ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: A GROUNDED THEORY OF SUPERVISION DURING PRE-SERVICE LEVEL SCHOOL- BASED CONSULTATION TRAINING Daniel Seth Newman, Doctor of Philosophy, 2009 Dissertation directed by: Professor Sylvia Rosenfield, School Psychology Program The purpose of the current study was to explore a university-based supervision process for pre-service level school-based consultants engaged in a consultation course with practicum experience. The study was approached from a constructivist worldview, using a constructivist grounded theory methodology. A qualitative research software program, NVivo8, was employed to assist with data organization and analyses. Guiding research questions included: (a) how does the process of university-based supervision in pre-service level, school-based consultation training work?; (b) what content and process concerns arise for consultants-in-training (CITs) during their practicum experiences?; (c) how are these concerns considered through the supervision process?; and (d) what are the interactions between the CITs and me (the supervisor) as part of supervision? Supervision session transcripts, reflective logs, and my own notes as supervisor from one semester of ongoing supervision with the five participants (second-year school psychology doctoral students engaged in consultation training) composed the data. I acted in the dual roles of researcher and supervisor. The theory that emerged from the participants? experiences demonstrates that the supervision process included activities outside of and within supervision sessions. Within supervision sessions, the CITs and I engaged in strategic interactions focused on past experiences, the present moment, and future application; these interactions were differentiated in a manner responsive to CIT needs based on perceptions of CIT skill level, requests for assistance, and consultation case process and content concerns. The perceived effectiveness of the supervision process in addressing CIT concerns resulted in mixed feelings including confusion, worrying, frustration, and positive feelings. This theory has implications for school-based consultation training and practice, and makes a unique contribution to broader supervision literature by emphasizing supervision at the pre-service training level, and connecting developmental models of supervision to differentiated models of supervision and instruction. A GROUNDED THEORY OF SUPERVISION DURING PRE-SERVICE LEVEL SCHOOL-BASED CONSULTATION TRAINING By Daniel Seth Newman Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2009 Advisory Committee: Professor Sylvia Rosenfield, Chair Professor Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy Associate Professor Susan Jones Associate Professor Hanne Mawhinney Associate Professor William Strein ? Copyright by Daniel Seth Newman 2009 ii Acknowledgments Rumor has it that graduate students are not supposed to enjoy writing a dissertation. Has this been a challenging process? Most definitely. Time intensive? Of course. Yet from the earliest conceptualizations of this project through its completion I have loved what I was doing and I have never stopped learning. This is in no small part due to those wonderful individuals who have provided me with unconditional support along the way. First and foremost, I wish to thank Sylvia Rosenfield. Words do not adequately convey my gratitude for everything Sylvia has done for me over the last five years. By believing in me as a consultant, supervisor, instructor, researcher, and most of all as a person, she has impacted my life. Our work together has been the impetus for my research interests, perspectives on practice, and has shaped my worldview; none of these are the same as when I entered the School Psychology Program. Sylvia has provided unlimited access to her wisdom, gifted instruction, ceaseless energy, and encouragement ? these have been the keys to completing a project that I am proud of. I also wish to thank the other members of my dissertation committee. Thank you to Susan Jones for teaching me so much, and helping me to develop the methodology and methods of this study. Susan catalyzed my love for qualitative research and was readily available to provide inspirational and pragmatic support, great laughs, and her old-school transcriber. I am grateful to Hanne Mawhinney for encouraging me to use the NVivo8 computer software program, teaching a group of us during late evening hours, and challenging me to think more critically about my project. Thank you to Cheryl Holcomb- McCoy who made herself available during a professional transition, and encouraged me to think more about my own identity as a supervisor. And of course, thank you to Bill Strein for his ongoing interest in my project as well as my personal and professional success. Bill provided assistance in navigating through administrative complexities, and his never-ending wisdom over the last several years helped shaped who I am as a school psychologist. This study would not have been possible without the participants known in this study as Alice, Anne, Emma, Jane, and Kathy. It was a pleasure to act as their supervisor, and I cannot thank these individuals enough for trusting me to utilize our experiences as the data for this project. I have learned so much from each of these individuals, which I hope is reflected in the write-up of this study. I also wish to thank the members of my cohort ? Na-Young Kim, Allison Nebbergall, and Joe Nese; our support for each other has been critical to being able to reach the finish line. Lastly, I wish to thank my family. Thank you to my parents, Charlotte and Howie, and my parents-in-law, Sara and Jay, for your constant understanding and support. Thanks to my siblings and their spouses ? Jeff, Senda, Kate, Scott, Adam, and Francine ? I am blessed to have you all in my life. And most of all, thank you to my beautiful, intelligent, and caring wife Yael who has encouraged me to never stop working and has sustained me each and every day. Yael?s confidence, passion for life, and never- ending smile are my greatest inspirations. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements??????????????????????.???.........ii Table of Contents????????????????????????????iii List of Tables????????????????.?????????????vi List of Figures?????????????????????????????vii Chapter 1: Introduction????...???????????????????...1 Defining School-based Consultation???????????????...........2 Training of School-based Consultants?????????????????.4 Frameworks of development?????.????????????...5 The current state of consultation training in school psychology????.8 Chapter 2: Review of Supervision Literature???????????????..11 Defining Supervision???????????????????????.11 Components of effective supervision????????????.?...12 Supervisor-supervisee relationship?????????????..?..13 Multicultural competency?????????????????.?.14 Self-reflection??????????????????????....14 Chronological phases of effective supervision??????????..14 Outcomes of effective supervision??????????????....16 Challenges in supervision research???????????????17 Supervision of Psychological Services in the Schools??????????..18 Supervision of Consultation????????????????????...21 Techniques????????????????????????.21 Audiotapes?????????????????????.23 Reflection?????????????????????...26 Pre-service consultation training????????????????28 The development of consultation skills????????????.....30 Complex dynamics?????????????????????.31 Summary?????????????????????????32 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions?????????????..34 Chapter 3: Process of Inquiry?????????????????????..35 Situating the Research and Methodology??????????????..?35 Historical basis of grounded theory...??????????????35 Constructivist grounded theory???..?????????????37 Structure versus flexibility?????.?????????????38 Use of computer software??????.????????????.39 Self-Reflexivity?????????????????????????..43 Research Context????????????????????????...46 Overview?????????????????????????47 Instructional Consultation??????????????????..47 Strategies used in training????????????????..??49 Sampling of Participants??????????????????????50 Data Collection?????????????????????????..52 iv Data Analysis??????????????????????????.53 Open coding???????????????????????..55 Axial coding???????????????????????..56 Selective coding??????????????????????59 Trustworthiness?????????????????????????..60 Ethical Considerations???????????????..???????.62 Chapter 4: Results??????????????????????????63 Participants??????????????????????????.....63 Alice??????????????????????????...67 Anne??????????????????????????...67 Emma??????????????????????????.68 Jane????????????????????????....??68 Kathy??????????????????????????..69 Overview of the Emerging Theory??????????????????69 Turning Supervision Inside Out???????????????????.70 Consultation coursework??????????????????...71 E-Mail??????????????????????????72 Reflection, work, and ?I will think about it???????????...73 Supervision: Moving from the Outside In???????????????77 Consultation Content and Process Concerns???????????.77 Strategic Interactions in Supervision?????????????.....79 The Pensieve Principal: Reflections about the Past, Audiotaping, and Logging??????????????????.......................80 Communication skills?????????????????86 IC skills???????????????????..87 Process communication and collaborative language.........91 The CIT-consultee relationship???....................??..............94 Frame of the problem?????????????????.97 Drawing the blinds??????????...???????..99 Bridges in the Present??.............?????????.???........108 Making comparisons???..........................??????......109 Comparing cases.....................................................??.109 Peer comparisons.............................................................113 Comparing sessions.........................................................115 Asking questions??..................................................................117 Reflective questions???..................................??...117 Direct reflective questions...........................................?118 Talking about and modeling reflective Questions?????????????????......121 Not answering for the CIT???????????...123 Other strategies???....................???????????127 Prioritizing?????????????????...127 Supportive comments?????????????...128 ?Less is more?????????????????..128 Referring to research?????????..????..129 v Personal experiences??????????????130 ?Thinking out loud??????????????...131 Deferring??????????????????..132 Challenging?????????????????..134 Future Application........??????????????????...138 Modeling and rehearsal????????????????138 Lessons learned???????????????????143 Planning for the upcoming case session?????????..145 Taking notes???????..???.......................................145 Use of Strategies During the Semester?????????...............146 Beginning?????????????????????.148 Middle??????????????????????..148 Middle to End???????????????????..150 End.???????????????????????..150 Feelings about the Process??.????????????.............151 Confusion?????????????????????.152 Worrying about the CIT-Consultee Relationship??????155 Frustration?????????????????????159 Positive Feelings??????????????????..165 A Grounded Theory of the Supervision Process in Pre-Service Level Consultation Training???????????????????..169 Chapter 5: Discussion????????????????????????177 Emerging Theory and Research Questions??????????????..177 The Process of University-Based Supervision for CITs??????..177 Content and Process: Concerns and their Consideration in Supervision???????????????????????..179 Outcomes of Supervision??????????????????.181 Supervisor and CIT Interactions???????????????..183 Revisiting the Literature?????????????????????..185 Developmental Approaches to Supervision???????????.187 The Role of Differentiation?????????????????..191 Differentiated Instruction???????????????.192 Differentiated Supervision??????????????...193 Differentiated Supervision in Practice????????...?..196 Limitations??????????????????????????...200 Implications for Training and Practice????????????........??203 Future Research???.......................................................................................207 Appendix A?????????????????????????????..211 Appendix B?????????????????????????????..214 References?????????????????????????????....215 vi List of Tables Table 3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Computer Software Programs in Qualitative Research??????????????????????40 Table 4.1 Description of Participants? Cases?????????????????.64 Table 4.2. Main Content and Process Concerns Faced by CITs in Pre-Service Training???????????????????????????.78 Table 4.3. Strategic Interactions in Supervision: Reflections About the Past, Bridges in the Present, and Future Application........................................................81 Table 4.4. Links between Supervisor Modeling and CIT Rehearsal in Response to Case Concerns??????????????????????????140 Table 4.5. Differences in Use of Supervision Session Strategies During the Semester??????????????????????????.147 Table 4.6. Individual Application of the Emerging Theory of Supervision in Pre-Service Level Consultation Training??????????????????..173 vii List of Figures Figure 2.1. Adding Complexity of Interactions and Levels of Support to the Consultation Triad???????????????????????????...31 Figure 4.1. Maximizing the Potential Depth of CIT Reflection Through Logs and Tapes???????????????????????????105 Figure 4.2. Limiting the Potential Depth of CIT Reflection by Not Using a Tape??106 Figure 4.3. Limiting the Potential Depth of CIT Reflection by Not Using a Log??..106 Figure 4.4. The Most Limited Potential Depth of CIT Reflection: Not Using Log or Tape???????????????????????????..107 Figure 4.5. Grounded Theory of the Supervision Process in Pre-Service Level Consultation Training????????????????????..171 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The paradigm shift in the field of school psychology in the last several years has moved practitioners away from their traditional assessment focus and toward a focus on prevention and problem solving (Reschly, 2008). Accordingly, school psychologists more frequently find themselves in the role of consultant working with individuals such as teachers, as well as within larger systems, such as schools, in the promotion of positive outcomes for students. School-based consultation involves the formation of collaborative and reciprocal relationships between consultants and consultees within a systematic problem-solving process (Zins & Erchul, 2002) and is recognized as an essential element in the repertoire of a school psychologist (Ysseldyke et al., 2006). Despite the increased prevalence of applied consultation work in the schools, at many university sites training for novice consultants is not sufficiently prioritized. In particular, even if a school psychology training program provides consultation coursework and/or practicum experiences, the important role of providing supervision as part of training for novice consultants is largely neglected or ignored (Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield, 2004). This is problematic given the importance of supervision in facilitating the maintenance, development, and expansion of skills as well as in monitoring the progress of a consultant-in-training (CIT) (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). Moreover, the provision of consultation supervision is theorized to reduce CIT stress, protect consultees (e.g., teachers) and clients (e.g., students) by adding a layer of accountability, aid in teaching about values and ethics in the field, and in regulating the profession according to the standards of the American Psychological 2 Association and the National Association of School Psychologists (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). Although there is a research base that explores the process of supervision of multiple types of skills in applied psychology in general, supervision has been neglected as an area of research in school psychology training and practice (Romans, Boswell, Carlozzi, & Ferguson, 1995; Welsh, Stanley, & Wilmoth, 2003), perhaps nowhere so much as in consultation. Research on the supervision of novice consultants in school psychology, as in other specialties areas of applied psychology, is nearly non-existent. Only a handful of articles even describe the supervision process for school-based CITs (e.g., Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003). Initiating research in the area of the process of school-based consultation supervision has important implications for both the development of theory and its application to the practice of training. The purpose of the current study is to explore the university-based supervision process for pre-service level school-based consultants engaged in a consultation course with practicum experience. Defining School-based Consultation Prior to exploring the processes of training and supervision for novice consultants, it makes sense to first develop an understanding of the role of consultation in the schools. Historical roots of school-based consultation can be traced to Caplan?s work with adolescent immigrants in Israel in the late 1940?s. Caplan (1970) reasoned that a traditional one-to-one (therapist to client) service delivery model was not an effective use of resources with a large population in need of assistance. Instead, he felt it made more sense to improve the capacity of caregivers to effectively support these youth. 3 Although this indirect service delivery model was not originally developed to use in the schools, Caplan?s mental health consultation laid the groundwork for many of the key features that shape the current practice of school-based consultation. The components include: (a) the presence of a triadic relationship (with a consultant [e.g., school-psychologist], consultee [e.g., a teacher], and client [e.g., a student]); (b) the establishment of a non-hierarchical working relationship; (c) a focus on work-related (i.e., not personal) problems, (d) the lack of a supervisory hierarchy inherent in the relationship; (e) a voluntary relationship; (f) and instilling the consultee with new skills that empower his or her future practice (Erchul & Martens, 1997). With the increasing popularity of consultation service delivery in the schools, early definitions of school-based consultation have been expanded over the last several decades. In addition, several models of consultation have been developed during this time including mental health consultation (Caplan, 1970; Caplan & Caplan, 1993) and the subcategory of consultee-centered consultation (described in detail by J. Meyers, 2002); behavioral/problem solving consultation (Kratochwill & Bergan, 1978; Kratochwill, Sheridan, Carrington-Rotto, & Salmon, 1992, Sheridan, 1997), instructional consultation (Rosefield, 1987), and organizational consultation (Schmuck & Miles, 1971; Schmuck & Runkel, 1994) as among the most frequently cited. Consultation models can be differentiated from one another based on the focus of the problem (e.g., mental health, behavioral, academic), the level of the intervention (e.g., individual student, group of students, a system), and the consultative approach (e.g.,expert or collaborative) (Scholten, 2003). Although the development of a variety of models of consultation may 4 appear to indicate an increased knowledge base in the field, this trend may actually lead to confusion in training and practice. In an ethnographic study aimed at developing a better understanding of the meaning of consultation in practice, Scholten (2003) interviewed 20 experienced practitioners to learn about their consultation experiences. The author found that consultation had different meanings to different practitioners and that it served different roles based on the practitioner?s orientation to practice. For example, while some school psychologists did not utilize consultation at all (preferring to conduct traditional assessments), others found it critical in all areas of their practice. These data have two main inferences: the definition of consultation is not uniform in the field, and personal orientation determines one?s application of consultation in practice. Confusion over the definition of consultation is not new. J. Meyers, Alpert, and Fleisher (1983) stated that while there is consensus that consultation involves a mutual process of providing assistance to a third party via indirect service, ?models differ with respect to such issues as the role of the consultant, the problems to be addressed in consultation, and the means to go about helping? (p. 7) due to inherent differences in theoretical framework and assumptions. Given the lack of consensus in the field as to a singular definition of consultation and which model to use, it seems clear that individual practitioners need to be conscious of their overall orientation towards practice, the model of consultation they will use, and the reciprocal nature of these choices. Training of School-based Consultants Despite the apparent complexity for practitioners in choosing among many models and applications of consultation in the schools, a misconception that consultation 5 training is not essential has permeated both literature and practice for decades (Conoley, 1981; Rosenfield, Levinsohn-Klyap, Cramer, in press). In reality, to function as an effective consultant requires more than intuition and content knowledge. Competent consultants are distinguished from novice consultants based on the purposeful use of skills in practice. Without appropriate training, school-based consultants risk causing harm to consultees (e.g., teachers) and clients (e.g., students) based on their actions (or lack thereof) in a given case (O?Roark, 2002). Consultation skills, like all practice skills, should not be learned on the job, but rather through a strategic training process. Frameworks of development. The learning process for trainees can be regarded as developmental in nature; trainees? knowledge and skills grow over the course of training. Two stage-based models ? a model of adult learning principles (Joyce & Showers, 1980) and a developmental approach to supervision (Stoltenberg, 2005; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998) ? provide broad frameworks to conceptualize training. Stage-based approaches to learning and supervision described within this paper are summarized in Appendix A. Although the work of Joyce and Showers (1980) was initially constructed specifically with regard to inservice training for teachers, it has been cited numerous times in the literature due to its overall applicability to adult learning processes. According to the authors, with appropriate guidance learners move through the stages of (a) awareness, (b) conceptual and organized knowledge, (c) principles and skills, and eventually to (d) application and problem solving. At the awareness stage, trainees realize the importance of particular content and hone in on that information to learn more. Next, learners organize the content they have begun to learn into larger concepts. At the 6 principle and skills level, trainees become ?aware of the [content]?, can think effectively about it, and possess the skills to act? (Joyce & Showers, p. 380). In the end, trainees are able to integrate concepts, principles, and skills into practice during their work. Based on an analysis of over 200 studies, Joyce and Showers (1980) described several components of training that are most effective in order for adult learners to move through these stages. These include an initial presentation of information (including skills or strategies), the modeling of skills, simulated practice, feedback (both structured and open-ended), and coaching for application. Joyce and Showers concluded that it is most effective to incorporate several or all of these components to maximize the effectiveness of training; excluding any of the components will weaken the impact of training. Another model, the Integrated Developmental Model of supervision (IDM) (Stoltenberg, 2005; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998) illustrates the developmental progression of psychology supervisees as they move through training. According to the IDM, supervisees experience a developmental progression through three stages (labeled 1, 2, and 3, plus 3i [integrated]) as they advance through training, and encounter three structures (useful as developmental markers) ? motivation, autonomy, and self/other awareness (Stoltenberg, 2005, 2008). Similar to the Joyce and Showers (1980) model, as the learner progresses through these developmental stages, he or she experiences increased autonomy and global awareness; the motivation process is not explored by Joyce and Showers. Also like the Joyce and Showers model, specific components of training or training strategies are more or less applicable at particular developmental stages. 7 Harvey and Struzziero (2008) adapted the IDM model to the training of school psychologists by way of supervision, expanding Stoltenberg?s (2005) three levels to five ? novice, advanced beginner, competence, proficiency, and expertise. At Stoltenberg?s Level 1, or the novice level (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008), supervisees do not have prior training or experience in the field and tend to focus on their own behavior such as acquiring and implementing skills, and their heightened emotions such as anxiety, frustration and hopefulness (Stoltenberg, 2005). Beginner supervisees tend to be highly motivated due to their excitement about their professional growth, and desire to get past their initial apprehensions toward practice (Stoltenberg, 2005). At this stage, having close, structured supervision is recommended (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). By developmental Level 2, the advanced beginner supervisees shift their focus from self toward the client (or, in the case of consultation supervision, the consultee) (Stoltenberg, 2005, 2009). At this stage, supervisees practice with more independence and less anxiety then novices, but still have limited conceptual understanding, and need continued support. In general, school psychology interns and those early in their professional careers often fit into the advanced beginner stage (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008), however one might hypothesize that the advanced beginner level could be reached earlier depending on the intensity of training provided at the pre-service level. Focus on the client (again, the consultee in the case of consultation supervision), and awareness of self are both enhanced as the supervisee progresses on to developmental Level 3 in IDM (Stoltenberg, 2005, 2009). Reflection on process and content increases, as does supervisee confidence (evidenced by increasingly autonomous practice). Level 3 in IDM is called competence by Harvey and Struzziero (2008); to 8 reach this level, a school psychologist will likely have been engaged in professional practice for a few years. This may be the final stage of development for some practitioners. Others go on to achieve the proficiency stage, generally after having practiced for three to five years. However, practice alone does not result in skill proficiency ? both reflection and integration of skills are critical to achieve this stage of development (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). According to Harvey and Struzziero, proficient practitioners recognize nuances and patterns of situations, and can think with long term consequences in mind. Proficiency is followed by the fifth and final level of development, the expert level. ?The expert is at home in complex and rapidly changing situations and no longer relies on analytical principles or rules, guidelines, or maxims? (Harvey & Struzziero, p. 40). Experts practice with intuitive automaticity, and attend to the big picture. Supervisors should be aware of the developmental level of their supervisee because each stage should be accorded a unique approach to supervision (Harvey & Struzziero; Stoltenberg, 2005, 2009). The current state of consultation training in school psychology. The training of consultation skills in the field of school psychology does not seem to follow a demonstrated effective framework for consultation training. At the School Psychology Futures Conference in 2002, the restructuring of training programs was discussed by leaders in the field (Wizda, 2004). Several threats to the practice of school psychology were identified, and many were directly related to issues around consultation, including outdated training of practitioners, a need for improved consultation skills, and resistance to the changing role of school psychologist (from traditional assessor to collaborative 9 problem-solver). Further, it was recommended that ?consultation skills such as problem solving and collaborative communication skills?should be integral parts of the training curriculum for school psychologists? (Wizda, p. 289). To assess the status of consultation training, Anton-LaHart and Rosenfield (2004) surveyed school psychology training programs and found that 87 percent of non-doctoral training programs and 100 percent of doctoral training programs responding to their survey (48 percent overall return rate) offered at least one course in consultation. However, the provision of coursework alone does not signify the development of competence in practice. Despite having courses with consultation-based content, training programs often do not offer CITs practicum experiences in consultation, and when they do, supervision is not usually provided (Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). The lack of appropriate training is reflected in the fact that school psychologists often do not feel ready to practice as school-based consultants (Costenbader, Schwartz, & Petrix, 1992) or members of consultation-based problem- solving teams (Doll et al., 2005; McDougal, Clonan, & Martens, 2000). According to Anton-LaHart and Rosenfield (2004), some important questions require attention in the consideration of consultation training: Which consultation model is prioritized in the training program? Are both content and process incorporated in training? What role does supervision play in the training process? Alpert and Taufique (2002) raised three additional questions: What criteria should be used in selecting a consultation placement, selecting a field supervisor, and evaluating the work of CITs? In a review of 30 years of training, J. Meyers (2002) also presented a multitude of questions, 10 perhaps the most overarching and unique being how do we know whether consultation training has been effective? After almost 40 years of incorporating consultation into the practice of school psychologists, many questions about the training of consultants still linger. In spite of the surplus of unanswered questions, a shortage of research in consultation training and supervision remains. In 1983, Alpert and J. Meyers raised issue with the lack of research in a volume based on the National Conference on Consultation Training; the concern has subsequently reemerged several times (Alpert & Taufique, 2002; Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield, 2004; J. Meyers, 2002; Rosenfield, 2002). As stated by J. Meyers (2002), perhaps one way to begin to answer some of these questions is ? to determine the impact of training on trainee?s knowledge and?skills? which results ?in written, audiovisual, and oral research reports produced by trainees to contribute to the knowledge base in the field? (p. 51). The beginning steps for such an investigative task may reasonably begin with an exploration of the supervision process for CITs during their university-based training ? the focus of the current study. In sum, despite the clear importance of consultation as part of a school psychologist?s role, intensive consultation training practices (including university-based supervision) are not generally in place. The lack of training practices relate to the dearth of research in the area of consultation training, and the number of questions about consultation training that remain unanswered. In chapter two, literature on supervision is explored beginning with an overview of components and outcomes of effective supervision, followed by a consideration of supervision processes in the schools, and ending with a discussion about supervision as part of consultation training. 