrate online tools into their work, they ing sites [SNSs], online applications), rather than static web
may be seen as irrelevant. pages, reshaped the role of educators and students from passive
consumers of technology-based content to also being producers
Technology, when used with intentionality and of content (Nandhini, 2016; Pan & Franklin, 2011).
purpose, can expand the school counselor’s reach
and efficiency in serving all students and increase
access to resources, thus contributing to overall 1
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
2
student achievement. 3
University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA
Given the amount of communication, organization, and pre-
Corresponding Author:
sentation their role involves, school counselors should consider E. C. M. Mason, PhD, Georgia State University, 30 Pryor St. SE, Atlanta, GA
technology a valuable tool. In support of technology, the Amer- 30303, USA.
ican School Counselor Association (ASCA) School Counselor Email: [email protected]
2 Professional School Counseling

Today’s students and newer educators may be more likely to technology within the counseling field, the American Counsel-
embrace technology, and many have lived a majority of their ing Association (2014), ASCA (2016), and other counseling
lives immersed in technologies (Prensky, 2010). However, a organizations have updated and added technology-related stan-
large segment of educators grew up and entered the field before dards to their ethics documents. The Association for Counselor
the technology boom and have had to rely on professional Education and Supervision Technology Interest Network
development on appropriate and innovative uses of technolo- (2007) developed technology competencies for counselor edu-
gical platforms (Nandhini, 2016). Pan and Franklin (2011) cation programs. Despite these updates, scholarly literature that
found that meaningful professional development, school addresses technology implementation in the counseling field is
administrative support, and self-efficacy were predictors of scarce, especially for the subfield of school counseling.
teachers’ implementation of Web 2.0 tools. Other research has
noted that novice educators are more likely to utilize tech-
based platforms, with the influx of digital natives entering the School Counseling and Technology
workforce and changes to training programs listed as possible
Research on school counselors’ use of technology has not kept
explanations (Hur & Brush, 2009; Young & Kaffenberger,
pace with technological advancements within the field.
2015). Despite differences in educators’ levels of comfort with
Rainey, McGlothlin, and Miller (2008) surveyed school coun-
technology use, these platforms can provide educators with
selors’ attitudes and perceived competence with technology
avenues to increase connectivity and productivity.
and found that school counselors had a mostly positive review
SNSs, such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn,
of their experiences with technology. However, much of the
can provide school counselors with opportunities to connect
technology referenced in the findings was not web-based and
with stakeholders and engage in online professional learning
included devices that would be considered somewhat archaic
communities (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014; Hur & Brush, 2009).
today (e.g., overhead projector, videocassette recorder). Sim-
Dixon (2011) noted that using social media within educational
ilar to Rainey and colleagues, Sabella, Poynton, and Isaacs
settings promotes engagement with both existing and potential
(2010) reported that school counselors perceived technology
school stakeholders and encourages dialogue among faculty,
as important to their work. However, the technologies men-
students, families, and the community. For example, educators
tioned in each study have undergone significant changes since
can utilize blogging or microblogging platforms to share
their publications.
resources and reminders with students and parents or to provide
In a similar line of research, a qualitative study reported that
updates on programs/events occurring within the school (Car-
practicing school counselors (N ¼ 49) used technology to
penter & Krutka, 2014; Howard, 2013). Similarly, SNSs pro-
achieve various goals of the ASCA National Model, suggesting
vide a global network of educators for consultation,
that infusing technology in school counselor training programs
collaboration, and resource sharing (Carpenter & Krutka,
can promote student learning and professional work efficiency
2014; Veletsianos, 2013). Interactions through microblogging
(Hayden et al., 2008). Nevertheless, even with advancements in
via SNSs (e.g., Twitter chats) and videoconferencing platforms
school counselor training, many school counselors are cautious
(e.g., Google Hangouts) can serve as crowdsourced profes-
of embracing the use of technology within some aspects of
sional development opportunities that are low cost or even free
practice. For example, Shea, Cinotti, and Stone (2018) found
of charge (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014). Even with these poten-
that school counselors are more likely to use paper-based case
tial benefits, not everyone is comfortable with using social
notes, rather than electronic case notes, due to ethical concerns.
media and technology for these purposes, citing ethical con-
Similarly, Steele, Jacokes, and Stone (2015) found that there is
cerns as a reason to be skeptical (Mullen, Griffith, Greene, &
considerable disagreement among school counselors as to the
Lambie, 2014; Shea, Cinotti, & Stone, 2018; Steele, Jacokes, &
importance and relevance of using technology in school coun-
Stone, 2015). As these online technology tools and other Web
selor practice.
2.0 services advance, they become more relevant for specific
In contrast, Grosshandler (2012) reiterated the potential ben-
fields within education and human services.
efits of using technology in school counseling programs and
found that implementation challenges existed in both Recog-
nized ASCA Model Program (RAMP) and non-RAMP schools.
Counseling and Technology His study is one of the first to explore school counselors’ pro-
Technology usage within the counseling field has evolved fessional use of social media, with findings that indicated lower
alongside technology itself, from early computer-based assess- rates of adopting social media in RAMP-awarded schools.
ment and career guidance systems to more recent web-based Keeping with the idea of how technology use can benefit
counseling and supervision (Baker & Bufka, 2011; Barnett & school counselors, Cronin et al. (2018) found that school coun-
Kolmes, 2016; Cabaniss, 2001; Mallen, Vogel, & Rochlen, selors who used technology more frequently had higher self-
2005). Counselors have been using web-based technologies for ratings of developing school–family–community partnerships.
workplace productivity and management purposes (e.g., e- Although SNSs and other online tools have become widely
mail, professional websites, videoconferencing) for more than used in school counseling and widely discussed online
20 years (Sampson et al., 1997). Due to the increasing use of (LoFrisco, 2013; Mason, Schumann, & Lopez, 2016),
Mason et al. 3

