penyeliaan pengajaran

WHILST SUPERVISION has not hada traditional place in schools, and isnot included within the Teachers’

Standards (DfE, 2011), there is increasingrecognition of the value of supervision inearly years (DfE, 2014) and the potential ofsupervision for schools (Steel, 2001). Thisarticle begins by examining the literature onlearning mentors. It considers inter-profes-sional and group supervision, including theneed for contracts, potential outcomes andthe contexts in which they have been used.The research examines the views of learningmentors, who work at different primaryschools, on group supervision facilitated byan educational psychologist for the pastthree years.

The learning mentor roleLearning mentors were first introducedthrough the Excellence in City (EiC) initia-

tive which aimed to raise educational stan-dards, promote educational partnershipsand share good practice. The role began inschools in major urban areas in Englandbetween 1999 and 2000 (Ridley & Kendall,2005). Learning mentors were school-basedemployees who supported children facingbarriers to learning. The broad definition ofthe role of a learning mentor has remainedthe same since EiC and is defined as:

‘Learning mentors support, motivate andchallenge pupils who are under-achieving… [They] mainly work withchildren who experience ‘barriers tolearning’, including poor literacy/numeracy skills, under-performanceagainst potential, poor attendance, disaf-fection, danger of exclusion, difficultfamily circumstances and low self-esteem.’ (DfE, 2012, p.16)

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3 65© The British Psychological Society, 2015

A case study on the use of groupsupervision with learning mentorsAnita Soni

Aim: This research examined the views of learning mentors on the outcomes of group supervision, theenablers and barriers to attending and the key characteristics of groups who might benefit from groupsupervision.Methods: The group has been running for approximately three years. Case study methodology was employedto evaluate the group supervision, using the following methods: a focus group, review of the written recordsof attendance and content of the sessions, and questionnaires evaluating the sessions after a year. Findings: The study identified the educative function (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006) as dominant within thegroup supervision sessions and the managerial function least evident. It highlighted that the contentrelated most frequently to children, the learning mentors’ own role and the sharing of materials. Thefindings illustrate the importance of managers being supportive of group supervision in order to enableattendance. The relatively isolated role of learning mentors in schools is a key characteristic as to why thisprofessional group benefits from group supervision. Limitations: The research examined a single case study based on a small sample, and would have beenstrengthened through use of individual interviews, and including the views of those who commissioned thesessions. Conclusions: This study identified the dominance of the educative function in the group supervision oflearning mentors, the importance of management support and the content most frequently discussed in thesessions. Keywords: learning mentors; group supervision; supervision.

The pilot evaluation by Ridley and Kendall(2005) identified that learning mentorsnarrowed the gap in attainment withmentored children. Head teachers viewedthe role positively, identifying that learningmentors released teachers to teach, enableda speedier follow up to home/school prob-lems (DfES), 2002), and was most successfulwhen fully integrated into a school’smanagement and pastoral systems. Daviesand Thurston (2005) highlighted that thiswas a shift away from the traditional position,whereby teachers were responsible forpastoral care. Indeed Bishop (2011) argues,based on media reports in the Times Educa-tional Supplement (Kirkman, 2004; Stoney,2005) that this was the most successful strandof the EiC initiative. Rose and Doveston(2008) found that pupils valued a learningmentor who could focus on their individualneeds, and positioned the role of thelearning mentor differently to that of theteacher, describing the role as ‘…a criticalfriend…’ (p.149).

Challenges highlighted in early evalua-tions (Ridley & Kendall, 2005) includedclarity of role, lack of career progression andthe need for national salary scales andprofessional development. More recently,the National Careers Service (2012) identi-fied opportunities for development throughgreater clarity of the role, specialisation orthe taking of a senior role. However, salariesare set by individual employers and opportu-nities for professional development remainvariable.

Learning mentors and supervisionThe DfES (2001) identified continuedtraining and support as essential for theretention of learning mentors and suggested12 days per year should be allocated fornetwork/cluster meetings and trainingalongside regular access to management andsupervision time. The Children’s WorkforceDevelopment Council (CWDC, 2008a) rein-forces the need for supervision, either fromwithin or from outside the school, statingthat supervision is needed to:

‘…keep practice safe, intentional andfocused on outcomes for children, youngpeople and families’ (CWDC, 2008a,p.42).