11 Chapter 2: Review of Supervision Literature Supervision Supervision is different from related processes such as training, teaching, counseling, and consultation. Making these distinctions is important in thinking about how to provide supervision as part of training for CITs. To clarify what makes this process unique, Bernard and Goodyear (2009) defined supervision of psychological services as: An intervention provided by a more senior member of a profession to a more junior member or members of that same profession. This relationship is evaluative and hierarchical, extends over time, and has the simultaneous purposes of enhancing the professional functioning of the more junior person(s); monitoring the quality of professional services offered to the clients that she, he, or they see; and serving as a gatekeeper for those who are to enter the particular profession. (p. 7) This definition speaks to supervision as a general psychological practice subsuming supervision in specialties such as counseling psychology and clinical psychology within it. Supervision in school psychology also fits beneath this large umbrella definition, although there are some subtle distinctions that will be explored later. The specific role of clinical or professional supervision of psychological services in the schools was described by Harvey and Struzziero (2008). Although their intended focus was on school-based practice, their synopsis was based on broad supervision literature within the fields of psychology and education. Their work is therefore relevant for the purposes of further defining supervision in general terms and in considering the 12 role of supervision as applied to schools. According to Harvey and Struzziero, supervision involves (a) demonstrating and teaching techniques and skills; (b) collaborating on case conceptualization, strategy and intervention development, and the interpretation of case data; (c) debriefing after challenges such as crises; (d) providing evaluation on professional competence and growth; and (e) increasing supervisee self- awareness and reflection on their own personal strengths and challenges. Components of Effective Supervision A large literature base, mostly from the fields of clinical psychology and counseling psychology, specifies several of the elements that are vital to successful supervision outcomes (although as will be described, evidence of these outcomes ? especially with regard to clients ? is limited). To review every research study on the components of effective supervision would be beyond the scope of the current study. However, there does seem to be some agreement about the most important features of supervision including a positive supervisor-supervisee relationship, multicultural competence, and reflection, both from the supervisor and supervisee. When these components are in place, there are ideally positive results for supervisees (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008; Wheeler & Richards, 2007; Worthen & McNeill, 1996) and their client/consultees. Evidence of the latter, client change resulting from supervision, can currently be considered inconclusive due to research challenges such as controlling the numerous variables involved in supervision such as supervisor, supervisee, client, and external factors (Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995; Buser, 2008). However, one recent study of professional therapists by Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, and Lambert (2006) 13 reported that clients of supervised therapists experienced better outcomes than unsupervised therapists, providing initial data to support the impact of supervision on client outcomes. Supervisor-supervisee relationship. Barnett, Cornish, Goodyear, and Lichtenberg (2007) summarized the literature on effective supervision practices in professional supervision, and each author provided a commentary on the current state of knowledge in this area. One important condition for successful supervision identified by the authors is a good supervisor-supervisee relationship (Barnett et al.). This includes a supervisor?s commitment to the professional growth and emotional support of the supervisee, a collaborative working dynamic, and the establishment of mutual trust. According to Harvey and Struzziero (2008), ?A positive supervisory relationship is critical for effective supervision,? (p. 29) while conflictual relationships can be detrimental for supervisee development. It is important for supervisors to have strong interpersonal skills to enhance the supervisor-supervisee working relationship. The ability to do this is affected by the context for supervision, supervisor characteristics, supervisee characteristics, and the relationship dynamics (Harvey & Struzziero). Characteristics of the supervisor and supervisee that are relevant include each individual?s personal characteristics as well as their level of experience, development, and motivation. Given these factors, attention should be given to building a working alliance that includes explicit and clear expectations (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). In order to develop and enhance positive relationships, effective supervisors provide constructive feedback in a non-judgmental, supportive manner. They create a 14 safe environment that mitigates anxiety provoking circumstances that might otherwise silence a supervisee from discussing critical concerns (Barnett et al., 2007; Webb, 2000). Supervisors? modeling of ethical and professional behavior is also critical to effective supervision; this includes supervising within boundaries of one?s own competence and being cognizant and sensitive to issues of diversity (Barnett et al., 2007). As such, appropriate attention should be given to the development of multicultural competencies. Multicultural competency. Multicultural awareness is important within the supervisor-supervisee relationship, as well as in consideration of the case that is being supervised: ?Supervisors must develop their own skills in [multicultural competence] and also ensure the same for their supervisees? (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008, p. 89). As specified by Bernard and Goodyear (2009), supervisors must define all interactions as multicultural in nature; this broad definition encourages supervisors to constantly check their own assumptions. Further, it is essential to understand the dynamics of power and privilege within the supervisory relationship and to pay attention to one?s own identity development as well as the identity development of the supervisee (Butler, 2003). Self-reflection. Self-reflection on the part of the supervisor on his or her own skills is also important to effective supervision (Barnett et al., 2007; Falender et al., 2004). This involves a consideration of one?s own competencies as a supervisor and establishing and monitoring goals with the supervisee. Also important is soliciting and utilizing evaluative feedback from supervisees (Falender et al., 2004). This feedback should influence one?s supervision practices. Chronological phases of effective supervision. In a phenomenological study of supervision, Worthen and McNeill (1996) investigated the features that comprise good 15 supervision as perceived by intermediate to advanced level supervisees. The eight participants (four women and four men) in this study were from different training programs (therefore had different supervisors), and were individually interviewed regarding their experiences in supervision. Following individual interviews, the researchers analyzed transcripts by breaking down the interviews into ?meaning units? (p. 123) to describe patterns of good supervision. This involved listening to the full interview, identifying, defining, integrating, and articulating units, situating a meaning structure, and finally determining the ?essence of the experience of good supervision? (p. 125) by boiling down descriptions to their most concise forms. Individual analyses were then reconsidered at a group level to determine commonalities and differences between participants. The authors identified four chronological phases of good supervision, as well as several supervision events or themes within those phases. The four phases included existential baseline (the context of good supervision emerged), setting the stage (supervisees experienced events leading to good supervision), good supervision experience (positive and eventful supervisor-supervisee interactions within supervision), and outcomes of good supervision. This study is noteworthy not only because it informed supervision practices but also due to its phenomenological design, a novel approach to studying the complex subject of supervision. Emergent themes showed that during the existential baseline phase, supervisees grounded their confidence levels and desired rewarding supervision experiences, although they may have experienced previous unrewarding supervision, not desired evaluation, and were perhaps disillusioned with their own abilities (Worthen & McNeill, 16 1996). Next, in the setting the stage phase, supervisees experienced a sensed inadequacy due to a disruption in their normal practice routines. They had anxiety-induced emotional arousal which resulted in a perceived need to change. During the third phase, a positive supervisory relationship was in place. The supervisees? struggles were normalized, and a sense of ?freeing? (Worthen & McNeill, p. 128) resulted in reduced self-protectiveness and the ability to more readily receive supervisor feedback. Defensiveness was reduced, the supervisees? assumptions were reexamined, and a ?metaperspective? was achieved (Worthen & McNeill, p. 132). Outcomes of effective supervision. Worthen and McNeill (1996) identified outcomes of successful supervision including increased supervisee confidence, a clearer sense of professional identity, heightened ability to practice (e.g., increased case perception and conceptualization), and a strengthened supervisory working alliance. These results coincide with Harvey and Struzziero (2008), who listed supervisee skill development and maintenance, reduction of supervisee stress, increasing self-reflection for supervisees, and increased accountability to professional standards as potential positive outcomes of supervision. Wheeler and Richards (2007) conducted a systematic review of the counseling psychology and pyschotherapy supervision research literature to answer the question: ?What impact does clinical supervision have on the counselor or therapist, their practice, and their clients?? (p. 55). Eighteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in their study and they rated the methodological quality; two studies were rated as very good, thirteen as average, and three as poor. Based on their review, Wheeler and Richards concluded that ?supervision has an impact on supervisee self-awareness, skills, self-efficacy, 17 theoretical orientation, support and outcomes for the client? and that ?the timing and frequency of supervision has some differential impact? (p. 63). However, Wheeler and Richards tempered the implications of their conclusions by acknowledging the multitude of methodological problems inherent to studying supervision (hence their designation of only two very good studies), and the lack of evidence for client outcomes. Challenges in supervision research. Even though this systematic review by Wheeler and Richards (2007) mounted initial evidence for outcomes of effective supervision, it also made it clear that more research is needed. A consensus on the effects of supervision remains elusive, particularly with regard to client outcomes (Buser, 2008; Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995; Wheeler & Richards, 2007). Goodyear and Bernard (1998) stressed that ?several characteristics of supervision research create barriers to drawing inferences about which models of supervision are better than others, or even if supervision is effective in improving trainees' overall levels of therapeutic effectiveness? (p. 6). Despite this reference being over a decade old, these same challenges to supervision research still remain including ambiguous theoretical directions, small sample sizes, ethical dilemmas (such as withdrawing treatment), and challenges in determining a standard for evaluating effectiveness (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995; Wheeler & Richards, 2007). Moreover, the small numbers of extant supervision studies have been evaluated to be of poor methodological quality (Ellis, Ladany, Krengel, & Schult, 1996; Wheeler & Richards, 2007). Goodyear and Bernard (1998) suggested one way to combat some of these problems is to refocus research on the ?individual differences among trainees and supervisors that moderate supervision processes and outcomes. Understanding their 18 effects helps move counselor educators toward? understanding ?what supervision strategies work best with this trainee, working with this client in this particular context? (p. 21). Supervision of Psychological Services in the Schools Extant literature about supervision of psychological services in the schools is informed primarily by literature in the field of psychology. For example, the primary models of supervision that have been applied to school psychology include psychodynamic, cognitive/behavioral, developmental, and systems (Kaufman & Schwartz, 2003). Likewise, the existing definitions of supervision within school psychology overlap greatly with Bernard and Goodyear?s (2009) definition of clinical or professional supervision as quoted earlier. For example, Knoff (1986) referred to supervision in school psychology as promoting the effective service delivery and professional development of school psychologists that are currently in practice, and implied that supervision is hierarchical and didactic in nature. Extending on prior definitions, McIntosh and Phelps (2000) described supervision as: An interpersonal interaction between two or more individuals for the purpose of sharing knowledge, assessing professional competencies, and providing objective feedback with the terminal goals of developing new competencies, facilitating effective delivery of psychological services, and maintaining professional competencies (pp. 33-34). According to McIntosh and Phelps, this definition broadened previous conceptualizations of supervision in school psychology by implying the inclusion of 19 pairings other than hierarchical, supervisor-supervisee dyads (e.g., group supervision) and settings other than schools (e.g., university sites). By implying an expansion of settings for supervision within their definition, McIntosh and Phelps (2000) suggested that supervision for school psychologists is important from early levels of training and should continue throughout eventual practice in the schools. Previous definitions had focused primarily on work transpiring ?in the field? (Knoff, 1986, p. 529). Subsequently, supervision of pre-internship experiences was neglected as a focus of research attention (Welsh et al., 2003). Although seeming to exclude pre-service supervision in his definition of school psychology supervision, Knoff (1986) also stated that ?supervision should be an ongoing activity from one?s preservice entrance into the field to one?s retirement after years of productive service? (p. 533). Supervision should therefore occur across five statuses identified by Knoff ? practicum experiences, internship, entry level (first three to six years of practice), independent practice, and eventually as a supervisor. These statuses overlap with previously described frameworks of development in training (see Appendix A). At the pre-service level (i.e., practicum and internship) supervision should principally be provided by university faculty and support staff, and potentially supplemented by field-based supervisors. During internship, supervision is provided by a university supervisor and field-based supervisor, and coordination between these individuals should occur frequently. At the entry and independent levels, supervision may come from any of multiple resources ? an external supervisor, a peer supervisor, or an administrative supervisor. The last status is that of supervisor, which does not 20 necessarily occur exclusively. That is, one may simultaneously be a supervisor and practitioner, ideally after having achieved an independent status. As one engages in the role of supervisor, he can continue to receive supervision ? this is called ?metasupervision? (Knoff, p. 535). When a school psychologist moves from the training level to practicing in the field, he may receive administrative supervision, clinical (professional) supervision, or both (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008; Hunley, Curtis, & Batsche, 2002; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2004). One distinction between these two types of supervision is that administrative supervisors are not necessarily school psychologists, while clinical supervisors are expected to be within the profession (Hunley et al., 2002). Administrative and clinical supervision also differ in focus. Administrative supervisors are concerned with the functioning of the service unit (e.g., psychology services) or building (e.g., the school); accordingly, the school psychologist?s performance is evaluated based on outcomes and consumer satisfaction (NASP, 2004). Clinical supervisors on the other hand are specifically trained in supervision and aim to support the professional development of their supervisees in concordance with professional standards. According to NASP, practitioners should have access to both administrative and professional supervision, although it is recognized that the structure of supervision will differ per organization. Within the field of school psychology, assessment, counseling, and consultation are the three main areas of practice in which professional supervision is critical; yet research has shown that practitioners do not receive adequate supervisory support in any of these areas (Crespi, 2003; Crespi & Dube, 2005). According to Crespi (2003), 21 ?despite the acknowledgement that clinical supervision is valuable, it has remained overlooked in schools? [and in the] supervision literature in both school psychology and school counseling? (p. 69). The lack of supervision research and practice is disconcerting given the increasing breadth of challenges and complexities that school psychologists encounter (Crespi, 2003; Crespi & Dube, 2005; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). The educational context in which school psychologists practice brings its own distinct challenges in terms of funding, legislation, varied school psychologist roles (which in addition to personal values, may be dictated by systemic philosophy), and increasingly diverse student populations. Another complication in providing supervision to school psychologists involves school psychology?s paradigm shift from a traditional assessment focus to a more ecological problem solving model, which has put many school psychologists into roles (such as consultant) for which they often do not feel appropriately trained (Costenbader et al., 1992; Doll et al., 2005; McDougal et al., 2000). Moreover, those who supervise school psychologists often lack specific knowledge or skills that are important for the provision of effective supervision services (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008), particularly true in the domain of consultation. This is extremely problematic since appropriate and effective supervision is ?essential to the professional development and practice of school psychologists? (Conoley & Sullivan, 2002, p. 131). Supervision of Consultation Techniques. There are specific supervision techniques that are suggested to augment the development of key consultation skills (Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). Although these techniques do not have a specific evidence base 22 within the consultation training or consultation supervision literature, they overlap greatly with techniques of clinical supervision outlined by Bernard and Goodyear (2009). Bernard and Goodyear used the term interventions to describe supervision techniques, and stated that reasons for choosing specific methods include supervisee and supervisor goals, supervisee experience level and style of learning, and supervisor theoretical orientation. As with other clinical skills, the consultation orientation of the supervisor is important to consider in consultation supervision. ?Technical eclecticism?, immediate, and long-term goals of supervision should aid a supervisor in choosing a technique to best suit the needs of a given supervisee (Bernard & Goodyear, p. 219). Interventions may fall on a continuum from unstructured to structured. Unstructured interventions involve less supervisor control and promote supervisee learning with limited supervisor direction, while structured interventions involve more control and direction from the supervisor (Bernard & Goodyear). Some of the interventions listed by Bernard and Goodyear (2009) included the use of self-report, process and case notes, audiotapes and videotapes of supervisees during their fieldwork, and an ongoing process of reflection. All of these techniques for supervision can be seen as relevant to the components of training suggested as important by Joyce and Showers (1980), outlined earlier in this paper. They also can be considered important in promoting the developmental growth of CITs from novice to advanced beginner and beyond. As such, a detailed description of the tools for supervision will help to provide the reader an understanding of a context for supervision that enhances the learning of supervisees and is considered essential in the skill development of CITs. 23 Audiotapes. Audiotaping is one of the oldest techniques applied in supervision, and is still one of the most widely used (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). It provides the CIT with an opportunity for reflection, and ?gives the supervisor a full and accurate picture of what was said during the consultation session and how it was said? (Rosenfield et al., in press, p. 12). Audiotaping can be utilized in a variety of ways. Both supervisees and supervisors can listen to the tape prior to the session to pull out productive moments, supervisee struggles, confusions (often related to use of language), and cultural dynamics (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). Supervisees can be encouraged to write a critique of their sessions in the field which can be used to help guide the supervision session. Transcripts are also useful in helping supervisees reflect on their session (Bernard & Goodyear). For the CIT, tapes allow a chance to listen back and reflect on what happened in a given session with a teacher. Upon listening to a tape, CITs often hear their use of communication skills differently than they did in the moment, are able to identify various communication strengths and snafus, and reflect on what can be done differently in the future (Rosenfield et al., in press). The taping of sessions may also increase the motivation and achievement of consultants because there is an increased rigor of preparation knowing that the session will be taped (Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003; Rosenfield et al.). Moreover, when audiotaping of sessions is combined with written self-critiques, supervisee?s may experience enhanced receptiveness to critical feedback as their own voice is part of the supervision process (Sobell, Manor, Sobell, & Dum, 2008). Transcription of tapes is particularly important in the early stages of training, such as an initial practicum placement (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). Transcription helps CITs reflect on session dynamics such their own use communication skills and collaborative 24 language (e.g., ?we? versus ?you? or ?I?), and related, their developing relationship with the consultee. The combination of transcription with audiotaping allows for CITs to notice their own mistakes ?such as [asking] multiple questions or [making] a run of incomplete statements? in a manner not ?possible using audiotape alone? (Bernard & Goodyear, p. 226). Although transcribing may be time consuming, it provides a unique opportunity for in-depth reflection of the CIT. Moreover, even if only selected segments of a session are transcribed, it is still useful to both the CIT and supervisor. Both tapes and transcriptions can be used by supervisors to help plan a supervision session. They provide the supervisor with information about both the process and content of what happened for the CIT in their session with a teacher. Supervisors can use this information to compare the CIT?s perceptions of the session with what the supervisor heard on the tape (Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003; Rosenfield et al., in press). This can be particularly important in thinking about areas such as the CIT?s use of communication skills (Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003), and the content of the case conceptualization, which a novice consultant may not have enough knowledge or skill to work through. Supervisors need to be strategic in their use of audiotapes in helping to plan a supervision session. Recording the session is not useful if the supervisee and supervisor do not review the tape before their supervision session. Further, playing a tape in the supervision session without previously identifying a reason to do so is misguided (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). There are several ways that audiotapes can be used constructively in supervision. Tapes can be played to highlight the use of specific 25 techniques, relate process and content, consider language usage, and to reinforce CIT successes and work through CIT struggles (Bernard & Goodyear). At first, supervisors may pick out tape segments to review; however, responsibility for this process may eventually be transitioned to the CIT (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). When CITs select a segment, they should be able to state the reason and what they would like assistance in working through. An alternative option may involve the supervisor asking the CIT to think about a particular theme (e.g., creating a shared concern with the teacher), work on that in their next consultation session, and present in supervision a segment where this occurred (Bernard & Goodyear). It seems clear that ?careful preselection of an audiotape segment is perhaps most crucial in making the audiotape a powerful supervision tool? (Bernard & Goodyear, p. 225). There are some limitations to the use of audiotapes, the most pertinent being that students may find taping to be an anxiety-provoking process (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003). This is likely especially true at the very beginning of the practicum process. As a result, CITs may demonstrate resistance in the form of forgetting to bring their audio recording device to the practicum setting, or forgetting to tape the session (Rosenfield et al., in press). CITs may also claim that their clients do not feel comfortable with being taped (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). Although this claim may sometimes have validity, it is usually the CIT who is experiencing more anxiety about the taping process than the consultee. As stated by Bernard and Goodyear, ?the majority of [consultees] are open to having their sessions audiotaped if the supervisee?s demeanor is professional when presenting the topic of audiotaping and they have an 26 assurance that confidentiality will not be compromised? (p. 223). Despite potential for some CIT stress, the use of audiotaping seems to be a crucial feature of supervision. Although historically cassette tapes have been used for recording sessions, the use of digital recorders is becoming the norm. Digital recorders are less cumbersome in size than traditional tape recorders. They are easier to transport (often being able to fit into one?s pocket) and are less invasive within a session than a bulky tape recorder. Digital recorders allow easy transition of files such as MP3s, WAVs, or WMAs where they can be played with relative ease; they can also be burned onto a compact disc. If files are later transcribed, there are many computer programs available online (both for free and for purchase) that make transcription easier by allowing the typist to slow down the speed of playback, create automatic stopping points, and assign hot keys to control functions such as stop, play, pause, rewind, and fast forward. One disadvantage of digital recorders is that when powered by batteries they may be drained quickly causing the recorder to die in the middle of the session. All things considered, it seems the advantages of digital recorders far outweigh the limitations. Reflection. The professional growth of supervisees is also encouraged through a reflective process that may involve process notes/written critique of audiotapes, journal writing, Interpersonal Process Recall (for more on IPR see Kagan, 1980), as well as supervisors? own reflection on their supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Conoley & Sullivan, 2002). Encouraging supervisee reflectivity is certainly not an easy process, and its occurrence should not be taken for granted. Establishing a context for reflection has been suggested to be of primary importance; to do so means providing ?time, encouragement, and psychological space?as well as a supervisory relationship built on 27 trust? (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009, p. 232). It seems that establishing a strong supervisor-supervisee relationship as described earlier is a critical foundation for enhancing CIT reflection. One concrete method to promote the reflective process is by requiring CITs to write process notes about their sessions. CIT process notes include reflections they had both during the session and while listening back to the tape, and may be about their use of communication skills, relationship dynamics with the consultee, what went well and what could be done differently, what they want to discuss in supervision, and how they plan to approach future sessions (Rosenfield et al., in press). According to Garcia (2004), requiring CITs to complete logs and analyses is also an essential component of training because it promotes their reflectivity. However, composing the log is not sufficient in the full promotion of CIT reflectivity. Since the supervisor ?should focus on helping the [CIT] to engage in problem and frame analysis through active inquiry? (Garcia, p. 366), discussing CIT logs in supervision is essential. In addition, when listening to the CIT tape, a supervisor may also take notes which can later be used to inform discussion (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). Requiring journal writing can also be a critical contributor to supervisee reflection (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). The journal writing process can be loosely structured, with CITs encouraged to reflect on whatever they are thinking about regarding their own development as CITs. This may be relevant to a particular case, something discussed in class, or a reflection about the development of his or her personal orientation toward practice in the schools. It is too limited to confine the reflective process solely within the 28 walls of supervision sessions ? various experiences likely lead to CITs reflecting several times a day, even if not within a structured context. Through the use of audiotaping, transcribing, written reflection of sessions, journaling, the actual practicum experience, and consultation coursework ? all in addition to weekly supervision, it seems that CITs are in a perennial state of reflection. Likely, the promotion of CIT reflectivity encourages the growth of supervisees from Joyce and Shower?s (1980) initial stage of awareness toward eventual application and problem solving in the field. In addition to the reflection of the CIT, a supervisor should be reflective throughout the supervision process. The importance of supervisor reflectivity is demonstrated in the description of supervisors? use of CITs audiotapes in preparing for a session. A supervisor?s self-reflection can also be encouraged through ?metasupervision? (Knoff, 1986, p. 535) during the vertical supervision process (Alpert & Taufique, 2002). Bernard and Goodyear (2009) aptly summarized the importance of supervisor reflectivity: Supervision is not something someone does, but something that someone is...supervisors who have a philosophy of supervision reflect on their supervision; they view reflective behavior as something to engage, not something to teach. Only through their own reflection can the supervisor continue to pair functional supervision with a maturing philosophy of supervision. (p. 235) Preservice consultation training. The development of CIT knowledge and skills is accomplished through consultation training. However, as was described in the introduction chapter, methods for consultation training are not yet consistent across 29 training programs, including the provision (or lack thereof) of supervision and practicum experiences (Anton-Lahart & Rosenfield, 2004). Questions about how to best engage in consultation training still abound despite almost 40 years of practice (Alpert & Meyers, 1983; Alpert & Taufique, 2002; Anton-Lahart & Rosenfield, 2004; J. Meyers, 2002; Rosenfield, 2002; Rosenfield et al., in press). The research that has been conducted on preservice level consultation training has largely focused on behavioral consultation training models (e.g., Sheridan et al., 1992). For example, Kratochwill, Elliott, and Busse (1995) evaluated a competency-based behavior training program by looking at consultant change, client outcomes, and consumer satisfaction and found increases in consultants? knowledge and skills, client goal attainment, and consumer satisfaction with both training and service. A study by Lepage, Kratochwill, and Elliott (2004) replicated these findings and provided the additional finding that training resulted in not only immediate skill and knowledge increases for consultants, but maintained improvements between six months to four years following training. Despite these compelling findings, the aforementioned questions about how to pragmatically teach consultation to CITs remain prevalent given the lack of uniform definition of consultation in the field and the importance of one?s personal orientation towards practice and training (Scholten, 2003). For example, A. E. Meyers (2002) described the challenges she faced in developing a consultation course as a new faculty member, especially with regard to merging her vision of consultation training with the existing curriculum, and balancing didactic and applied components of training. 