A case study on the use of group

supervision with learning mentors

Anita Soni
Aim: This research examined the views of learning mentors on the outcomes of group supervision, the
enablers and barriers to attending and the key characteristics of groups who might benefit from group
supervision.
Methods: The group has been running for approximately three years. Case study methodology was employed
to evaluate the group supervision, using the following methods: a focus group, review of the written records
of 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 the
group supervision sessions and the managerial function least evident. It highlighted that the content
related most frequently to children, the learning mentors own role and the sharing of materials. The
findings illustrate the importance of managers being supportive of group supervision in order to enable
attendance. The relatively isolated role of learning mentors in schools is a key characteristic as to why this
professional group benefits from group supervision.
Limitations: The research examined a single case study based on a small sample, and would have been
strengthened through use of individual interviews, and including the views of those who commissioned the
sessions.
Conclusions: This study identified the dominance of the educative function in the group supervision of
learning mentors, the importance of management support and the content most frequently discussed in the
sessions.
Keywords: learning mentors; group supervision; supervision.

HILST SUPERVISION has not had

a traditional place in schools, and is
not included within the Teachers
Standards (DfE, 2011), there is increasing
recognition of the value of supervision in
early years (DfE, 2014) and the potential of
supervision for schools (Steel, 2001). This
article begins by examining the literature on
learning mentors. It considers inter-professional and group supervision, including the
need for contracts, potential outcomes and
the contexts in which they have been used.
The research examines the views of learning
mentors, who work at different primary
schools, on group supervision facilitated by
an educational psychologist for the past
three years.

The learning mentor role

Learning mentors were first introduced
through the Excellence in City (EiC) initiaEducational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3
The British Psychological Society, 2015

tive which aimed to raise educational standards, promote educational partnerships

and share good practice. The role began in
schools in major urban areas in England
between 1999 and 2000 (Ridley & Kendall,
2005). Learning mentors were school-based
employees who supported children facing
barriers to learning. The broad definition of
the role of a learning mentor has remained
the same since EiC and is defined as:
Learning mentors support, motivate and
challenge pupils who are underachieving [They] mainly work with
children who experience barriers to
learning, including poor literacy/
numeracy skills, under-performance
against potential, poor attendance, disaffection, danger of exclusion, difficult
family circumstances and low selfesteem. (DfE, 2012, p.16)

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

keep practice safe, intentional and

focused on outcomes for children, young
people and families (CWDC, 2008a,
p.42).
The CWDC (2008b) identified different
forms of supervision, including planned individual supervision, spontaneous supervision,
group supervision and supervision from an
external agency. The CWDC (2008b) highlighted that group supervision is most
productive when it is planned, structured and
child-focused. (CWDC, 2008b, p.61). Both
the DfES and the CWDC advocated a solution-focused, strength-based approach to
supervision. However it is interesting to note
that articles on the school factors faced by
learning mentors (Marshall, 2006), and the
training of learning mentors (Mintz, 2010),
did not make reference to the use of supervision as an approach to support development. Dunsmuir and Leadbetter (2010)
identified that educational psychologists
(EPs) are frequently commissioned to supervise other professionals, and are identified as
a potential source of supervision in guidance
for learning mentors (CWDC, 2007)

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

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

supervision and the importance of professionals discussing their strong feelings from
working with other peoples difficulties and
concerns, via reflection on their responses,
in order to reduce the likelihood of workers
becoming less effective, stressed or burntout. The CWDC/Skills for Life (2007)
definition of supervision emphasises the
managerial function, as supervision is clearly
linked to performance management and
accountability. Steel (2001) suggested that,
whilst compulsory managerial supervision is
the model favoured within the social services
and health sectors, this may not be appropriate for other professional groups,
including those in education. This is because
an emphasis on managerial function can
lead to supervisees feeling that they must
appear competent at all times, thereby
compromising the supportive and educative
functions of supervision.
Inter-professional supervision
Dunsmuir and Leadbetter (2010) highlighted
the importance for EPs to ensure that they
have the relevant core competencies in supervision, and adhere to the Code of Ethics and
Conduct (BPS, 2009). Both the CWDC (2007)
and Dunsmuir and Leadbetter (2010) noted
the critical importance of identifying lines of
accountability, suggesting that liability, legal
and case responsibility remain within the line
management structure. However, Callicott
and Leadbetter (2013) found that whilst
contracting is recommended within the key
texts on supervision (Hawkins & Shohet,
2006), group supervision (Proctor, 2000) and
professional guidance (Dunsmuir & Leadbetter, 2010), this frequently remained
informal and lacked rigour.

