The simulations presented in the beginning pertinent background information and then subsequent screens presented at least three decision choices. Based on the selection, a new screen presented the client's response. The process ended when the students reached the end of a decision pathway. The simulation also took into account that many counseling situations do not have right or correct answers, and may be ambiguous. The realistic choices offered, were meant to encourage students to engage in critical thinking. Moreover, situations were also designed so that more than one ethical code would apply to each situation. But when students chose a decision pathway, the responses were true to life. After making the decision, the students had to confront with the typical consequences of their decisions. Ethical decisions required that students determined the relevant sections of the various ethical codes and prioritize the standards. Debriefing consisted in small groups' activities that reviewed individual decision-making processes and compared the advantages, disadvantages and consequences of their choices. The instructor also facilitated the exchange by pointing out the ways in which counseling's ethical standards can be interpreted and compared. The instructor provided feedback on the logical course of decision-making.

The evaluation stage consisted of a formative assessment of the simulation's strengths and weaknesses. An expert in computer-based training program design, a subject matter expert and 10 students participated. The evaluation consisted of both the participants' reaction to the program and one-to-one interviews. The results of the evaluation pointed out that the simulation made a good use of critical thinking skills and the notepad proved to be an effective tool for reflection. The classical screen design was also appreciated. Some of the concerns were that some students may need additional instructions to use the program accurately.

The authors...

Moreover, using such programs will help students to develop their ability to cope with ambiguity and provide a clear rationale for different professional and ethical behaviors. Another great advantage pointed out by the authors is that the program may be easily adapted to other disciplines such as business, legal, or medical ethics.
The strengths of the article are those already underlined by the authors and by the evaluation process: to develop critical, ethical thinking in counseling students, to increase their tolerance to ambiguity and provide familiarization with different ethical professional codes. The program was projected minutely, taking into account the students' needs about using the program; online help was provided to coach students use the program. Another great initiative on the part of the authors was the notepad pop-up window. Each time students made a decision a notepad pop-up appeared and recorded automatically the text for review. After completing the simulation, students took the printed simulation to class and the instructor reviewed the simulation. The instructor-initiated interactions can increase achievement and provide feedback.

The authors tried to increase the efficacy of the tool by including the needs of the participants, the ethical decision-making process, the ethical guidelines in the particular field of counseling, the ease of use, the cognitive gain of the participants and their critical and ethical thinking education, and the result obtained was important in the field of counseling and in the learning environment.