The CWDC (2008b) identified differentforms of supervision, including planned indi-vidual supervision, spontaneous supervision,group supervision and supervision from anexternal agency. The CWDC (2008b) high-lighted that group supervision ‘…is mostproductive when it is planned, structured andchild-focused.’ (CWDC, 2008b, p.61). Boththe DfES and the CWDC advocated a solu-tion-focused, strength-based approach tosupervision. However it is interesting to notethat articles on the school factors faced bylearning mentors (Marshall, 2006), and thetraining of learning mentors (Mintz, 2010),did not make reference to the use of super-vision as an approach to support develop-ment. Dunsmuir and Leadbetter (2010)identified that educational psychologists(EPs) are frequently commissioned to super-vise other professionals, and are identified asa potential source of supervision in guidancefor learning mentors (CWDC, 2007)

SupervisionFunctions of supervisionHawkins and Shohet (2006) and Proctor(2000) identified three main functions ofsupervision:l educative – developing the skills, under-

standing and abilities of the superviseethrough reflection on, and explorationof, the supervisee’s work;

l supportive – responding to the super-visee’s emotional response and reactionto their work, thereby reducing stress andthe incidence of ‘burnout’; and

l managerial – the quality control oraccountability aspect of supervision,ensuring that the work maintains ethicalstandards.

Hanko (1999), Scaife and Scaife (2001) andGreenaway (2003) placed the educativeaspect of the process of supervision centrally.In comparison, Hawkins and Shohet (2006)highlighted the supportive function of

66 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

Anita Soni

supervision and the importance of profes-sionals discussing their strong feelings fromworking with other people’s difficulties andconcerns, via reflection on their responses,in order to reduce the likelihood of workersbecoming less effective, stressed or burnt-out. The CWDC/Skills for Life (2007) definition of supervision emphasises themanagerial function, as supervision is clearlylinked to performance management andaccountability. Steel (2001) suggested that,whilst compulsory managerial supervision isthe model favoured within the social servicesand health sectors, this may not be appro-priate for other professional groups,including those in education. This is becausean emphasis on managerial function canlead to supervisees feeling that they mustappear competent at all times, therebycompromising the supportive and educativefunctions of supervision.

Inter-professional supervisionDunsmuir and Leadbetter (2010) highlightedthe importance for EPs to ensure that theyhave the relevant core competencies in super-vision, and adhere to the Code of Ethics andConduct (BPS, 2009). Both the CWDC (2007)and Dunsmuir and Leadbetter (2010) notedthe critical importance of identifying lines ofaccountability, suggesting that liability, legaland case responsibility remain within the linemanagement structure. However, Callicottand Leadbetter (2013) found that whilstcontracting is recommended within the keytexts on supervision (Hawkins & Shohet,2006), group supervision (Proctor, 2000) andprofessional guidance (Dunsmuir & Lead-better, 2010), this frequently remainedinformal and lacked rigour.

Group supervisionGroup supervision is the use of supervisionwithin a peer group, either with or without afacilitator. Caffrey et al (2014) define it as:

‘…a group of like-minded people comingtogether for a shared purpose, whichshould enhance their performance,growth and understanding.’ (p.33)

The literature identifies some advantages ofgroup supervision, including:l opportunities for practitioners to open

their work to others, resulting inincreased accountability (Proctor, 2000);

l multiple perspectives (Wilson & Newton,2006);

l shared learning, feedback, reflection andinput (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006);

l economic use of resources, time, moneyand expertise (Proctor, 2000; Hawkins &Shohet, 2006); and

l a reduction in professional isolation(Hanko, 1987).

The potential disadvantages of group super-vision relate to the composition anddynamics of the group, and the time avail-able (Hawkins & Shohet 2006; Proctor 2000;Proctor & Inskipp, 2001). While Proctor(2000) promoted the use of group supervi-sion, she did not suggest that it shouldreplace individual supervision, and insteadencouraged choice. Indeed, Steel (2001)and Cohen and Osterweil (1986) suggested acombination of individual and group super-vision as the most effective approach.

Research on supervision has tended tofocus on individual supervision (Prieto,1996). However, more recent research bySmith et al. (2012) considered group super-vision with psychologists in clinical or coun-selling training, via a national survey. Thisidentified discrepancies in relation to thelevel of behaviour displayed during groupsupervision in comparison to expectations ina clinical context. The article recommendedthe use of a written contract to explain thepurpose of group supervision, and toaddress issues relating to client confiden-tiality, supervisee privacy and havingmultiple roles. Within the field of educa-tional psychology, Osborne and Burton(2014) have written about EP’s use of groupsupervision with emotional literacy supportassistants (ELSAs); this was considereduseful for discussing cases, sharing ideas andproblem solving. As a result the ELSAs feltbetter able to support pupils.

