Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
65
Anita Soni
The pilot evaluation by Ridley and Kendall
(2005) identified that learning mentors
narrowed the gap in attainment with
mentored children. Head teachers viewed
the role positively, identifying that learning
mentors released teachers to teach, enabled
a speedier follow up to home/school problems (DfES), 2002), and was most successful
when fully integrated into a schools
management and pastoral systems. Davies
and Thurston (2005) highlighted that this
was a shift away from the traditional position,
whereby teachers were responsible for
pastoral care. Indeed Bishop (2011) argues,
based on media reports in the Times Educational Supplement (Kirkman, 2004; Stoney,
2005) that this was the most successful strand
of the EiC initiative. Rose and Doveston
(2008) found that pupils valued a learning
mentor who could focus on their individual
needs, and positioned the role of the
learning mentor differently to that of the
teacher, describing the role as a critical
friend (p.149).
Challenges highlighted in early evaluations (Ridley & Kendall, 2005) included
clarity of role, lack of career progression and
the need for national salary scales and
professional development. More recently,
the National Careers Service (2012) identified opportunities for development through
greater clarity of the role, specialisation or
the taking of a senior role. However, salaries
are set by individual employers and opportunities for professional development remain
variable.
Learning mentors and supervision
The DfES (2001) identified continued
training and support as essential for the
retention of learning mentors and suggested
12 days per year should be allocated for
network/cluster meetings and training
alongside regular access to management and
supervision time. The Childrens Workforce
Development Council (CWDC, 2008a) reinforces the need for supervision, either from
within or from outside the school, stating
that supervision is needed to:
66
Supervision
Functions of supervision
Hawkins and Shohet (2006) and Proctor
(2000) identified three main functions of
supervision:
l educative developing the skills, understanding and abilities of the supervisee
through reflection on, and exploration
of, the supervisees work;
l supportive responding to the supervisees emotional response and reaction
to their work, thereby reducing stress and
the incidence of burnout; and
l managerial the quality control or
accountability aspect of supervision,
ensuring that the work maintains ethical
standards.
Hanko (1999), Scaife and Scaife (2001) and
Greenaway (2003) placed the educative
aspect of the process of supervision centrally.
In comparison, Hawkins and Shohet (2006)
highlighted the supportive function of
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3
Group supervision
Group supervision is the use of supervision
within a peer group, either with or without a
facilitator. Caffrey et al (2014) define it as:
a group of like-minded people coming
together for a shared purpose, which
should enhance their performance,
growth and understanding. (p.33)
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3
67
Anita Soni
Contracts needed for group supervision
Proctor and Inskipp (2001) used nested
Russian dolls as a framework for the interdependent contracts needed to facilitate
group 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 needs
of the group members and the tasks to be
supervised; and
l the fifth the mini-contract for any
particular piece of supervision that is
brought to the group.
Proctor and Inskipp (2001) emphasised the
importance of the professional contract
being negotiated with those who commission
the sessions, as it contains the parameters of
the group supervision process. The contract
deals with accountability, confidentiality,
codes of ethics, rights, responsibilities and
communication with managers. Hawkins
and Shohet (2006) suggested including
agreement on the size, attendance and
membership of the group.
Farouk (2004) emphasised that a twopart entry phase is necessary for group
supervision; gaining the support of the
management team through the professional
contract, and then seeking a commitment
from those attending the group through the
group working agreement. Proctor and
Inskipp (2001) suggested that the group
working agreement includes the working
arrangements, rules and responsibilities of
the participants and of the supervisor, in
order to create a safe climate for the supervisees to open their work to others, and thus
reduce anxiety. Proctor (2000) added that
ground rules can support the group in
having good group manners within the
sessions, and serve to promote an atmosphere of empathy, respect and authenticity.
The remaining three Russian dolls relate
to the sessions of group supervision, and
what happens within them. Within this
68
Current research
Research objective
This research sought to gain the views of
learning mentors about group supervision
through the following research questions:
l What are the outcomes, in relation to the
three functions of supervision, for learning mentors from group supervision?
l What are the enablers and barriers to
attending group supervision?
l What are the key characteristics of
groups, including learning mentors, who
might benefit from group supervision?
69
Anita Soni
l
Participants
Six learning mentors attended the focus
group, five learning mentors completed the
questionnaires and up to ten learning
mentors attended the group supervision
sessions. All participants gave informed
consent for their views to be written up for
research (BPS, 2009) based on the session
notes, questionnaires and focus groups. All
learning mentors were invited to contribute
by email (although none chose to). It is an
acknowledged weakness that not all learning
mentors who attended sessions gave feedback
through questionnaires or the focus group,
although their contribution to sessions was
included in the records analysed.
