Supervision Diary
Supervision with Christina x4
Supervision with matua Pita
Supervision with Christina x4
Supervision with matua Pita
Tautoko
Kaitiakitanga:supervisory roles and expectations
Critical analysis of a supervision experience with a non-Maori model
In terms of analyzing this supervision practice through a lens of Ahurutanga, I believe it provides a safe place although there are areas that would need extra thought and consideration.
Introduction
As a supervisor and a supervisee, the learning I get from supervision comes in all shapes and forms. In this essay I will critically reflect on the supervision I receive using a Non-Maori framework. The framework I will use is Davys’ Model of Action Reflection. This model has four phases: Event, Exploration, Experimentation, and Evaluation. I will also look at this through the takepu lens, Ahurutanga.
My Supervision Experience
My supervisor is a practising nurse. My role is a Health Promoter. As our supervision is cross-disciplines, a reflection model of supervision works very well for us. When I arrive at supervision, my supervisor welcomes me warmly and when I am settled into my seat and looking ready to start she offers me the opportunity to start with a karakia. She knows that his is my tikanga and is open to this. Recognising that karakia is important to me provides a safe starting point. This is ahurutanga.
Phase 1 – Event
After the karakia my supervisor will ask how things are going? This is my cue to bring whatever I have decided to bring to supervision. This is the Event phase which the supervisee establishes what she wants to take away from the session. Rains (2004) suggests that key to this stage is to understand why the issue has been presented for supervision. Fook (2007) speaks of the use of intuition to recognise significant factors and to make connections between logically unrelated experiences. He describes this as an artistry of professional practise that enables one to make judgements and act in complex, unpredictable changing and uncontrollable situations. Generally in my supervision, my supervisor tends to go straight into the next phase which is exploration. I hadn’t really thought of establishing what I was wanting to take away from the session at that stage before, but I think this is a good idea because you then have a clear pathway to what you want to achieve. For example, my issue brought to supervision was around a staff issue that a school had brought to me. I wanted to support the school to resolve their. After I explained the situation, we started exploring the issue. This was not what I brought it to supervision for. I brought it because it was borderline to my scope of practice. We got well into exploring the schools issue before I made it clear that I was wanting to ensure I was able to support the school staying within my job description. If I had made that clear in phase one our exploration pathway would have been different therefore creating that safe place that ‘Ahurutanga’ describes.
Phase 2 – Exploration
This phase of the framework looks at ‘how ’ the problem impacts emotionally on the me, the supervisee, and explores the theory of practice, professional standards and service policies, and protocols. Rains(ibid) considers this stage of the cycle, moves the supervisee from the personal to the political and professional view of the issue. From here a plan of action can be established. Although my supervisor does not tend to explore the emotional impact of the problem, she does use a lot of interpersonal explorative skills such as paraphrasing, clarifying, active listening, asking open-ended questions, reframing, to name a few. As she works in a different discipline to me it is important that she can ask the questions that will prompt me to reflect on my own theory of practice, protocols and professional standards and service policies that relate to my work. The questions she might ask are like, “Tell me what would normally happen in that situation.” Or “Why do you think that happened?” I think these are good questions that could provide that ‘Ahurutanga’ however there is also the chance that because the theoretical knowledge of practice is not strong with the supervisor there could be risk areas if not dealt with well.
Phase 3 – Experimentation
Throughout the Exploration phase, my supervisor will ask questions, that also fits the Experimentation stage. Questions such as, “what would happen if you did that?” or “How does that work?” or “Is there another way?” . This line of questioning allows me to imagine that as a solution and consider the pro’s and cons. As a consequence, the possible solutions are either noted or disregarded. The ones noted are then prioritised into a order of most likely to be successful and a plan of action is established. Through the asking of reflective questions, I will generally arrive at the best option of solutions myself. I think this is a good line of questioning that gives the power back to the supervisee. Rains (ibid) suggests that the Experimentation phase tests possible plans to clarify the actions required to achieve the desired outcomes. Experimentation can be the answer to the risks mentioned above (phase 2). It provides that safe place again where solutions can be tested before a plane is finalised.
Phase 4 -The Evaluation
If the plan goes well, my supervisor in the next session, will acknowledge the process and my working through it. If the plan was not successful we would go through the process again looking at why the first plan failed and what we could try next.
I think my supervisor does well in her questioning.
Conclusion
Sometimes I think it is easier being in a cross-discipline supervision process because those naïve questions can be asked without the supervisee taking offence. This supports reflection. For example if someone in the same profession as I asked a naïve question, I might think they were talking down to me, and rather than reflect on the answer I might just shut down the conversation, or wonder why they were talking to me at such a basic level. Having to explain the basic and finer details lends itself to in depth reflection. Although my supervisor does not consciously follow the framework I have used in this critical reflection, there are definitely areas that correspond with this. At this point my supervisor has only worked from an Action-reflection basis. We have not discussed future aspirations or professional development. However , having said that, I have not brought those kaupapa to the table.
References
Davys, A. (2001). Reflective learning in supervision – a model. In Supervision: from rhetoric to reality:. Auckland: Cited in Rains 2004.
Fook, J. (1996). The reflective researcher: Developing a reflective approach to practice. In Reflective Researcher. . Sydney:: Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Rains, E. (2004). Interdisciplinary supervisor development in a community health Service. Auckland: Waitemata District Health Board.
