Exercise 1: Problem focused supervision in a group

Exercise 1: Problem focused supervision in a group The aim of this exercise is to illustrate the importance of structure and progression in supervision, and to give participants a first training as supervisors. Supervision concerns a real, concrete problem, presented by a group member. The problem should be rooted in the person s life as a university teacher. The problem must be real, and must be treated the way that the person experiences it as a university teacher. It is not a discussion of a general problem, but a person who is supervised about a certain problem that he/she has. It is important to follow the procedure described below. You should all assist in this, and accept that the chairman exerts strong leadership. Formulate short and precise questions and answers. The chairman moderates the session and sees that the following procedure is followed: participants speak by turns clockwise anyone can say pass when her turn comes one cannot speak up before her turn comes, unless for short, clarifying questions about the procedure The chairman will take notes of what is being said in phases 1, 2, 5 and 6. The chairman usually doesn t contribute herself with problems or suggestions, but concentrates on moderating and steering. The chairman may chose to comment the process after each phase; however, we do recommend that she only does this after thorough training with steering the exercise. You will exchange views and experiences afterwards, so keep your reflections on supervision in general back till this part of the conversation. They should not be discussed during the process. How to go about: Phase 1: Presentation Each participant presents briefly a concrete problem from her own life as a PhD student. Do not make up a problem like in a role play, but present an actual problematic situation you find yourself in and that you would like to get advice on. It must be a problem you are facing, and don t be afraid of being personal. The chairman notes the problems on a board or flipchart. Phase 2: Selection of problem Each participant tells by turn which problem (whose problem) she would like to continue with. The group decides which problem to take up. The easiest way to do this is to take a quick round where everyone says which problem she would like to continue with. The problem that most wish to work with is chosen. 1

Be careful to select the problem of the one who most needs to get her problem analyzed not to merge problems that look alike it must be a concrete problem of one of the participants to emphasize confidentiality if the problem demands this Phase 3: Explaining the problem The problem owner explains the problem further. This is not an occasion for others to ask questions. Phase 4: Clarifying the problem and the situation Through questions and answers you should now try to understand the problem. You ask each one question, taking turns, and the problem owner answers. Examples of questions: How did this situation arise? What persons are involved? For whom is this a problem? What is the problem? In this phase you should take care that you look at all sides of the problem both follow the questions from others and the answers that they get, and think of further important, precise and varied questions do not follow up a questions with more than one question at a time. Wait till next turn round. do not give advice covered up as questions, e.g. did you think of doing so and so? (save the advice for phase 6) The group takes a number of rounds till the problem is clarified sufficiently The phase may be concluded by each participant (including the problem owner) in writing formulates how she perceives the problem. The statements are read up loud by turns, with as little explanation as possible. The problem owner reads her own formulation last and comments on the other statements. Phase 5: Own suggestions The problem owner explains (without interruption) what she herself thinks of doing about the problem. The chairman takes note of the problem owner s own suggestions on a board or flip chart. The formulations need acceptance from the problem owner. 2

Phase 6: Advice Each group member can now give one suggestion or advice, taking turns. The chairman notes the advice on the board/flip chart, under the points from phase 5. The one giving the advice should formulate what goes on the board. You can make more than one round. Do not comment or discuss advice given by others. Phase 7: Evaluation of advice The problem owner goes through the list of suggestions and marks less important advice with a minus, and those of interest with a plus. It is not necessary to comment the suggestions. No interference by other group members. Summing up First you take a short, final discussion of the content: What was the problem? What suggestions did you come up with? What would you like to add in rear-view? Then discuss supervision How did the problem owner experience the exercise? How did the problem owner benefit from the exercise? How did other participants experience the exercise? What are your reflections? Now analyze the process in detail: Look at what you wrote in the end of phase 4. Did you all formulate the problem the same way, and similar to the problem owner? Did anyone give advice based on a different understanding of the problem than the problem owner? What happens when you give advice based on a different understanding? What is important in all supervision, from what you experienced in the exercise? What do you find important about the procedure in this exercise? Can any of that be generalised to other types of supervision? or other activities than supervision? 3