empirical school counseling literature has not adequately we received approval from the first author’s institutional
addressed the purpose and prevalence of their use in school review board. A total of 614 participants who identified as
counselor practice. “practicing school counselors” completed the survey. How-
ever, due to missing data resulting in the removal of 107 cases,
Operational Definitions only 507 participants were included. These participants repre-
sent a cross-sectional, random sample because participants
In reviewing the literature, more studies (Cronin et al., 2018; self-selected into the study.
Grosshandler, 2012; Hayden et al., 2008; Rainey, McGlothlin,
& Miller, 2008; Sabella, Poynton, & Isaacs, 2010; Shea et al., Demographic characteristics. Participant demographics for this
2018) focused on technology as a support to school counselors study were consistent with previous studies in the field. The
in managing their programs than on its potential for direct vast majority of participants identified as female (87.6%),
clinical interventions (e.g., applied counseling techniques, use while 12.4% identified as male. No participants identified as
of websites for social/emotional needs or career development, transgender or nonbinary despite the options being provided in
use of apps for crisis intervention and response). the survey. The majority of participants (82.1%) identified as
To delineate the nonclinical tasks that school counselors White with the remaining participants indicating their ethnicity
perform in managing their program, we developed operational as African American/Black (6.7%), Hispanic or Latino/a
definitions to clarify the scope of “school counselors’ use of (3.9%), Multiethnic (2.8%), Asian (2.0%), Pacific Islander
technology.” The management component of the ASCA (0.6%), or American Indian or Alaska Native (0.2%). A few
National Model served as a guide and identifies the work of participants indicated that their ethnicity was not listed (0.8%)
school counselors in coordinating their program as a separate or preferred not to answer (0.8%).
set of tasks from delivering their program (ASCA, 2012). As The age of participants ranged from 24 to 69 years (M ¼
such, the management component includes tracking, analyzing, 41.05, SD ¼ 10.19) with a span of 0–42 years of experience (M
and sharing data; developing action plans for delivering the ¼ 10.14, SD ¼ 8.05). The majority of survey respondents
core curriculum; maintaining an advisory council with a variety would be considered experts in the field with more than 10
of stakeholders; and clarifying roles and responsibilities years of experience as a school counselor (44.8%); the remain-
through calendars and the annual agreement. After consulting ing participants indicated having 5–8 years of experience
the literature and discussing the primary features of program (23.9%), 2–4 years of experience (18.5%), or 1 year of expe-
management as outlined by the ASCA National Model (ASCA, rience or less (11.6%).
2012), we operationalized program management using three
broad categories: (a) communication (e.g., sending out School setting characteristics. The overwhelming majority of par-
announcements and program updates, reaching stakeholders ticipants indicated that they worked in a single school (88.2%).
with social media, maintaining a web page for the program More than half of the participants worked primarily with high
or recruiting volunteers), (b) organization (e.g., storing, orga- school–aged youth in Grades 9–12 (51.3%), while approxi-
nizing, collaborating on, and sharing files; and collecting, mately one third worked with elementary youth in grades
tracking, and sharing data), and (c) presentation (e.g., present- PK–5 (29.7%) and another third worked with middle school–
ing information to stakeholders in a face-to-face setting, and aged youth (32.1%). These totals are greater than 100%
using online platforms to present information). because some participants worked at sites that serve multiple
age groups.
Settings were reported as largely suburban (42.8%), fol-
Purpose of the Study
lowed by rural (38.5%) and urban (24.3%). The school type
To better understand school counselors’ use of technology for was predominantly public (88.8%), followed by parochial/reli-
program management, we sought to collect descriptive data gious (4.3%), charter (3.6%), private (3.2%), alternative
about program management practices related to communicat- (1.8%), and other school types that didn’t fit into any of the
ing with colleagues, students, and stakeholders; program orga- categories offered (2.8%; e.g., virtual schools, career/tech
nization; and presenting information. The primary research schools). Regarding geographic location, the largest number
questions guiding this study were: (a) Are school counselors of participants were located in the Midwest (38.7%) and North-
using technology to manage their programs? (b) With whom is east (28.4%) regions of the United States, while others reported
technology being used? (c) How often is it being used? being located in the Southeast (18.3%), Southwest (7.7%),
Northwest (4.9%), or from non-U.S. locations (1.8%).