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3 67

A case study on the use of group supervision with learning mentors

Contracts needed for group supervisionProctor and Inskipp (2001) used nestedRussian dolls as a framework for the inter-dependent contracts needed to facilitategroup supervision:l the largest Russian doll – the professional

contract;l the second doll – the group working

agreement;l the third – the session agenda;l the fourth – the uncontracted space,

where the supervisor balances the needsof the group members and the tasks to besupervised; and

l the fifth – the mini-contract for anyparticular piece of supervision that isbrought to the group.

Proctor and Inskipp (2001) emphasised theimportance of the professional contractbeing negotiated with those who commissionthe sessions, as it contains the parameters ofthe group supervision process. The contractdeals with accountability, confidentiality,codes of ethics, rights, responsibilities andcommunication with managers. Hawkinsand Shohet (2006) suggested includingagreement on the size, attendance andmembership of the group.

Farouk (2004) emphasised that a two-part entry phase is necessary for groupsupervision; gaining the support of themanagement team through the professionalcontract, and then seeking a commitmentfrom those attending the group through thegroup working agreement. Proctor andInskipp (2001) suggested that the groupworking agreement includes the workingarrangements, rules and responsibilities ofthe participants and of the supervisor, inorder to create a safe climate for the super-visees to open their work to others, and thusreduce anxiety. Proctor (2000) added thatground rules can support the group inhaving ‘good group manners’ within thesessions, and serve to promote an atmos-phere of empathy, respect and authenticity.

The remaining three Russian dolls relateto the sessions of group supervision, andwhat happens within them. Within this

research, the agenda was agreed at thebeginning of each session, although topicsmay have been proposed at the previoussession. Each discussion within group super-vision contained a mini-contract, wherebythe group supervisor sought to establish andmeet the needs of the supervisee, referringback to Hawkins and Shohet’s (2006) func-tions of supervision where appropriate. Thesupervisor also had to attend to the needs ofthe group as a whole alongside each indi-vidual, within the uncontracted space of thesessions, by ensuring that each discussionhad sufficient time and space and everyonewho wished to speak had an opportunity todo so.

Outcomes of group supervisionThere is research on the outcomes of groupsupervision, with some focusing on educativeoutcomes such as increased opportunities tosolve problems collaboratively (Chalfant &Pysh, 1989; Newton, 1995). Other researchhas identified supportive outcomes, such as areduction in feelings of isolation (Gupta,1985; Stringer et al., 1992) and reassurancethat others experience similar problems(Bozic & Carter, 2002). Osbourne andBurton (2014) identified that all three func-tions of supervision were met within theirresearch on the use of group supervisionwith ELSAs. Similarly, group supervision withfamily support workers (FSWs) (Soni, 2013)identified that all three functions of groupsupervision were met, with the majority ofthe outcomes within the educative andsupportive functions.

Contexts for group supervisionAlthough supervision is not frequently usedin schools, group supervision has been usedwithin special schools (Gersch & Rawkins,1987), the further education sector(Guishard, 2000) and can span more thanone education site (Hanko, 1987; Evans2005). It has been used to support headteachers (Gupta, 1985), staff supportingchildren with special educational needs(Norwich & Daniels, 1997), including


Anita Soni

children with emotional and behaviouraldifficulties (Farouk, 2004; Newton, 1995;Pearpoint et al., 1992). More recently, Soni(2013) researched the use of group supervi-sion with FSWs in children’s centres, andOsborne and Burton (2014) evaluated EPdelivery of group supervision with ELSAs.

A key feature of the context identified inthe literature is that of management valuingand supporting the group (Chalfant & Pysh,1989; Hanko, 1999; Stringer et al., 1992).Views differ as to whether managers shouldattend group supervision sessions. Hanko(1999) and Stringer et al. (1992) suggestedenlisting the head teacher’s support, buthighlighted the potentially negative impactof his/her presence in the group due tohis/her role as manager. Gersch andRawkins (1987) and Chalfant and Pysh(1989) suggested inviting the manager whenneeded.

The literature review indicates a growinginterest in the use of group supervisiongenerally, and inter-professional supervision.There has been recent guidance for EPs todraw upon (Dunsmuir & Leadbetter, 2010)when engaging in inter-professional supervi-sion, and the current study aims further todevelop knowledge on the use of groupsupervision with other professional groups.