30 In consideration of her own identity, values, and clinical-community psychology background, Meyers utilized a Black feminist epistemology to frame her course. She stressed the importance of CITs? self-examination on their lived experiences in order to enhance feelings of confidence and accountability. Meyers also aimed to increase CITs? comfort with their own expert knowledge while simultaneously ?learning to respect the expertise of consultees without feeling threatened? (p. 65), all with the intention of promoting collaborative practice, encouraging the development of CITs? professional identities, and a dialogue about the meaning of expertise. Meyers?s orientation towards training shaped the development of her course and the ensuing training experiences of the CITs; in the meantime, she did not lose sight of the essential conceptual knowledge and skills to be taught as part of consultation training. The development of consultation skills. Across various consultation models, there seems to be much agreement on the skills needed for competence in consultation in addition to the key strategies for promoting those skills (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). CIT skill development has been described using Joyce and Showers? (1980) developmental framework: CITs move from levels of awareness, to conceptual understanding, to skill acquisition, to the eventual application of skills (Rosenfield, 2002; Rosenfield et al., in press). Supervision may be considered crucial to training CITs in the application of skills phase needed to practice as competent consultants, although again, there is not yet a research base to support this claim. During this process of skill development, foundational content knowledge should be developed first through the use of course work such as readings, discussion, and reflections (Rosenfield et al., in press). CITs can also learn about consultation specific 31 content knowledge such as the problem solving stages, different models of consultation, and the role of consultation in the field of school psychology. Role and relationship variables should also be considered (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). This involves instructing, modeling, and rehearsing effective interpersonal and communication skills (Rosenfield, 2002). Another important strategy is to promote CITs? development of contextual and systems understanding, including classrooms, schools, communities, families, and school cultural variables (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). It is recommended that CITs receive ongoing assessment and appraisal in the individual growth of their consultation skills; it is most critical that appropriate feedback and guidance provision through modes such as coaching and supervision be provided for CITs to be able to apply their skills in actual situations (Rosenfield, 2002; Rosenfield et al., in press). Complex dynamics of consultation supervision. There are several dynamics that make supervision for CITs unique from supervision in general and supervision of psychological services in the schools. Perhaps one of the most important differences for consideration is the several direct and indirect relationships that result in a multi- directional impact of consultation supervision. Although the complicated nature of relationships is present in all forms of supervision (Kaufman & Schwartz, 2003), the dynamics in consultation supervision are additionally complex. Alpert and Taufique (2002) described a vertical model of consultation supervision in one school psychology program in which a CIT is supervised by an advanced graduate student in the same program, who is in turn supervised by an expert consultant (a professor who instructs the course). The professor is responsible for every aspect of 32 supervision along this hierarchy, and provides an outlet for the supervision and reflection of the supervisor. The vertical supervision model is descriptive, but does not explore the inherent complexity of dynamics that happen when squaring the consultation triad (Newman, Burkhouse, & Rosenfield, 2008), thus creating a pentagon by adding the course supervisor into the dynamics. The many interactions involved in the supervision process are demonstrated in Figure 2.1 (conceptually developed by Newman et al.). The solid lines reflect direct relationships, while dotted lines indicate indirect relationships. Note that some of the relationships are bidirectional, while others are unidirectional. Squaring the triad creates a third direct relationship (i.e., supervisor and consultant/CIT), and triples the number of indirect interactions. (i.e., the supervisor?s practices have an indirect effect on the consultee, and ultimately the child). When considering the role of the course instructor (i.e., the supervisor of the supervisor), the square becomes a pentagon. Each layer of direct and indirect interactions that is added to the supervision process adds a layer of support for the CIT, with the indirect aim of promoting positive outcomes for the consultee (teacher) and the client (student). Summary The pertinence of some of Bernard and Goodyear?s (2009) interventions to consultation supervision notwithstanding, consultation-specific supervision knowledge is severely lacking. Only a handful of articles that describe the process of consultation supervision have been composed (e.g., Cramer & Rosenfield, 2003, Rosenfield et al., in press). Because of the lack of literature and research, skeletal information guides the practice of supervision in the training of novice-consultants. The results of surveys 33 Child Child Supervisor Consultee Consultant Consultee Consultant A. Traditional Consultation Triad B. Squaring the Triad Expert Supervisor Child Supervisor Consultee Consultant C. The Supervision Pentagon Key = Direct relationship = Indirect relationship Figure 2.1. Adding complexity of interactions and levels of support to the consultation triad. suggest that training programs either do not provide supervision at all, or provide supervision that does not include generally applicable best practices of supervision such as those mentioned above. Without the appropriate support of supervision, students risk 34 misapplying skills, and do not receive sufficient feedback on their progress (Newman & Burkhouse, 2008). Initiating research on the process of school-based consultation supervision has important implications for both the development of theory and its application to the practice of training. Given the incorporation of supervision as part of training at the University of Maryland, a unique opportunity exists to conduct research about the learning process for CITs during supervision of their practicum experiences. Statement of Purpose and Research Questions: The purpose of the current study is to explore the university-based supervision process for pre-service level school-based consultants engaged in a consultation course with practicum experience. The guiding research question is: How does the process of university-based supervision in pre-service level, school-based consultation training work? Specific questions of interest include: What content and process concerns arise for CITs during their practicum experiences? How are these concerns considered through the supervision process? What are the interactions between the CITs and me (the supervisor) as part of supervision? 35 Chapter 3: Process of Inquiry Situating the Research and Methodology A qualitative approach to this study is appropriate given: (a) the lack of prior research on this topic; (b) the particular questions of interest (?what? and ?how? questions); (c) the need for theory development; (d) my ability to access a variety of unique data; and (e) my own developing constructivist worldview. In addition, even though prior research in consultation has mostly fallen within a ?hypothetico-deductive? frame, it has been suggested that qualitative research methods may be more appropriate for the study of consultation and consultation training (Hylander, 2004, p. 377). In particular, she stressed the inherent links between constructivist grounded theory and non-prescriptive consultation research. This research will be situated within a constructivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2001), and will use Grounded Theory (GT) methodology (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967, 1999; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Historical basis of GT. The methodology known as grounded theory (GT) was initially developed by Glaser and Strauss who collaborated in 1967 to compose The Discovery of GT: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Glaser and Strauss developed their perspectives from divergent educational and theoretical backgrounds, Strauss influenced by interactionism and pragmatism through the University of Chicago?s qualitative research tradition, and Glaser through empirical roots at Columbia University. Despite having differing worldviews, Glaser and Strauss collaborated to cohesively blend flexibility and structure into the GT methodology (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Through GT, researchers aim to generate substantive theory 36 that is rooted or grounded in the data rather than a theory that is preconceived (unless the aim is to extend pre-existing theory) (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In brief, some of the hallmarks of GT include a constant comparative method of data analysis, three specified levels of coding, and theoretical sampling; these features will all be revisited more explicitly when I specify the methods of the current study in a subsequent section. In a constant comparative method, data are analyzed in a non-linear process at all stages from data collection through analysis and interpretation. This may consist of comparisons within and across participants, points in time, incidents, and categories (Jones et al., 2006). The levels of coding in GT include open, axial, and selective; these span the process of breaking data into pieces (open coding), putting the data back together into defined categories (axial coding), and selecting a core category (selective coding) that integrates the key categories to inform the theory. Theoretical sampling involves revisiting the data (which may include participants, scenes, events, or documents) to refine the emerging theory (Charmaz, 2000; Jones et al., 2006). The work of Glaser and Strauss (1967) was considered revolutionary because they challenged the conception that qualitative research lacked rigorous methods and systematic processes, connected data collection and data analysis stages of research, demonstrated the capacity of qualitative research to produce theory, and bridged gaps between theory and research (Charmaz, 2000). However, differences in perspective between the researchers grew with time and the evolving nature of the GT methodology, which led the two to embark on separate research paths ? Strauss eventually pairing with Corbin to more clearly delineate GT procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; 1998), and Glaser (1992) becoming critical of what he described as the prescriptive nature of Strauss 37 and Corbin?s approach. Despite their contrasting perspectives, the work of both Glaser, and Strauss and Corbin have been described by Charmaz (2000) as positivistic with ?objectivist underpinnings? (p. 510), Glaser in the direction of traditional positivism and Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) considered to be more post-positivist in their approach. Regardless of similarities and differences, Glaser and Strauss?s split in the early 1990?s created controversy over the appropriate procedures for implementing and deriving meaning from a GT study (Creswell, 2007; Fassinger, 2005). According to Charmaz (2000), both ?what GT is? and also what it ?should be? are points of contention for qualitative researchers undertaking a GT methodological approach (p. 510). The current state of researcher interpretation of GT ranges on a continuum from what some would consider traditional positivist on one end, to work which is framed as postmodern (e.g., Clarke, 2005) on the other. Constructivist GT. Charmaz (2000) proposed a constructivist approach to GT through which a researcher ?takes a middle ground between postmodernism and positivism, and offers accessible methods for taking qualitative research into the 21st century? (p. 510). It is her contention that ?we can reclaim [GT] tools from their positivist underpinnings to reform a revised, more open-ended practice of GT that stresses its emergent, constructivist elements? and ?can use GT methods as flexible, heuristic strategies rather than as formulaic procedures? (p. 510). In sum, Charmaz (2000) argued that a constructivist approach to GT espouses the need for flexibility in lieu of prescription, the importance of focusing on meaning to enhance interpretability, and the possibility to use GT methodology without having a positivist worldview. 38 A constructivist frame for the GT methodology matches perfectly with the current study. For one, as a former CIT who participated in the supervision process two years ago, I feel my own learning process was mutually constructed with my supervisor (an advanced student in the program) as well as the course instructor. As the supervisor for CITs in the study at hand, I continued to feel that knowledge was mutually constructed through our experiences. Further, at the University of Maryland, consultation supervision involves all participants using prior and current experiences to inform knowledge. Together, we are constantly reflecting on and constructing meaning from all of these experiences. Reflection takes place independently (e.g., written supervision logs as well as reflections for the course), in a dyad (e.g., a supervision session or the supervisor meeting with the course instructor), in a triad (e.g., supervision with two CITs), or in a larger group (e.g., as part of course discussion). With the multitude of interactions involved, treating the supervision process for CITs in isolation does not make sense. As Creswell (2007) stated, ?constructivist researchers?address the ?processes? of interactions among individuals? (p. 21). These interactions and how they inform the ?qualis? or ?whatness? (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006, p. 119) of the supervision process are driving the current study. Structure versus flexibility. As a novice qualitative researcher engaging in my first GT study, I wanted to stay closely tied to the data and to approach this study with some amount of structure (Fassinger, 2005). On the other hand, I struggled with my desire to stay true to the constructivist approach that has shaped this study from its inception, and to let the core story and developing theory emerge from the interactive 39 constructions between myself, the participants, and others involved in the consultation process (i.e., consultees and the metasupervisor). Although Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) provided a structured approach to GT research, guidelines such as theirs may be considered ?didactic and prescriptive rather than emergent and interactive? (Charmaz, 2000, p. 524). Charmaz warned that ?by taking GT methods as prescriptive scientific rules? we risk moving towards objectivism and positivism, and thereby risk neglecting the role of context as part of the research process (p. 524). In order to find a balance between structure and flexibility, I turned to Strauss and Corbin (1998) for explicit guidance on how to approach analytic processes systematically, but I tempered their approach with guidance from Charmaz (2006), allowing me to step out of an inflexible, procedural box. The need to find a balanced approach to GT methodology is not uncommon. For example, Fassinger (2005) stated that ?the extent to which GT researchers actually use all aspects of axial coding as outlined by Strauss and Corbin is variable? (p. 161), and although she skeletally follows Strauss and Corbin?s (1998) procedures, she does not rigidly adhere to every structure. Creswell (2007) noted that some aspects of Strauss and Corbin?s (1998) process (e.g., the conditional/consequential matrix) are rarely used in GT research, especially research conducted within a constructivist frame. Strauss and Corbin themselves stated that ?it would be unrealistic to assume or even suggest that researchers will use every procedure described in this book? and that their methods provide a ?smorgasbord table from which [researchers] can choose, reject, and ignore according to their own ?tastes?? (pp. 8-9). Use of computer software. Decisions about whether or not, and in what manner, to use a computer software program for data organization and analysis is colored by one?s 40 paradigmatic perspective and methodological approach. Charmaz (2000) concluded that programs such as NVivo may fit more appropriately for objectivist rather than constructivist researchers, in part because using such a program may ?unintentionally foster an illusion that interpretive work can be reduced to a set of procedures? (p. 520). Conversely, it is clear that computer programs make data organization and analysis easier (Fassinger, 2005), and most qualitative researchers use a computer at some level during the research process (Legeiwe, 1998). Several of the advantages and disadvantages of using a qualitative research software program were outlined by Creswell (2007), and are summarized in Table 3.1. One disadvantage that is perhaps the most relevant in my attempt to approach this study as a novice constructivist GT researcher, is the idea that a computer program puts a mechanistic barrier between the researcher and the data. This distance clashes with the co-construction of meaning at the heart of constructivist GT. Fassinger (2005) suggested one compromise may be to use computer programs primarily for organizational purposes such as storage and retrieval, and to step away from the computer to conduct data analysis more intimately. Table 3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Computer Software Programs in Qualitative Research (Adapted from Creswell, 2007, pp. 165-166). Advantages Disadvantages ? Organized file system to locate, store, and retrieve materials. ? Puts a machine between the researcher and the actual data. ? Easy to search for text at any level ? Learning how to use a program may 41 (e.g., idea, statement, word, etc.) be challenging. ? Encourages close investigation of data (e.g., line by line). ? May lack features or capability that researchers need. ? Enables concept mapping for visualization of relationships between codes and themes. ? Categories and organization may be changed by the software user, slowing the analytic process. ? Easy retrieval of memos associated with codes, themes, or documents. ? Variable ease of use and accessibility. ? Costly ? Not tied to any specific qualitative methodology. In the consideration of all of this information, and at the urging of one of my dissertation committee members, I decided to use the computer software program NVivo 8 as a tool in completing this project. For one, NVivo presented a means to organize and structure massive amounts of data, and even though I would take a step backwards (by taking time to learn the program) before moving forwards (memoing, transcribing, and beginning open coding), using NVivo would ultimately be beneficial in terms of organization. Second, NVivo offered great power in terms of locating, retrieving, comparing and contrasting data including both raw forms (e.g., transcript excerpts and memos) and codes. Prior to committing to use NVivo, I imagined myself in two scenarios: (a) drowned in a sea of colorful post-its and diagrams, sitting on a raft built from pages of transcripts versus (b) sitting at a computer, data at my fingertips, concepts, 42 categories, and theory emerging from the data. The choice to use this program seemed clear. However, I continued to struggle with how using a computer program fit with a constructivist approach to GT, especially given the potential consequence of distancing myself from the data and accordingly, the experiences of the participants. Further, Charmaz (2000) warned that ?objectivist GT studies?remain outside of the experience?[and] foster externality by invoking procedures that increase complexity at the expense of experience? (p. 525). My goal in using the computer program NVivo was to facilitate a more parsimonious research process to assist me in painting a picture of the role of supervision in consultation training; I do not wish to add layers of complexity to a process that is not yet well understood. However, I argue that approaching this study from a constructivist perspective and using a computer program are not mutually exclusive endeavors. Rather, it strikes me that what is most important is how I used this program, which was informed by my constructivist approach to GT. I have used NVivo as an organizational tool as described by Fassinger (2005), and have also used the program for coding/conceptualizing, memoing, categorizing, and modeling, and to provide a trail of evidence that traces my research journey (not only for the benefit of the reader, but also to stay true to myself in understanding my first qualitative research journey). While doing so, I have worked to purposefully resist the temptation of overanalyzing data, and many times have pulled myself out of the mire of complexity. NVivo begs the researcher to constantly manipulate, reorganize, model and remodel, query and requery the data? an analytic process that has the potential to last indefinitely. 43 Moreover, the choice to do such technical and complicated analyses is not necessarily methodologically warranted, especially in constructivist GT. Whenever I became stuck in the analytic process, I took my own paradigmatic temperature by returning to the constructivist literature (most frequently Charmaz, 2000 and 2006), and then refocused on the constructed experiences of the participants rather than the interpretations of those experiences from a distance. By doing so, I have attempted to move from ?a real world to be discovered, tracked, and categorized to a world made real in the minds and through the words and actions of its members? to create ?an image of a reality, not the reality? (Charmaz, 2000, p. 523), which I do not presume can be discovered. Self-Reflexivity In this study I engaged in dual roles, those of researcher and supervisor, and several resulting biases need be acknowledged. Let me first briefly describe my own experiences; without doing so, I risk neglecting my role as the supervisor in favor of my role as the researcher and thereby ignore the manner in which supervision sessions are mutually constructed by the CIT and myself. In addition, the paragraphs that follow help parse out (to the extent possible) me as supervisor from the more general role of supervisor that will be considered in the central discussion of supervision as part of consultation training. To begin with, I need to acknowledge my own background in consultation training: I was a consultation student engaged in the same two semester sequence as the participants in this study (including coursework, practicum, and supervision) two years earlier. In a subsequent section, I will describe the context of this training program, including its focus on Instructional Consultation (IC). For now, I will state that this 44 training background shaped who I am as a consultant and focused the lens through which I supervised the participants. For example, there are unique skills (e.g., communication skills) and foci (prioritizing academic concerns) that instructional consultants value and are accordingly receive attention in supervision. In short, my particular consultation training background impacted my supervision practices; this study would not have looked the same if the supervisor had a consultation training background that differed from my own. To further describe my background, the semester in which the data were collected was my third semester acting as a consultation supervisor. I had supervised one student the previous year and six students the previous semester. Making a parallel to the developmental model of consultation training (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008), I would consider myself to be somewhere on the supervisor skill level continuum of beginner to advanced beginner level at the time of this study. Unfortunately, I was not engaged in a course about supervision in conjunction with my applied experience. However, I had two experiences that enhanced my personal growth as a supervisor: ongoing metasupervision and beginning my dissertation. Through metasupervision, I was able to consult weekly with an expert-level supervisor who guided me when I lacked content or process knowledge necessary to work with a CIT through a concern. More important than acting as a knowledge-gap sealant, the metasupervisor modeled a supervision process that I emulated in my own work with CITs. This included using more advanced communication skills such as posing reflective questions and encouraging reflective and collaborative problem solving instead of simply providing answers. Second, by simultaneously working on my 45 dissertation about consultation supervision while acting as a consultation supervisor, I learned about research-based supervision techniques, constantly reflected on my role, and acted as a scientist-practitioner by connecting my ongoing research to an applied experience. I readily acknowledge that I began the research process with the preconception that supervision is an important part of training for novice consultants. This may be considered a problematic bias because even though research has shown supervision to be important for school psychologists (Fischetti & Lines, 2003; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008), the role that supervision has in consultation training has not yet been documented. On the other hand, I recognize that my knowledge of the supervision process for CITs during supervision began quite broadly and became more fine-tuned through the completion of this study. My understanding was inexorably tied to the developmental growth of the particular supervisees with whom I worked. That is exactly why this study was approached from a constructivist frame ? we constructed meaning through our work together via processes that are not yet adequately understood. Another complication of engaging in dual roles was the trouble of evaluating myself as a supervisor from the perspective of myself as researcher. I do not think it would be possible to accurately evaluate my own successes or failures in this role (both of which I acknowledge were plentiful). The intent of this study is not to evaluate my own effectiveness as a supervisor. I acknowledge that I am a budding supervisor, with much to learn about supervision. I continued to reflect upon my own skills on a daily basis as I worked on this paper, supervised students, and met with the course professor/research auditor acting as my supervisor. Granted, as a supervisor for CITs I 46 am a vital part of the supervision process, and it will be important to describe my role and use my voice within this research. I will do so cautiously and with the purpose of understanding the overall supervision process and our construction of that process as a supervisory dyad. As noted by Demerath (2006), ?qualitative researchers...often?have to actively give up control if they are truly going to get close to the local or emic point of view? (p. 102). Through my dual roles I will give up traditional definitions of objectivity (consistent with the constructivist approach that frames this study) in exchange for a deeper understanding of a dynamic process. By doing so, I will best be able to represent the voices and experiences of myself and the participants, as well as the meaning that we create together. Research Context: Supervision and Training of CITs at the University of Maryland The next section of this paper will explore the nature of consultation training at the University of Maryland, the setting for this research, including the role of supervision. This is important because the University of Maryland?s consultation training program, unlike most other programs, employs many of the supervision practices discussed in chapter two. In fact, the intensity of consultation supervision at University of Maryland may be seen by the reader to more accurately reflect the intensity of training for psychotherapy trainees (e.g., rather than what would be found at most school psychology programs where consultants receive training and supervision. As such, this setting may be considered a type of ?extreme?, ?deviant?, or exemplary setting that allows us to ?learn from highly unusual manifestations of the phenomenon of interest? (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28), in this case supervision. The School Psychology Program at the 47 University of Maryland is uniquely suited for research on school-based consultation training and supervision due to its clearly articulated model. Overview. The training process for novice-consultants includes two semesters of coursework, including a school-based practicum experience in a school with an existing problem-solving team, and extensive on-campus supervision with an advanced student in the School Psychology Program. Reflection, modeling, feedback, and support are all important components of the supervision process for CITs. This supervision process has been developed by an expert-consultant based on her extensive experience in the field, and is consistent with supervision practices outlined by Bernard and Goodyear (2009). Coursework includes an overview of consultation models, the problem-solving process, school culture and school change variables, characteristics of effective instructional practices, instructional assessment, team processes, and systems level consultation. Although CITs learn about several different models of consultation during their training coursework, the emphasis is in instructional consultation (IC). The nature of supervision, therefore, looks different than if another model of consultation, such as behavioral consultation, was stressed. IC provides a unique focus that is ecological and academic, and therefore can be considered especially pertinent for school-based consultants. Given its centrality to the current study, it is important to briefly describe this consultation model. Instructional Consultation. IC aims to empower teachers through a structured, stage-based problem-solving process (Rosenfield, 1987; Rosenfield, 2008). The ecological and academic focuses of IC place a presenting problem as part of a larger instructional system that includes not only the student and his or her prior knowledge, but 48 also the instructional strategies used by the teacher, and the given task. The three main components of IC are (a) the importance of the collaborative relationship between consultant and consultee (which is established and maintained by use of effective communication skills); (b) structured stages of problem solving (including entry and contracting, problem identification and analysis, intervention design, intervention implementation, and termination), and (c) the use of appropriate assessment and intervention strategies to address academic and behavior concerns (Rosenfield, 1987; Rosenfield, 2008). IC was later developed into a school-based service delivery model (IC Teams) by Rosenfield and Gravois (1996). For University of Maryland?s School Psychology Program consultation training, practicum experiences take place in schools that have team-based problem solving models, and utilize instructional consultation, although they are not always called IC Teams and may not have all the characteristics of IC Teams (for a full description of the IC Teams model, see Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). This placement makes it more likely that CITs will engage in suitable consultation experiences such as successful case consultation and active participation on a problem-solving team. Regardless of specific placement site, CITs are trained to expect that they may differ in perspective from a given consultee or school culture. For example, a consultee may want to refer a student for a special education evaluation immediately instead of wanting to work collaboratively with a consultant through a systematic problem-solving process. Sadly, for most school psychology training programs, it is challenging to find appropriate field placements with diverse applied experiences (Harvey & Struzziero, 49 2008). It seems clear that having appropriate training and supervision would be necessary for a CIT to navigate this process (Newman & Burkhouse, 2008. Strategies used in training. At the University of Maryland, the use of simulation, auditotapes, transcriptions, and logs all play a crucial role in supervision practices and ideally in the growth of CITs from stages of awareness to application of skills. CITs initially are instructed on content through the consultation course and get opportunities for rehearsal and feedback in the class. They are assigned to a school early in the fall semester, even before taking a consultation case, to become familiar with school culture and to become comfortable in the setting. Prior to beginning their first case, CITs engage in a simulated consultation experience (Jones, 1999) in which they work with a ?consultee? (a teacher, role-played by an advanced student) in a mock problem