Method Caseload characteristics. Only 13.2% of respondents indicated

that the number of students on their caseload was low (<200)
Participants per the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012) recommendation
This exploratory study used survey data drawn from a national of a student-to-school-counselor ratio of approximately 250:1.
sample to investigate school counselors’ use of technology for Most participants had caseload sizes more in line with the
program management. Before the implementation of the study, national average (Bridgeland & Bruce, 2011) with 201–400
4 Professional School Counseling

Table 1. Compilation of Data Related to Student Caseload Variables. Questions included some single-answer format (“yes” or “no”)
items, such as, “Do you use a unique website or separate page
Category Dimensions Number (n) Percent
on the school’s website just for your school counseling
Caseload size Low (<200) 67 13.2 program?” and “Do you use a Twitter account specifically for
Medium (201–400) 222 43.8 your school counseling program?” Other items about general
High (401–1,000) 195 38.5 technology use were multiple-choice, single-answer format,
Very high (>1,000) 21 4.1 such as “How many technology devices do you actively use
Socioeconomic status Low (0–30%) 164 32.3
based on # of Medium (31–70%) 221 43.6
to do your work as a school counselor?” with the participant’s
students on free and High (71–100%) 119 23.5 choice of responses ranging from “0” to “more than 5.” The
reduced lunch open-ended question was “Name the three tech tools that are
Students with Low (0–10%) 125 24.7 most useful to you in your work as a school counselor.”
disabilities Medium (11–20%) 220 43.4 Participants then indicated the frequency of their use of
High (21–40%) 122 24.1 technology with various stakeholders (e.g., students, school
Very high (41–100%) 34 6.7 staff, families, other school counseling professionals) or on
Students who are Average (0–10%) 373 73.6
specific tasks in the defined program management areas of
English language High (11–50%) 90 17.8
learners Very high (51–100%) 39 7.7 communication, organization, and presentation (e.g., commu-
nicating with social media, storing and organizing files, deli-
Note. Totals under 100% indicate missing responses; majority responses have vering presentation). Response options for frequency included
been bolded. Student variables were coded into categories of low, medium/
average, high, and very high (based on national averages reported in the
“daily,” “weekly,” “monthly,” or “never.”
National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Survey development was a multistep process. The first
author examined other surveys and literature to determine what
kinds of questions had been asked in previous studies about
students (43.8%), though almost as many participants had high school counselors’ use of technology. She then drafted poten-
caseloads of 401–1,000 students (38.5%). Alarmingly, 4.1% of tial items and sent them to three practicing school counselor
respondents had caseloads of more than 1,000 students. reviewers in various settings, one of whom was also a doctoral
To facilitate statistical analysis, we coded other student vari- student in counselor education, to strengthen both content and
ables into categories of low, medium/average, high, and very face validity. The first author and reviewers met virtually to
high (based on national averages reported in the National Cen- discuss the items and made suggestions for edits and additions.
ter for Education Statistics; U.S. Department of Education, Finally, the reviewers approved a revised version of the survey.
2017); we present these in Table 1.