Current researchResearch objectiveThis research sought to gain the views oflearning mentors about group supervisionthrough the following research questions:l What are the outcomes, in relation to the

three functions of supervision, for learn-ing mentors from group supervision?

l What are the enablers and barriers toattending group supervision?

l What are the key characteristics ofgroups, including learning mentors, whomight benefit from group supervision?

Context for the researchThe group supervision sessions ran halftermly, for between one-and-a-half and twohours. The learning mentors came from a

range of primary schools within a LocalAuthority in the West Midlands. Access togroup supervision was offered to themanagers and the learning mentors withinthe schools where I worked or had worked asan EP. The group began with learningmentors from four schools, and over theperiod of three years grew to include sevenschools. Between three and 10 learningmentors attended the sessions, which wereheld at each of the primary schools in turn.As agreed in the initial contract withlearning mentors within the group,managers did not attend the sessions andwere copied in on session notes that brieflyoutlined what had been discussed, in addi-tion to reminders for the sessions. I am anEP and facilitated the group for all thesessions.

Research designCase study methodology was selected asgroup supervision was an approach thatlearning mentors had identified as a usefultool for supporting them, as well as offeringa different approach from EP practice toanalyse. Within a case study, there is arequirement for multiple sources ofevidence in order to investigate a phenom-enon within its real life context (Robson,2002). In terms of Thomas’ (2011) defini-tion of a case study, the subjects in thecurrent study are learning mentors and theanalytical frame relates to group supervision.

Methods and data analysisThree methods were used as the multiplesources of evidence within the case study:l A focus group attended by six learning

mentors. The short focus group discus-sion was structured around the threeresearch questions, transcribed andanalysed, considering key themes thatemerged. The focus group was selectedby the learning mentors to give feedbackafter three years rather than undertakeindividual interviews or questionnaires(as had been done previously).



l Analysis of the records of 16 sessions ofgroup supervision (for two years and oneterm) that had been sent to learningmentors and managers at the end of eachsupervision session. These were codedusing the functions of supervision; educa-tive, supportive and managerial(Hawkins & Shohet, 2006; Proctor, 2000)and in relation to the topic covered.

l Five questionnaires, collecting both quan-titative and qualitative data, evaluatingthe group supervision sessions completedafter six sessions of group supervision, at the end of the first year. The question-naire is shown in Appendix 1.

ParticipantsSix learning mentors attended the focusgroup, five learning mentors completed thequestionnaires and up to ten learningmentors attended the group supervisionsessions. All participants gave informedconsent for their views to be written up forresearch (BPS, 2009) based on the sessionnotes, questionnaires and focus groups. Alllearning mentors were invited to contributeby email (although none chose to). It is anacknowledged weakness that not all learningmentors who attended sessions gave feedbackthrough questionnaires or the focus group,although their contribution to sessions wasincluded in the records analysed.

Findings1. What are the outcomes for learning mentorsfrom group supervision?The outcomes for supervision were analysedin terms of whether or not the learningmentors valued the time spent as shown inthe questionnaires and focus group.Outcomes were also analysed via the recordsof supervision, questionnaires and the focusgroup in relation to the three functions ofsupervision (educative, supportive andmanagerial), and the topics covered.

All completed questionnaires identifiedgroup supervision as either very beneficial orbeneficial, and well worth or worth the time.

Analysis of the summary records of groupsupervision shows:l The group supervision sessions covered

between four and 10 issues per sessionand the average was six. A greaternumber of topics were covered whenmaterials were shared during the session,as these were logged separately;

l The educative function of supervisionwas the function most utilised at groupsupervision (71 per cent) and the mana-gerial function was utilised the least (13per cent) as shown in Chart 1;

l Learning mentors discussed a wide rangeof issues, with issues related to childrenraised most frequently, and those relatingto parents and family raised the least, asshown in Chart 2; and

l Learning mentors also used group super-vision to discuss issues relating to theirprofessional role in school such as evalu-ation, record keeping and other relevanttopics such as transition and self-esteem.

These findings from the records of thesessions can be taken alongside qualitativedata from the questionnaires, where alllearning mentors noted ‘ideas’ as a keyoutcome of the group supervision sessions.Similarly, the focus group highlighted thevalue of the educative function of groupsupervision with comments including ‘sharinggood practice’ and ‘taking on board otherideas.’ The supportive function of supervisionwas also noted in the focus group and ques-tionnaire with one learning mentor adding,‘You can offload as well’. The managerial func-tion of supervision was not raised as anoutcome of group supervision within the ques-tionnaire or focus group, although there wereexamples of this within the session records.