identification session. CITs are videotaped, reflect on their performance, and write an assignment about their use of verbal and nonverbal communication and their experience of the process. Following the simulation, CITs are assigned their first problem-solving cases at these school-based sites. CITs are required to audiotape every session with their consultee (after receiving informed consent for the taping). CITs then meet weekly with their supervisor, and these sessions are also audiotaped (and subsequently reviewed by the course instructor in the vertical supervision process previously described). The supervisor is an advanced student in the School Psychology Program who is experienced in and knowledgeable about the process and content of instructional consultation, including the purposeful use of communication skills, the activities required in each of 50 the problem solving stages, principles of effective instruction and assessment, and collaboration. Prior to their supervision sessions, CITs listen to their own audiotaped case sessions, reflect on what happened using a specified log format (Appendix B), and transcribe what they perceive as pertinent moments from their sessions. The supervisor receives copies of the log as well as the CITs audiotape, reviews these materials, and records his own reflections. What is written on the logs is handed back for the CITs to provide feedback, while the supervisor retains copies of the logs, and his own notes of the tape to inform supervision sessions. There is an intensive amount of work involved in supervision for CITs at the University of Maryland, more comparable to the amount of attention frequently provided in more traditional areas of school psychology such as psychoeducational assessment (Rosenfield, 2002). The underlying assumption is that consultation is an essential skill in the repertoire of school psychologists, one that needs intensive training and supervision to be practiced with integrity. As mentioned, this research site can be considered exemplary due to its inclusion of consultation training and supervision practices not in place at other school psychology programs (Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield, 2004). Sampling of Participants The participants in this study were five doctoral students in the School Psychology Program at the University of Maryland, all of whom were in their second year of training. The completely female demographic composition of the participants is representative of the overall field of school psychology in which it is estimated that as 51 high as 85 percent of practitioners will be women by the year 2010 (Fagan, 2004). None of these women had prior experiences practicing as consultants in the schools. There were several reasons for the selection of these participants. First of all, the selection was purposeful. Purposeful sampling for ?information-rich cases that hold the greatest potential for generating insight about the phenomenon of interest? is a hallmark of qualitative research (Jones et al., 2006, p. 66). In this study, the participants were selected due to their participation in the phenomenon of interest (supervision in pre- service level consultation training) and accordingly, their ability to ?illuminate understanding? (Jones et al., p. 66) of this phenomenon. The participants were selected because of the extensive availability of rich data (described later), thereby allowing the development of substantive GT. Relatedly, these participants were also selected using criterion sampling based on having experienced the same process of supervision; this results in a homogenous sample of individuals, a natural starting place for GT researchers (Creswell, 2007). Lastly, the sample was selected due to convenience in terms of access to the data; as I have stated, I am not only the researcher but also the acting supervisor and therefore had easy access to tapes and notes. Although using a convenience sample has several limitations such as poor rationale, less credibility than other sampling methods, and limited information (Patton, 2002), such limitations are mitigated for several reasons. First, convenience was not the only criterion for the selection of this sample. Second, the data that are available have great breadth and depth which is ripe for analysis. Third, as a part of the research context of the University of Maryland with its unique consultation training program and supervision, I have an opportunity to access data that are not available at most training 52 sites. Fourth, I am an active participant in the current supervision process, and am therefore an instrument of the data that are being collected. This co-creation of meaning is an essential feature of the constructivist approach to this study. With regard to sample size, although Patton (2002) stated, ?there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry? (p. 244), it is also clear that methodology and research questions inform this decision (Jones et al., 2006). The selection of the five participants in this study ?is guided by the goal of maximizing opportunities to uncover data relevant to the purpose of the study? (Jones et al., 2006, p.71), given that the data available in each of these five cases is extensive. The sample size of five is not consistent with Creswell?s (2007) suggestion that in GT a minimum of between 20 and 30 participants are needed to develop an informative well-saturated theory. However, Creswell was referring to more traditional GT research using interviews in which participants would be interviewed once or twice. In the current study, each participant has taken part in approximately ten supervision sessions, resulting in approximately 50 sessions of data that could be analyzed. Therefore, although the sample size is only five, the data available were more than large enough to saturate the development of a GT. Data Collection Each supervision session was comprised of four pieces of data. First, tapes of supervision sessions were transcribed. Second, the CITs? reflective logs (described earlier; see Appendix B) corresponding to each supervision session were utilized to inform this research. In addition to the student?s reflections, these logs also have my own handwritten feedback commentary within the margins and text. Third, I composed handwritten notes that I wrote while simultaneously listening to CIT tapes from each of 53 their consultation sessions with their consultees. Lastly, handwritten notes about my immediate thoughts following each of the supervision sessions were a part of the data. The notes on supervision sessions served as memos of my own thoughts regarding what happened during our process together. Respectively, these four data sources represented the voice of the CIT (via reflective log), my own voice (via my notes about tapes and supervision), and our shared or co-created voice (via transcripts and my written feedback on their reflections). The data collection in this study differs from what occurs in traditional GT. First, unlike conventional practices in GT, all of the data were collected prior to beginning the analysis. This meant that one of the traditional modes of theoretical sampling (i.e., re- interviewing participants given emerging data trends) was not possible. The way theoretical sampling was utilized in this study is described in greater detail in the data analysis section. A second unique aspect of this study was that the data represented actual, in vivo experiences. Although GT data are often considered to be a reconstruction of experience, constructivist GT also involves using ?flexible strategies, not rigid prescriptions? (Charmaz, 2000, p. 513). For GT researchers, it is most important to ?understand the logic? that underlies various procedures, and ?be able to apply them flexibly and creatively?? (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 14). The unique methods applied in this study opened a window to view the lived experience of CITs as they engaged in the supervision process and progressed through their training in consultation. Data Analysis Three supervision sessions for each CIT (with accompanying logs and notes) 54 comprised the initial data set, resulting in a consideration of 15 supervision sessions. I selected supervision sessions based on semester timing as well as my ability to access to all forms of data associated with that supervision session. With regard to semester timing, I counted each CIT?s total number of supervision sessions (which slightly differed due to varying practicum schedules), and chose the earliest, middle-most, and latest session in the Spring semester for that individual CIT in which all forms of associated data were available. One exception to this selection criterion was that Emma?s final session did not have accompanying supervisor tape notes as these data were not available for her last three sessions. Early semester sessions took place between early January and mid-February, mid- semester sessions took place between mid-March and early April, and end of the semester sessions took place between mid-April (for Alice who only had one case) and early-June. The data enabled a consideration of potential chronological developmental trends that may emerge over the course of the semester of training. As Strauss and Corbin (1998) stated: During open sampling, selection?is relatively open in the sense that one could choose every third person who came through the door or could systematically proceed down a list of names, times, or places. No concepts yet have proven theoretical relevance, so one does not know where to look for variations of them along the lines of their properties and dimensions (p. 206). As the data analysis process proceeded, it became clear that the 15 sessions (and four types of associated data as described earlier) provided enough data to saturate the development of a theory. 55 Open coding. As I already described, I used the works of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Charmaz (2006) as my main guides for engaging in data analysis according to GT methodology. The initial stage of data analysis was open coding of data. During the open coding stage, I coded transcripts and CIT logs line by line (what Strauss and Corbin [1998] termed a ?microanalysis? [p. 57]) in an attempt to stay close to the data. Over 400 codes or ?nodes? (to use NVivo langauge) emerged from the data. Examples of initial codes include ?prioritizing,? ?identifying the problem,? and ?supervisor modeling.? Following open coding of the data, I used the NVivo program to organize these codes into trees (i.e., an organizational hierarchy with ?parent? and ?child? nodes) in order to better understand how conceptual units fit together. I also investigated what codes were most prevalent in the data by looking at how many times, and across how many sources (i.e., transcripts and logs) and CITs concepts were coded. This provides an example of the presence of the constant comparative method involved in GT research, defined by Charmaz (2006) as ?a method of analysis that generates successively more abstract concepts and theories through inductive processes of comparing data with data, data with category, category with category, and category with concept? (p. 187), even at this early stage in the data analysis process. Somewhere in between open and axial coding, I realized that some raw data with different codes actually represented the same underlying construct. For example, data that were coded as ?worrying,? ?concerns,? ?anxiety,? and ?wary,? all were about the same thing (as I noted when looking at the raw data coded at these nodes). I merged these codes together to become a single code called ?worrying.? In addition to merging codes, I sometimes had to parse apart a single code that 56 actually represented two ideas. For example, I realized my initial code of ?reflection outside of the supervision session? was not always about reflection, but also seemed to represent a form of avoidance (e.g., CITs saying, ?I will think about it?? but not following up in their subsequent consultation session). Therefore, I recoded relevant data as ?I will think about it,? conceptually separating this code from ?reflection outside of session,? but staying close to the words of the participants. Throughout open coding (and the entire research process), I composed theoretical memos in a journal in order to mark each change and reason for the change, leaving an audit trail of how I got from one point to the next. I also composed reflective journal entries delineating my own interpretative process as I stewed in the coding and analysis process. Axial coding. Following the open coding stage, I moved the data from organizational categories into conceptual categories and began to think about how categories were defined and related to each other. I did some recoding to better be able to use NVivo tools, for example merging together some categories that might be considered over-splintered (Bazeley, 2007). For example, I had one code for ?supervisor confusion? and one for ?CIT confusion? and I merged those together into one code called ?confusion,? while making sure these items were still individually coded at the supervisor and CIT levels respectively. Doing this helped me gain a more abstract, higher level understanding of the data and more effectively search, code, and model the data in NVivo. Throughout the axial coding stage, I used the NVivo program to categorize, model, and create categorical links in the data. However, I also forced myself to step outside of the program for fear that the levels of analysis were becoming too complex and 57 as a result, I was becoming too far removed from the experiences of the participants. I had started to stray from the constructivist lens which had informed this research and needed to move away from overreliance on NVivo, which might inadvertently keep me outside of the participants? experiences. Charmaz (2000) warned that this is a common problem during axial coding, as ?procedures [can] increase complexity at the expense of experience? and ?processual diagrams and conceptual maps can result in an overly complex architecture that obscures experiences? (p. 525). To reflect further on my methodological concerns as well as the meaning of my data I: (a) participated in the NVivo workshop, (b) met with my advisor/research auditor to talk about the emerging data, (c) met with the committee member who initially helped me develop this study through a constructivist lens, (d) presented some of the emerging data to school psychologists in the field, and (e) revisited the methodological literature, especially Charmaz (2000, 2006) and Strauss and Corbin (1998). Because of my deep engagement in this project, I understood my own perspective and the larger GT methodology more deeply than I had before. This helped me take a renewed and reinvigorated dive back into the sea of data before me. Now, instead of seeing concepts, categories, and a definitive reality waiting to be discovered (an objectivist point of view), I began to see a version of reality directly informed by my interpretation of the data, and the meaning constructed between myself, the participants, and others involved in the supervision process (Charmaz, 2000). At this point in the data analysis process, I revisited Strauss and Corbin?s (1998) overview of axial coding. They suggested the following to be the tasks of this stage: ? Laying out the properties of a category and their dimensions. 58 ? Identifying the variety of conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences associated with a phenomenon. ? Relating a category to its subcategories through statements denoting how they are related to each other. ? Looking for cues in the data that denote how major categories might relate to each other. (p. 126) I distanced myself from rigidly adhering to Strauss and Corbin?s methods for achieving all of these components, wary of the objectivist and positivist underpinnings in ideas such as categorical properties and dimensions, and conditionality. However, I used Strauss and Corbin?s conceptual outline to provide a flexible frame in the development of categories and subcategories, and investigating the relationships within and between them (Charmaz, 2006). I did not disregard the axial coding stage entirely despite Charmaz?s opinion that this is acceptable for those researchers more tolerant of ambiguity. Using the aforementioned frame, I weaved back together the over 400 initial codes into 13 categories (with subcategories subsumed within the larger categories). Again, this process took the form of constant comparison (as defined in the description of open coding), and in tune with the entire GT process, was not linear. It involved spending a significant amount of time immersed in the data: re-reading transcripts and memos, re-listening to full tapes and tape segments, writing new memos, and conceptualizing by hand. Revisiting data in this manner is a form of theoretical sampling, a key feature of GT methodology. As summarized by Fassinger (2005), ?sampling in the theoretical sense?includes continued return to the existing data to select incidents, scenes, or events (e.g., negative cases) with which to interrogate the 59 emerging theory and incorporates information gleaned from other elements of the data collection process?? (p. 162). In re-weaving the data, I also used the NVivo program to continuously refine initial codes (e.g., merging and splitting), separate conceptual from organizational coding structure, conduct large scale data queries (e.g., matrix querying tool to cross reference cases with emerging themes, cross-coding searches, etc.) to better understand the interactions of codes, model conceptual categories, and link categories and subcategories. To create links between categories and subcategories, I clustered codes together into subcategories based on how these pieces seemed to fit together and then used NVivo as a tool to further investigate questions such as ?when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences? (Strauss & Corbin, p. 125). I did not go so far as to attempt to explicate firm properties or dimensions for categories and subcategories. Instead, I attempted to understand how the pieces of data integrated together to form meaningful categories and subcategories, and decipher how those categories interact with each other to construct the core story. Selective coding. Once the data were categorized into 13 categories, I noticed that there seemed to be two foci: the consultation case experiences faced by CITs and our supervision process together. I realized that although the former was a key component of the supervision process (i.e., supervision sessions consist, in large part, of considering CITs? ongoing case issues), the core focus of the study was on the supervision process itself, especially the interactions that happened inside of supervision. Therefore, strategic interactions that happened inside of supervision sessions became the core category, and other categories were related back to the core. In order to tie the storyline together 60 succinctly I utilized a visual diagram, which is illustrated at the end of this paper (Figure 4.5) following a consideration of the results. Trustworthiness Trustworthiness in a given study can be thought of as how well the researcher has established confidence in his or her findings (Jones et al., 2006). Trustworthiness is impacted from the earliest moments of the development of a study, hence my explicit statement of my own biases, and my memoing of my thoughts and actions as I moved through the research process. To further check my own subjectivity, a research auditor that is familiar with school-based consultation and GT methodology advised me throughout this research. A research auditor or mentor is a more experienced researcher who helps think through ideas, provides additional insights, and collaborates in putting together developing theory (Jones et al., 2006). The auditor looked not only at drafts of the manuscript, but at all of the seeds of data throughout the research process. My dissertation advisor, who is also the expert supervisor of the consultation course served in the capacity of auditor. This is a natural fit given her areas of expertise and her role of metasupervisor that involved her listening to all supervision tapes that were included in the data. Another way I attempted to enhance trustworthiness involved the process of member checking (Jones et al., 2006). In this study, the participating CITs were asked to review the research at the end of the research process prior to submission to the dissertation committee. This acted as a validity check of the themes, concepts, and theory to make sure their perceptions of their experiences are illustrated through the research. Member checking was essential in further creating a mutually constructed 61 understanding of the supervision process that represents not only my voice (as either the researcher or supervisor), but also the authentic voices of the supervisees/CITs. Four of five CITs participated in the optional member checking process. Although none of the CITs provided extensive feedback, they all read a general summary of the findings as well an individualized summary of their personal contributions to the data and each confirmed the project accurately reflected their experiences. Yet another aspect of trustworthiness in this study involved the adequacy of the data. It is important to have ample amounts of evidence. That is, data should be collected until points of saturation or redundancy (Morrow, 2005), especially in the consideration of eventual development of theory. It is also critical to use multiple sources of data to increase trustworthiness and interpretability (Morrow). In the current study, four different types of data were used as specified above, each contributing to the representation of different voices. This simultaneous collection and comparison of multiple forms of data is called triangulation (Glesne, 2006; Morrow, 2005). Collecting supplemental confirming and disconfirming evidence also augments a study?s trustworthiness. Glesne (2006) referred to searching for disconfirming evidence as a negative case analysis. I used my own experiences as a supervisor (including my own memos), as well as feedback from the research auditor to search for confirming and disconfirming evidence. As stated by Strauss and Corbin (1998), ?[experience] can be drawn on for the purpose of sensitizing the researcher to the properties and dimensions in data, always with considerable self-awareness of what the researcher is doing? (p. 59). Lastly, Morrow (2005) pointed to adequacy of interpretation as a key piece of trustworthiness. The qualitative research process does not evolve step by step, but rather 62 as an integrated, flowing process. It was my desire to incorporate a deep immersion in the data, a careful analysis, and a ?rich, thick? write-up (Creswell, 2007, p. 209) to synthesize an accurate and trustworthy research study. Furthermore, I aimed to support any assertions that are made with ample evidence. Ethical Considerations In addition to trustworthiness, it is also necessary to turn attention to the consideration of ethical practices in this study. Of course, IRB approval was attained, and permission secured from all participants to utilize their tapes and logs. CITs were made aware that they could withdraw their participation at any time without any consequence and that doing so would in no way impact their course evaluation. Quotes that were presented in this study were made unidentifiable to the maximum extent possible. Participants were asked to choose pseudonyms for the write up of the data. Concerns about protection of identity were paramount given the small size of the School Psychology Program. Participants might be identifiable to one another as many of the concerns addressed in the paper also were discussed within course sessions in which all students attended. Lastly, besides enhancing trustworthiness, the member checking process served an ethical purpose, intending to make sure participants? voices were correctly heard, and to give them a chance to express any concerns they might have. I intended to make changes to my final document given participant feedback, but all CITs that participated in member checker stated that the findings and write-up of this study accurately reflected their experiences. 63 Chapter 4: Results In the sections that follow, the supervision process within consultation training is broken down into elemental parts via a description of emergent data stemming from codes and categories. Commonalities across CITs are highlighted, providing an architectural blueprint for the building of theory. Distinctions between CITs are contrasted in order to provide insight into the differentiated nature of the supervision process. I begin the chapter with an introduction of the participants in this study. To avoid breaching confidentiality I emphasize CITs? distinct consultation cases rather than social identities. After describing the participants, I provide a brief overview of the emerging theory followed by a rich and detailed description of overarching themes that emerged from the data. The chapter concludes with an illustration of the core story of the supervision process for pre-service level CITs. Participants The participants in this study had many similarities including being female, second-year doctoral students in the same school psychology program who were all engaged in their first applied experiences as school-based consultants. All CITs consulted on one or more individual cases (usually with one consultee and one student) and aside from Alice, one systems-level case (either more than one consultee or multiple clients of one consultee, focused on making an impact on a group of students, or a wider school-level concern). I am wary to provide too much personal information about participants as to not violate protections of confidentiality. However, I am able to distinguish the CITs based on some specific issues of the cases they worked on in the schools (see Table 4.1). 64 Table 4.1 Description of Participants? Cases Participants Grade Level Brief description of Problem(s) Prioritized Unique Variables of Case, Consultee, and/or Student Alice 2 ? Written output nd ? Decoding ? Medical concern (Vision) ? Culture of student/family precluded seeking medical treatment ? Multiple concerns Anne K ? Learning the alphabet ? Case started by school-psychologist and transition to Anne 3rd ? Reading Comprehension ? Off-task behavior ? Consultee lack of objectivity re: culture of student ? Case ended/restarted abruptly 1st ? Vocabulary and prior knowledge ? Experienced problem-solving team member as consultee Systems ? School-wide behavioral supports ? Multiple consultees Emma 4th ? Work refusal ? Same consultee as in other case 65 ? Consultee frustrated with student and family 4 ? Decoding skills th ? Use of decoding strategies ? ELL student ? Same consultee as in other case Systems ? Grade-level team collaboration ? Consultees forced to participate in process ? Multiple consultees Jane 1 ? Calling out st ? Consultee lack of objectivity ? Negative relationships (CIT-consultee and consultee-student). 3 ? Reading fluency rd ? Lengthy problem identification process Systems ? Disability awareness in the primary grades ? Focus on severe and profound disabilities Kathy 3rd ? Case closed before prioritizing. Identified on reading, writing, and behavior as concerns ? Lengthy problem identification process 4 ? Vocabulary th ? Male consultee ? Process communication challenges ? Lengthy problem identification process 66 Systems ? Flow of information when a new student enters the school ? Multiple consultees 67 Describing cases enhances the reader?s ability to discern the participants. It also provides a context through which to understand the developing theory, especially as is relevant to the function of supervision in differentiating for individualized CIT needs which relate, in part, to pulls from unique consultation case concerns. Further, it is important to distinguish the CITs? cases now because in the following write-up of the results, cases are presented in an integrated fashion in order to provide cohesive evidential support of universal findings. Alice. Alice was enrolled in the Fall semester of the consultation course, and continued her case into the Spring semester (the semester data were collected) even though she was no longer a student in the course. This had several implications, including that Alice only worked on one case rather than three, like the other CITs. Alice also was not exposed to the new content knowledge that was instructed in the Spring semester, for example systems-level consultation; accordingly, she did not manage a systems-level case (unlike her four peers). In Alice?s work with the teacher, the student of concern experienced a medical concern with his vision but his parents did not wish to seek medical treatment due to their religious and cultural beliefs. The dyad problem- solved about how to improve the student?s academic writing skills even though part of the problem likely stemmed from medical issues. Anne. Anne took on four cases during the Spring semester including two concerns that were primarily focused on academics and two that were behaviorally framed. She had one more case than her peers due to one of the cases ending and later restarting when the student migrated from and then reentered the school. In one of her cases, Anne?s site-supervisor (the school psychologist) transitioned a case already in 68 progress to Anne, which presented some unique concerns such as how to deal with contracting, and how to establish a collaborative dynamic while still progressing through the problem-solving stages with speed. Anne also managed one case with a very experienced team member, and another case with a teacher that had very negative perceptions of the student of concern (based on things the teacher said, this was seemingly related to student?s culture). In Anne?s systems-level case, she worked with several consultees at once, presenting its own distinct challenges such as determining who was consultee (see Schein, 1998); this issue was present for more than one CIT. Emma. Emma had the distinct experience of working with the same teacher for two separate cases during the Spring semester. This had many potential implications depending on CIT-consultee dynamics (in this instance, their relationship was positive). Of the two cases, one had a behavioral focus and the other academic (working on reading skills with an English Language Learning student). Emma?s systems-level case presented unique concerns as well, as she worked with several consultees (a grade-level team) who were required by the building principal to be part of the process. Jane. In one of Jane?s cases, working with a first grade teacher on the concern of a student calling out too frequently, distinct challenges emerged. The teacher verbally reflected lack of objectivity regarding her perception of the student, and the teacher and Jane developed a fragmented relationship over the course of time that caused Jane discomfort in sessions. In a separate case, Jane worked with a teacher on a reading fluency concern for the student, and the teacher expressed concerns about the problem- solving process taking too long (this was also a factor in other CITs? cases during the 69 semester). Lastly, Jane?s systems-level case focused on issues of severe and profound disability awareness. Kathy. For Kathy, both of her individually-managed cases had lengthy periods of problem identification. In a case with a third grade teacher, the case closed before the dyad was able to prioritize the area of concern (although they were able to transition much information to the school psychologist to be used the following school year). A second case, with a fourth grade teacher, presented a multitude of unique concerns including gender dynamics (female CIT working with a male consultee) and communication difficulties (both the CIT and consultee were prone to lengthy conversations) that resulted in the problem identification process taking an exceptionally long time. The systems-level case that Kathy took on involved putting a previously non- existent process into place for what to do when a new student enters the school; Kathy worked with multiple consultees to address these issues. Overview of the Emerging Theory This study focused on the supervision process for pre-service level consultants engaged in a consultation course and practicum experience in a school. As would be expected, data showed that CITs engaged in reflection, skill development, and growth throughout their year of consultation training (including coursework, practicum, and university-based supervision). CIT growth seemed to be promoted by CIT and supervisor joint work, both inside and outside of supervision sessions, through various interrelated case concerns about process (e.g., relationship development with the consultee) and content (e.g., the business of each problem solving stage). 