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

The literature identifies some advantages of

group supervision, including:
l opportunities for practitioners to open
their work to others, resulting in
increased accountability (Proctor, 2000);
l multiple perspectives (Wilson & Newton,
2006);
l shared learning, feedback, reflection and
input (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006);
l economic use of resources, time, money
and expertise (Proctor, 2000; Hawkins &
Shohet, 2006); and
l a reduction in professional isolation
(Hanko, 1987).
The potential disadvantages of group supervision relate to the composition and
dynamics of the group, and the time available (Hawkins & Shohet 2006; Proctor 2000;
Proctor & Inskipp, 2001). While Proctor
(2000) promoted the use of group supervision, she did not suggest that it should
replace individual supervision, and instead
encouraged choice. Indeed, Steel (2001)
and Cohen and Osterweil (1986) suggested a
combination of individual and group supervision as the most effective approach.
Research on supervision has tended to
focus on individual supervision (Prieto,
1996). However, more recent research by
Smith et al. (2012) considered group supervision with psychologists in clinical or counselling training, via a national survey. This
identified discrepancies in relation to the
level of behaviour displayed during group
supervision in comparison to expectations in
a clinical context. The article recommended
the use of a written contract to explain the
purpose of group supervision, and to
address issues relating to client confidentiality, supervisee privacy and having
multiple roles. Within the field of educational psychology, Osborne and Burton
(2014) have written about EPs use of group
supervision with emotional literacy support
assistants (ELSAs); this was considered
useful for discussing cases, sharing ideas and
problem solving. As a result the ELSAs felt
better able to support pupils.

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

research, the agenda was agreed at the

beginning of each session, although topics
may have been proposed at the previous
session. Each discussion within group supervision contained a mini-contract, whereby
the group supervisor sought to establish and
meet the needs of the supervisee, referring
back to Hawkins and Shohets (2006) functions of supervision where appropriate. The
supervisor also had to attend to the needs of
the group as a whole alongside each individual, within the uncontracted space of the
sessions, by ensuring that each discussion
had sufficient time and space and everyone
who wished to speak had an opportunity to
do so.
Outcomes of group supervision
There is research on the outcomes of group
supervision, with some focusing on educative
outcomes such as increased opportunities to
solve problems collaboratively (Chalfant &
Pysh, 1989; Newton, 1995). Other research
has identified supportive outcomes, such as a
reduction in feelings of isolation (Gupta,
1985; Stringer et al., 1992) and reassurance
that others experience similar problems
(Bozic & Carter, 2002). Osbourne and
Burton (2014) identified that all three functions of supervision were met within their
research on the use of group supervision
with ELSAs. Similarly, group supervision with
family support workers (FSWs) (Soni, 2013)
identified that all three functions of group
supervision were met, with the majority of
the outcomes within the educative and
supportive functions.
Contexts for group supervision
Although supervision is not frequently used
in schools, group supervision has been used
within special schools (Gersch & Rawkins,
1987), the further education sector
(Guishard, 2000) and can span more than
one education site (Hanko, 1987; Evans
2005). It has been used to support head
teachers (Gupta, 1985), staff supporting
children with special educational needs
(Norwich & Daniels, 1997), including
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