2. What are the enablers and barriers toattending group supervision?Records of the sessions showed that learningmentors generally attended well. Exactpercentages are difficult to calculate as thegroup changed in composition over time, aslearning mentors left posts or started new jobs.

Reasons given for non-attendance


Anita Soni



Chart 1: Shows function drawn upon in group supervision sessions with learning mentors.

Chart 2: Shows issues discussed within group supervision sessions with learning mentors.

Children Sharing useful

materials

Issues relating to learningmentor’s role

Topic focused

Staff Parents and family

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

37

1816 16

8

4

Issues discussed

Perc

enta

ge o

f tim

e

13%

15%

71%

Educative Supportive Managerial

(recorded in the session records) includedother school duties, for example, mini-busdriving, child protection meetings orabsence from work. This information wassupported by points made within the focusgroup, where barriers noted included work-load and ill-health. There was recognitionthat senior management needed to besupportive in order to enable learningmentors to attend, as demonstrated in thefollowing quote from the focus group:

LM1: ‘The support we get from SLT(Senior Leadership Team) and thesupport we get from the group… Theyare supportive of us having the time.’

Another learning mentor noted the impor-tance of the facilitator’s role, with thesupport of others, in maintaining the groupand alluded to the value of keeping discus-sions focused:

LM2: ‘But I think a group like this doesneed a lead… to rein it back in.’

3. What are the key characteristics of groups,including learning mentors, who may benefitfrom group supervision? This question was raised in the focus groupand alluded to by some learning mentorswhen they completed the questionnaire. Theanswers referred to talking to others in thesame role and the fact that there tend to beindividuals, pairs or small teams of learningmentors in schools. This is illustrated in thequotes below taken from the questionnairesand focus group:

Questionnaire: ‘Ideas/strategies comefrom all levels and from professionalswho have dealt with similar problems.’LM3: ‘Because of the isolation; you’reusually on your own.’

This point was re-iterated later in the focusgroup, in relation to a question on the typesof professionals who would benefit fromgroup supervision:

LM3: ‘I think in schools it’s where youonly have one person doing that role,such as the Attendance Manager…’

Others disagreed:LM2: ‘Every professional group willbenefit, in one way or another… it’s goodto offload as well.’

Discussion1. What are the outcomes for learning mentorsfrom group supervision? This study supports previous research find-ings that group supervision brings a numberof outcomes to those who attend. It foundthat evidence of outcomes linked to all threefunctions of supervision; namely the educa-tive, supportive and managerial functions(Osbourne & Burton, 2014; Soni, 2013).However, it emphasises the focus on educa-tive outcomes highlighted by Chalfant andPysh (1989) and Newton (1995). It alsocomplements the research by Smith et al(2012) that those who attend group super-vision may have a reduced focus on themanagerial function.

In their survey of the practice of groupsupervision, Smith et al. (2012) distin-guished between task- and process-orientedgroup supervision. Task-oriented supervisionwas described as highly structured, didacticand focused on case presentation. Process-oriented supervision is less structured andincludes group members feeding back toeach other, with attention paid to theprocess of interaction between members ofthe group. Boëthius et al. (2004) highlightedprocess-oriented supervision as more benefi-cial to the supervisees, since it provides anopportunity for supervisees to challengeeach other rather than simply be challenged,and thus become more flexible in theirapproaches. However, this study was withstudent psychotherapist groups. Smith et al.(2012) recognised that most group super-vision contains elements of both process-and task-oriented supervision, but noted thatas it becomes more process-oriented, ethicsplay a greater role and need to be paidgreater attention. It could, therefore, beargued that the managerial function ofsupervision could be raised as an on-goingdimension of group supervision, in order to


Anita Soni

incorporate ethical issues such as compe-tence, confidentiality and accountability.

Having said this, process-oriented super-vision needs to be balanced with content thatthe learning mentors value, such as thediscussion of work with children. This linksto the third Russian doll within Proctor andInskipp’s model (2001), namely the sessionagenda, whereby it is important for thesupervisees to raise the issues that concernthem. In this study a third of the time wasspent sharing issues about children, as wouldbe anticipated since removing barriers toachievement for pupils is the focus of therole (DfE, 2012). This also supports theemphasis that the CWDC (2008b) places onchild-centred and solution-focused super-vision. The bridging role between child andparent or teacher described by Rose andDoveston (2008) was less evident as fewerissues were raised about parents or staff, andmay be because learning mentors place theircentral focus on the child.