Procedures Results
Using random sampling, we recruited participants through a Before data analysis, we tested for assumptions, outliers, and
variety of professional outlets via online-based and e-mail- missing data. Assumptions were met and no outliers were
based communications. Recruitment procedures included found, although we removed 107 cases due to missing data
e-mails sent to each state school counseling association request- (respondents who only answered demographic questions and
ing dissemination to members and included a study announce- not questions related to their use of technology). Therefore, a
ment and accompanying e-mail text. We also used school total of 507 participants were included in the final analysis.
counseling professional networking sites for recruitment, such We observed that drop-off rates increased over time, indicat-
as pages and groups on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the ing that instrument fatigue was a factor in participant attrition.
ASCA SCENE, using the same study announcement. Follow-up The largest drop-off occurred between the demographics section
e-mails and posts were sent through the same channels approx- and the technology survey items. A high number of respondents
imately 3 months after the first round of recruitment. (n ¼ 107, 17.4%) did not complete any of the technology-related
Participants completed the survey online through the Qual- questions after providing demographic information, and although
trics platform (Provo, Utah). The process of proceeding to and Enders (2003) notes that a missing response rate of 15–20% is
answering survey questions on the following screens consti- routine in educational studies, we determined that the risk of
tuted consent on the part of the participant. The survey took including these cases in the final analysis in biasing findings was
approximately 15–20 min to complete. sufficient to necessitate listwise deletion of those cases.
Another drop-off point indicating instrument fatigue
occurred between a set of technology-related questions that
Instrumentation required only a single answer, such as “Do you use an Insta-
The survey consisted of 16 demographic items and 40 items gram account specifically for your school counseling
related to technology use. Of the technology items, 14 were program?” (answer: yes/no), and questions that had more intri-
multiple response and 1 was open-ended. Participants cate, nested responses, such as “As a school counselor, how
responded to questions about their general use of technology. often do you use publicly available social media tools to
Mason et al. 5

connect with the following groups?” (answer: never/monthly/ higher rates with their fellow school counselor colleagues, with
weekly/daily for students; school staff; families/parents/guar- nearly one quarter reporting daily contact.
dians; other school counseling professionals; other educators, The majority of school counselors also reported never using
nonschool counselors; agencies, associations or groups). In this other online tools (e.g., Remind, Smore) to communicate with
final set of questions, drop-off rates started at 6.9% and even- stakeholders, although they were slightly more likely to use
tually increased to 9.3% over the course of the remaining sur- these methods with students at least monthly (35%) or more
vey. After using Little’s test to determine that data were frequently than they use social media (32%). School counselors
missing completely at random rather than related to another appear to be using technology on at least a monthly basis for
instrument variable, we kept these cases in the sample and used sending program-related announcements and sharing program
mean substitution to account for the missing data, because a updates. However, they were least likely to use technology to
rate below 10% tends to have minimal impact on survey bias introduce themselves or to recruit volunteers. These data are
(Bennett, 2001). reflected in Figure 1.