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

children with emotional and behavioural
difficulties (Farouk, 2004; Newton, 1995;
Pearpoint et al., 1992). More recently, Soni
(2013) researched the use of group supervision with FSWs in childrens centres, and
Osborne and Burton (2014) evaluated EP
delivery of group supervision with ELSAs.
A key feature of the context identified in
the literature is that of management valuing
and supporting the group (Chalfant & Pysh,
1989; Hanko, 1999; Stringer et al., 1992).
Views differ as to whether managers should
attend group supervision sessions. Hanko
(1999) and Stringer et al. (1992) suggested
enlisting the head teachers support, but
highlighted the potentially negative impact
of his/her presence in the group due to
his/her role as manager. Gersch and
Rawkins (1987) and Chalfant and Pysh
(1989) suggested inviting the manager when
needed.
The literature review indicates a growing
interest in the use of group supervision
generally, and inter-professional supervision.
There has been recent guidance for EPs to
draw upon (Dunsmuir & Leadbetter, 2010)
when engaging in inter-professional supervision, and the current study aims further to
develop knowledge on the use of group
supervision with other professional groups.

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?

Context for the research

The group supervision sessions ran half
termly, for between one-and-a-half and two
hours. The learning mentors came from a
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

range of primary schools within a Local

Authority in the West Midlands. Access to
group supervision was offered to the
managers and the learning mentors within
the schools where I worked or had worked as
an EP. The group began with learning
mentors from four schools, and over the
period of three years grew to include seven
schools. Between three and 10 learning
mentors attended the sessions, which were
held at each of the primary schools in turn.
As agreed in the initial contract with
learning mentors within the group,
managers did not attend the sessions and
were copied in on session notes that briefly
outlined what had been discussed, in addition to reminders for the sessions. I am an
EP and facilitated the group for all the
sessions.
Research design
Case study methodology was selected as
group supervision was an approach that
learning mentors had identified as a useful
tool for supporting them, as well as offering
a different approach from EP practice to
analyse. Within a case study, there is a
requirement for multiple sources of
evidence in order to investigate a phenomenon within its real life context (Robson,
2002). In terms of Thomas (2011) definition of a case study, the subjects in the
current study are learning mentors and the
analytical frame relates to group supervision.
Methods and data analysis
Three methods were used as the multiple
sources of evidence within the case study:
l A focus group attended by six learning
mentors. The short focus group discussion was structured around the three
research questions, transcribed and
analysed, considering key themes that
emerged. The focus group was selected
by the learning mentors to give feedback
after three years rather than undertake
individual interviews or questionnaires
(as had been done previously).

69

Anita Soni
l

Analysis of the records of 16 sessions of

group supervision (for two years and one
term) that had been sent to learning
mentors and managers at the end of each
supervision session. These were coded
using the functions of supervision; educative,
supportive
and
managerial
(Hawkins & Shohet, 2006; Proctor, 2000)
and in relation to the topic covered.
Five questionnaires, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, evaluating
the group supervision sessions completed
after six sessions of group supervision,
at the end of the first year. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix 1.

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

Analysis of the summary records of group

supervision shows:
l The group supervision sessions covered
between four and 10 issues per session
and the average was six. A greater
number of topics were covered when
materials were shared during the session,
as these were logged separately;
l The educative function of supervision
was the function most utilised at group
supervision (71 per cent) and the managerial function was utilised the least (13
per cent) as shown in Chart 1;
l Learning mentors discussed a wide range
of issues, with issues related to children
raised most frequently, and those relating
to parents and family raised the least, as
shown in Chart 2; and
l Learning mentors also used group supervision to discuss issues relating to their
professional role in school such as evaluation, record keeping and other relevant
topics such as transition and self-esteem.
These findings from the records of the
sessions can be taken alongside qualitative
data from the questionnaires, where all
learning mentors noted ideas as a key
outcome of the group supervision sessions.
Similarly, the focus group highlighted the
value of the educative function of group
supervision with comments including sharing
good practice and taking on board other
ideas. The supportive function of supervision
was also noted in the focus group and questionnaire with one learning mentor adding,
You can offload as well. The managerial function of supervision was not raised as an
outcome of group supervision within the questionnaire or focus group, although there were
examples of this within the session records.
2. What are the enablers and barriers to
attending group supervision?
Records of the sessions showed that learning
mentors generally attended well. Exact
percentages are difficult to calculate as the
group changed in composition over time, as
learning mentors left posts or started new jobs.
Reasons given for non-attendance
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

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

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

learning mentors.

