Section 3: Conclusion. This section ties up loose ends and becomes the building block for future work.

• When viewed together do the studies compensate for any of the weaknesses that you noted, or are the same weaknesses repeated across all studies?
• In viewing all the studies together, what can you say we really know? How much can we generalize? Where do we need to be cautious?
• A summary statement of how well the literature answers the question asked in the introduction
• Implications for practice
• Gaps in the literature
• Questions for future research that build on the current state of knowledge

Research Synthesis

Article:Group Counseling Strategies for Rural At-Risk High School Students. By: Bauer, Susan Remen; Sapp, Marty; Johnson, David. High School Journal. Dec/Jan2000, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p41. 10p.

The study aimed to investigate and compare the effects of two models of group counseling on at-risk rural high school students. The two interventions were a cognitive-behavioral model and a supportive counseling model. It is a partially controlled field experiment where the researchers manipulated the type of group counseling intervention but conducted the study in the normal school environment. They used two homogenous groups varying on the intervention type. And within each intervention group there were separate male and female groups. In doing this they sought to understand the causes of changes in the outcome variables between the two intervention groups.

The main hypothesis was that the cognitive-behavioral groups would be more effective in increasing students' self-esteem and academic self-concept than the supportive counseling groups. The independent variables in this study were the type of group counseling (cognitive-behavioral vs supportive), and gender. Dependent variables of the study included self-esteem (measured by Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory), academic self-concept (measured by Brookover Self-Concept of Ability Scale), GPA, and number of detentions

The methodology used was quantitative. It involved administering pre and post tests to measure the dependent variables of self-esteem, academic self-concept, GPA and number of detentions and used statistics to compare outcomes between groups. 30 students were randomly assigned to one of four counseling groups - two cognitive-behavioral and two supportive counseling. So it was an experimental study. The conclusions were that the cognitive-behavioral groups produced statistically significant differences in self-esteem and academic self-concept in at-risk high school students, , and supportive counseling can significantly reduce detention. There was no significant interaction found for gender. The cognitive-behavioral groups had a significant overall effect on all the dependent variables compared to the supportive counseling groups.

The study size of only 30 participants is quite small which limits the generalizability and statistical power/significance of the findings. With such a small sample, there is a higher chance of errors and factors influencing the results. Some potential biases include selection bias as only 70% of the eligible students chose to participate. It is not clear why the remaining 30% did not participate and how they may have influenced the results. Since this was a school program, there could be experimenter bias in terms of expectations of outcome. The study would have been stronger if it included a control group with no intervention for comparison of whether the dependent variables would change on their own over time. Follow up data after some months would have also shown if impacts sustained. The study relied only on self-report measures which can be unreliable.

The findings indicate that cognitive-behavioral counseling is more effective for improving self-esteem and academic self-concept of at-risk rural students compared to supportive counseling. However, causation cannot be assumed due to limitations. Future research could study larger sample sizes, use mixed methods with objective measures, include control groups, conduct longer term follow ups and explore the impact of specific counseling components/techniques. Moderating factors like family background could also be examined.

Effect of Solution Focused Group Counseling for High School Students in Order to Struggle with School Burnout By: Ates, Bnyamin. Journal of Education and Training Studies, v4 n4 p27-34 Apr 2016. (EJ1088502) http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i4.1254

The study "Effect of Solution Focused Group Counseling for High School Students in Order to Struggle with School Burnout" by Ates and Bnyamin investigates the impact of solution-focused group counseling (SFGC) on high school students experiencing school burnout. The theory behind SFGC is that it can improve students' mental health and help them solve psychological problems.The study adopts a quantitative research methodology and utilizes statistical methods to analyze the data. The findings indicate that SFGC is effective in reducing students' struggle with school burnout, with the effect being independent of gender.

The study's research question was to analyze the effect of solution-focused group counseling on high school students' struggling with school burnout. The researchers used an experimental design with a pre-test post-test control group random design, depending on the real experimental model. The experimental design allows for a more rigorous assessment of the causal relationship between the SFGC intervention and the reduction of school burnout.

The study involved 30 students who volunteered from among students studying at a high school in central Erzincan Province in the 2014-2015 academic year. The independent variable in this study is the SFGC intervention, which consists of a series of group counseling sessions aimed at helping students identify and solve their problems. The dependent variable is the students' struggle with school burnout, which is measured using the School Burnout Scale and Personal Information Form.The control group design helps to rule out alternative explanations for the observed effects.

The study's findings indicate that solution-focused group counseling is effective in reducing students' struggle with school burnout, with the effect being independent of gender. This is an important finding, as it suggests that SFGC can be a valuable tool for schools and counseling services to help students overcome school burnout. However, the study's small sample size and the fact that it was conducted in a single location may limit the generalizability of the findings to other settings and populations.

In conclusion, the study by Ates and Bnyamin provides preliminary evidence that solution-focused group counseling can be effective in helping high school students struggling with school burnout.

The study's experimental design and statistical methods allow for a rigorous assessment of the causal relationship between the SFGC intervention and the reduction of school burnout. However, further research with larger and more diverse samples is needed to confirm these findings and to determine the broader applicability of the SFGC approach to addressing school burnout among adolescents. Limitations also include the possibility of the bias in that students self selected into the study by volunteering, and missing information on long term follow up to see if effects persisted over time. More details on the specific counseling methods and the content of sessions would also have been informative.The study could have used the random assignment between groups rather than the self selection. Including more students and the schools would improve generalizability. Controlling for or measuring other mediating variables like the academic achievement or engagement could have added depth.