Use of technology for organization. School counselor participants

reported using technology (e.g., Dropbox, GoogleDrive, Box,
School Counselors’ Use of Technology Evernote, EZAnalyze) quite frequently to work with files, man-
The primary purpose of this study was to understand whether age data, and track their activities. This was particularly true
school counselors are using technology to manage their pro- for storing and organizing their school counseling program-
grams, with whom are they are using it, and how often they are related files, with half of the school counselors doing so daily,
using it. Program management was operationally defined as and approximately 65% on at least a weekly basis. Further-
tasks involving communication, organization, and presentation more, the majority of participants reported using technology
with a variety of stakeholders. on at least a weekly basis for sharing files, collaborating on
work with colleagues, collecting and storing program-related
General technology use. Most participants (84.4%) reported using data, and sharing data with others. School counselors were least
between two and four devices (e.g., desktop computers, lap- likely to use online tools to track student progress or to track
tops, and smartphones). The majority used a Microsoft PC how they spent their time. Figure 2 summarizes these data.
operating system (64.1%), and more than one fourth used
Mac/Apple (27.8%); a small number of participants indicated Use of technology for presentation. The majority of the school
that they used a different third-party platform (1%; e.g., UNIX) counselors used technology (e.g., GoogleSlides, Prezi, You-
or had no preference (0.1%). Tube, Vimeo, VoiceThread) to deliver presentations and infor-
Many school counselors indicated “yes,” that they used a mation on a monthly basis or more frequently to student
unique website or maintained a unique page on their school’s populations (63%) versus to staff (51%), families/parents/care-
website to communicate information (67.5%). However, more takers (33%) or other groups such as outside agencies, groups,
school counselors indicated “no” when asked whether they and/or conferences (31%). For all populations, presenting on a
employed work-specific use of SNSs such as Twitter monthly basis was far more popular than doing so weekly or
(22.7%), Facebook (12.2%), and Instagram (3.9%). When daily. Participants were less likely to present to outside groups,
given the option in an open-ended question to report tech tools and of those who did, approximately half made information
of value to their work as school counselors, tools frequently available online for asynchronous delivery. Across all cate-
mentioned included Google, iPads, and Naviance. gories, “never” was selected by 29–59% of participants. Fig-
The majority of participants (82.4%) did not receive any ure 3 summarizes these data.
training related to the use of technology during their master’s
program. Instead, the school counselors indicated that they
were much more likely to learn about new tech tools, applica- Discussion
tions, or software through professional development (78.5%),
word of mouth (78.5%), online from others (e.g., through social The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether
media posts, blog posts, instant messaging; 61.1%), their own school counselors are using technology tools to manage their
online research (50.9%), and professional print publications programs, with whom are they are using it, and how often they
(e.g., ASCA School Counselor magazine; 42.6%). are using it. Overall, the findings indicate that school counse-
lors’ use of technology for program management is generally
Use of technology for communication. School counselors were low and that they use it more for organization tasks than for
least likely to use social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Insta- communication with or presentation to stakeholders. Organi-
gram) to reach out to students, followed by families. However, zation tasks that utilize technology are also likely to be done on
the majority of the school counselors indicated using these a daily or weekly basis, as compared to presentation tasks that
tools to communicate with staff, educators, school counselors, are more likely to be done on a monthly basis. Technology for
and outside groups every month or more frequently. Partici- communication with stakeholders is variable by subgroup, but
pants reported using social media most often and at much school counselors appear most likely to use social media when
6 Professional School Counseling

Figure 1. School counselors’ frequency of technology use for communication. Totals under 100% reflect a 6.9% missing response rate for these
survey questions.

Figure 2. School counselors’ frequency of technology use for organization. Totals under 100% reflect a 7.3% missing response rate for these
survey questions.
Mason et al. 7

Figure 3. School counselors’ frequency of technology use for presentation. Totals under 100% reflect an average of 9.4% missing response rate
for these survey questions.

communicating with each other or other educators rather than Implications for School Counselors and School
with other groups. Counseling Programs
An unexpected result was the number of school counselors
who reported not using technology at all in their school coun- The ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2012), the widely prolif-
seling program. “Never” was often the most selected category erated framework for comprehensive school counseling pro-
for numerous questions in the survey and most often those grams, underscores the programmatic aspects of what school
related to communication with stakeholders. The sizable gaps counselors do, with elements like the advisory council, annual
between school counselors’ use of technology for organization agreement, action plans, use of data, and calendars comprising
compared to its use for communication and presentation war- the management system. These elements require communica-
rant consideration. We suspect these gaps point to school coun- tion, organization, and presentation of information. The find-
selors’ lack of comfort with technology, ethical concerns, fear ings of this study indicate that some school counselors are
of improper use, reticence with maintaining boundaries, and using technology to assist them with these tasks, but many are
district messages and supports around technology use. In par- not, potentially leaving them vulnerable to role confusion and
ticular, these findings seem to point to a need for direction from budget cuts.
the district level about acceptable uses of social media by School counselors who are receptive to the use of technol-
school counselors. It is possible that other educator groups such ogy may be more likely to incorporate it into their school
as teachers are being targeted for this purpose but that school counseling programs. Many schools and districts are incorpor-
counselors are left out of the loop or not perceived to benefit ating technology into day-to-day operations (e.g., Google
from training on social media and technology use. Classroom, Chromebooks, learning management systems),
often at rapid rates, in all manner of activities including class-
An unexpected result was the number of school room instruction, student assessment, data management, and
counselors who reported not using technology at all parent/family communication. Students themselves, as digital
in their school counseling program. “Never” was natives, are accustomed to the prevalence of technology in their
often the most selected category for numerous lives both in and out of school (Gallo, Rausch, Smith, & Wood,
2016). Therefore, it behooves school counselors to keep up
questions in the survey and most often those related
with educational technology trends, to examine critically the
to communication with stakeholders.
available options, and to utilize those that assist them in doing
Participants also reported an overwhelming lack of training their jobs.
in technology during their master’s programs. Several possible
reasons for this result exist. First, a perceived gap in technolo- It behooves school counselors to keep up with
gical expertise may exist between older professors and younger educational technology trends, to examine critically
students. The existence of “digital natives” is a highly debated the available options, and to utilize those that assist
topic, and the aforementioned gap has been challenged by some them in doing their jobs.
researchers (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017) and supported
by others (Prensky, 2010). Second, if younger students have With multiple devices, cloud-based storage, and social
experienced more technologically infused settings, they may media being used in education, keeping a focus on ethics in
not view or take note of technology as a separate topic about their use of technology is important for school counselors.
which to learn (Adobe Blog, 2018; Clark & Avrith, 2017). Further, if school counselors are using both school-issued and
8 Professional School Counseling