13%
15%

71%

Educative

Supportive

Managerial

Chart 2: Shows issues discussed within group supervision sessions with

learning mentors.
40
37
35

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

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

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

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

incorporate ethical issues such as competence, confidentiality and accountability.
Having said this, process-oriented supervision needs to be balanced with content that
the learning mentors value, such as the
discussion of work with children. This links
to the third Russian doll within Proctor and
Inskipps model (2001), namely the session
agenda, whereby it is important for the
supervisees to raise the issues that concern
them. In this study a third of the time was
spent sharing issues about children, as would
be anticipated since removing barriers to
achievement for pupils is the focus of the
role (DfE, 2012). This also supports the
emphasis that the CWDC (2008b) places on
child-centred and solution-focused supervision. The bridging role between child and
parent or teacher described by Rose and
Doveston (2008) was less evident as fewer
issues were raised about parents or staff, and
may be because learning mentors place their
central focus on the child.
Sharing materials and discussing issues
specific to the role, such as caseloads and
ways to evaluate their work, were also important parts of the sessions. This can be seen to
be linked to the second Russian doll, namely
the group working agreement (Proctor &
Inskipp, 2001). Here the role of sharing
information and practice was highlighted as
a purpose of group supervision, although
this was not referred to in the focus group.
The sharing of materials became a stronger
feature of the sessions over time, and
increasingly the session agenda included
requests for sharing of materials.
2. What are the enablers and barriers to
attending group supervision?
The key enabler for attendance related to
the professional contract. The learning
mentors referred to this indirectly in the
focus group, highlighting the importance of
support from senior management within the
school. This supports the key texts on supervision (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006; Proctor &
Inskipp, 2001; Scaife, 2001) that emphasise
the importance of this agreement to gaining
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

the support of those who commission the

supervision. For this group, there had been
an annual written professional contract and
working agreement that identified the
purposes of the group for both the managers
and the learning mentors alongside
frequency, duration, confidentiality, record
keeping, review and evaluation based on a
format suggested by Leadbetter and
Dunsmuir (2010). The session notes are an
account of time spent, identifying the issues
discussed and suggested solutions. The notes
are shared with both the learning mentors
and managers by email, as agreed in the
professional contract.
Barriers to attendance related either to
the learning mentor prioritising other roles,
or being directed to other tasks in school by
managers. This relates to Farouks (2004)
emphasis on the two part entry phase;
gaining the support of the management
team through the professional contract, and
the commitment from those who may attend
the group through the group working agreement. This indicates a need to maintain
these contracts, re-visiting them on a regular
basis to ensure that the sessions are meeting
the needs both of the managers and those
attending.
The role of the facilitator was raised as
an enabler for group supervision, and can
be related to the fourth Russian doll and the
management of the uncontracted space.
Proctor and Inskipp (2001) considered that
this space should be supported by the other
agreements in place including the professional contract, the group working agreement and the session agenda. They
highlighted that if the group is a co-operative group where supervision is being
conducted by the group, the group participants would be more active. However, they
do place responsibility on the facilitator to
attend to the uncontracted space. In addition, they emphasise the importance of the
facilitator being an active, receptive and
assertive leader who is familiar with the
ideas and theories linked to group
processes.
73

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.