Exercise 2: Pre-supervision The aim of this exercise is to train peer supervision of teaching (or supervision as a special form of teaching). This is not a role play; the person to be supervised has set out a situation she actually wants to discuss with you. Hold on to this and do your best to make it as realistic a supervision session as possible. Procedure: 1) Decide which groundwork paper you want to start with. The owner will be the focus person for the peer supervision. Decide who will be the peer supervisor in the first round. The third person is the observer. 2) The peer supervisor opens the peer supervision session on basis of the situation described in the groundwork paper. 3) The observer is only used internally in the group. You can ask the observer to comment on the process, and the observer may herself take the initiative to comment on the process when this can contribute constructively to the process. The observer will not be asked to report outside the group. 4) It is possible to change roles between observer and peer supervisor. Changing roles may be helpful if you wish to try out different supervision strategies, or if the peer supervisor gets stuck in the supervision process. When a new peer supervisor takes over she can continue where the previous supervisor stopped, or she can go back to an earlier stage in the supervision session (e.g. the beginning) or to a later stage. NB: There must be only one peer supervisor at a time, the other person in observer. 5) The peer supervision session should alternate between a) the situation forming the basis for the peer supervision session (the groundwork paper) b) the actual peer supervision session and the relation between the two parties 6) Closing the session Allocate 5 minutes to sum up the experiences in the group. Alternative to point 5: a) The peer supervision session should utilise different levels of the practice triangle. It is natural to start on P1 level (action level), but during the conversation you should move to P2 and possibly also P3 levels. b) Use markers, e.g. in connection with moving from one phase to another c) Before the peer supervision starts all three group members write on each their slip of paper what issues they expect the supervision session to cover. Put the papers away and go through the peer supervision session. Spend the last 5 minutes reading loud the issues on the slips of paper. Did the supervision session concern the issues noted on the papers? or other issues? 4

Peer supervisor providing feedback Focus mainly on issues the focus person asks for. Feedback works best when it is wished for Concentrate on the issues that the focus person requested Be precise in your critique; give specific comments rather than general comments Direct your comments towards issues that the recipient can control Keep in mind the needs of the focus person when giving feedback. Comments are much less helpful if they reflect primarily your own needs. Be more descriptive than judgemental to reduce your colleagues need to defend him/her self Be analytic rather than dictating. Help your colleague in understanding the situation, alternative options for action and the consequences and to make his/ her own choice. Point out alternatives rather than using In your situation I would You are not the other person! Do not hesitate to give advice, but be careful not to advise too early in the process. When you give concrete advice it must be clear that your colleague should make his or her own decision Be explicit about your position and your feelings. Saying I get frustrated when you defend yourself is better than showing your frustration indirectly Check if the communication works. You can ask the receiver to tell how (s)he understands what you just said, and check if it is coherent with what you intended to say 5

Focus person being supervised The peer supervisor will make an effort to give useful feedback on the issues that you are concerned with. Show that you value this even if you are not going to act on his/her suggestion Describe the issues you are concerned with, and what it is you want to know more about Tell the peer supervisor what (s)he can do to help you further. The more precise you are, the better feedback you will get Be as honest as possible. Make clear what you believe you already know Listen carefully to the feedback you get, and try to understand what the supervisor is saying and what thoughts may lie behind it. Repeat the feedback in your own words to check if you understood correctly Think the feedback through. Be careful not to defend yourself, but on the other hand you should not take for granted that the feedback is correct. Reflect on the consequences of any changes suggested, and express to the group the thoughts and feelings you have about it All through the session, but especially towards the end, give an account of what you perceived as central and important to you in the overall feedback you were given Be open towards other perspectives and ideas than your own. It may turn out that the new angles are helpful to you Understand that you alone are responsible for what you do and that the response from the others will help when you take decisions. On the other hand others would not put effort into their response unless you are interested in what they say It is not very easy to keep all these points in mind in the middle of a supervision session. Go through the points after you received peer supervision the first time. Did you follow the advice? Which points were difficult for you to follow? Take note of important points you should remember next time you get peer supervision. What does the observer think? and the peer supervisor? Ask them during summing up. 6

Observer The observer contributes to the work in the group by following the on-going dialogue and report on aspects of it that the participants may be too involved to notice. Note not only what is said and done, but also what you miss and how you as an observer experience the peer supervision session. The observer can report to the group after the session has ended or during the session when the group find it useful. The observer should not interfere with the peer supervision, but may intervene if she finds that she can contribute with a valuable input. Ask for time-out. The observer should take on the responsibility for requesting the supervisor and the focus person to give expression to their experiences. General observations: How is the supervision dialogue initiated? How is the relation between peer supervisor and focus person established? What is in focus in the peer supervision session? How come that it is exactly these themes that are treated? What types of questions does the supervisor pose? What reactions do the questions bring about with the focus person? Does the supervisor do anything else than posing questions? When? With what effect? Observation of the supervisor s use of tools : Does the dialogue alternate between the levels in the practice triangle (P1, P2, P3)? Write down examples! How does this affect the supervision? Does the supervisor or the focus person use meta-communication? Do they for instance talk about the dialogue? Do they talk about how they talk with each other? Write down examples. How does it work? Do they try to cover everything in the supervision session (wall-to-wall) or is anything particular in focus and treated thoroughly and as matter of principle of exemplarity It is often useful that the observer takes note of what happens and describes it for the others to reflect on the process. In this case you should hold your own interpretation back, and describe precisely what happened. The types of observations wished for may vary between groups and between group members. One group may like all observations to cover broadly the whole spectrum; another group may want to focus on a new aspect each time. One peer supervisor may benefit from observations through meta-communication, another through the principle of exemplarity. Therefore we did not make an observation form, but encourage groups to make their own observation forms if you wish to make use of this tool. 7