Sharing materials and discussing issuesspecific to the role, such as caseloads andways to evaluate their work, were also impor-tant parts of the sessions. This can be seen tobe linked to the second Russian doll, namelythe group working agreement (Proctor &Inskipp, 2001). Here the role of sharinginformation and practice was highlighted asa purpose of group supervision, althoughthis was not referred to in the focus group.The sharing of materials became a strongerfeature of the sessions over time, andincreasingly the session agenda includedrequests for sharing of materials.

2. What are the enablers and barriers toattending group supervision?The key enabler for attendance related tothe professional contract. The learningmentors referred to this indirectly in thefocus group, highlighting the importance ofsupport from senior management within theschool. This supports the key texts on super-vision (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006; Proctor &Inskipp, 2001; Scaife, 2001) that emphasisethe importance of this agreement to gaining

the support of those who commission thesupervision. For this group, there had beenan annual written professional contract andworking agreement that identified thepurposes of the group for both the managersand the learning mentors alongsidefrequency, duration, confidentiality, recordkeeping, review and evaluation based on aformat suggested by Leadbetter andDunsmuir (2010). The session notes are anaccount of time spent, identifying the issuesdiscussed and suggested solutions. The notesare shared with both the learning mentorsand managers by email, as agreed in theprofessional contract.

Barriers to attendance related either tothe learning mentor prioritising other roles,or being directed to other tasks in school bymanagers. This relates to Farouk’s (2004)emphasis on the two part entry phase;gaining the support of the managementteam through the professional contract, andthe commitment from those who may attendthe group through the group working agree-ment. This indicates a need to maintainthese contracts, re-visiting them on a regularbasis to ensure that the sessions are meetingthe needs both of the managers and thoseattending.

The role of the facilitator was raised asan enabler for group supervision, and canbe related to the fourth Russian doll and themanagement of the uncontracted space.Proctor and Inskipp (2001) considered thatthis space should be supported by the otheragreements in place including the profes-sional contract, the group working agree-ment and the session agenda. Theyhighlighted that if the group is a co-opera-tive group where supervision is beingconducted by the group, the group partici-pants would be more active. However, theydo place responsibility on the facilitator toattend to the uncontracted space. In addi-tion, they emphasise the importance of thefacilitator being an active, receptive andassertive leader who is familiar with theideas and theories linked to groupprocesses.



3. What are the key characteristics of groups,including learning mentors, who may benefitfrom group supervision? This study highlighted the importance ofhaving a homogenous group. The focusgroup and questionnaires highlighted that itwas helpful to be with others who undertakea similar role. Some emphasised that thisrelated to being the only one learningmentor in their workplace, whereas otherssaw this as being less relevant. Hanko (1987)and Gupta (1985) identified the reductionof professional isolation as an advantage ofgroup supervision. Bozic and Carter (2002)identified the reassurance that others experi-ence similar problems as a supportiveoutcome. Proctor and Inskipp (2001) didnot discount the possibility of mixed groups,but highlighted the importance of sharedvalues and understanding of good practice.Indeed, this relates to Caffrey et al.’s (2014)suggestion that the participants in groupsupervision need to be like-minded andshare a purpose.

Conclusions and limitationsThis study has limitations since it is based ona small number of participants, is limited tothe time and context in which the researchtook place, and cannot be generalised toother groups. The session notes were codedby one person who ran the group; reliabilityand validity would have been enhanced by asecond view. While this study identifies that

all three functions of supervision can be metwithin group supervision sessions, the educa-tive function can dominate. Thus, it is alsoimportant for the facilitator to encouragethe group to consider the supportive andmanagerial functions. EPs are well placed todevelop group supervision sessions withgroups of professionals working in and withschools. Based on this research and otherwork, there is a value for these professionalsto meet within a homogenous group to sharecommon issues, concerns and solutions. Inrelation to the barriers and enablers ofgroup supervision, this study highlights toEPs the key role of the professional contractand group working agreement at the entrystage, alongside the need for these to bereviewed on a regular basis to ensure thatmanagement support is still in place and thegroup continues to meet the needs of thosewho attend. The Russian dolls model(Proctor & Inskipp, 2001) offers a usefulframework for conceptualising group super-vision, and can aid EPs as facilitators inconsidering the different agreementsneeded.

