A Preliminary Qualitative Investigation of Group Processes in Group Supervision: Perspectives of Master's Level Practicum Students

Group Supervision: A Review of Practices and Models in Training

“…The following five supervision models are exemplars for group supervision, representing both structured and unstructured formats: (a) Structured Group Supervision (Wilbur, Roberts-Wilbur, Morris, Betz, & Hart, 1991), (b) Systemic Peer Group Supervision (Borders, 1991), (c) a case presentation model (McAullife, 1992), (d) an analytic model (Rosenthal, 1999), and (e) Experiential Group In constructing group norms, supervisors may find it beneficial to facilitate the development of cohesion, universality, and inclusion early in the life of a supervision group (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998;Linton, 2003). This may entail taking time during early sessions to employ structured or unstructured group building exercises.…”

“…This may entail taking time during early sessions to employ structured or unstructured group building exercises. Additionally, supervisors should guard against corrosive group processes such as competition, conflict, and scapegoating during early group meetings (Linton, 2003;Linton & Hedstrom, in press). This may involve inhibiting any conflict relating to the supervisor discreetly early in the group's life.…”

“…In studies by Christensen and Kline (2001), Linton (2003), Linton and Hedstrom (in press), Starling and Baker (2000), Walter and Young (1999), and Werstlein and Borders (1997), supervisees stated that the supportive and cohesive atmosphere in their groups was important to their professional development. Supervisees in these studies also stated that this type of group climate assisted them in becoming more honest and interactive with their peers and motivated them to become invested in the professional development of their peers.…”

“…Empirical and anecdotal evidence also suggests that peer interactions are valuable and important to supervisee development (Christensen & Kline, 2001;Linton, 2003;Linton & Hedstrom, in press;Starling & Baker, 2000;Walter & Young, 1999;Werstlein & Borders, 1997) and peer interactions are usually noted as important justifications for the use of group supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998;Proctor, 2000). This is not to imply, however, that supervisees do not value feedback received from their supervisors (Linton, 2003).…”

“…This is not to imply, however, that supervisees do not value feedback received from their supervisors (Linton, 2003). Based on recent studies of group supervision, it is recommended that developed, it will be important to keep practicing supervisors informed of advances in the field.…”