70 Of concerns that arose, many were common across CITs while others were idiosyncratically related to the interactions between the CIT, the consultee, and the consultation case content and process issues. As the supervisor, I supported CITs in working through case issues in a manner that was responsive to individual needs by differentiating the use of strategies based on perceived CIT developmental skill level (which also related to semester timing), CIT requests for assistance, and pulls from the consultation case and consultee. Presumably, the supervision process would look different with different individuals acting as supervisor; however, this study is based on the supervision process of five different CITs with the same supervisor. The effectiveness with which CITs perceived they were able to navigate problems with my support resulted in mixed feelings (both from the CIT and consultee) about the problem solving process including confusion, worrying, frustration, and positive feelings such as increased confidence and empowerment. Turning Supervision Inside Out While reorganizing the data from initial codes into categories, it became clear that supervision for CITs is not limited to what happens within the confines of weekly supervision sessions. The process within supervision sessions is inexorably connected to important factors that occur outside of supervision sessions. That is, instead of acting as an isolated departure point for CIT growth, supervision sessions act as a hub or meeting point for all that occurs during the week in between supervision sessions. There are several key events that emerged from the data which demonstrate the importance of what happens outside of supervision sessions. 71 Consultation coursework. As previously discussed, in the setting for this study, CITs are required to take two consecutive consultation courses which are connected to a consultation-specific practicum experience and supervision. An implied expectation is that the content of the course is relevant for CITs to function as consultants in the schools; discussion topics included instructional assessment, the dimensions of reading, instructional level, creating an instructional match, and most predominantly communication skills and the CIT-consultee relationship. The predominance of these topics as relevant to supervision is not surprising given that they are many of the cornerstone concepts of the consultation course. Moreover, I attended all course sessions and was therefore always familiar with what the CITs were learning each week. According to the data, it seems that as the supervisor, I (as opposed to the CITs) most often made initial references to course sessions by mentioning completed readings, class discussions, demonstrations (e.g., of an instructional assessment), comments made by the primary course instructor, or group supervision discussions (which occurred periodically in class throughout the semester). I also sometimes moved beyond simply referring to course content to address a CIT?s engagement with that content. For example, in helping Anne reflect on her systems case, she was prompted with: ?Your wheels were turning in class?you were thinking a lot about it?? In this instance, although it was true that Anne?s ?wheels were turning? within the classroom setting, she reported to me feeling that there were still some ?snags? to work out in how she should follow up with her consultee in their subsequent session. The consultation course provided a starting point for conversation and feedback regarding a concern, but it was a 72 later supervision session that provided the opportunity for follow-up on preliminary conversations towards the application of next steps. E-mail. The use of E-mail as a communication tool emerged from the data as a critical piece of what happens outside of supervision sessions. E-mail flows in a multitude of directions and for a variety of purposes. One reason for E-mailing was in response to difficulty with scheduling, for example the fact that CITs were in their schools only one half day per week. Alice, for example, used E-mail to coordinate alternative plans with her consultee when they could not meet. An additional common scheduling concern was when supervision sessions occurred less often than weekly. On one occasion Alice E-mailed me because she was concerned that we were unable to meet for supervision in between case consultation sessions (although I was able to listen to Alice?s taped session and read her reflective log). E-mailing presented a means to provide supervisory guidance to Alice, who was inadvertently working out of order through the problem solving stages with her consultee. Alice later reported in supervision: It helped us like?it helped us so much I feel like where we are at as of yesterday is just?I was worried that that point wasn?t in sight, you know? Because we had jumped around but that E-mail helped so much and I took that in and me and the [site supervisor] had sat down and looked at the E-mail too. And I was like, I want to make sure?you know, [the supervisor] pointed out that we have jumped around, you know? When two parties (e.g., the supervisor and CIT or the CIT and consultee) are unable to meet in person, E-mail provides a secondary manner for communication about key issues 73 that can be followed up with during an ensuing face to face meeting. In addition to coping with scheduling concerns, E-mail was used by CITs to provide general information to (e.g., a summary letter regarding the status of their case, as per course requirements) and to collaborate with (e.g., choosing materials for an instructional assessment) their consultees. Besides the supervisor, the CIT, and consultee, the metasupervisor/course instructor may also be involved E-mailing. This occurred when CIT concerns fell outside of my realm of knowledge and I E-mailed the metasupervisor to access immediate feedback or input. Reflection, work, and ?I will think about it.? In early open coding of this project, I developed a code called ?reflection outside of the [supervision] session,? (which actually was the entry point for the understanding that supervision is also about what happens outside of supervision sessions). When I analyzed coding patterns using NVivo, I realized that Jane and Kathy had significantly more instances of outside reflection than the other CITs. Taken at face value, this data would suggest that Jane and Kathy were significantly more reflective outside of the supervision sessions than other CITs. Anecdotally, this rang true for my experiences with Kathy during the semester ? her logs were always incredibly long, filled with rich details and reflections. She was by far the most verbal member of the consultation course, constantly bringing thoughtful comments and inquiries to the class discussion. Jane, although certainly not unreflective, did not demonstrate the same depth or breadth of interest in consultation as Kathy. She also did not follow up on discussions from supervision by applying what we talked about in her actual case. 74 Given the contradiction between coding results and anecdotal thoughts, I revisited the data via theoretical sampling (i.e., re-listening to tapes and re-reading transcripts) and noticed that there were in fact evident differences between Jane and Kathy. I recoded this facet of the data, staying as close to the words of the participants as I could. I changed some of the transcript sections that were initially coded as ?Reflection outside of [supervision] session? to the code ?I will think about it,? ? a statement frequently made by both Jane and Kathy, and then re-examined the examples of these two codes, plus the related code ?work outside of the session.? What became clear (as documented via coding queries using Nvivo and memoing) is that when Kathy stated ?I will think about it,? it was tied to actual examples of work and reflection outside of the supervision session; this was not the case for Jane. For example, more than once, Kathy asked to listen to and review our tape from supervision to assist her in deeper reflection, and followed through in doing so. In another instance, Kathy reported reflecting outside of supervision on her systems case, and then created materials for her consultees to use based on her reflection. A third example is demonstrated by Kathy requesting during supervision to ?step back from what we just talked about and try to think about it and reflect on it?and think about some examples of that, and send them to you via E-mail?, which she did. There are also several examples in the data of Kathy applying supervision discussions to her work in the case. In contrast to Kathy, Jane did not follow up on points we had talked about in supervision, which she readily acknowledged during ensuing supervision sessions. For example, one of her cases involved working through two complex and challenging issues: 75 (a) helping the consultee address a negative relationship with the student (seemingly related to a larger concern of loss of objectivity about the student), and (b) reworking an intervention already put into place that did not fit with principles of successful interventions. Regarding the first concern, Jane and I had the following interchange: S: I wanted to ask you about, I know the last time we met, which is awhile ago now, we had talked a bunch about her relationship with the student piece. But then that didn?t come up in [your case] session or it wasn?t a piece of things. CIT: Um?I didn?t bring it up (laughs). And it didn?t come up?I?m not sure, I?m not sure what you?re?you think I should have. I?m not remembering if I was supposed to bring it up. But I didn?t bring it up. After this discussion, Jane expressed needing to ?get comfortable with it on my own time,? by having time to ?process [outside of supervision]? however she never did re- address these concerns in her case. This may have been a way for Jane to politely distance herself from addressing issues that were difficult for her. Jane?s difficulty in regularly transferring what was discussed in supervision into practice stemmed in part from her apprehension regarding the difficult relationship she had with her consultee. However, Jane also had a unique perception of the role of consultant, which she described as quite different from prior work she had done with teachers and parents while functioning in a counseling services role. ?I?m not doing therapy with that teacher. You know what I mean??I?m not worried about offending you, you?re not worried about offending me. You know, it?s a different?it is more collaborative.? Although the word choice of ?offending? seems odd, it is possible that 76 Jane was expressing concern about crossing into another individual?s personal boundaries in a way that might be considered appropriate for a therapeutic relationship, but that she did not perceive to fit with the role of consultant. Jane had the intention of creating collaborative relationships with each of her three consultees over the course of the semester. However, she consistently worried about overstepping personal boundaries and offending the teacher by becoming a therapist rather than a consultant. It was this worry that prevented Jane from consistently applying supervision to her cases, even though both the metasupervisor and I felt that Jane would at times benefit from viewing the issues as professional rather than too personal. This example demonstrates that a supervisor needs to consider not only what is presented by the CIT within supervision sessions (?I will think about it??), but also what is happening outside of supervision (e.g., lack of application). Moreover, CIT variables span a broader realm than the weekly, hour-long supervision sessions, and to focus solely on what happens on the inside of a session would be inadequate. CITs each have their own idiosyncrasies that have developed over a lifetime prior to beginning the consultation course that play a role in who the CIT is as a consultant. When the outside and inside of supervision sessions are both considered, it may provide insight into professional growth of the CIT. In sum, it is evident that the time in between supervision sessions in not simply an empty vacuum. CITs engage in weekly coursework including preparation of readings, reflective journaling, and discussion with peers, the supervisor, and course instructor. In preparation for supervision, CITs listen to their taped case sessions, write reflective logs, 77 and transcribe critical dialogue. CITs may also E-mail with their consultees and supervisor over the course of a week, often to address issues that cannot be discussed in person due to scheduling conflicts. Lastly, CITs bring to their case and supervision sessions their own unique personal issues that have developed over time; this impacts how they practice as consultants. Supervision provides firm walls from which a rubber ball of reflectivity can bounce, rather than simply being tossed into the wind. However, as is exemplified by the contrast between Kathy and Jane, the space of supervision alone does not guarantee that reflective momentum will continue into the CIT?s next consultation case session via application of skills. Even so, it is what happens inside of supervision that is critical to harnessing reflective energy and transferring it into growth. Supervision: Moving from the Outside In Consultation Content and Process Concerns Before the reader can understand the strategic supervisor-CIT interactions at the heart of this study, it is important to briefly summarize the large number and assortment of concerns CITs faced while engaged in school-based consultation cases. It is precisely these concerns that were addressed within supervision sessions. Since the focus of this study is on how the supervision process works, these concerns will be considered in greater depth later on with regard to strategic interactions. For now, a summary of the main consultation content and process concerns that emerged from the participants? experiences are presented in Table 4.2. This list is representative of the most prominent issues considered in supervision, but is not comprehensive. 78 Table 4.2 Main Content and Process Concerns Faced by CITs in Pre-Service Training Topic Area Content Concerns Process Concerns Problem- solving process ? Business of each stage ? Using the Student Documentation Form (SDF) ? ?Staying true? to the process ? Limited progress/ ?Going in circles? ? Lack of student progress ? Slow moving process ? Scheduling difficulties Problem- identification Stage ? Academic content and principles of learning ? Behavioral principles ? Relationship of academics and beh. ? Problem clarity ? Prioritizing a concern ? Creating a shared problem frame Intervention Stage ? Intervention does not match problem ? Academic interventions ? Behavioral interventions ? Coordinating interventions and resources ? Intervention clarity ? Acceptability ? Treatment integrity Case Closure ? Writing a summary letter ? Transitioning the case ? ?Washing hands? of the case Communication Skills ? IC skills (clarifying, ? Collaborative language 79 paraphrasing, perception checking, summarizing, ?bond and move on?) ? Nuances of communication (e.g., non-verbals, assertiveness, sensitive issues, etc.) ? Purpose versus amount of communication Use of Data ? Instructional assessment /instructional match ? Determining baseline ? Setting goals ? Purpose ? Collection ? Interpretation Relationships ? Working with a team ? Needs assessment ? Collaboration ? Negative relationships (CIT- consultee and consultee- student) For the most part, content concerns overlapped with the conceptual knowledge CITs had learned or were learning in the two consultation courses. Process concerns were often less straightforward than content concerns, and related to more nuanced application of skills. In the sections below, it will become clearer how both content and process concerns surfaced and were considered through the process of supervision. Strategic interactions in supervision Consistent with the constructivist perspective that frames this study, the ?guts? of supervision are composed of strategic, purposeful interactions initiated by both CITs and 80 me (the supervisor) that assisted the CIT in working through case concerns. Most of these interactions were common to several or all CITs, while others applied more frequently to one or two CITs. The interactions that took place appear to fit into three categories based on their foci: (a) past sessions or experiences, (b) present moments within the current supervision session, and (c) relevance to future application. Interactions that fit in the second category, those that are focused in the present, often acted as bridges from CIT reflection about the past towards a consideration of application of skills in upcoming consultation sessions. An overview of the three categories, examples of interactions, and specification of universal versus idiosyncratic application is provided in Table 4.3. The distinction of universal and idiosyncratic strategies is based on data from this study rather than larger potential applicability. The Pensieve Principal: Reflections about the Past, Audiotaping, and Logging Within supervision sessions, each CIT and I jointly revisited previous consultation case sessions via references to the audiotape or log (including transcriptions). By referencing either of these components, our dyad was able to consider which moments in the case session contributed to shaping the problem solving process at any of its stages including contracting, identifying and framing of the problem, intervention design/evaluation, and closure. Part in parcel with expectations of the reflective logs (see Appendix B), two of the main process variables considered are the CIT-consultee relationship and the use of communication skills. The requirement for CITs to audiotape their sessions and compose reflective logs at the University of Maryland site was developed from broad-based literature regarding best practices for supervision (e.g., Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). However unlike other 81 Table 4.3 Strategic Interactions in Supervision: Reflections about the Past, Bridges in the Present, and Future Application Reflections about the Past Strategy Example Applicability Use of Logs S: One of the things that I want you to think about is you analyzed it and pointed it out, but you didn?t say, ?Here I could have used a paraphrase and I might have said?? Alice: So put it in there.? put something in here and say, ?This is where I could have?? U Use of Tape S (to Jane): Oh, you have written [in your log] about you feeling irritated or defensive. I didn?t hear it when I heard the tape? U Bridges in the Present Strategy Example Challenging S (to Emma): But?when I heard you just now were like, you said, ?Let?s just go on to ?? it felt almost like you were ready to give up on it like because you?re stuck in this circle. I Comparisons Jane: I think that shows up in?I know for me, at least it showed up in more than one case. U 82 Deferring S (to Anne): You know, I could tell you to go in and do a snapshot. But, you know I heard you have concern about that and not doing it collaboratively with the teacher, so let?s talk about that. I ?Less is More? S (to Alice): Let me see if there was anything else that you wrote that we didn?t talk about yet. I gave you so much stuff now, that I don?t want to give you more stuff? I don?t want to overwhelm you. U Personal Experiences S (to Jane): To speak from my own personal experiences, I think it took awhile to do, I think probably about the third year in the program was when I was like wait ?what are the things that are, you know, all tying together for me? U Prioritizing S (to Kathy): So do you have a particular spot where you would like to begin?things that you want to talk about to start off? U Supportive Comments S (to Kathy): Now, you?re using your words really concisely and well?So that?s?um?I just?from your analysis see a lot of positive things, so I?m proud of you. U 83 Research S (to Jane): There might be literature or something that would be helpful for? your own just professional growth and knowledge? and to pass along to the teacher, right? To E-mail her links or to?you know, to mail her some articles or different pieces? U ?Thinking Out Loud? Emma: I guess, now that I?m like talking through it? S: I mean we?re both?I?m thinking it out with you too ? I don?t have the answers? Emma: I know me too and it?s helping. I Use of Questions Reflective S (to Kathy): So let me turn it on you, what have you taken from the work that you?ve done? U Not Answering S (to Kathy): How would you use that example? in your next session? U Future Application Strategy Example Lessons Learned Kathy: You know?the way that we approached it was a way to do it, and I feel like if that were to happen again in a case, now I sort of sort of know that it?s okay to sort of address the elephant in the room. U 84 Note. ?U? denotes universal applicability while ?I? denotes idiosyncratic applicability. Modeling S (to Emma): Before?just to say like, ?To best, you know, use our energy I know that you?re getting a lot of information as you do it but let?s talk more about like specifics. We have all these pieces of information. Is there something specific that we can identify and prioritize as our concern.? And then go back to the expectations. U Rehearsal Anne: If she?s like, ?Oh my God, she only learned one!? then I can be like, ?Well, if we look at this graph, no need for alarm. We?re still in the projected range and that last time she had extra time to learn, so it?s not?? U Plan for Upcoming Case Session S: Um?so?did we finish talking about that piece? About?um?kind of your thoughts on how to work through that? ...I want to make sure you had some, um, ideas with that. U Writing Notes Alice: Yeah, let me just write this down?Okay so, so you recommend that just to be clear about the steps of the intervention for the person implementing it? I 85 research, the current study is specific to the practice of school-based CITs and therefore the data offer a window into how these processes apply specifically to the training of school-based consultants. In a sense, audiotaping and logging provided both the CIT and me opportunities to travel back in time and reconsider earlier consultation sessions. Of course one cannot alter the past, but through reflection on prior experiences, one may alter one?s own future practice. What consistently emerged from the data (across all CITs) is that after listening to tapes of case sessions, (a) CITs made reflective inferences that they did not have (or at least did not act upon) while in the moment of their actual case sessions and (b) I gained insight by journeying into a CIT?s lived experiences. The use of audiotapes and logs in supervision is not unlike Dumbledore?s use of the Pensieve in the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: ?This? It is called a Pensieve,? said Dumbledore. ?I sometimes find, and I am sure you know the feeling, that I simply have too many thoughts and memories crammed into my mind? at these times,? said Dumbledore, indicating the stone basin, ?I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one?s mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one?s leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form? (Rowling, 2000, p. 518-519). Listening to an audiotape and reading a log provides an opportunity for the CIT to step back and hear the content and process of the session with distance from time and space, promoting increased reflection and a different understanding than that which is attained in the moment. Moreover, the supervisor is able to listen to the tape and read the log, and 86 like Harry Potter immersing into Dumbledore?s memories, gain an insightful (albeit imperfect in many ways), ?fly on the wall? perspective. In this study, the data demonstrated the importance of audiotaping and logging for the CITs and I to reflect together upon the CITs use of communication skills, the CIT- consultee relationship, and the developing frame of the problem within the consultation case. The fact that communication skill usage and the CIT-consultee relationship are important areas is not surprising considering they are specifically required areas of reflection in the CIT?s logs. However, what I will demonstrate in the sections that follow are the subtleties regarding how audiotapes and logs interact and the overall importance of the audiotaping process. Let us begin by exploring the role of audiotapes and logs within supervision as tools for considering CITs? communication skill usage in their consultation cases. Communication skills. In general, communication skills were considered by all five CITs in four distinct ways (i.e., subcategories) that emerged from the data: (1) overarching CIT skill development (e.g., awareness, application, and purpose), (2) Instructional Consultation (IC) skills (clarification, paraphrasing, summarizing, perception checking, and the ?bond and move on?), (3) process communication (e.g., non-verbals, interrupting, concise/verbose language, pauses, tone of voice), and (4) collaborative language (e.g., making it a conversation, hearing each other, checking-in, and ?cheerleading?). Although all four communication subcategories were generally relevant to all five CITs, overall skill development and the use of IC skills were the two areas that every CIT talked about with explicit reference to audiotaping and logs. Overarching communication 87 skill development appeared to be a common thread connecting the other three subcategories of communication skills. Only two CITs (Jane and Kathy) used audiotapes to reflect on process communication and collaborative language. In the sections that follow, the use of audiotaping in reflection on communication skills will be considered with the goal of understanding the role of the audiotape as part of supervision. IC skills. The development and use of IC communication skills were consistently discussed in supervision by all CITs with reference to audiotapes and logs. One reason an audiotape can be helpful to use in supervision, especially with regard to IC skills, is because the CIT and I can easily identify whether or not a particular skill was used; there is less room for interpretation with the data on hand. This allows for a supervision discussion about the omission, commission, or misapplication of particular skills (O?Roark, 2002), and the purpose of skill use, which perhaps increases over time with increased developmental level (Kivlighan, 2008). The CITs and supervisor in this study found audiotaping, listening back to sessions, and logging useful with regard to analyzing the use of IC communication skills. For example, early in the semester Anne reflected with her supervisor on a missed opportunity to use a paraphrase with her consultee: Anne: Right, well it was just another one of those examples that we had just talked about last week, that it would have been good to use paraphrasing and then when going back and listening to my tape I was like, ?Hmmm, that would have been a response?? S: So, in the moment when you?re in the session you didn?t necessarily think of it, but then when you listened back to it you realized?So it kind of shows the 88 importance of listening to the tape. Although Anne and I both agreed this was not a huge mistake, the discussion allowed Anne an opportunity to hone her skills by thinking about when using a paraphrase would be beneficial, and subsequently rehearsing how she might have done so: Anne: I said, ?just so everybody?s coordinated? but maybe if I had given a little more details of, you know, ?So I hear you?re saying this?You think her progress is maybe a little bit slower, perhaps. And perhaps that?s because she?s been learning different letters at the after school program.? This example of a rehearsed paraphrase moved Anne beyond simply making a statement, to an increased level of specificity regarding how resources can be coordinated within the school, why this is important for the student relevant to principles of learning such as working memory (discussed earlier in the session by Anne and her consultee), and identifying the problem within an instructionally-based frame. A more subtle example of the use of audiotaping arose in supervision with Alice. She and I discussed her use of a clarifying question in a moment when paraphrasing would have been more appropriate. Alice and I both had identified the misapplication while listening to her tape and Alice had written about it in her log, and then we followed up with a discussion of this issue in supervision. My goal as a supervisor was to encourage Alice to move from an initial awareness level that she had while listening to the tape towards a consideration of what she might have done differently if she could go back in time, so that if a similar issue came up in the future, she would be better prepared. I stated, ?One of the things that I want you to think about is you analyzed it and pointed it out, but you didn?t say, ?Here I could have used a paraphrase and I might have said??? 89 Without the audiotape, Alice may not have ever been aware of her own misapplication of skills, let alone been able to move towards communicating differently the next time a similar concern arose (i.e., my goal for Alice). Later in the semester, Alice reflected in her log with greater depth about her use of communication skills. She identified and transcribed her own effective use of clarification in parsing out an intervention with her consultee, and wrote about how communication effectively helped the CIT-consultee dyad work productively to develop a clear intervention. A third example of the use of reflecting on IC communication skills is demonstrated through supervision with Emma. In one of Emma?s cases, she and her consultee were struggling to tweak a behavioral intervention that had not yet been successful for the student. When I listened to Emma?s tape, I perceived exasperation in her consultee?s voice as she described working with her student: ?When he doesn?t do his work?I can go encourage him, point out his chart?he could share his story with you. But that?s all I can do.? In the moment, Emma did not overtly acknowledge the teacher?s frustration by using a perception check. Even though Emma transcribed this brief interaction in her log, she did not reflect about how she may have responded differently. In fact, for this particular week of supervision, Emma did not reflect with as much depth as she did at other times in the semester. In addition, she wrote an especially short log of less than one page, did not try to answer her own questions in her log (?I am a little concerned that the intervention will not be effective. What are some changes that we could make??), and responded in what I perceived to be an unreflective manner in supervision regarding her use of perception checking (?I?could have said, ?I understand your feelings. Blah, blah, blah.? That?s 90 something we can talk about when [the teacher and I] meet again.?). I hypothesized that Emma?s lack of reflection was connected to her own feelings of frustration in working on what was becoming a frustrating case to her as well as the teacher (discussed later in the results section). Regardless, as the supervisor, I wanted to encourage Emma to reflect more deeply on case issues (specifically in this example her use of IC communication skills) than she had demonstrated. To do this, I had to verbally point out to Emma where I heard the teacher?s frustrations (via moments from Emma?s audiotape) and connect them to Emma?s own frustrations in her case. By having listened to the tape, I was thereby able to supplement the limited reflections in Emma?s log. S: Um?and there was a?one particular point and you highlighted it in your log but not in the same way that I was thinking about it. The teacher a couple of different times kind of expressed feeling like a disempowerment, almost, where said, ?That?s really all I can do?You know, this is what I?m doing, that?s all I can do.? She said it like two different times within that same paragraph. And you didn?t use a perception check with her?and I think? Emma: That?s why I think I highlighted there. I might not have said that, but that was the reason. One reason I transcribed that part was because she was saying that she was feeling these things and I didn?t address that? I might not have said I should have used a perception but I definitely once I listened to the tape? S: You were thinking about? Emma: I thought about how I should. And I realized once I listened to the tape that there was a lot we could have talked about then. 91 I later went on to model how Emma might have used a perception check in the session to catalyze a discussion about improving the intervention: S: Yeah, so I think?I think that would have been the bridge into doing that. Because she said it a couple of times and I think a perception check?so you know. ?So it sounds like?it doesn?t feel like there?s much that you feel like you could be doing at the time.? Or, ?It feels like you?re not feeling satisfied with the intervention?? or those kinds of things. Not reading too much into it, I was just kind of saying it quickly. But I think that would have brought out a lot more details in terms of thinking about the intervention, so. I mean you can even if you wanted to, start the session by kind of thinking about it in that way or saying that you heard it on the tape. There?s lots of ways to do that. In her subsequent consultation case session, the teacher continued to express frustration with the student and the continuing ineffectiveness of the intervention. Emma effectively employed the skill of perception checking, although in the end, she and the teacher struggled to alter the intervention effectively. Even though the outcome of this case was unfortunately not positive, Emma increased her level of reflectivity through the use of audiotaping as part of supervision. Process communication and collaborative language skills. Even though Jane and Kathy reflected on their development of IC communication skills similarly to the other three CITs, these two CITs were unique because they emerged as the only two who used their