Findings
1. What are the outcomes for learning mentors
from group supervision?
The outcomes for supervision were analysed
in terms of whether or not the learning
mentors valued the time spent as shown in
the questionnaires and focus group.
Outcomes were also analysed via the records
of supervision, questionnaires and the focus
group in relation to the three functions of
supervision (educative, supportive and
managerial), and the topics covered.
All completed questionnaires identified
group supervision as either very beneficial or
beneficial, and well worth or worth the time.
70
13%
15%
71%
Educative
Supportive
Managerial
Percentage of time
30
25
20
18
16
16
15
10
0
Children
Sharing
useful
materials
Issues relating
Topic
to learning
focused
mentors role
Issues discussed
Staff
Parents
and family
71
Anita Soni
(recorded in the session records) included
other school duties, for example, mini-bus
driving, child protection meetings or
absence from work. This information was
supported by points made within the focus
group, where barriers noted included workload and ill-health. There was recognition
that senior management needed to be
supportive in order to enable learning
mentors to attend, as demonstrated in the
following quote from the focus group:
LM1: The support we get from SLT
(Senior Leadership Team) and the
support we get from the group They
are supportive of us having the time.
Another learning mentor noted the importance of the facilitators role, with the
support of others, in maintaining the group
and alluded to the value of keeping discussions focused:
LM2: But I think a group like this does
need a lead to rein it back in.
3. What are the key characteristics of groups,
including learning mentors, who may benefit
from group supervision?
This question was raised in the focus group
and alluded to by some learning mentors
when they completed the questionnaire. The
answers referred to talking to others in the
same role and the fact that there tend to be
individuals, pairs or small teams of learning
mentors in schools. This is illustrated in the
quotes below taken from the questionnaires
and focus group:
Questionnaire: Ideas/strategies come
from all levels and from professionals
who have dealt with similar problems.
LM3: Because of the isolation; youre
usually on your own.
This point was re-iterated later in the focus
group, in relation to a question on the types
of professionals who would benefit from
group supervision:
LM3: I think in schools its where you
only have one person doing that role,
such as the Attendance Manager
72
Others disagreed:
LM2: Every professional group will
benefit, in one way or another its good
to offload as well.
Discussion
1. What are the outcomes for learning mentors
from group supervision?
This study supports previous research findings that group supervision brings a number
of outcomes to those who attend. It found
that evidence of outcomes linked to all three
functions of supervision; namely the educative, supportive and managerial functions
(Osbourne & Burton, 2014; Soni, 2013).
However, it emphasises the focus on educative outcomes highlighted by Chalfant and
Pysh (1989) and Newton (1995). It also
complements the research by Smith et al
(2012) that those who attend group supervision may have a reduced focus on the
managerial function.
In their survey of the practice of group
supervision, Smith et al. (2012) distinguished between task- and process-oriented
group supervision. Task-oriented supervision
was described as highly structured, didactic
and focused on case presentation. Processoriented supervision is less structured and
includes group members feeding back to
each other, with attention paid to the
process of interaction between members of
the group. Bothius et al. (2004) highlighted
process-oriented supervision as more beneficial to the supervisees, since it provides an
opportunity for supervisees to challenge
each other rather than simply be challenged,
and thus become more flexible in their
approaches. However, this study was with
student psychotherapist groups. Smith et al.
(2012) recognised that most group supervision contains elements of both processand task-oriented supervision, but noted that
as it becomes more process-oriented, ethics
play a greater role and need to be paid
greater attention. It could, therefore, be
argued that the managerial function of
supervision could be raised as an on-going
dimension of group supervision, in order to
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3
Anita Soni
3. What are the key characteristics of groups,
including learning mentors, who may benefit
from group supervision?
This study highlighted the importance of
having a homogenous group. The focus
group and questionnaires highlighted that it
was helpful to be with others who undertake
a similar role. Some emphasised that this
related to being the only one learning
mentor in their workplace, whereas others
saw this as being less relevant. Hanko (1987)
and Gupta (1985) identified the reduction
of professional isolation as an advantage of
group supervision. Bozic and Carter (2002)
identified the reassurance that others experience similar problems as a supportive
outcome. Proctor and Inskipp (2001) did
not discount the possibility of mixed groups,
but highlighted the importance of shared
values and understanding of good practice.