personal devices, they must also consider how to ensure the training in this area. Given the pervasiveness of technology in
security of information across devices and know the legal, education, graduate programs in school counseling should con-
ethical, and practical parameters of working across platforms, sider how the topic of technology is addressed.
especially where school-specific data and files are being Another reason school counselors may report not learning
shared. The ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors about technology in their programs is faculty use of technol-
(ASCA, 2016) provide guidelines for using personal accounts, ogy. If faculty are not comfortable with utilizing technology in
social media, and apps; for the protection of data; and for the their roles, then students may not see it as a priority. Conver-
teaching of digital citizenship, but they do not specifically sely, those faculty who do utilize technology may be modeling
address devices or cloud-based storage systems. Districts can its use and importance as a tool.
help by providing technology support, conducting professional Given that participants highlighted professional develop-
development, establishing policies about acceptable use, ment and word of mouth as strong sources for their learning
involving school counselors in policy development, and ensur- about technology, we encourage district leaders and profes-
ing that the provision of technology is equitable across educa- sional associations to provide technology training. Districts
tor groups. that provide technology training for teachers or administrators
would be wise to also include school counselors. In the ideal
Districts can help by providing technology support, scenario, school counselors would receive training in technol-
conducting professional development, establishing ogies that are specific to their roles and be given adequate time
policies about acceptable use, involving school to practice new tools in a supportive setting before using them
counselors in policy development, and ensuring that on the job.
the provision of technology is equitable across
educator groups.
Future Research
Given the call of the profession and the ASCA National The need for research on school counselors’ use of technology
Model (ASCA, 2012) to serve all students, finding innovative will continue as long as technology is utilized in schools. Stud-
ways to share information broadly and equitably becomes ies exploring relationships between this survey and other
important, especially in, though not exclusively for, large related constructs, such as the use of technology for profes-
schools or when school counselors have large caseloads. Tech- sional development, self-efficacy in using technology, knowl-
nology tools that help school counselors communicate and edge of available online tech tools, and awareness and
present information through technology (e.g., Remind, Canva, adherence to ethical standards and district social media poli-
Instagram, YouTube, Weebly) not only address issues of effi- cies, would shed more light on school counselors’ interactions
ciency by automating and digitizing delivery but may also help with technology.
them reach more students, families, or staff (Cleveland & As most studies to date have focused more on technology in
Sharp, 2019). Some of these tools have language translation the day-to-day management of school counseling programs,
and closed captioning features to meet the needs of often under- future research can focus on the clinical aspects of the services
served groups. school counselors provide. For example, how are school coun-
Although districts and school administration will research selors utilizing technology in individual counseling, group
potential educational technology brands for adoption, many of counseling, or for skill development? Future studies may also
these brands are targeted at the work of classroom teachers. examine how school counselors are involved with helping stu-
Therefore, school counselors may need to do their own dents navigate both the positive aspects of technology, such as
research on the value of such brands for their work or advocate emerging careers in science, technology, engineering, and
that their programs be considered when adoption decisions are mathematics (STEM) fields, and the negative aspects, such as
made. School counselors may find themselves needing to advo- online bullying and harassment.
cate for or justify the use of technology as it pertains to the
school counseling program.
Limitations
As with all research, this study had limitations. Most are due to
Implications for School Counselor Preparation
the design and development of the instrument, lack of a pilot,
and Training and subsequent concerns during the analysis phase. The order
Findings from this study present some very actionable items of items presented the demographic items first instead of last
around school counselors’ use of technology, especially for per Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2014); this may have
graduate programs and for district supervisors and coordinators accounted for missing data that resulted in the large percentage
of school counseling. A glaring finding of this study is that of cases removed. Also, the lack of forced completion of items
graduate programs are the least likely source of training on may have resulted in missing data.
technology for school counselors by a very large percentage. The use of self-report instruments is often considered a
This seems to suggest that graduate programs are not providing limitation (Howard, 1994). Furthermore, assessing school
Mason et al. 9