Address for correspondenceAnita SoniSchool of Education, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,Birmingham B15 2TT.Email: [email protected]


Anita Soni

Bishop, J (2011). Learning mentors eight years on:Still removing barriers to learning? Research inEducation, 85, 30–42.

Boëthius, S.B., Ögren, M., Sjøvold, E. & Sundin E.C.(2004). Experiences of group culture andpatterns of interaction in psychotherapy super-vision groups. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(1),101–120.

Bozic, N. & Carter, A. (2002). Consultation groups:Participants’ views. Educational Psychology in Practice 18(3), 189–201.

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2009). Code ofethics and conduct. Retrieved 31 August 2014,from: http://www.bps.org.uk.

Burton, S. (2008). Empowering learning supportassistants to enhance the emotional well-being ofchildren in school. Educational & Child Psychology,25, 40–56.

Caffrey, K., Scott, J. & Touhey, G. (2014). Groupsupervision – does it count? Therapy Today, 25(5),30–33.

Callicott, K. & Leadbetter, J. (2013). An investigationof the factors involved when educational psychol-ogists supervise other professionals. EducationalPsychology in Practice, 29(4), 383–403.

Chalfant, J.C. & Pysh, M.V.D. (1989). Teacher assis-tance teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams.Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49–58.

Children’s Workforce Development Council(CWDC) (2007). Learning mentor practice guide:CWDC learning mentor co-ordinator peer support team.Leeds: CWDC Publications.

Children’s Workforce Development Council(CWDC)/Skills for Care (2007). Providing effectivesupervision. Retrieved 24 July 2014, from:webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https:/www.education.gov.ukpublications/eOrderingDownload/Providing_Effective_Supervision_unit.pdf

Children’s Workforce Development Council(CWDC) (2008a). Module A: Facilitating childrenand young people’s development through mentoring.CWDC Induction Training Programme for Level 3/4Children’s Workforce practitioners. Retrieved 24 July2014, from:http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6372&p=0.

Children’s Workforce Development Council(CWDC) (2008b). Module 3 handbook: Buildingrelationships and communicating with children, youngpeople and families. CWDC Induction TrainingProgramme for Level 3/4 Children’s Workforce practi-tioners. Retrieved 28 August 2014, from:http://www.plymouthparentpartnership.org.ukresources/files/2008%20Generic%20Mod%203%20Handbook.pdf

Cohen, E. & Osterweil, Z. (1986). An ‘issue-focused’model for mental health consultation withgroups of teachers. Journal of School Psychology.24(3), 243–256.

Davies, S. & Thurston, M. (2005). Establishing alearning mentor service within a cluster ofprimary schools: Learning from evaluation.Pastoral Care, 23(3), 37–43.

Department for Education (DfE) (2014). Statutoryframework for the Early Years Foundation Stage.Retrieved 29 March 2015, from:www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335504/EYFS_framework_from_1_September_2014_with_clarification_note.pdf

Department for Education (DfE) (2012). Schools:Careers and employment: Training and development:Becoming support staff: Learning mentors. Retrieved 7 July 2014, from:http://education.gov.uk/staff/b00202532/school-support-staff/roles/welfare/learning-mentor

Department for Education (DfE) (2011). Teachers’standards. Retrieved 29 March 2015, from:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301107/Teachers_Standards.pdf

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2001).Good practice guidelines for learning mentors.Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2002).Schools extending excellence: EiC Annual Report2000–2001. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Dunsmuir, S. & Leadbetter, J. (2010). Professionalsupervision: Guidelines for practice for educationalpsychologists. Leicester: British PsychologicalSociety.

Evans, S. (2005). The development of a groupconsultation approach to service delivery. Educa-tional Psychology in Practice, 21(2), 131–146.

Farouk, S. (2004). Group work in schools: A processconsultation approach. Educational Psychology inPractice, 20(3), 207–220.

Gersch, I.S. & Rawkins, P. (1987). A teacher supportgroup in school. Educational and Child Psychology,4(3+4), 131–136.

Guishard, J. (2000). Promoting inclusion in furthereducation colleges: Staff consultation groups.Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(2), 205–212.

Greenaway, C. (2003). Models of supervisory practiceand accessible dialogue. Summary of DECP DayConference Proceedings: Developing the qualityof supervision in educational psychology prac-tice. DECP Debate, 106, 21–22.

Gupta, Y. (1985). Head teachers too need pastoralsupport. Educational Psychology in Practice, 1(3),112–114.