Critical analysis of a supervision experience with a non-Maori model
In terms of analyzing this supervision practice through a lens of Ahurutanga, I believe it provides a safe place although there are areas that would need extra thought and consideration.
Introduction
As a supervisor and a supervisee, the learning I get from supervision comes in all shapes and forms. In this essay I will critically reflect on the supervision I receive using a Non-Maori framework. The framework I will use is Davys’ Model of Action Reflection. This model has four phases: Event, Exploration, Experimentation, and Evaluation. I will also look at this through the takepu lens, Ahurutanga.
My Supervision Experience
My supervisor is a practising nurse. My role is a Health Promoter. As our supervision is cross-disciplines, a reflection model of supervision works very well for us. When I arrive at supervision, my supervisor welcomes me warmly and when I am settled into my seat and looking ready to start she offers me the opportunity to start with a karakia. She knows that his is my tikanga and is open to this. Recognising that karakia is important to me provides a safe starting point. This is ahurutanga.
Phase 1 – Event
After the karakia my supervisor will ask how things are going? This is my cue to bring whatever I have decided to bring to supervision. This is the Event phase which the supervisee establishes what she wants to take away from the session. Rains (2004) suggests that key to this stage is to understand why the issue has been presented for supervision. Fook (2007) speaks of the use of intuition to recognise significant factors and to make connections between logically unrelated experiences. He describes this as an artistry of professional practise that enables one to make judgements and act in complex, unpredictable changing and uncontrollable situations. Generally in my supervision, my supervisor tends to go straight into the next phase which is exploration. I hadn’t really thought of establishing what I was wanting to take away from the session at that stage before, but I think this is a good idea because you then have a clear pathway to what you want to achieve. For example, my issue brought to supervision was around a staff issue that a school had brought to me. I wanted to support the school to resolve their. After I explained the situation, we started exploring the issue. This was not what I brought it to supervision for. I brought it because it was borderline to my scope of practice. We got well into exploring the schools issue before I made it clear that I was wanting to ensure I was able to support the school staying within my job description. If I had made that clear in phase one our exploration pathway would have been different therefore creating that safe place that ‘Ahurutanga’ describes.
Phase 2 – Exploration
This phase of the framework looks at ‘how ’ the problem impacts emotionally on the me, the supervisee, and explores the theory of practice, professional standards and service policies, and protocols. Rains(ibid) considers this stage of the cycle, moves the supervisee from the personal to the political and professional view of the issue. From here a plan of action can be established. Although my supervisor does not tend to explore the emotional impact of the problem, she does use a lot of interpersonal explorative skills such as paraphrasing, clarifying, active listening, asking open-ended questions, reframing, to name a few. As she works in a different discipline to me it is important that she can ask the questions that will prompt me to reflect on my own theory of practice, protocols and professional standards and service policies that relate to my work. The questions she might ask are like, “Tell me what would normally happen in that situation.” Or “Why do you think that happened?” I think these are good questions that could provide that ‘Ahurutanga’ however there is also the chance that because the theoretical knowledge of practice is not strong with the supervisor there could be risk areas if not dealt with well.
Phase 3 – Experimentation
Throughout the Exploration phase, my supervisor will ask questions, that also fits the Experimentation stage. Questions such as, “what would happen if you did that?” or “How does that work?” or “Is there another way?” . This line of questioning allows me to imagine that as a solution and consider the pro’s and cons. As a consequence, the possible solutions are either noted or disregarded. The ones noted are then prioritised into a order of most likely to be successful and a plan of action is established. Through the asking of reflective questions, I will generally arrive at the best option of solutions myself. I think this is a good line of questioning that gives the power back to the supervisee. Rains (ibid) suggests that the Experimentation phase tests possible plans to clarify the actions required to achieve the desired outcomes. Experimentation can be the answer to the risks mentioned above (phase 2). It provides that safe place again where solutions can be tested before a plane is finalised.
Phase 4 -The Evaluation
If the plan goes well, my supervisor in the next session, will acknowledge the process and my working through it. If the plan was not successful we would go through the process again looking at why the first plan failed and what we could try next.
I think my supervisor does well in her questioning.
Conclusion
Sometimes I think it is easier being in a cross-discipline supervision process because those naïve questions can be asked without the supervisee taking offence. This supports reflection. For example if someone in the same profession as I asked a naïve question, I might think they were talking down to me, and rather than reflect on the answer I might just shut down the conversation, or wonder why they were talking to me at such a basic level. Having to explain the basic and finer details lends itself to in depth reflection. Although my supervisor does not consciously follow the framework I have used in this critical reflection, there are definitely areas that correspond with this. At this point my supervisor has only worked from an Action-reflection basis. We have not discussed future aspirations or professional development. However , having said that, I have not brought those kaupapa to the table.
References
Davys, A. (2001). Reflective learning in supervision – a model. In Supervision: from rhetoric to reality:. Auckland: Cited in Rains 2004.
Fook, J. (1996). The reflective researcher: Developing a reflective approach to practice. In Reflective Researcher. . Sydney:: Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Rains, E. (2004). Interdisciplinary supervisor development in a community health Service. Auckland: Waitemata District Health Board.