counselors’ use of technology using digital (e-mail) and online American School Counselor Association. (2016). ASCA ethical stan-
recruitment strategies may have resulted in a bias toward tech- dards for school counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved
savvy participants and thus the presence of a nonresponse error from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Ethics/
(Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014). EthicalStandards2016.pdf
The sample consisted of mostly White females. Although American School Counselor Association. (2019). ASCA school coun-
this demographic skew mostly reflects the current population selor professional standards & competencies. Alexandria, VA:
of school counselors, it is possible, to a degree, that this group Author. Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/
is somewhat overrepresented compared to the national average media/asca/home/SCCompetencies.pdf
(Bridgeland & Bruce, 2011); therefore, the results may be less Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Technology
generalizable in settings that reflect more diversity in terms of Interest Network. (2007). Technical competencies for counselor
gender and race/ethnicity. education: Recommended guidelines for program development.
Retrieved from http://www.acesonline.net/sites/default/files/
2007_aces_technology_competencies.pdf
Conclusion Baker, D. C., & Bufka, L. F. (2011). Preparing for the telehealth
This exploratory study sought to understand how school coun- world: Navigating legal, regulatory, reimbursement, and ethical
selors use technology for program management, with whom, issues in an electronic age. Professional Psychology: Research and
and how often. Findings indicate that many school counselors Practice, 42, 405–411. doi:10.1037/a0025037
do not integrate technology and those who do are more likely to Barnett, J. E., & Kolmes, K. (2016). The practice of tele-mental
use it for managing files and communicating with other school health: Ethical, legal, and clinical issues for practitioners. Practice
counselors. As the findings from this study show, graduate Innovations, 1, 53–66. doi:10.1037/pri0000014
training programs are not likely to teach school counselors how Bennett, D. A. (2001). How can I deal with missing data in my study?
to integrate technology, and most learn about tools through Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25,
professional development, online, or by word of mouth. 464–469.
Technology, as it continues to evolve in educational set- Bridgeland, J., & Bruce, M. (2011). 2011 National Survey of School
tings, has substantial potential for assisting school counselors Counselors: Counseling at a crossroads. New York, NY: College
in their work for and with their stakeholders. Furthermore, Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Retrieved from http://media.
having technology skills is likely to position school counselors collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/nosca/11b_4230_NarRe
in the future as more competitive candidates in the job market. port_BOOKLET_WEB_111104.pdf
However, many school counselors are not taking advantage of Cabaniss, K. (2001). Counseling and computer technology in the new
technology and thus may not have the reach or the impact that millennium: An internet Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation).
they could, which has significant implications for serving all Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/
students and other stakeholders. Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). Engagement through micro-
blogging: Education professional development via Twitter. Profes-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests sional Development in Education, 41, 707–728. doi:10.1080/
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to 19415257.2014.939294
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Clark, H., & Avrith, T. (2017). The Google infused classroom. Irvine,
CA: EdTechTeam Press.
Funding Cleveland, A., & Sharp, S. (2019). 50þ tech tools for school counse-
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for lors: How to be more engaging, efficient, and effective. Thousand
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Oaks, CA: Corwin.
research was supported in part by a grant from DePaul University. Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs. (2016). 2016 CACREP Standards. Retrieved from
ORCID iD http://www.cacrep.org/for-programs/2016-cacrep-standards
Erin C. M. Mason https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2658-9733 Cronin, S., Ohrtman, M., Colton, E., Crouse, B., Depuydt, J.,
Merwin, C., & Rinn, M. (2018). School counselor technology use
References and school-family-community partnerships. Journal of School
Adobe Blog. (2018). We need to rethink education for digital natives. Counseling, 16, 1–27. Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/arti
Retrieved from https://theblog.adobe.com/we-need-to-rethink-edu cles/v16n6.pdf
cation-for-digital-natives/ Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet,
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Alex- phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method
andria, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.counseling.org/ (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
knowledge-center/ethics#2014code Dixon, D. B. J. (2011). The innovative school leaders guide to social
American School Counselor Association. (2012). ASCA National media: Recruit students, engage parents, and share your school’s
Model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). story. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Alexandria, VA: Author. Platform.
10 Professional School Counseling