audiotapes and logs to reflect on process communication and collaborative language issues in their cases. Consistent with what emerged from the data whenever there were outlying findings from one or two CITs, there appeared to be three main contributing 92 factors: the CITs? own idiosyncratic qualities, the distinct qualities of their consultees, and the specific pulls from the content of their cases. These areas will be clarified through the descriptive examples below. To provide one illustration of using a tape to reflect on process communication concerns, Jane and I discussed her use of high-inference language, a concept taught in the consultation course based on the work of Argyris (1993) and Senge (1994). In reviewing the presenting case concerns at the beginning of our supervision session, Jane stated: And also these?this attention piece came up again and we kind of tried to talk about how attention is a valid concern but really especially in the IC process you know looking at academics first. So the student might not be doing well with attention because she doesn?t actually know what?s going on in the classroom. Jane?s description of her interaction with the teacher suggested that she was concise and direct in trying to move with the teacher from a concern that was high on the ladder of inferences (?attention?) towards an observable and measurable concern (a specific academic behavior). However, when I listened to the tape, I did not hear an interaction such as the one Jane had described. I challenged her based on what I heard: ?I don?t think you ever explicitly said it that way that you just said it now?Do you feel like you did, and I missed it on the tape?? Jane replied that she thought ?it took a lot longer to get there? than she had reported. Using the tape as a reference, I pushed Jane a little further: Well, one thing that I did notice is that the attention issue came up several times, um?but most of the times, you brought it up. And the teacher was talking about concerns and you were like, ?Well these are?in talking about the attentional 93 concerns we could also talk about this other stuff?? and then you weren?t able to do it concisely as you just did right there, in what you were saying. And I was just thinking about that when I was listening to the tape because I noticed it came up several times too? I had noted a time on the tape counter to use as an example while listening to the tape prior our supervision session and I played it for Jane and me to hear together. This sparked a discussion of process communication issues about the power of language, as a CIT?s choice of words impacts the frame of the concern. For example, Jane realized that she and the consultee ?kind of spiraled away from reading comprehension [as our identified concern]?? by her inadvertent focus on attention. As a future solution, we talked about Jane strategically ?hooking in with? terms such as ?prior knowledge?, a phrase that the teacher had stated (again, I knew this based on hearing the tape), as they would help the dyad create an observable and measurable concern with an academic focus. In one of Kathy?s cases, her work with the teacher Mr. Y, the relevance of audiotaping and logging as relates to both process communication and collaborative communication is demonstrated. One of the concerns that surfaced in this case was that Kathy and the consultee were both what Kathy described as ?lengthy communicators.? They would often meet for very long sessions (some longer than an hour) without much work getting accomplished (as defined by progressing through the problem-solving stages). In supervision, Kathy and I discussed ways to address these process issues in her session; we also talked about this with regard to the importance of their collaboration as a dyad. Kathy summed up this process in her reflective log: 94 Upon reviewing my session tape?I feel that collaborating with the teacher to identify an intervention for his lengthy communications allowed me a way to stop and refocus his communications in a way that I knew was respectful to him and comfortable for me. I feel that these skills helped to improve and advance both the process and the content of the case consultation. In other words, by listening to her tape, Kathy was able to reflect on how she effectively communicated with the consultee in order to address process issues, which positively impacted the collaborative nature of their CIT-consultee relationship. The importance of working on collaborative language skills in the manner that Kathy did is affirmed by a link that emerged from the data between using collaborative language and developing a collaborative CIT-consultee relationship. The CIT-consultee relationship. Kathy?s case with Mr. Y leads us to the next area where audiotaping and logging were used in supervision ? a consideration of the CIT- consultee relationship. All five CITs used their audiotapes and logs (consistent with log requirements) as a tool for considering relationship dynamics. Listening to the audiotape allowed the CITs and I an opportunity to hear the words and actions of CITs in their sessions that may have promoted or hindered collaboration with their consultee. These moments were revisited, reflected upon, and in many instances shaped the CITs? approach to their upcoming case session. Audiotapes were used in a variety of ways as part of supervision for the purpose of enhancing the relationship. The CIT or supervisor sometimes zeroed in on particular quotes from the session that were or were not collaborative, and then discussed with the CIT why this was the case, and what might be done differently next time. In one of 95 Alice?s sessions I pointed out that on the tape: ?You said?you used the words? ?the priority seems to be the writing concern?? and she was like, ?oh, okay?.? We talked about how Alice may have inadvertently taken an expert stance through her words, and how she may have phrased things alternatively to prioritize the problem together as a dyad instead of dictating to the consultee. We also discussed the CIT and consultee role within her case with regard to data collection (an area that surfaced in the data with several CITs as having implications for collaboration). Alice reflected: ?I think? listening back to the tape, what I hope?what I wish I would have clarified for her was that it wasn?t me collecting baseline data.? Alice wanted her consultee to know that their consultation process would be a joint venture, not one where Alice took on all of the work alone. Anne used data collection as part of the intervention in one of her cases as a tool to promote collaboration with her consultee. She and the teacher learned an intervention (the Drill Sandwich) together, and Anne gradually transitioned the responsibility of implementation to the teacher over time. By doing so, Anne aimed to empower the teacher to be able to use this technique with other students in the future. At the beginning of the intervention stage, Anne and the teacher worked together to figure out which letters to teach the student each week. As the case progressed, Anne asked the teacher questions (e.g., ?Do you remember?how we picked the letters??) to be able to guide the teacher?s professional development. By listening to Anne?s audiotapes, Anne and I were able to discuss how best to collaborate with her consultee to lead to eventual empowerment. Some of the skills we discussed in supervision were ?talking about [the process] together,? ?reinforcing what [the consultee] is saying and giving her 96 confidence,? and ?checking-in? with the consultee even when the dyad began to meet less frequently. In Jane?s systems-level consultation case, she had a very positive and collaborative relationship with her consultee. One of my goals at the very end of the semester was to help Jane reflect about why her relationship with this consultee was so different from the dynamics with her consultees in her other cases. There were many reasons why this may have been the case; I wanted Jane to acknowledge the differences, feel good about the positive relationship, and think about factors that would help her have positive relationships with consultees in the future. I used Jane?s audiotape as a reference point to provide evidence of the positive relationship: She really valued your input and she valued having that time to work together. Um?and I think you offered her a support also through the process and she like just genuinely felt your support. I heard many different times her saying things like, just tell you how?you know, like?incredibly helpful it was the work that you were doing together and how much she?she said, ?You helped to give me the words to say things in a different way.? She was just very?felt very positive about you too. Earlier in the session, Jane had described the teacher as ?very welcoming?, but did not express just how much the teacher seemed to value her as a consultant. By having listened to the tape, I was able to reinforce Jane?s positive work in this case at a more substantial level than if I had simply affirmed Jane?s own reflections (without having heard the tape myself). 97 One final example, from Emma?s systems-level case, turns the discussion about audiotaping and the CIT-consultee relationship on its head. Emma consulted with a team of teachers who did not necessarily want to be part of a problem-solving process (it had been mandated by their building principal). Emma transcribed this portion of her first problem identification session: Emma: So, last time we talked about agreeing to work together, the process and all of that stuff. But I wanted to check and see if anyone had any concerns. Not about the team, but about working together. Because someone mentioned, ?Why us?,? so I wanted to talk about that. Do you have any concerns about why we are working together? (One teacher stares at the tape recorder and has a concerned look her face). And you?re looking at this (tape recorder)? Emma proceeded to stop the tape recorder for this session and did not record any other sessions with this team during their work together. The action of not tape recording the sessions acknowledged the consultees? concerns (expressed non-verbally), and was a starting point for developing trust in their relationships. This was the correct decision in this instance, although not having a tape made reflecting on case sessions prior to supervision more difficult for our supervisory dyad; challenges of not taping sessions will be considered in great depth later on. Frame of the problem. Up to this point, the role of audiotaping and logging in supervision has been considered with reference to the use of communication skills and the CIT-consultee relationship. A third area which emerged from the data as frequently considered in supervision through discussion of the audiotape and log is the frame of the problem in the consultation case. 98 As a CIT and consultee problem-solve together, each individual may have her own perspective of the underlying problem. Through the problem-solving process, the dyad will ideally define a shared concern on which they will intervene. When the CIT and consultee do not have a shared frame, communication skills (e.g., IC skills) are used by the CIT to understand the consultee?s frame, and to try and bridge gaps to allow the pair to move forward in the case. The process of using communication as a tool for creating a shared frame is guided within supervision. In fact, I developed my own frame of the concern by way of listening to the CIT?s tapes and reading her logs. One of Anne?s cases provides a representative example of how the tape and log may be used by the CIT and the supervisor in developing the frame of the problem. Anne?s consultee initially verbally framed the problem as child-deficit focused ? that is, she expressed that the child could not retain information. Through the problem- solving process, the consultee?s frame of the concern changed to that the child needed more repetition of information; it became an instructionally oriented concern that fit better with the tenets of IC that are taught to CITs. Following a session later in the semester, Anne listened to her tape and felt that the teacher had reverted to using child- deficit focused language similar to how she had several sessions prior, perhaps once again reflecting a lack of shared frame of the concern. After a discussion about these issues in supervision (including Anne and I mutually identifying the language her teacher had used as deficit-focused), Anne addressed this head-on in their next case session by using instructionally-focused language with the teacher. Anne summarized for her consultee: ?It seems like as soon as [the student] started getting just a little more repetition and sort of not learning too many 99 new things at once she kind of started picking it up.? The teacher responded enthusiastically sharing Anne?s re-frame: ?Yeah ? she?s great! I?d say she?s doing great!? In supervision, after hearing the tape, and reading the reflective log, I reinforced Anne: ?You kind of used your language that you?ve been using all along?and she kind of reflected that, which was great!? In this example, tapes and logs were used in two ways. On a first tape, Anne heard subtleties of words used by her consultee that suggested the dyad did not have a shared concern; this was agreed to be problematic by Anne and me in a supervision session. Anne addressed this issue in her subsequent session with the teacher by attempting to recreate the instructionally-focused, shared frame of the concern they had in previous sessions. By listening to the second tape (where Anne addressed these issues) in concordance with reading Anne?s reflective log, I was fully able to understand and appreciate what Anne had done in order to create a shared frame with her consultee. I then reinforced Anne on purposefully and successfully applying nuanced skills in her consultation session. Drawing the blinds. According to the data presented thus far, it is clear that audiotaping and logging play important roles for CITs and I in the supervision process with regard to communication skills, the CIT-consultee relationship, and framing the problem. According to the Pensieve Principle, audiotaping and re-listening to taped sessions provides a reflective time machine for the CITs, and a window for me into the CITs? case session. These reflections can then be processed in the moment towards future application. So, what happens when the option to listen to a tape and/or to read a log is not available? 100 To demonstrate this scenario, let us first consider a powerful example from Jane in which a log and tape were essential tools in the supervision process. In this example, Jane was working through a particularly challenging CIT-consultee relationship and struggled in moving with the consultee through the case content. Following one of her sessions, Jane reflected in her log: I was surprised to hear the gruff tone in my voice during this section of the tape when I went back and listened. When I was speaking, I don?t remember feeling irritated or noticing that I sounded that way, but listening to it I think I sounded a little defensive. I will have to be even more aware of myself in the future so that what I?m saying matches what I?m thinking and feeling. The incongruence of Jane?s self-perceptions while in the session versus while reviewing her tape led to increased self-awareness about subtle process communication dynamics. However, as the supervisor, I also experienced incongruence when hearing Jane?s tape and then reading her reflective log. I did not share her perspective that she sounded ?gruff,? ?irritated,? or ?defensive.? As such, I treated Jane?s tape and her self-reflection as an entry point for a larger discussion about process and content issues of the case. I was curious if she had any reason to feel this way at that particular moment in the session (especially given my knowledge of their ongoing relationship difficulties). I asked her to clarify her underlying feelings. That is, since Jane perceived the aforementioned problematic tone in her voice, was there any reason for her to feel this way? Although our conversation ended with Jane reporting that she was not feeling ?irritated? or ?defensive? while in the consultation session, supervision allowed us to move beyond solely talking about the importance of self-awareness within sessions to 101 also discuss case content issues that may have contributed to underlying feelings in the moment. For example, Jane shared that the ?gruff? voice that she heard (but I did not) occurred after she and the consultee disagreed on how to set goals for the intervention. Given all of the unique variables in this case such as Jane?s own struggle with relationship boundaries, the often negative CIT-consultee relationship, and loss of objectivity issues that surfaced during problem identification, I perceived we could best talk about the process concerns of the case by tying them to concrete content. To sum up this complex but rich example, the process of audiotaping and composing a log promoted several levels of reflection and insight both from the CIT and supervisor. Subsequently, supervision provided a means to discuss the relevance of those insights for working through the case at hand. The CIT developed an enhanced self- awareness about subtle communication processes (in this case, her tone of voice) within the consultation session. I listened to the CITs tape, read her reflections, and developed my own understanding of ongoing process issues. Next, I used my and the CIT?s reflections to ignite a discussion that moved our dyad beyond communication concerns to the context of larger case dynamics. Without a tape or log, it is as if a set of blinds are drawn over the CIT?s case. For one, without a tape, a CIT writes a log relying solely on feelings she had in the moment of the session rather than being able to compare feelings she had in the moment with the distance of space, time, and an enhanced opportunity to ?spot patterns and links.? (Rowling, p. 519). Second, the supervisor is not able to listen to the tape and contrast his perceptions with the CIT?s perceptions in the moment and after listening to her own tape. Without either party listening to the tape, the CIT and supervisor may only be able to 102 trace a silhouette of what is happening in the consultation case; developing a more detailed portrayal (and subsequent discussion) is nearly impossible. Moreover, without access to a tape, one may hypothesize that taking time between the session and writing a reflection (i.e., not doing so immediately afterwards) distances the CIT from important feelings in the moment that cannot be revisited. Think about Jane?s ?gruff voice?: she was able to compare what she remembered from being in the session to what she heard on the tape, and then reflect. The accuracy of her perception notwithstanding (remember, she and I did not agree about what they heard), the disparity between her memory and audiotape was the impetus for Jane?s reflective log. Without access to the tape, Jane may have not thought at all about the important process communication dynamics of her case. In turn, I would not have been able to accurately reflect on these issues with Jane, and our dyad may have not gotten to the deeper content issues (i.e., Jane and the teacher struggling to design an intervention) that needed to be addressed. On at least one occasion during the semester, each of the five CITs did not audio tape part or all of at least one of their sessions. In addition, each CIT had at least one instance of not composing a log prior to the supervision session. Not audiotaping some or all of a session seems to be an inevitable occurrence for CITs, although the reasons for this varied, including a CIT talking to the consultee before turning on the tape, a poor tape recording quality making a tape inaudible, a tape battery dying, or a consultee requesting not to be taped. One way to combat the pitfalls of not having a tape was demonstrated by both Emma and Kathy, who each reported immediately jotting down notes after concluding a tapeless session so she could reflect as accurately as possible. 103 Emma demonstrated two instances of a consultee or consultees not wanting to be taped; these occurrences appear to be coincidental rather than linked to any particular actions she took during her cases. Emma?s not taping upon CIT request was a markedly different reason for not having a tape, although it presented as problematic for the same reasons as the other examples. Yet, despite the fact that audiotaping and logging are crucial components for deeper reflection, in these instances not audiotaping a session was actually necessary. As described earlier, in her systems case, Emma worked with a team of teachers who were wary about her taping the sessions. In particular, they expressed concern about the issue of confidentiality (i.e., information being shared with their building principal). In an appropriate response to non-verbal cues (one teacher staring at the tape silently after being asked a question), Emma turned off the recorder and discussed concerns with the teachers. As Emma remarked in her log, by turning off the tape she and the teachers were able to confront the ?elephant in the room? regarding the teachers? concerns about the principal?s perception of their team head on. In addition, as previously mentioned, this positively augmented her relationship development with her consultees by strengthening their mutual trust. In another example from Emma, not having an audiotape of the session was equally appropriate. According to Emma?s log, ?the teacher seemed very distressed and upset? and ?expressed a lot of strong feelings of frustration and anger? with the student who was the focus of their case. After their session, the teacher reported to Emma being ?very embarrassed by the things she had said during our session? and asked for the tape. Emma requested time with the tape within the school to reflect on her own skills, and 104 then gave the tape to the teacher. Doing so seemed to me to be an ?excellent decision,? as I wrote on Emma?s log. As in her case above, she responded in a consultee-centered manner that was empathetic to the teacher?s needs. This helped the trust in their relationship continue to grow. While not keeping the tape or not taping at all was the right thing to do in these instances, they led to different dynamics within supervision. For example, in the systems case, Emma and I spent a chunk of time clarifying the exact nature of the off-tape conversations within our supervision session because I felt that only after clarifying the content of the case could we move forward together to consider the latent process issues that were inherently more important (e.g., the nature of the team?s functioning, or lack thereof, which was the focus of the problem identified). We would not have needed to do so if I had access to the tape and could hear the content prior to our supervision session. The ideal role of tapes and logs in supervision as tools that maximize reflection is diagrammed in Figure 4.1. As is evident in this diagram, the CIT?s memory is triggered by listening to the tape and reflecting in their log. The process of listening to the tape and writing a reflective log interact with each other; for example, the CIT transcribes pertinent interactions in their log while listening to their tape. Ideally, the supervisor will have access to both the log and tape of the CIT prior to the supervision session. This allows for the supervisor to reflect on the CIT?s case(s), and the content and process issues to be prioritized and discussed in supervision. Ultimately, all of this information meets in the supervision session, catalyzing a maximally reflective discussion. The breakdown of reflection given any missing data during the process is demonstrated in Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. When either the log or tape is not available, 105 Figure 4.1. Maximizing the Potential Depth of CIT Reflection through Logs and Tapes. CIT Memory Log Tape Supervisor Access to Log and Tape and Supervisor Reflection Supervision Session and Ensuing Discussions 106 Figure 4.2. Limiting the Potential Depth of CIT Reflection by Not Using a Tape Figure 4.3. Limiting the Potential Depth of CIT Reflection by Not Using a Log CIT Memory Log Supervisor Access to Log and Limited Supervisor Reflection Supervision Session and Ensuing Discussions CIT Memory Tape Supervisor Access to Tape and Limited Supervisor Reflection Supervision Session and Ensuing Discussions 107 Figure 4.4. The Most Limited Potential Depth of CIT Reflection: Not Using Log or Tape CIT Memory Supervision Session and Ensuing Discussions 108 the discussion in supervision is based on less information, and is therefore limited. When neither the log nor tape is available, the supervision session relies on the CIT?s memory as the sole source of data (Figure 4.4). Given the aforementioned challenges with accuracy of perception, this scenario is potentially problematic. In sum, the data suggest it is important to maximize a CIT?s depth of reflection on their session (regardless of the accuracy of the reflection) in order for the CIT and supervisor to move together towards a deeper understanding of the content and process issues of the case. The potential depth of CIT reflection is maximized when both parties of the supervisory dyad are able to use the tools of audiotapes and written logs, and integrate these within the supervision process. Doing so appears superior to relying solely on the memory of CIT as a starting point for reflection in supervision. However, for a variety of reasons, CITs are not always able to tape their consultation case sessions. In fact, sometimes not taping is an appropriate response in order to best recognize the needs of the consultee(s) and support the ongoing CIT- consultee relationship. Although not having access to these tools can be impediments to successfully and efficiently working through CIT concerns in supervision, these issues may be at least partially addressed is if a CIT logs a reflection immediately following their consultation case session. Bridges in the Present: Making Comparisons, Asking Questions, and Other Strategies The ongoing dialogue in supervision sessions between CITs and me appears to consist of strategic patterns of interactions. These momentary happenings are initiated CIT concerns. Of the potpourri of interactions that were noted in the data, making comparisons (including of cases, previous sessions, and other CITs), and asking questions 109 (including reflection-based and not giving an answer) were those that occurred the most frequently, although other strategies also appeared to be notably important (including challenging, deferring, ?less is more,? sharing personal experiences, prioritizing, reinforcing, referring to research, and ?thinking out loud?). In the sections that follow, I will first outline the strategies that emerged as universally applicable to CITs. Of these strategies, some occurred more frequently with individual CITs. I will highlight the differences between CITs, and describe the reasons for those differences as supported by the data. Making comparisons. The CITs and I often utilized comparative reference points in their discussions within supervision sessions. The main types of comparisons that recurred in the data were case to case, CIT to CIT, and session to session. I also sometimes used analogies (albeit less frequently than other types of comparisons) within sessions, although this is likely more informative about my individual communication style rather than universally applicable to a larger theory of consultation supervision. Comparing cases. Four of the five CITs in this study (excluding Alice, who was a part- time student) took on at least three cases during the semester. For these four CITs, making comparisons between their own cases seemed to be a critical component of supervision discussions. One reason for CITs making comparisons was to reflect on successes from previous cases in order to think critically about the challenges in a current case. A second reason for making case comparisons was thinking about the differences between individual versus systems-level consultation; this type of comparison is consistent with expectations of content knowledge from the consultation course. The comparison of prior case successes to current case challenges happened most 110 frequently for Anne and Jane (it was also evident for Emma and Kathy, but less often). One reason for the prevalence of this strategy with Anne and Jane may have been because they each had one case that was particularly more challenging than their others (i.e., less positive CIT-consultee relationship dynamics as well as more negative feelings such as frustration), setting up a bold contrast. Kathy differed from Anne and Jane because while she also had one case that was more challenging than her others, the dynamics were not negative. Emma differed from all of the other CITs because unlike the others, she had two cases with the same consultee; these were the cases that she most frequently compared. In my role as supervisor, I viewed Anne and Jane?s case experiences as opportunities for CIT skill growth, including the use of communication skills. However I also realized that focusing on negative, challenging experiences in isolation may not be an effective way for me to communicate as a supervisor. The major purpose for which I initiated case comparisons was to increase the CITs? receptiveness to internal reflection. It is difficult to know the outcome of these interactions, especially because they most frequently took place at the very end of the semester when the most opportunities for comparison were available. But by looking at specific conversation excerpts, it is clear that deeply reflective conversations occurred in supervision sessions when these comparisons were discussed. For example, I pressed Anne to compare two positive case experiences she had with one that she struggled through. We explored a multitude of differences between Anne?s cases, and thought about what her role as a consultant would be in future cases to address such concerns should they arise. We talked about the importance of meeting 111 with a consultee consistently (on at least a weekly basis), which did not happen in this case, but did happen in her others. Anne and I also discussed the importance of coordinating resources, which was one of the biggest challenges their dyad faced (e.g., how to consider the student?s behavior across environments and in conjunction with other ongoing behavioral interventions). Perhaps most importantly, we dialogued about cultural issues that seemed to underlie some of the ongoing concerns of the case, including the negative consultee-student relationship. As Anne explained, ?Like my first grade teacher [in my other case] was like ?Oh! We can like do stuff that meets their culture!? And then this teacher is like, ?Ugh?he can?t always read things about Mexico? like with total attitude.? With these cultural biases present, it is not surprising that although Anne, her consultee, and the student made apparent ?progress? (i.e., the student?s behavior of concern mitigated), neither Anne nor the teacher felt good about the results. The teacher did not readily acknowledge the differences in student behavior (despite data evidence), and her negative frame about the student prevailed. Anne felt that the behavioral problem that was worked on was not the real problem at hand, thinking it would have been more appropriate to address the student?s ongoing academic concerns, including gaps in prior knowledge, which directly related to cultural variables. This case did not have a positive ending for the dyad or the student, but it presented an excellent learning experience for Anne. A similar result was true for Jane, who compared her case where the teacher lacked objectivity with regard to the student (described earlier) with other cases she had experienced. Unlike Anne who had two positive experiences and then a negative, it was Jane?s first case during the semester that was the most difficult. Jane?s comparison of 112 cases all took place during her last supervision session of the semester because at that point, after gaining a full semester of reference points, Jane and I had more perspective on her cases. I was able to confirm some of the unique qualities that Jane brought to the consultation dyad (e.g., boundary concerns) because they had surfaced in all three of her cases. Jane saw success in her systems level case (especially with regard to developing an extraordinarily positive CIT-consultee relationship), a striking difference from her first case. As Jane reflected: But I still have to say, I think especially this semester the other was just a totally different thing also. But for whatever reason this one was really sort of unusual. It was good. So yeah, it was a little bit of a different feel to be honest with you, in the working relationship? I mean I just really liked her as a person. Case comparisons were utilized in supervision to broaden my understanding of Jane as a CIT and to increase Jane?s self-awareness. We also used comparisons to reflect together on the overall role of consultation in the schools and Jane?s heightened interest level when working on specific case content (i.e., severe and profound disabilities). To sum up the role of comparing cases in supervision for Anne and Jane, particularly challenging cases were set against a backdrop of more positive cases, in effect causing important variables of the case at hand to jump to the forefront for consideration. Without reference points, these case issues would have not been as clear to Anne or Jane. Even though case concerns may be apparent to a supervisor or the metasupervisor (because of their multitude of comparative reference points from many other cases they have worked on over time), CITs appear to benefit most directly from distinguishing between cases and learning from their unique variables. 