Conclusions and limitations

This study has limitations since it is based on
a small number of participants, is limited to
the time and context in which the research
took place, and cannot be generalised to
other groups. The session notes were coded
by one person who ran the group; reliability
and validity would have been enhanced by a
second view. While this study identifies that

74

all three functions of supervision can be met

within group supervision sessions, the educative function can dominate. Thus, it is also
important for the facilitator to encourage
the group to consider the supportive and
managerial functions. EPs are well placed to
develop group supervision sessions with
groups of professionals working in and with
schools. Based on this research and other
work, there is a value for these professionals
to meet within a homogenous group to share
common issues, concerns and solutions. In
relation to the barriers and enablers of
group supervision, this study highlights to
EPs the key role of the professional contract
and group working agreement at the entry
stage, alongside the need for these to be
reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that
management support is still in place and the
group continues to meet the needs of those
who attend. The Russian dolls model
(Proctor & Inskipp, 2001) offers a useful
framework for conceptualising group supervision, and can aid EPs as facilitators in
considering the different agreements
needed.

Address for correspondence

Anita Soni
School of Education,
University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15 2TT.
Email: sonia@adf.bham.ac.uk

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

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

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

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

Cohen, E. & Osterweil, Z. (1986). An issue-focused

model for mental health consultation with
groups of teachers. Journal of School Psychology.
24(3), 243256.
Davies, S. & Thurston, M. (2005). Establishing a
learning mentor service within a cluster of
primary schools: Learning from evaluation.
Pastoral Care, 23(3), 3743.
Department for Education (DfE) (2014). Statutory
framework 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/learningmentor
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 Report
20002001. Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Dunsmuir, S. & Leadbetter, J. (2010). Professional
supervision: Guidelines for practice for educational
psychologists. Leicester: British Psychological
Society.
Evans, S. (2005). The development of a group
consultation approach to service delivery. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21(2), 131146.
Farouk, S. (2004). Group work in schools: A process
consultation approach. Educational Psychology in
Practice, 20(3), 207220.
Gersch, I.S. & Rawkins, P. (1987). A teacher support
group in school. Educational and Child Psychology,
4(3+4), 131136.
Guishard, J. (2000). Promoting inclusion in further
education colleges: Staff consultation groups.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(2), 205212.
Greenaway, C. (2003). Models of supervisory practice
and accessible dialogue. Summary of DECP Day
Conference Proceedings: Developing the quality
of supervision in educational psychology practice. DECP Debate, 106, 2122.
Gupta, Y. (1985). Head teachers too need pastoral
support. Educational Psychology in Practice, 1(3),
112114.

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

Proctor, B. (2000). Group supervision. London: Sage.

Proctor, B. & Inskipp, F. (2001). Group supervision.
In J. Scaife (Ed.), Supervision in the mental health
professions: A practitioners guide (pp.99122).
Hove: Routledge.
Ridley, K. & Kendall, L (2005). Evaluation of excellence
in cities in primary pilot 20012003. Nottingham:
DfES Publications.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for
social scientists and practitioner researches (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Rose, R. & Doveston, M. (2008). Pupils talking about
their learning mentors: What can we learn?
Educational Studies, 34(2), 145155.
Scaife, J. & Scaife, J. (2001). Supervision and
learning. In J. Scaife (Ed.), Supervision in the
mental health professions: A practitioners guide
(pp.1530) Hove: Routledge.
Smith, R.D., Riva, M.T. & Erickson Cornish, J.A.
(2012). The ethical practice of group supervision: A national survey. Training and Education
in Professional Psychology, 6(4), 238248.
Soni, A. (2013). Group supervision: Supporting
practitioners in their work with children and
families in childrens centres. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 33(2), 146160.
Steel, L. (2001). Staff support through supervision.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 6(2), 91101.
Stoney, S. (2005, 16 December). Hopeful signs in our
inner cities. Times Educational Supplement, 4665,
16.
Stringer, P.L., Stow, K., Hibbert, P., Powell, J. & Louw,
E. (1992). Establishing staff consultation groups
in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 8(2),
8796.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide
for students and researchers. London: Sage.
Wilson, D. & C. Newton (2006). Circles of adults.
Nottingham: Inclusive Solutions.

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

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

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

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.
Descriptor

Tick
if
yes

Rating current level

of satisfaction
1

Comment

10

Supportive
Reflective
Cathartic (stress busting)
Empathetic
Confidential
Informative
Equitable
Appraisal
Challenging
Other descriptors:

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

Please return to

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 32 No. 3

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.