Indeed, this relates to Caffrey et al.s (2014)
suggestion that the participants in group
supervision need to be like-minded and
share a purpose.
74
References
Bishop, J (2011). Learning mentors eight years on:
Still removing barriers to learning? Research in
Education, 85, 3042.
Bothius, S.B., gren, M., Sjvold, E. & Sundin E.C.
(2004). Experiences of group culture and
patterns of interaction in psychotherapy supervision groups. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(1),
101120.
Bozic, N. & Carter, A. (2002). Consultation groups:
Participants views. Educational Psychology in
Practice 18(3), 189201.
British Psychological Society (BPS) (2009). Code of
ethics and conduct. Retrieved 31 August 2014,
from: http://www.bps.org.uk.
Burton, S. (2008). Empowering learning support
assistants to enhance the emotional well-being of
children in school. Educational & Child Psychology,
25, 4056.
Caffrey, K., Scott, J. & Touhey, G. (2014). Group
supervision does it count? Therapy Today, 25(5),
3033.
Callicott, K. & Leadbetter, J. (2013). An investigation
of the factors involved when educational psychologists supervise other professionals. Educational
Psychology in Practice, 29(4), 383403.
Chalfant, J.C. & Pysh, M.V.D. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams.
Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 4958.
Childrens Workforce Development Council
(CWDC) (2007). Learning mentor practice guide:
CWDC learning mentor co-ordinator peer support team.
Leeds: CWDC Publications.
Childrens Workforce Development Council
(CWDC)/Skills for Care (2007). Providing effective
supervision. Retrieved 24 July 2014, from:
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
20130401151715/https:/www.education.gov.uk
publications/eOrderingDownload/Providing_
Effective_Supervision_unit.pdf
Childrens Workforce Development Council
(CWDC) (2008a). Module A: Facilitating children
and young peoples development through mentoring.
CWDC Induction Training Programme for Level 3/4
Childrens Workforce practitioners. Retrieved 24 July
2014, from:
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/
CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6372&p=0.
Childrens Workforce Development Council
(CWDC) (2008b). Module 3 handbook: Building
relationships and communicating with children, young
people and families. CWDC Induction Training
Programme for Level 3/4 Childrens Workforce practitioners. Retrieved 28 August 2014, from:
http://www.plymouthparentpartnership.org.uk
resources/files/2008%20Generic%20Mod
%203%20Handbook.pdf
75
Anita Soni
Hanko, G. (1987). Group consultation with mainstream teachers. In J. Thacker (Ed.), Working with
groups (pp.123130) Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Hanko, G. (1999). Increasing competence through collaborative problem-solving. Oxon: David Fulton.
Hawkins, P. & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in the
helping professions (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open
University Press/McGrawHill.
Kirkman, S. (2004, 9 July). A shortfall in the cure-all?
Times Educational Supplement, 4951, 19.
Marshall, H.R. (2006). Professionalism and whole
primary school factors aiding and impeding the
work of the learning mentor. Support for Learning,
21(4), 194200.
Mintz, J. (2010). Primary school learning mentors:
Do background and training matter? Education
313: International Journal of Primary, Elementary
and Early Years Education, 38(2), 165175.
National Careers Service (2012). Job profile: Learning
mentor. Accessed 7 July 2014, from:
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/
advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/
LearningMentor.aspx
Newton, C. (1995). Circles of adults: Reflecting and
problem solving around emotional needs and
behaviour. Educational Psychology in Practice 11(2),
814.
Norwich, B. & Daniels, H. (1997). Teacher support
teams for special educational needs in primary
schools: Evaluating a teacher-focused support
scheme. Educational Studies, 23(1), 524.
Osborne, C. & Burton, S. (2014). Emotional literacy
support assistants views on supervision provided
by educational psychologists: What EPs can learn
from group supervision. Educational Psychology in
Practice, 30(2), 139155.
Pearpoint, J.M. Forest, J. & Snow, J. (1992). The inclusion papers: Strategies to make inclusion work.
Toronto: Inclusion Press.
Prieto, L.R. (1996). Group supervision: Still widely
practised but poorly understood. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 295307.
76
Tick
if
yes
Comment
10
Supportive
Reflective
Cathartic (stress busting)
Empathetic
Confidential
Informative
Equitable
Appraisal
Challenging
Other descriptors:
Please return to
77
Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.