113 In the examples provided above, the CITs had one outlying case that contrasted sharply with their others. This resulted in our supervisory dyad comparing cases frequently, but is not the only reason comparisons were used in supervision. Emma?s unique circumstance (problem-solving two cases with one consultee) begged for comparative consideration because both Emma and the consultee were constants in the equation. By making comparisons, we could focus in on case content concerns in supervision, such as that one case was academic and the other behavioral. For Kathy, comparisons were often used in relation to her communication skills. Lastly, comparisons were used in supervision for reflection on systems-level cases because of their unique characteristics, most notably having multiple consultees, working with someone other than a teacher, and not (initially) focusing on an initial student concern. Alice, who only took on one case during the semester, did not have any examples of case comparisons in supervision. Given the evident importance of this technique, it would seem that Alice would be at an experiential disadvantage at the end of training; her exposure was significantly more limited than her peers. Alice?s future work as a consultant is based on prior knowledge of a single experience, one that might not be representative of the consultation process. This is problematic with consideration to the great variety of content (e.g., multiple types of academic and behavioral concerns), process (e.g., varying interpersonal relationships), and role (e.g., systems-level consultation) variables in which she did not receive applied practice. Peer comparisons. In addition to comparing cases, the CITs and supervisor often used other CITs as points of reference within a supervision session. For example, on more than one occasion, CITs referred to a project Anne had completed to fulfill an 114 intervention research requirement during the consultation course. The materials she had presented in class were used by others in working with consultees in their schools. In addition, some of the key factors behind Anne and her consultee?s successful implementation of the intervention, such as coordinating resources in the schools and verifying acceptability, were used as examples for others in supervision. This point is particularly salient because it illustrates a connection between what happens outside of supervision sessions (i.e., course requirements such as the research-based intervention project) with what is happening within them (i.e., making comparisons). CITs may also use each other as resources by requesting knowledge from another?s experiences. In one of Kathy?s supervision sessions, she referred to talking with Emma to discuss how to implement an instructional assessment with a student; Emma had engaged in this experience earlier in the semester. As Kathy described: ?So she gave me some tips...because that?s what I was concerned with?because I?m like, how are we gonna choose the materials and what materials should be chosen? ...so she sort of helped to clarify that for me.? In this example, Kathy benefitted from using Emma?s prior experiences to inform her own application of skills. This is similar to how Anne?s experiences informed and supported other CITs. Several other examples of CIT to CIT comparison also emerged from the data. For instance, Alice discussed her struggle to schedule a case session with her consultee and I responded by referring to a time when Jane had met with her teacher via telephone in order to present a potential solution for Alice. In a separate instance, after Anne?s consultee made a negative comment about the student?s culture, in our supervision session I compared Anne?s experiences with Jane?s challenges in working through lack of 115 objectivity issues to discuss how to address similarly challenging process concerns. In supervision with Kathy, I referred to a student from a prior cohort (not included in this data set) who had worked through similar case content issues (a systems-level case about English as a Second Language [ESOL] students) at the same school the previous school year. In all of these examples, other CITs? experiences were used as a referential resource, either via prompting by me or by the CIT?s own initiative. When such comparisons were made, it helped CITs expand their limited repertoire of experiences vicariously and thereby feel more comfortable applying a new skill. Gaining such knowledge is important whereas all of the CITs were engaging in initial consultation case experiences. Moreover, by pointing out similarities between CITs, our supervisory dyad highlighted collective experiences; as a supervisor, I purposely intended to demonstrate that many CITs deal with similar issues, and that those issues will likely surface again in the future. Comparing sessions. The last types of comparisons that were made within supervision were between a CIT?s case sessions. Sessions were compared in order to note patterns or distinctions over the course of time (i.e., from the beginning of a case to the end or one session to the next), and emerged as relevant for changes in both the CIT and consultee. Comparisons of a CIT?s use of communication skills over the course of the semester occurred frequently, providing one example of session-to-session comparisons. For example, Jane?s communication skills changed over the course of several sessions with one of her consultees. At the beginning of the semester, both Jane and her consultee 116 used child-deficit focused language as opposed to instructionally focused language, contrary to the course expectations of communicating as an instructional consultant. Jane?s language changed over the course of time, as I pointed out in supervision: ?You ?are taking steps forward in your skills. You did a lot of really good communication with her, and use of paraphrasing. And I think you, you know were really doing nicely at staying focused on the instruction even though that was challenging with her?.? Jane agreed, and expressed being less aware and ?hyper-vigilant? of her use of skills, implying that using instructionally focused language was becoming more natural. Kathy also reflected on her use of communication skills from session to session, for example thinking about how to use a ?bond and move on? technique to not get derailed from making case progress. She also explicated patterns she had noticed in the consultee?s communication over time, as well as in her own responses: Because I know one of the ways that I can address it with him, and he himself had said that it?s really important for him, he feels it?s important to know?to make sure he?s doing correctly. I heard him say that before. Not in this last session but in the session before. Um?and so?I think one of the things that I heard you say was in a way I let him get away with deflecting by not saying, ?No really. It would really help me to hear it from you. Like instead I just sort of said, ?Oh, he?s probably deflecting let me provide him the answer again.? Past case sessions were considered in this moment-to-moment supervision interaction, and linked to an alternative way for Kathy to communicate in future sessions. In addition to specific communication patterns, larger process concerns that repeated from session to session were considered in supervision. Alice and I talked about 117 her ongoing struggle in unsystematically hopping from stage to stage in the problem- solving process. As I pointed out: ?That was one piece that I definitely wanted to talk about that?that?you know, because ?the same concern came up earlier in the year.? I wanted to stress to Alice the importance of ?staying true to the process? despite feeling pressure from the consultee to move forward more quickly. The reoccurrence of this problem more than once during the semester indicated to me that Alice and I needed to review the problem-solving stages. I also encouraged Alice to use the Student Documentation Form (which explicates the stages) as a reference tool in her case sessions. Asking questions. In addition to making comparisons, asking questions emerged from the data as a critical type of supervisor-CIT interaction in supervision sessions. Questions related to past sessions, the present moment, and future application of skills, acting as a strategic bridge between these points in time. Besides my own use of IC skills (such as clarification questions and perception checking), two main sub-categories of questions appeared in the data: Reflective questions and questions asked to encourage CITs to answer their own questions. Reflective questions were by far the most common type of question asked in supervision. Reflective questions. Reflective questions often began with a stem of ?how do you feel about??? or ?what are your thoughts about??? The two ways that reflective questions surfaced in the data were (a) direct questions asked by me to the CIT, and (b) discussions about how, when, or with what purpose a CIT might ask reflective questions in their case sessions with their consultee. In the former type, when reflective questions were asked directly to the CIT, my intention was to promote CIT reflection and resulted 118 in CITs talking about feelings, or process concerns. In the latter type, when reflective questions were discussed with relevance to CITs? own application of reflective questioning, the result was supervisor modeling and/or explicit discussion. Direct reflective questions. First, let us consider what happened when I asked reflective questions directly to the CIT; this occurred for all five participants. Reflective questions resulted in CITs talking about feelings (their own and their consultee?s) surrounding the problem solving process, as well as their own process-level concerns. The following Supervisor-CIT exchange exemplifies how my use of reflective questioning elicited Alice?s expression of feelings about the process: S: ?what are your thoughts, kind of when I say [don?t apologize for the process] to you? I kind of remember us having talked about that before?and yeah, just kind of what are thoughts about that? Alice: I?I completely agree with you. I don?t think that there?s anything to be apologizing for because it?s taking long because we?re investing time and energy into it. You know, and so?there?s nothing to apologize for us to actually care about seeing this child succeed. Um?and I don?t?and I do find myself at times with teachers and stuff being a little more?um?I wouldn?t use the word submissive, but?not?I feel like I kind of I worry that they?re?I spend too much time worrying that they think I?m trampling on their time or their space or their energy. On a surface level, I knew that Alice and her consultee were not moving systematically stage by stage through the problem-solving process, and that Alice had been apologetic to her consultee for the amount of time the process was taking. By asking a reflective 119 question about these issues, we were able to consider more latent concerns such as Alice?s ongoing worries about her consultee?s time commitments (a concern that was quite common across CITs in this study and is further described later in the results section). In order for Alice to move forward effectively in her case, it was imperative for us to discuss her more deeply rooted feelings first, before being able to address the process oriented concerns. This was because Alice?s empathetic feelings about ?trampling? on the ?time,? ?space,? and ?energy? of her CIT resulted in the CIT-consultee dyad unsystematically hopping around the problem-solving stages. Once feelings emerged following reflective questioning in supervision, we were able to discuss those feelings together. Only then could we most effectively move on to consider how to address the process issue (problem-solving in a systematic yet time efficient manner) by hearing and recognizing the consultee?s concerns using effective communication skills, but not apologizing for the problem-solving process. Another example of reflective questioning, this time with Anne, also paints a picture of the importance of identifying feelings in order to eventually work through process concerns. However unlike the above example, in this instance the CIT and I did not fully process her underlying feelings, and the CIT ended up with less successful results in her case. This example demonstrates that in addition to asking reflective questions in supervision, it is important for a supervisor to listen carefully to and accurately address the CIT?s response to the question that is asked. Anne and her consultee lacked a shared frame of the problem they were working on ? Anne felt it was academically related while the teacher felt it was a behavioral 120 concern. In supervision, I encouraged Anne to gather more data with an instructional assessment in order to gain further clarity about the problem. Anne briefly expressed a concern about doing so without her consultee present (a reality the dyad was faced with given difficulties in coordinating their schedules). I asked her to reflect more about her thoughts and feelings on this issue, prompting the following reply: Um?I think that if I work with the behavioral [concern] as well she might be less resistant. I mean she hasn?t been resistant it just is there?s always that too. And I?m just slightly worried that if I look at that [instructional assessment], and I?m like, ?Look at all his problems with vocabulary!? She?s gonna be like, ?Okay ? I believe you. But he tells stories all the time.? In retrospect, I now realize that I mistakenly used this response by Anne as an entry point to discuss issues of collaboration, and how by using effective communication Anne could potentially address concerns in this area. I did not fully recognize the worry Anne had expressed about facing teacher resistance (i.e., if I just go along with the teacher?s behavioral concern [even thought I do not agree with it], ?she might be less resistant?). Had I more accurately identified and discussed Anne?s feelings prior to considering process oriented issues (collaborative communication), perhaps Anne would have been able to more effectively create a shared academic concern with her teacher. Instead, following our supervision session, Anne and her consultee decided to problem- solve around a behavioral concern rather than an academic one because it was more salient to the teacher and it alleviated Anne?s worries about facing resistance. Data collected over the next couple of weeks showed the behaviors of concern for the student 121 diminished, yet the consultee continued to express anecdotal frustrations about the student during consultation sessions. By not fully addressing Anne?s worry about teacher resistance, collaboration was overemphasized while creating an accurate (and shared) frame of the problem was neglected despite both of these issues being of consequence. Helping the teacher see the student in a different way by addressing concerns related to instruction instead of or in addition to behavioral concerns may have resulted in a ?turning? (Hylander, 2004), where the teacher?s view of the student changed for the positive. Of course, there were likely other factors that played into this case not being completely successful. What is important to take from this example is that reflective questioning is important, but not sufficient on its own. The accurate perception and follow up on CIT reflection by the supervisor is also essential. Talking About and Modeling Reflective Questions. Reflective questioning can be thought of beyond just being a direct question asked by the supervisor. For instance, the CITs and I discussed the use of reflective questioning as it might apply to a CIT?s case. In addition to dialoguing about how or when a CIT might use this skill, I sometimes explicitly modeled the use of reflective questioning (as will be described later in this section with regard to the general strategy of supervisor modeling). Consideration of reflective questions in either or both of these ways was relevant to all five CITs, although a majority of coding references emerged during supervision with Jane. In fact, Jane and I discussed ways for her to use reflective questions more than twice as much as I did with any other CIT. This was not coincidental. In addition to any pulls that Jane had from particular case sessions (comparable to what all of the other 122 CITs faced), I perceived Jane needed to learn to use reflective questions more effectively. She expressed caution in crossing relationship boundaries by inquiring about feelings. Related, I hypothesize that Jane?s lack of using reflective questioning was related to some of the idiosyncratic difficulties that she encountered during the semester, including struggles with CIT-consultee relationships. Discussion of reflective questioning with Jane was most evident in the transcription of her third supervision session. Several of the references were with specific regard to one of her cases that had just closed, in which the teacher exhibited limited to no reflection on her experience of the process despite some brief attempts by Jane to elicit a discussion. Jane described her CIT?s lack of responsiveness in their closing session: ?And she?you know, ?That?s fine, yes I agree.? You know? So there wasn?t really any?I guess I asked for comments but I wasn?t getting any. Maybe I should have asked more or....? In response, I reflected that ?sometimes a way to do it is to ask very generally... like you know, ?How did you feel about this process??? I gave several other examples: ??How do you feel about how we?you know, helped the student?? or ?How do you feel about the progress that we made?? You know, sort of the what and how questions.? In addition to giving examples, I decided it was important to be more explicit with Jane about the use of process questions, as I described them below: Which are?you know more process questions, and more?get at more, um?depth of information from her. And you know, and not just asking them for the sake of asking but really wanting to get at those?you know, feelings about the process and that sort of thing so that you get an idea of how?you know, the 123 teacher perceives the work that you did together and how the case went and those sorts of things. In this excerpt, I emphasized the importance of reflective questions for getting at feelings ? something that Jane continuously struggled with as part of the process. Even though there were a multitude of references to Jane with regard to this particular case and consultee, it is clear when looking at the larger data set that my intention was for broader applicability; I even verbalized connections across Jane?s cases: I think also it helps at getting at more of a real understanding of what happened for the teacher within that process and almost it?s like you can reflect on your own skills and your own things that you might do the same or differently in your two [non systems-level] cases. To paint a bigger picture first, it is apparent that reflective or process questions are an important tool for supervisors to utilize in supervision as well as for CITs to utilize in their cases. A supervisor can help the CIT learn how to use this type of question more purposefully or effectively through modeling or discussion. Focusing in on the specific details of Jane?s case, we see an example of how working on a specific skill in supervision may be more relevant for an individual CIT based on a combination of their own idiosyncratic needs in addition to the case and consultee. Not answering for the CIT. Let?s move to the second type of question that was coded in the data ? those used in order to encourage CITs to answer their own questions in lieu of me simply providing the answer. This strategy was sometimes used on CITs logs, where I would respond to a transcript excerpt, or CIT written reflection with a handwritten question. For example, when Emma wrote a quick request for feedback 124 question on her log: ?I am a little concerned that the intervention will not be successful. What are some changes we could make??, it would have been easy for me to write several suggestions on Emma?s log and dictate how to make adjustments in her case, especially after listening to her tape. But I did not feel that doing so would augment her growth as a CIT. Instead, I wrote back to Emma: ?Where do your concerns stem from?? This was a starting point for a conversation about the intervention during our supervision session. In another example, on one of Anne?s logs, she provided a transcript excerpt that demonstrated the intervention design process between her and her consultee. I circled a line from the transcript where I thought Anne was too directive in her communication; she had asked ?And how many words are you planning on teaching [the student] at a time?? with the intention of helping the teacher understand that teaching fewer unknown words at a time would fit better with principles of working memory. Ideally, Anne would have used the IC communication skill of clarification in order to arrive at that conclusion together with the consultee, rather than being too directive (and inadvertently not collaborative). Instead of writing an alternate phrasing on Anne?s log, I wrote: ?How might you have asked about how she was thinking about things instead?? Like Emma?s example above, Anne and I discussed this example further in our subsequent supervision session. Not providing the answer also occurred in moment-to-moment supervision session interactions, often with regard to content knowledge I expected the CITs to be internalizing at that point in the semester (e.g., knowledge of closure of cases at the end of the semester). The expectation was not that CITs would be able to function with full 125 independence in a skill they had just learned, but that they would at least reflect on that skill. The following breakdown of a supervision session exchange with Emma exemplifies this type of supervisor-CIT interaction: Emma: Well?um?my concern with all the cases is just how to start the process with like the fact that I?m gonna be leaving because I guess I might have like three more weeks there or something like that ?that?s kind of across the board something I don?t really know what I?m supposed to be?how I should approach that?they?re not at a place where they would naturally close, so I don?t know really what to do about that. I was tempted to directly answer Emma, listing some of the components of the problem- solving stage of closure, with reference to course readings and discussion. However, I purposefully wanted to elicit Emma?s blossoming knowledge of the problem-solving process, which I felt was well developed enough to answer (at least in part) her own question. As such, I asked Emma ?Okay, so what are your instincts in how you would close?? In our ensuing discussion, Emma provided a wealth of insight about case closure including the implications of Emma not being in the school through the end of the year, prioritizing what their dyad could realistically accomplish before the end of their work together, highlighting their case accomplishments (i.e., student progress), and the need to address transitional issues (?how we can make plans for [the consultee] to do [the intervention] once I?m not there anymore?). I responded to Emma with paraphrasing (?Okay, so it sounds like there?s two pieces to it. There?s the piece of what can you guys do together while you?re still in the 126 school. And then what is she planning to do through the end of the year?), which brought forth even more of Emma?s knowledge and insight into the case. She described actions she might take in her next session (i.e., ?meet very briefly while I?m still here and I just check in to make sure that you know, she?s doing okay?or ?the school psychologist offers to meet with her because she?ll be there??), and how to address some potential concerns that might arise: If the teacher says, ?You know what? There?s actually?I?m actually okay with how things have gone and I?m?you know, I?m too busy, I don?t have time. I really?? Maybe at that point can we just set, like agree on what she, something she wants to do with [the student]. The impression I?m getting from her is she?s just really exhausted and there?s a lot going on and I don?t want to like push her to make all these like grand goals of things she can do if that?s not realistic. Emma clearly demonstrated insightfulness into her case as well as knowledge about the closure stage of problem solving. Instead of me just giving answers when Emma stated that she was not sure what she was supposed to be doing, we were able to hone in on issues and concerns that were very specific to Emma?s case and construct a solution together. This strategy of not always providing the answer to CITs was not implemented with the purpose of stumping the CIT. When questions were written on the logs, CITs had time to read and reflect following the supervision session, especially after having discussed potential ways to address concerns with me in the session. When questions were asked in the moment, I knew that CIT had been exposed to the content needed to answer the question, and would likely have at least some amount of insight. Therefore, 127 this type of question may be seen as one way I attempted to augment CITs? movement from levels of awareness towards application of skills. Other strategies. Several other strategic moment-to-moment interactions between supervisor and CIT emerged from the data, although none were as dominant as the use of comparisons or questions. Therefore, each is given only brief consideration below. The group of strategies included some universally applicable strategies, namely prioritizing what to work on in the supervision session, reinforcing the CIT, minimizing the amount of supervision content (to maximize learning), referring to research, sharing personal experiences, and ?thinking out loud.? Two additional strategies, both idiosyncratically relevant, were deferring to and challenging CITs. Prioritizing. Prioritizing was one strategy I used across all five CITs, and involved asking the CITs variations of the question ?where would you like to start?? at the beginning of the session. Although this may at first appear to be a self-evident piece of data, there are a few deeper-rooted implications. First, although I had usually listened to CIT tapes, read their reflective logs, and noted my own areas I thought should be considered in our session, supervision was treated as supervisee-centered. I felt it was more important to first prioritize CIT concerns rather than my own. Second, the use of prioritizing reflected to the limited time we had in supervision sessions. By the middle to end of the semester CITs had as many as three cases to discuss, and supervision lasted approximately one hour on average, so it was essential to prioritize. Furthermore, as emerged from the data (and will be discussed later on), one purpose of supervision sessions was to address a multitude of feelings about the process. Prioritizing allowed our supervisory dyad to tackle the most salient feelings first and foremost. 128 Supportive comments. Making supportive comments was another strategy that consistently occurred for all CITs. Simply put, supportive comments took the form of genuine compliments to let a CIT know she was doing a good job. They were usually tied to specific examples, including content (e.g., ?Well I think one thing that you do well? is?doing that perception checking?), process (e.g., ?Great, I mean that?s really great?that?s hardcore processing with the teacher. You know working on process skills and process of the way that you?re communicating together. I think that?s fantastic!?), and growth (e.g., ?Your growth was just incredible?and I hope you feel that way too from, you know, where you started and where you are now that?you know it?s been such a big difference and you?ve made so much progress?). Supportive comments were also used to respond to self-critical comments from CITs who verbalized a lack of confidence. For example, I responded with comments such as ?But yeah, don?t knock yourself, because you?re doing a really great job in there!? or ??you?ve done so much work with this teacher and done so much good work?I want you to like feel that too?, when CITs expressed concerns or frustrations with about their ongoing consultation case(s). Providing verbal support to the CIT appears to be a critical strategy used in supervision sessions. In part, this may be due to the reflective nature of the supervision process, where CITs may sometimes be overly self-critical, and harbor concerns or negative feelings about the process or the job they have done. Genuine support from the supervisor may be one way to address such concerns. ?Less is more.? Another strategy, one that was coded as ?less is more,? appeared only a handful of times in the data set, but upon theoretical sampling (in particular, 129 looking at my own notes from tapes, reflective logs, and notes following supervision sessions), was definitely applied across all CITs during the semester. Instances were coded as ?less is more? when I decided as a supervisor that it would be more beneficial for the CIT and I to discuss fewer concerns in greater depth, rather than briefly touch upon many or all of the concerns that could have been discussed. My assumption as a supervisor was that like waiting at a bus stop, important concerns would come around again and could be traversed at a more convenient time. Sometimes I was explicit with the CITs, letting them know that we had discussed a lot for the session and I was wary of overwhelming them with more. Several times, I referred CITs back to their logs where I had made notes that we did not get discuss in our session, letting them know they should consider those items later or that we would revisit them in the future. Referring to research. The next strategy that was universally relevant was making references to research; this appeared in the initial data set at least once for four out of the five CITs (and for all five when revisiting notes). Some references to research were related to specific course content (e.g., behavioral principles, principles of learning, Response to Intervention, evidence based interventions, etc.). Other times, references regarded topics that were idiosyncratically related to a concern in a given case, for example I referred Anne to the NASP position statement regarding negative effects of student retention. The fact that references to research emerged as a consistent strategy used in supervision fits with the fact that supervision in this study was situated within a university training program that aims to develop reflective, scientific practitioners. For example, Jane and I discussed the possibility of her consulting with a faculty member 130 from the university special education program to ask about research behind some issues relevant to her systems case. Personal experiences. In addition to referring to research, I sometimes shared personal experiences with the CITs while acting as supervisor. I referred to my own experiences in the schools as a consultant including successes, challenges, and even about engaging in informal consultation with my wife, (who is a teacher). The intentions of these references seemed to be to provide additional tangible examples of the consultation process to CITs and to let them know that consultation is a challenging process. I also wanted to offer some of myself to the CIT, in development of a more cohesive relationship. On a couple of occasions, I also discussed my own process of development as a consultant and school psychologist. The following excerpt was taken from an end of the semester session with Jane: I think [it was] probably about the third year in the program was when I was like wait?everything?s sort of? during my third year field work when I was working at [a high school doing counseling] and doing consultation work in [another] county and I was like, wait?what are the things that are, you know, all tying together for me? How does everything kind of come together? In sharing this information with Jane, I intended to spark her reflectivity about who she was as a school psychologist. I knew she had interests in counseling, but I wanted her to think about how the role of consultant would eventually fit into her own professional practice. 