Enders, C. K. (2003). Using the expectation maximization algorithm Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real
to estimate coefficient alpha for scales with item-level missing learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
data. Psychological Methods, 8, 322–337. Rainey, S., McGlothlin, J., & Miller, L. (2008). Technology: School
Gallo, L. L., Rausch, M., Smith, C. K., & Wood, S. (2016). School counselor attitudes, experiences, and competency. Journal of
counselors’ experiences working with digital natives: A qualitative Technology in Counseling, 5. Retrieved from http://techcounsel
study. Professional School Counseling, 20. doi:10.5330/1096- ing.net/Archive/Vol5_1/Rainey2.htm
2409-20.1.14 Sabella, R., Poynton, T., & Isaacs, M. (2010). School counselors’
Grosshandler, N. S. (2012). Exploring technology usage by school perceived importance of counselor technology competencies.
counselors: A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 609–617. doi:10.1016/
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations j.chb.2009.12.014
Hayden, L., Poynton, T., & Sabella, R. (2008). School counselors’ use Sampson, J. P., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Greeno, B. P. (1997). Counsel-
of technology within the ASCA National Model’s delivery system. ing and the information highway: Future possibilities and potential
Journal of Technology in Counseling, 5(1), 6–18. problems. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 203–212.
Howard, H. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self- doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1997.tb02334.x
reports? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 399–404. Shea, M. L., Cinotti, D., & Stone, C. (2018). An examination of school
Howard, K. (2013). Using Facebook and other SNSs in K-12 class- counselors’ use of electronic case notes. Journal of School Coun-
rooms: Ethical considerations for safe social networking. Issues in seling, 16, 1–30. Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/
Teacher Education, 22, 39–54. v16n18.pdf
Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online Steele, T. M., Jacokes, D. E., & Stone, C. B. (2015). An examina-
communities: Why do teachers want to participate in self- tion of the role of technology in school counseling. Profes-
generated online communities of K-12 teachers? Journal of sional School Counseling, 18, 125–135. doi:10.1177/2156759
Research on Technology in Education, 41, 279–303. X0001800118
Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Digest of education statistics,
native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 2004-2014. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Sta-
135–142. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001 tistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016006.
LoFrisco, B. (2013, May 2). Three ways social media can benefit you
pdf
[Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.mastersincounseling.org/
Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from
three-ways-social-media-can-benefit-you.html
researchers’ and educators’ social media participation. British
Mallen, M. J., Vogel, D. L., & Rochlen, A. B. (2005). The practical
Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 639–651. doi:10.1111/
aspects of online counseling: Ethics, training, technology, and
bjet.12052
competency. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 776–818. doi:
Young, A., & Kaffenberger, C. (2015). School counseling profes-
10.1177/0011000005278625
sional development: Assessing the use of data to inform school
Mason, E. C. M., Schumann, M., & Lopez, C. (2016). Technology to
counseling services. Professional School Counseling, 19, 46–56.
the rescue. ASCA School Counselor, 53, 20–24.
doi:10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.46
Mullen, P., Griffith, C., Greene, J., & Lambie, G. (2014). Social media
and professional school counselors: Ethical and legal considera-
tions. Journal of School Counseling, 12. Retrieved from http://
www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v12n8.pdf Author Biographies
Nandhini, M. (2016). Web 2.0 tools in education. In E. Ramganesh, I.
Erin C. M. Mason is assistant professor in Georgia State Uni-
Muthuchamy, S. Senthilnathan, & S. Amutha (Eds.), National
versity, Atlanta, GA, USA.
conference on higher education in the knowledge age: Techno-
pedagogical perspectives and innovations (pp. 64–66). Retrieved Catherine Griffith is assistant professor in University of San
from http://www.sjctni.edu/IQAC/NCHEKA.pdf Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-service teachers’ self-efficacy,
professional development, and web 2.0 tools for integration. New Christopher T. Belser is assistant professor in University of
Horizons in Education, 59, 28–40. New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA.