The author is the instructor of a doctoral level course in the theory and practice of supervision. During this initial course (which is followed by internships in supervision), SITs are assigned two master’s level practicum students to supervise. Therefore, fledgling supervisors are asked to supervise fledgling counselors. Supervision of supervision, therefore, is intense and consists of recordings of supervision sessions, individual and group supervision, and critical review of supervision notes. Weekly seminar includes discussion of readings on various aspects of supervision, some practice of methods, and case presentations. In short, unlike their training to become counselors, SITs are asked to integrate a significant amount of knowledge and simultaneously conduct supervision. This is daunting for them. Without pedagogical structure, the activity of supervision and the interactions with supervisees (who themselves are seeing clients for the first time) will always take precedence over the more thoughtful, reflective process of good supervision. The outline for the supervision notes was designed, therefore, both to ground SITs in some concrete activity while eventually moving SITs to more reflection.
The First Seven Weeks of Training
Any instructor of a course that combines theory and practice is at a disadvantage on the front end. The fact is that it would be preferable if SITs already had some command of all of the disparate domains within the supervision literature as well as some experience practicing certain supervision methods before they meet their first supervisee. That said we have found the richness of this instructional model far outweighs the disadvantages. In addition, we have found that the assignment of two supervisees is better than one. Having done both, it is much more likely that SITs will learn more about personal style across several dimensions if assigned more than one supervisee. We are also deliberate in assignments and attempt to give SITs master’s level students who are quite distinct from each other.
Still, SITs do not have the knowledge base to be reflective about models during the first half of the course. Instead, the required notes ask them to be as deliberate as possible in their supervision, and they offer SITs instructors an opportunity to monitor their supervision and influence it. To this end, SITs are required to submit electronically answers to seven questions within 48 hours of their weekly sessions with their supervisees. The instructor will respond with comments in advance of the next session SITs have with their supervisees. What follows is a discussion of the seven questions posed to SITs after conducting each supervision session during the first half of the semester.
1. What were your pre-session goals for the supervision session?
2. What was the extent to which pre-session goals were met?
Supervisors must be deliberate in their supervision. One of the common complaints of supervisors from supervisees is that they (supervisors) appeared unprepared or lacked investment in the process. Therefore, SITs are required immediately to stipulate goals for their session, even if the goal is to assist the supervisee in articulating his or her own goals for supervision. Process goals are distinguished from outcome goals and SITs are encouraged to assist their supervisees to do the same in their counseling. Finally, these two questions are paired so that SITs can begin their supervision experience with success.
If they have planned reasonable goals, they are likely to meet them. If their goals are too modest, too ambitious, or “fuzzy,” the SITs supervisor can respond with appropriate feedback. These questions also reinforce the professional imperative of self-assessment.
3. What were the major topics that emerged during the supervision session initiated either by you or by your supervisee)?
Early in supervisor training, it is greatly advantageous to know what SITs consider important. If a supervisor-in-training is intimidated by the new role of supervisor, he or she may be more concrete than otherwise would be the case, including reference to virtually all topics covered in the session. Differentiating what is important from less important topics is the first task for SITs. The SITs supervisor can observe through the answer to question three who is controlling the supervision session and to what end. Finally, sometimes we ask SITs to submit these notes along with a recording of the supervision session. Matching the notes to the actual session can lead to many fruitful discussions with SITs.
4. List supervision interventions that were implemented in this session, including a rationale for each.
This is sometimes a challenge for SITs in the first several weeks. Often, interventions are confused with directives. As a result, if a supervisor-in-training did not advise the supervisee to “do” something in particular, the supervisor-in-training would struggle to identify interventions. Our position is that most supervisory activity is an intervention. In fact, many early supervision of supervision (sup of sup) sessions are spent underscoring interactions that attend to the working alliance or to assessing the developmental stage of the supervisee on a particular criterion, and so forth. Supervisors-in-training often do not appreciate the influence that their behavior can have as they do not yet fully appreciate their position of power. Once they grasp that interventions can be viewed as casting a wide net, SITs are better positioned to be deliberate about which activities to choose in light of their process and outcome goals for their supervision session.
5. List area(s) where your supervisee needs to grow. How did you attend to this in the session?
6. Note strengths of the supervisee demonstrated in this session.
These two questions combined attend to two training goals: First, SITs have an opportunity to consider whether supervision interventions as described in the answer to question 4 and the rationale given line up with how SITs perceive the learning needs of the supervisees. Some SITs quickly view these questions as integral to each other; others, however, demonstrate a lack of connection between their perception of the deficits of the supervisees and their own activities. The SITs supervisor can use these notes to point out the discrepancy and help SITs to link the two.
Second, by asking for both supervisee strengths and areas of weakness after each supervision session, the notes assist SITs to avoid the pitfall that has been documented in the supervision literature, that is, one-sided supervision that is either too glowing or too critical. The SITs supervisor must be sure that actual recorded sessions follow suit and reflect both supportive comments and challenging feedback delivered to the supervisee.
7. What are your goals for the next supervision?
This final question completes the cycle from pre-session goals to establishing goals for the next session.
These notes form an infrastructure for the supervision activity and they beckon SITs to be intentional. They are, however, only the skeleton of what SITs are attempting to assimilate during the first several weeks of providing supervision. Establishing appropriate boundaries, attending to the working alliance, understanding a host of interpersonal, intrapersonal, and cultural dynamics that are taking place in supervision, as well as learning new models and methods of supervision—all of these make the front end of training a dizzying learning experience. For this reason, supervision documentation is best kept simple so that SITs can experience some sense of clarity as they begin to grapple with the much more complex and nuanced aspects of the delivery of supervision.
Examples: The First Seven Weeks
Georgia
Even though SITs are new to supervision during their first few weeks of training, they can be encouraged to be more intentional. It is quite common, for example, to see an answer regarding pre-session goals to be vague. This was the case with Georgia, one new SIT, her goal was: “To discuss a client.” The context for such a goal may have been that discussions with her supervisee during the first couple of weeks had been devoted to introductions, general overview of practicum requirements, and the supervisee becoming acclimated to the site. Therefore, it was possible that the upcoming session may have been the first in which the supervisee will have had the experience of seeing a client. Still, such a goal will not serve SITs well for very long in the session. Georgia was encouraged to think about what she had learned about her supervisee during the first two sessions and what she might predict would be part of the discussion about a client. Because recordings are required of all counseling sessions, Georgia needed to think about how she was going to use the recording in supervision. Even though Georgia did not yet have all the models she needed to be sophisticated in her approach, she could rely on her counseling skills to make some assessment of her supervisee and translate the limited data into workable goals.
Amy
There are two relatively common issues for SITs during the first seven weeks of training: (a) blending questions three (about major topics) and four (about supervision interventions) when it is preferable that they remain distinct, or (b) conversely, having no connection between the two. When blending is occurring, it can be difficult to see much difference between the SIT description of major topics that emerged during supervision and intervention. For example, Amy, the supervisor-in-training, reported that her school counseling supervisee, Holly, was floundering at her position. “Holly seems to be wanting/needing a concrete direction and doesn’t feel she has gotten this. She discussed the topic of expectations and how she feels weighed down by expectations right now.” When Amy turned to interventions, she continued to talk about Holly’s anxiety: “I tried to get a better sense of where the pressure she is feeling is coming from. I asked her if she had gotten any direction from her site supervisor, and she said that she’s gotten more general advice, but not a lot of specific direction. She was fearful of asking for more concrete direction for fear of seeming like she doesn’t know what she’s doing.” Then Amy moved to her intervention: “I provided her with ways she could go about asking for help without giving the impression that she is unclear.” In this case, the SITs supervisor needs to help Amy (a) be clearer in her distinctions between topics covered in supervision and supervision interventions, and (b) step back and view her intervention as not only part of this story, but of the story of Holly’s learning overall. In other words, is this situation totally unique (which is rarely the case) or is being weighed down by expectations a feeling that is familiar to Holly? Might Amy’s supervision intervention address both the present situation and larger themes that affect Holly’s development as a counselor? Amy offered Holly advice. Is there any other way she might have proceeded to assist Holly? If advice is warranted, what is the supervisor’s-in-training plan for moving beyond advice? What criterion will she use to know when the time is right?
Jordon
A second common issue is having no connection between major events and interventions. Supervisor-in-training, Jordan, for example, reported as part of question three that “Taylor (the supervisee) said that she was ‘derailed’ in the session as she had come in with an intention to gather necessary information for a treatment plan for her client, M. Instead, she felt that she got caught up in M.’s story about her guilt toward her mother and her child.” Jordan’s answer to question four was as follows: “The teacher role was more prominent in this session as it was rich with skills that Taylor was employing. M. can be talkative in the session so Taylor will need to work on doing some tracking and following her story.” This vague (even convoluted) answer did not tell how Jordan was using the teacher role to implement an intervention. Furthermore, it was clear that Jordan was unable to make a clear link between his process goals for himself and outcome goals for his supervisee. Thus, the SITs’ supervisor was alerted to help Jordan understand what was the meaning of a supervision intervention. Much from Jordan’s description of major topics with his supervisee, Taylor, can be used as subject matter for this particular lesson on connecting major events and intervention.
Lucy
Questions five (about supervisee growth needs) and six (about noting demonstrated strengths) rarely trip up new SITs and usually guide SITs to appreciate strengths in even the weakest (in their judgment) supervisee and to recognize that even the strongest supervisees have supervision needs. The only issue that arises is if there is no clear link, or at best a fuzzy link, between what is reported in these answers and what came before. For example, supervisor-in-training, Lucy, reported the following interventions to question four: “We viewed the session that Barb, my supervisee, had with her client, Z., and stopped several times to look at her use of micro-skills and her internal process during the session. We explored her facial expression and tone in session that can sometimes be interpreted as businesslike or bored, and identified strategies for being able to be more relaxed in session.” However, Lucy’s answer to question five was: “We focused on Barb’s ability to build rapport in the session and to demonstrate empathy for her client. We discussed the importance of being authentic in session and identified nervousness as a barrier to her doing so.” First, this answer leans more toward interventions rather than underscoring areas for growth; second, although there is a connection between paralanguage discussed under interventions and displaying empathy; this is the first time in the notes that nervousness per se has been mentioned relative to this supervisee. This is worth noting to the SIT.
Examples: The Second Seven to Eight Weeks
Sam
There are many variables that make the second half of SITs education different. By now, if things have gone well, a satisfying and secure working relationship has been formed between the SIT and the supervisee. Further, the SIT has had an opportunity to study, discuss, and practice elements of models from the three major model categories. In what follows, supervisor-in-training, Sam, is documenting his first session using the new outline for notes. In his last (week seven) supervision notes, he described the growth needs of his supervisee, Annette, as follows: “Annette can grow by stretching her theoretical view and by trying to be more flexible in her conceptualization of her clients. Additionally, she can work on understanding her client’s perspective and exploring themes in seemingly vague messages.” Sam’s pre-session goals for this session with Annette were an extension of these observations.
Sam has chosen the Integrative Developmental Model ([IDM]
Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010) as his developmental model and the Discrimination Model (
Bernard, 1979,
1997) as his process model. Thus his answers to questions two (about developmental model) and three (about process model) are as follows:
The IDM informed this session. I was considering Annette’s level across the different domains of the IDM–Annette appears to me to be lower in Level 1 with regard to the domains of Interpersonal Assessment and Client
Conceptualization. As such, I aimed to encourage reflection on the interpersonal aspect of the work with her client in session, as well as how this interpersonal aspect affects Annette’s ability to conceptualize her client.
The Discrimination Model. In this session, I was focused on using the teaching role only sparingly, as I wanted to use the counselor and consultant roles to encourage Annette to explore her own reactions to her client and to her counseling. As the session developed, it was clear that increased use of the counselor role would be beneficial.
In addition to these models, Sam described his person-centered theoretical approach in answer to question four (about using theory in session):
My client-centered orientation informed this session a great deal. I entered the supervision session with a plan to control the process of supervision by using Interpersonal Process Recall (Kagan, 1980; Kagan & Kagan, 1997). Within a few minutes, it was clear that Annette was struggling with the reflective recall nature of IPR, and that she needed to talk about her stress and related feelings. As such, I allowed her need to supersede my IPR plan.
Sam’s development had been steady as he has learned more about supervision and its processes. He was also working with a strong supervisee who had made good progress during her practicum. That said, it was doubtful that his articulation of his working models would take center stage if not required as part of supervision documentation.
Jiao
Supervisor-in-training Jiao’s notes in working with a different supervisee afford the SITs supervisor an opportunity to give corrective feedback. Jiao was using Rigazio-DiGilio’s Systemic Cognitive-Developmental Supervision model (SCDS,
Rigazio-DiGilio, 1995;
Rigazio-DiGilio, Daniels, & Ivery, 1997) with her supervisee, Joseph. She described her observations as follows:
Today I used Rigazio-DiGilio’s SCDS cognitive-developmental assessment with Joseph. I focused on the concrete/action orientation to help him process the incident of working with P. who expressed suicidal and homicidal thoughts in the session this week. Because Joseph expressed a lot of emotions from the process, I decided to help him reflect his internal reactions while providing crisis intervention.
In this instance, although the intervention was appropriate, Jiao appeared not to have fully understood the SCDS model as what she described reflected a sensorimotor state, not a concrete/action oriented state (
Rigazio-DiGilio, 1995). The SITs supervisor gave feedback that reflected this misunderstanding. Therefore, by requiring this kind of application of theory in documentation, the SITs supervisor is afforded an opportunity to track the supervisor-in-training’s understanding of various models.
An interesting part of Jiao’s supervision is her application of her theoretical orientation. Her understanding of another supervisee, Nora, from that lens is as follows:
Nora is frustrated with the slow movement of her client, M. She is feeling inadequate and challenged. This reflects M.’s interpersonal pattern and potential attachment issues that survivors of severe sexual abuse often experience. My psychodynamic approach, particularly object relation theory, helped me see the parallel process between Nora’s feelings toward M. and M.’s interpersonal patterns in general. I encouraged Nora to utilize her feelings in the session to understand the whole picture of the client. Specifically, rather than attributing the frustration of slow movement as counselor incompetence, Nora was encouraged to see how these feelings may be produced through M.’s defense mechanism as a way to protect him from being abandoned from the object to which he is attached, which may relate to an emotional crisis he is experiencing lately due to being removed from a foster family.
It is clear in this instance that Jiao’s own theoretical worldview influences not only how she views what is happening in her supervisee’s counseling but also her supervisory interventions. As a SIT supervisor, it will be important to determine if the supervisee shares this psychodynamic view. If not, this would be an example of theoretical leakage. Said differently, had Jiao spent adequate time exploring how the supervisee conceptualizes the situation? Was Jiao’s insight additive or taking the supervisee in a different direction? Was this direction one that the supervisee embraces? Finally, even if the supervisee appreciated and grasped the explanation provided by Jiao, did the supervisee have the skills to implement this direction? These important aspects of SIT supervision are stimulated by the requirements of this type of documentation.
Sam
In addition to explaining their use of models and theory, SITs are now asked, in question five, to describe interventions within these parameters and to consider supervision models, psychotherapy theory, and supervisee development as they form goals for the next supervision session (question seven). For example, supervisor-in-training, Sam, noted that his supervisee, Annette, was struggling with interpersonal assessment and client conceptualization. He also stated that he wanted to increase his own use of the counselor and consultant roles in supervision. Finally, he mentioned the importance for him of a person-centered approach to supervision. His descriptions of his interventions for the current session and his goals for the next session are now integrated with these observations.
Interventions: There was a moment in our session when Annette was discussing her client and the frustrations her client was feeling because of her difficulty accessing resources. I took this opportunity to encourage Annette to explore the difference between her and her client in terms of the ability to access resources. This allowed Annette to gain a deeper understanding of the level of frustration her client was experiencing.
Goals: I will continue to be focused on what Annette brings to the supervision session. I want to continue to use the counselor and consultant roles to facilitate Annette’s deeper understanding of her clients and the therapeutic process. I would also like to briefly discuss counseling theory with Annette, and see how she connects theoretical perspective with her practice. Finally, I want to maintain my encouraging stance, while finding opportunities to challenge Annette appropriately.