References

Hanko, G. (1987). Group consultation with main-stream teachers. In J. Thacker (Ed.), Working withgroups (pp.123–130) Leicester: British Psycholog-ical Society.

Hanko, G. (1999). Increasing competence through collab-orative problem-solving. Oxon: David Fulton.

Hawkins, P. & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in thehelping professions (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press/McGraw–Hill.

Kirkman, S. (2004, 9 July). A shortfall in the cure-all?Times Educational Supplement, 4951, 19.

Marshall, H.R. (2006). Professionalism and wholeprimary school factors aiding and impeding thework of the learning mentor. Support for Learning,21(4), 194–200.

Mintz, J. (2010). Primary school learning mentors:Do background and training matter? Education3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementaryand Early Years Education, 38(2), 165–175.

National Careers Service (2012). Job profile: Learningmentor. Accessed 7 July 2014, from: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/LearningMentor.aspx

Newton, C. (1995). Circles of adults: Reflecting andproblem solving around emotional needs andbehaviour. Educational Psychology in Practice 11(2),8–14.

Norwich, B. & Daniels, H. (1997). Teacher supportteams for special educational needs in primaryschools: Evaluating a teacher-focused supportscheme. Educational Studies, 23(1), 5–24.

Osborne, C. & Burton, S. (2014). Emotional literacysupport assistants’ views on supervision providedby educational psychologists: What EPs can learnfrom group supervision. Educational Psychology inPractice, 30(2), 139–155.

Pearpoint, J.M. Forest, J. & Snow, J. (1992). The inclu-sion papers: Strategies to make inclusion work.Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Prieto, L.R. (1996). Group supervision: Still widelypractised but poorly understood. Counselor Educa-tion and Supervision, 35, 295–307.

Proctor, B. (2000). Group supervision. London: Sage.Proctor, B. & Inskipp, F. (2001). Group supervision.

In J. Scaife (Ed.), Supervision in the mental healthprofessions: A practitioner’s guide (pp.99–122).Hove: Routledge.

Ridley, K. & Kendall, L (2005). Evaluation of excellencein cities in primary pilot 2001–2003. Nottingham:DfES Publications.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource forsocial scientists and practitioner researches (2nd ed.).Oxford: Blackwell.

Rose, R. & Doveston, M. (2008). Pupils talking abouttheir learning mentors: What can we learn?Educational Studies, 34(2), 145–155.

Scaife, J. & Scaife, J. (2001). Supervision andlearning. In J. Scaife (Ed.), Supervision in themental health professions: A practitioner’s guide(pp.15–30) Hove: Routledge.

Smith, R.D., Riva, M.T. & Erickson Cornish, J.A.(2012). The ethical practice of group super-vision: A national survey. Training and Educationin Professional Psychology, 6(4), 238–248.

Soni, A. (2013). Group supervision: Supporting practitioners in their work with children andfamilies in children’s centres. Early Years: An Inter-national Research Journal, 33(2), 146–160.

Steel, L. (2001). Staff support through supervision.Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 6(2), 91–101.

Stoney, S. (2005, 16 December). Hopeful signs in ourinner cities. Times Educational Supplement, 4665,16.

Stringer, P.L., Stow, K., Hibbert, P., Powell, J. & Louw,E. (1992). Establishing staff consultation groupsin schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 8(2),87–96.

Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guidefor students and researchers. London: Sage.

Wilson, D. & C. Newton (2006). Circles of adults.Nottingham: Inclusive Solutions.


Anita Soni

2. What do you understand as the ‘ground rules’ for group supervision?

3. What do you appreciate most about group supervision?

4. What do you find most difficult about group supervision?

5. In terms of the costs and benefits of using time for group supervision, where do you see group supervision? Tick only one please.

6. Thank you for giving your views – please add any other comments you would like to.

Please return to …



Appendix 1: Questionnaire: Eliciting views related to group supervision.

Descriptor Tick Rating current level Commentif of satisfactionyes

1 10

Supportive

Reflective

Cathartic (stress busting)

Empathetic

Confidential

Informative

Equitable

Appraisal

Challenging

Other descriptors:

1. What do you consider to be the goals of group supervision; Please 3 those relevant, add any other descriptors and rate your current level of satisfaction.

Group supervision is very beneficial and is well worth the time

Group supervision has some benefit and is worth the time

The costs in time and the benefits of attending group supervision are equal

The costs in time of attending group supervision outweigh the benefits a little

The cost in time of attending group supervision outweigh the benefits a lot

Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Societyand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.

penyeliaan pengajaran

Documents