We can conclude the solution focused group counseling shows promise for helping the high school students with school burnout but more rigorous and larger scale research is needed.Future research directions include long term follow up studies, multi school randomized trials, examination of mediating factors like engagement and achievement, process analysis of effective counseling methods and the application to prevention efforts.

PAGE, R. C.; CHANDLER, J. Effects of group counseling on ninth-grade at-risk students. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, [s. l.], v. 16, n. 3, p. 340, 1994.

The study aimed to assess the effects of two different types of group counselingactivity-oriented self-concept-building groups and discussion-oriented groupson at-risk ninth-grade high school students. The focus was on measuring the impact of these counseling interventions on various aspects, including self-concept, school attendance, grade point average, and disciplinary referrals. The study sought to investigate whether participating in these counseling groups would lead to improvements in self-esteem and mitigate problem behaviors associated with being at-risk, such as low academic achievement, attendance issues, and disciplinary concerns. The research aimed to contribute insights into the potential effectiveness of group counseling as an intervention for at-risk high school students.

The study employed a quantitative methodology to assess the effects of group counseling interventions on at-risk high school students. The research design involved the use of analysis of covariance, or ANCOVA, to compare the outcomes among different groups, including an activity-oriented self-concept building group, a discussion-oriented group, and a control group. "Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is a method for comparing sets of data that consist of two variables when a third variable exists.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/analysis-of-covariance#:~:text=Analysis%20of%20covariance%20(ANCOVA)%20is%20a%20method%20for%20comparing%20sets,the%20%E2%80%9Ccovariate%E2%80%9D)%20exists.)

The participants were identified through teacher, counselor, and assistant principal referrals based on poor academic achievement, problematic discipline, and attendance records. The quantitative approach allowed for statistical analyses of various dependent variables, such as self-concept scores, grade point averages, school attendance, and disciplinary referrals. The use of ANCOVAs and statistical tests provided a structured framework for evaluating the impact of the counseling interventions on the measured outcomes.

The study found that participation in the activity-oriented, self-concept building group had a positive effect on improving self-concept, as measured by the total score of the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale, when compared with the control group. Additionally, the discussion-oriented group had a more positive effect on grade point average than the activity-oriented group. Both experimental groups, however, positively affected students' feelings of happiness, as indicated by the Happiness cluster of the Piers-Harris scale. The results suggest that structured group counseling interventions, particularly those focusing on self-concept building and open discussion, can have beneficial effects on at-risk high school students, influencing aspects such as self-esteem, academic performance, and emotional well-being. The study emphasizes the potential of small-group counseling as a viable approach for mental health counselors to support at-risk students in addressing personal and school-related challenges.

The study has several limitations that should be considered. Firstly, the sample size is relatively small, with 36 participants, which may raise concerns about the generalizability of the findings to a larger population. The use of a Southeastern metropolitan high school for participant selection also limits the geographical diversity of the sample. Additionally, the study's reliance on self-report measures, such as the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale, introduces the potential for response bias. The research design, while employing ANCOVA, lacks a pre-existing control group before the intervention, potentially affecting the robustness of the causal inferences drawn. Furthermore, the study only considered short-term effects over a 10-week period, and the long-term sustainability of the observed improvements remains unclear. The absence of information on the specific content of the discussions within the groups may introduce variability in the application of the interventions. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of group counseling for at-risk high school students, but caution is warranted in generalizing the findings to broader contexts or making definitive claims about causation.

The study could have been strengthened by incorporating a more robust research design, such as a randomized controlled trial with a larger and more diverse participant pool. The inclusion of a pre-existing control group before the intervention, coupled with long-term follow-ups extending beyond the 10-week period, would enhance the ability to draw more definitive causal inferences and assess the sustained impact of counseling interventions. Adding qualitative components, such as interviews or focus groups, could offer deeper insights into students' experiences and perceptions, complementing the quantitative data. Providing a more detailed description of the intervention protocols and ensuring consistent implementation across groups would contribute to transparency and replicability. Additionally, considering potential confounding variables, such as other concurrent support programs, could strengthen the study's internal validity.

The conclusions that can be drawn from the information the study provides include suggesting that group counseling interventions, particularly those focusing on activity-oriented self-concept building and open discussion, can have positive effects on at-risk high school students. Participation in these interventions resulted in improvements in self-concept, grade point average, and feelings of happiness. The findings support the potential efficacy of structured group counseling in addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by at-risk students, encompassing aspects related to self-esteem, academic performance, and emotional well-being. However, given the study's limitations, including a relatively small sample size and a focus on short-term outcomes, caution is warranted when making broad generalizations. Further research, incorporating larger and more diverse samples, longer-term follow-ups, and qualitative components, would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the sustained impact and nuances of group counseling interventions for at-risk high school students.

The article suggests several directions for future research on the effectiveness of group counseling for at-risk high school students. Firstly, investigations could explore the long-term impact of such interventions beyond the 10-week period considered in this study. Additionally, future research might delve into the specific content and dynamics of counseling sessions, providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors contributing to observed outcomes. Comparative studies assessing the effectiveness of different types of group counseling interventions or examining the influence of various durations and frequencies of counseling could offer valuable insights. A more extensive and diverse sample across geographical locations and demographic characteristics would enhance the generalizability of findings. Qualitative research methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could capture the subjective experiences of students and complement the quantitative data. Overall, building on the findings of this study, future research should strive for methodological rigor and comprehensiveness to contribute robust evidence on the benefits of group counseling for at-risk high school students.