131 ?Thinking out loud.? The last moment-to-moment strategic interaction that all CITs had in common was coded as ?thinking out loud,? and involved a mutual discussion by our supervisory dyad at times where neither party necessarily had a firm answer about an issue at hand. ?Thinking out loud? may be considered a form of genuineness that reflects a mutual struggle between CIT and supervisor, one that eventually resulted in the construction of meaning and understanding. I was honest with the CITs that I did not have an immediate answer to the question at hand. Here are some of the phrases I used that are representative of this process: ?I?m thinking about it out loud with you right now?; ?I don?t have the answers??; ??I want to work together with you??; ??I?m really thinking about this on my feet as we?re talking.? There are two interesting facets of the ?thinking out loud? strategy that add substance to its importance: (1) The statements above would likely not fit within every model of supervision, especially models that are more expert oriented. ?Thinking out loud? is representative of the supervisee-centered and constructivist nature of the supervision process being considered in this paper; (2) ?Thinking out loud? is very different than the strategy of not answering questions for the CIT. In both strategies, I did not give the answers and the CIT took on some portion of the responsibility for the problem at hand. However, in the former strategy, I likely could provide the answer but purposefully withheld it to augment CIT growth. In the strategy of ?thinking out loud,? neither me nor CIT has the answer at our fingertips. To complete this section, let us consider two final strategic bridges in the present, both of which showed idiosyncratic applicability in supervision: deferring and challenging. 132 Deferring. An abbreviated excerpt of a meta-dialogue I had with Anne makes clear what is meant by ?deferring? to the CIT: Like, there are times when I [the supervisor] have my own answer for I think things are. But it doesn?t matter, like I?it?s about what we?re doing together, you know? ...I could tell you to go in and do a snapshot. But, you know I heard you have concern about that and not doing it collaboratively with the teacher, so let?s talk about that. In other words, a supervisor may have a frame for a given issue, but sometimes what the CIT thinks is the more important focus for supervision. The majority of coding references to deference emerged for Jane. In fact, deferring to Jane happened consistently over her three supervision session transcripts. There are several reasons why this may have been the case. One reason was that Jane?s third tape was difficult for me to hear prior to our supervision session; therefore, I had to defer to some of her perception and memory of the session (see Figure 4.4). However, each of the CITs had some instances of me not being able to hear the tape and deference did not appear to increase for them as a result. A second, more likely reason is that all three of Jane?s involved issues related to sensitive communication dynamics with her consultee. In fact, looking more closely at those references coded as ?deferring,? all but one (which was about identifying the problem) involved communication concerns such as her ?gruff? tone of voice, an over- emphasis on ?cheerleading,? and lack of use of reflective questions. When communication skills are a point of contention between supervisor and CIT, it may be difficult for a supervisor to challenge the CIT since he only heard the tape, while the CIT 133 was actually in the session. Therefore, challenging the CIT over communication issues may not be the best or most successful approach to supervision. On the other hand, if the supervisor perceives there were in fact communication dynamics that the CIT is not accurately reflecting upon, he can use other approaches to initiate a discussion of these important issues. Although I deferred to Jane in the moment during our supervision sessions, we revisited pertinent quotes from her case sessions more often than I did with any other CIT. This was not accidental. To do this, I needed to take explicit notes while listening to her tapes and cue parts of her tapes to play during our sessions. To provide a potent example, Jane initially disagreed with me about the importance of a quote from her consultee that I had heard while listening to her tape, one that I perceived to represent lack of objectivity issues (the same incident I referenced earlier in this paper). Jane expressed that she ?would be concerned about reading too much into it or being too bold as to say from that one comment of hers that she?s really reflecting on [the student] as being similar to herself at that age.? However, this was clearly what the teacher said in the session. I played the tape back, and after listening to the excerpt together, Jane seemed to become more secure around accepting the validity of some of the larger issues that were latent behind the emotional outburst of her consultee. I attempted to reinforce Jane?s changing attitude by confirming what I heard on the tape: And she gave you a lot of information, it wasn?t angry. It was just?she was concerned about the student and had emotion surrounding the student that she said. So she was like, at that point saying, ?You know this student reminds me of 134 myself and is really loud and he?s gotta learn that he can?t be loud like that. People said I couldn?t go into teaching because I was too loud? and whatever. So that wasn?t?she had emotion around that but it wasn?t anger at you. Over the semester (but only after re-listening to this section of the tape), Jane was more receptive to thinking about the relationship and communication dynamics of her case in a different way. She even read an article by Caplan (1970) about theme interference, and applied one of his intervention techniques in her case. In sum, given sensitive issues such as fragile CIT-consultee communication or relationship dynamics, one effective supervisory approach may be to defer to the CIT in the moment but then listen to and dissect a taped-excerpt that provides evidence of the given concern. Challenging. Although deferring was sometimes the appropriate momentary strategy for me to apply, other times challenging the CIT was the strategy that was used. Challenging surfaced in the data for Alice, Emma, and Jane, but not for Anne or Kathy. It involved me not accepting a given answer or action from the CIT, and asking a question or making a statement to push the CIT to a deeper level of reflection. One reason for using challenges was the CIT having what I felt was an incorrect frame of the problem. A second reason was to challenge the CIT?s comfort level. Challenges about problem frame surfaced for Alice and Jane. Alice and her consultee had identified writing as a concern for the student, but this did not seem to fit with issues I heard Alice discuss with her consultee when I listened to the tape. Instead of just moving on to a discussion about writing concerns in supervision, I challenged Alice to explain how she and the consultee had identified their problem: 135 So, there?s a lot of reading concerns. So, I?m wondering why?how it ended up that the, kind of the teacher?I know in the first session talked about all these different things but then it kind of ended up that you got zeroed in on the writing? This statement sparked a discussion about the overall problem-solving process, which as I described earlier, Alice was not following linearly. Their dyad ended up backing up, clarifying that writing was in fact the problem they wished to prioritize, and went on to develop a successful intervention for this student. Without this challenge, the dyad may have still identified writing as the concern to be addressed, but would not have defined it as clearly as when they delved back into the problem identification stage in their next consultation session. I also challenged Jane on the frame of the problem in one of her cases (again, the case already extensively described, involving theme interference and a rocky CIT- consultee relationship). This example is different from Alice?s because due to the many challenges in this case, Jane?s comfort level was very low. As a result, she sometimes did not speak up even when she disagreed with the consultee. For example, the dyad ended up identifying and working on a behavioral concern even though this likely was not the root of the problem. This became evident after two extensive classroom observations by the CIT where the student exhibited behavior that was comparable (if not better) than his peers, yet the consultee insisted his behavior was poor during those times (again, providing more evidence of lack of objectivity). I was concerned about the inaccurate problem identification, although I also was sensitive to the difficulties Jane faced within her case, especially discomfort within their 136 relationship. Within a lengthy supervision discussion about all of these issues, I challenged Jane: So, I still?I don?t know exactly how it fits in, or what to do, but I feel like if you?re doing the problem solving process, and the problem you know, if you?re working on something that might not even be the problem, or is only part of the problem, you might not be doing him harm, but what are you?are you benefitting the student? To continue my challenge, I referred back to Jane: ?You kind of said, like, ?if I were the teacher this wouldn?t be a problem. He?s calling out the same amount. I?ve observed in the class and seen it.?? Then, I referenced the consultee?s demonstrative quote (see the deferring section above) to conclude my challenge. Later in our supervision session, I let Jane know I was empathetic to her situation, but that I also did not want to let her off the hook without addressing the concerns that dominated the case: So why don?t you think about it, and if you want, you and I can maybe chat even about it on Monday and see where you?re at with it or what you?re feeling. I want you to work within your comfort level but I?m trying to separate the difference between?I don?t know how to phrase it. But, I don?t?I want you to be comfortable but I also want you to be uncomfortable?because I feel like you?ll have growth from it. This series of challenges did not result in a successful conclusion of the consultation case, perhaps because issues were too deeply rooted by the time they were considered in supervision, or maybe because the latter challenge was too ambivalent. My intention was 137 that the challenges would act as building blocks to help Jane think more about problem solving, case conceptualization, and relationship building ? all keys to being an effective consultant in the schools. This was reflected in our end of the year session when we extensively discussed the role of school psychologist as consultant, and Jane frequently compared this difficult case to her others. While challenges presented to Jane regarded her comfort level within the consultation session, those presented to Emma were related to comfort level within the supervision session. Emma expressed frustration over one of her cases, and felt stuck as to where to go next. As a result, she desired to stop talking through the issues of this case and ?move on? in our supervision session. I challenged Emma by not allowing us to ?move on? without addressing the issues at hand, despite the potential discomfort for Emma in doing so: Emma: We have all this?we have a lot of data. And I just?don?t know. I?I feel like I?m just not doing a very good job. And I don?t know what to do differently. I don?t know what we?re missing. But?And I feel the same way about [my other] case [with the same consultee] as well. Because I?ve known since like week three that this wasn?t working. S: Mmhmm. Emma: So let?s move on to that. S: Well?do you?I mean?it doesn?t feel like you have closure on what to do with this case which is? It would have been more comfortable in the moment for Emma to ?move on? to something else without considering the issues that were frustrating her. Instead, 138 following my challenge, we engaged in a lengthy discussion about her case. Much of the discussion involved aiding Emma to recall the successes she and the teacher had shared in the case thus far (which were plentiful). Although Emma?s frustrations about their case status did not magically alleviate, in her next few sessions with the consultee, I heard Emma bring up the same successes we had talked about in supervision. The teacher was responsive to this conversation. In this instance, a challenge in supervision forced a conversation that may not have otherwise taken place, and the dialogue provided Emma with a strategy to reduce some of her and her consultee?s frustrations. This allowed their dyad to feel better about their progress through the problem-solving process and move forward more productively. Future Application: Upcoming Sessions, New Cases, and Beyond As has been illustrated thus far, supervision sessions consisted of some strategies that encouraged reflection regarding the past and others that acted as moment-to-moment bridges. These bridges are anchored in the past and connect to the realm of future application. Future-focused strategies helped CITs prepare for upcoming case sessions, think about potential applicability in new cases they might take on, and reflect on their prospective role as school-based consultants in future practicum, internship, and professional experiences. Included within this group of skills, all CITs were coded for supervisor modeling, CIT rehearsal, ?lessons learned,? and creating a plan for the upcoming case session; less common was the use of writing notes during the supervision session. Modeling and rehearsal. The most prominent future-oriented strategies (based on number of coding references) that emerged from the data were supervisor modeling and 139 CIT rehearsal. Through modeling, a supervisor demonstrates with words how the CIT might address a given issue in an upcoming consultation case. Frequently, instances that I modeled in a supervision session were later applied in a comparable, sometimes nearly identical, manner by the CIT in a consultation case session. Examples of the use of supervisor modeling and links to CIT rehearsal are demonstrated in Table 4.4. Each of these excerpts is future-oriented in nature and is accompanied in the far right column with a label of the concern being addressed through this strategy. As illustrated in Table 4.4, instances of supervisor modeling occurred in conjunction with concerns such as using communication skills (including ?sensitive communication? between the CIT and consultee, for example discussing a consultee?s instruction), working through scheduling conflicts, collaboratively identifying or prioritizing problems, and discussing data. Supervisor modeling also surfaced frequently in the data with regard to discussing the use of reflective questions (e.g., ?How do you feel about??? or ?What are your thoughts about???). These are all areas where effective communication is necessary, but finding the right words may be challenging for a CIT. The aim of modeling is not to create a clone of the supervisor, but to support the CIT in finding their own words. Unsurprisingly, as is also demonstrated in Table 4.4, evidence emerged from the data linking use of supervisor modeling with CIT rehearsal of how to say something (another future oriented strategy). This relationship appeared to be bidirectional, as sometimes my modeling was followed by CIT practice or rehearsal, and other times I responded to a spontaneous CIT rehearsal with additional modeling to supplement the CIT?s rehearsal. At times, CIT rehearsal was directly prompted via a question I asked 140 Table 4.4 Links between Supervisor Modeling and CIT Rehearsal in Response to Case Concerns Supervisor Modeling Dir. CIT Rehearsal Concern(s) Addressed S (to Alice): But say?like, ?It?s important for us to meet once a week in the case, I think because, you know, I?m only in the school once a week, and, you know, if we?re working on it it?s gotta be something where we?re checking in weekly. Um?it will take too long to not meet once a week. The case will go on forever.? Alice: ?I think that it is?that I think we will be able to make great progress with [the student] if we meet?if we have a consistent time to meet?I think it?s important and it?s also?it?s also difficult for both of us to change our schedules. But I think that it would be really helpful to us and to the student for us to figure out a time that we can meet consistently once a week.? ? Time ? Scheduling S (to Anne): But it wasn?t super clear to me what she meant, and that?s why I asked you at the beginning of the session to [clarify]?So, you know, what does she mean? ?What do you mean Anne: If she?s like, ?Oh my God, she only learned one [in this time]!? then I can be like, ?Well, if we look at this graph, no need for alarm. We?re still in the projected range and that ? IC Skills (Clarification) ? Use of Data 141 it?s not as quick??? last time she had extra time to learn, so it?s not?? S (to Emma): But in this case I think, really getting?moving away from the teacher hopping around from point to point to point and instead saying, ?Okay, well we have a lot of information. Let?s talk about what your expectations are within these areas that we?ve kind of identified.? Emma: Yeah, no, yeah?I kind of said it as you know, like, ?We want to be prioritizing and thinking about?? And I need to be more, very direct and say like, ?It?s?we need to take a step back and make sure that we have all these things in place and we really have a specified concern. Not to say that you shouldn?t be doing these things with [the student] but just we want to make sure that?? ? Identifying/ Prioritizing a Concern S (replying to Jane): Well, you could, a lead-in, ?How did he do this week? How do you feel the other students are?I know that you had expressed that you were concerned about the way the other students kind of look at him, and?you know, how are you feeling about that? How are Jane: I mean even just to?you know, I don?t want to say, ?I know you brought it up before?? because?you know, or?I?m not even sure, ?Oh how did he do this week? How do you feel about when he calls out?? I mean, I don?t? ? Reflective Questions ? Lack of Objectivity 142 you feeling about the case?? S (replying to Kathy): I would even be as genuine with him as saying, ??, I?m not going to be here after this session and you know, we?ve done hours and hours of work together. And I want to make sure that you have something when this is over.? Kathy: Yeah. And so I think?I could imagine me, you know, asking him to demonstrate and him deflecting and what I?ll need to do is instead of just letting that go saying, ?No, no. Really. We want to make sure that this is?that he?s getting?the student is getting the most benefit.? ? Sensitive Communi- cation ? Consultee Empowerment 143 (e.g., ?How would you say it?? or ?Would it help to practice??). One implication of the apparent links between supervisor modeling and CIT rehearsal is that supervisor modeling in and of itself is perhaps not enough to transfer to CIT application of skills; CITs benefit from modeling being tied to their own rehearsal, whereby they can find their own voice to address important case concerns. On the other hand, rehearsal alone is also insufficient for effective application of skills in future sessions. CITs sometimes require feedback on how they would say something, for example if they have difficulty in finding words without support or are too verbose in their initial rehearsal. Lessons learned. One strategy used in supervision was to summarize a potent theme or themes that recurred for a CIT during the year, and ask her to reflect on that issue. Take for example the following dialogue in Alice?s final session: S: What kinds of lessons have you learned from it in terms of thinking about future cases ?if there?s lots of things going on. How do you approach it, or?? Alice: I think I?ve learned that it?s impossible to balance giving each task as much attention. I think it?s best to prioritize the work that we can do together. We?re aware of the other concerns but this is what we can do. Focus in on getting that ball moving and us being clear about that. And then we can start discussing the other things. But until you get one anchor down that you and the teacher can work on, everything?s kind of balls in the air. It?s too much? S: So you?re talking about the focusing on one problem more intensely than the other ones. But the other thing that you?re kind of saying and that I?ve seen in this case that you?ve done is like?the other problems are still there and you kind 144 of check in with the teacher about them and support her the best that you can with that too but you don?t lose?your eyes are still on the um?problem that you?re working on so you don?t lose focus of that. This interaction was responsive to a concern Alice had throughout the semester regarding prioritizing with her consultee. In this example, the teacher had expressed many problems she wished to work on with the student and the dyad worked on more than one problem at a time, making it quite difficult to problem-solve effectively. The conversation was also related to an early mistake Alice and her consultee had made by inadvertently working out of order through the problem-solving process before identifying a priority concern. My hope as a supervisor is that if this was truly a ?lesson learned,? Alice will not make the same errors again when she engages in future experiences as a consultant or will be able to self-correct her mistake right away. The example from Alice above was not unique; all CITs discussed lessons they had learned over the course of their applied consultation experiences, most frequently in response to reflective questions I had asked. As would be expected, talking about lessons learned frequently occurred in the final supervision sessions where it served a summarizing function for me and related to the momentary bridge of making comparisons. What made this strategy unique was that it always related to future application. This was exemplified when CITs expressed things like, ?I?ll just be thinking about that for next time?; ?So when I think about taking another case I?m not like totally freaked out about it. At least now I know how to talk to someone in a way that would be, you know, collaborative and??; ?I would have no problem restarting another case with because now I know?do you know what I mean? I have learned from my mistakes. And I know where to go with it??, and ?I feel like if that were to happen again in a case, now I sort 145 of sort of know that it?s okay to sort of address the elephant in the room.? In these examples, CITs exhibited what they had learned from their experiences, and how it will impact their future practice. Planning for the upcoming case session. Part of supervision sessions for every CIT involved devising a plan for the next consultation case session. Whereas the future- oriented strategy of ?lessons learned? was reflective in nature, the creation of a plan was more action focused. Data coded in this way most often reflected as I checked-in with the CIT by asking variations of the questions, ?Do you now have an idea of what to do in your upcoming session?? I used this strategy most frequently with the purpose of confronting feelings that emanated from the process or to help the CIT work through various aspects of problem solving. Planning actions for upcoming sessions helped us discuss ways to alleviate negative feelings (e.g., Anne: ?Yeah, and I don?t know that I necessarily have a plan of action for my other case that got reopened?with now the teacher having less enthusiasm than ever??), or augment positive feelings, as I tried to encourage Emma to do (e.g., ??You?ve empowered the teacher, you?ve empowered the teacher?s work with the student?The teacher?s able to do activities that she wasn?t doing before and they?re with purpose?). Further, making a plan for the upcoming case sessions was important in considering problem-solving issues such as systematically working through the stages of the process, correctly identifying and prioritizing a concern, effectively designing and implementing an intervention, and closing the case. Taking notes. The last future-oriented strategy that emerged from the data was taking notes during supervision sessions. This was a strategy used by two (Alice and 146 Kathy) of the five CITs. Alice expressed taking notes so as to not forget what to do when sitting down with the consultee during their upcoming session. Kathy took notes to remember to ask me a question later in our supervision session and to highlight some ideas she wanted to review before going into her next consultation case session. Although only Alice and Kathy utilized this strategy during supervision sessions, all CITs had access to my notes, which were pre-written on their logs. However, these notes did not comprehensively cover all that we discussed in the supervision session, and were written by me rather than the CIT. Taking additional notes may be seen as a potentially helpful strategy for CITs in supervision, although some CITs may not feel it is necessary to do so. Use of Strategies During the Semester. In designing this study, the initial data set was selected to cover ground over the course of a full semester of training; this was purposefully done to develop a greater understanding of what happened in supervision sessions over time. What emerged is that the strategies outlined above had some universal differences in their application from the beginning to the end of the semester. This has implications for what strategies are most relevant for CITs at a given point in the semester, and is confirmatory of the concept of developmental models of supervision (where CITs experience developmental changes during the supervision process, and different strategies are applied in supervision based on developmental level). However, as has been demonstrated thus far, the overarching results of this study also suggested idiosyncratic differences between CITs, including content and process of consultation cases. As a result, there are also variations in strategies used over time, making it hard to distinguish if differences are due to semester timing or individual 147 needs. To the extent possible, the role of semester timing in application of strategies (rather than individualized exceptions, which have been exemplified earlier in this paper) was parsed out using the NVivo computer program. Specifically, I created a matrix that summarized strategies used by all CITs at a given point in the semester but I also broke down the use of strategies in each of the CITs? sessions individually. I then visually analyzed this matrix prior to making assertions. A summary of strategies used at different points in the semester is presented in Table 4.5 and the sections below. The results presented are those with the strongest evidence of being due to semester timing rather than CIT idiosyncrasies. Table 4.5 Differences in Use of Supervision Session Strategies During the Semester Semester Timing Distinct Strategies Beginning ? Supervisor Modeling ? CIT Rehearsal ? Use of Logs Middle ? Use of Tapes ? Supportive Comments ? References to Research Middle through End ? Prioritizing ? Reflective Questions End ? Making Comparisons ? Lessons Learned ? Planning for Case Closure 148 Beginning of the semester. The future oriented strategies of supervisor modeling, CIT rehearsal, and writing notes showed distinct patterns of more frequent occurrence at the beginning of the semester, followed by reduction in application over time. This fits consistently with the idea that CITs move towards more automatic application of skills over the course of the semester. It is also in sync with the idea that in the beginning and middle of the year, CITs are engaged in cases and thinking about their upcoming sessions. By the time we reached the last session (used in the data set), CITs were focused on closing the case and less concerned with addressing specific content or process issues than they were earlier in the year. By contrast, the future oriented strategy of lessons learned increased over time ? CITs had more experiences to reflect on in thinking about their future practice as consultants. The use of logs in supervision sessions also changed substantially from the beginning of the semester to the end. At the beginning of the semester, our supervisory dyad relied on specific content described in the log to guide the supervision session and referred time and again to individual excerpts from the logs (such as transcripts, requests for assistance, etc.). In contrast, by the end of the semester, brief log references were a starting point for conversations in supervision, and were followed by deeper discussions of process issues. This change provides evidence that supervision sessions transition from more content focused earlier in the year towards more focused on process issues at the end. Middle of the semester. Although use of tapes was prevalent in the beginning and end of the semester, it was at its highest levels in the middle. The middle of the semester was the heart of the practicum experience for CITs and they were all juggling three cases 149 at one time. Through the use of tapes, the CIT and I were best able to distinguish among cases and consider the most important concerns that arose. This fits with the fact that as the supervisor, I was listening to approximately 15 tapes (five CITs x three cases each) during a given week. I took explicit notes while listening to the tapes to distinguish cases, and referred to these notes during our supervision sessions; these instances were coded as use of tape. Two other strategies that were more dominant in the middle of the semester included reinforcing the CIT and making references to the research. The middle part of the semester may be perceived as the toughest stretch for CITs, especially since they are juggling three cases at one time. Supportive comments were used at heightened levels for me to support CITs during this challenging period. Referring to research acted as a bridge from the earlier awareness stages at the beginning of the semester towards more applied experiences, so it makes sense that this would occur most frequently in the middle of the semester as CITs are moving between these levels. In addition, with the mounting evidence that process issues were of greater concern in supervision sessions towards the end of the year, research provided guidance on some of the more challenging issues. For example, Alice and I discussed the concept of evidence based interventions and strengths and limitations therein, with reference to her complex case. Doing so provided insight into the fact that not every student responds the same way to every intervention, even if the intervention is research-supported. Alice and the teacher went on to develop an individualized (and of course, data-based) intervention that was successful for this student even though the child had previously not made progress while in a research-supported intervention (Handwriting Without Tears). 150 Middle to end of the semester. As CITs moved from the middle to the end of the semester, two strategies occurred more often than they did in the beginning. One was prioritizing what happens in the supervision session. The reason this strategy was more common in the middle and end of the semester was that the increased number of cases being worked on created more concerns to be considered during the supervision sessions. There was not time to address everything. As such, the CIT and I decided together the most important issues to be discussed. Moreover, I was transitioning the CIT to take responsibility to independently identify concerns to work on, rather than me acting as sole determinant of CIT needs. Use of reflective questioning also increased from its less frequent usage in the early part of the semester to become a more centrally applied strategy in the middle and end of the year. Again, this can be seen as consistent with supervision sessions being less concerned with content issues, and more focused on process. CITs were grappling with different issues at this point in the year than at the very beginning of the semester. Levels of content knowledge were more firmly established, and I saw attending to nuanced process issues to be more critical to CITs? growth. End of the semester. By the end of the semester, the CITs had tackled a wealth of experiences, which reflected in the strategies that were most frequently applied during supervision sessions. For one, making comparisons (especially case comparisons) was especially common. Because CITs had more cases and case sessions to use for comparisons, this was a natural occurrence. Further, it seems that the end of the semester was a time of increased reflection for the CITs as well as for me. Therefore, reflective questions and discussions about lessons learned were more common at the end of the 151 semester. These types of discussions were anchored in reflection on past experiences, and often oriented towards future practice. Another finding was that I let the CITs answer their own questions more often at the end of the semester than at other times. This fits with the idea of automaticity and increased expectations from a supervisor for the CITs? developmental progress. Unexpectedly, the code of planning for the next session was dominant at the end of the semester rather than earlier in the year. This likely occurred because CITs were reaching the closure stage in their consultation cases, but were not sure exactly how to address this process. Although we had briefly discussed the steps of closing a case during Fall semester coursework, most CITs were formally closing their cases for the first time. Those who had closed cases earlier in the year had concerns about specific issues such as transitioning the case into the next school year. Supervision sessions provided a chance to talk about the content area of case closure and discuss the nuts and bolts of application for upcoming consultation case sessions. Confusion, Worrying, Frustration, and Positive Feelings Thus far, the supervision process has been illustrated to include important components outside of supervision sessions and strategic interactions inside of sessions (focused on the past, present, and future). The most central content and process issues that are considered as part of CITs? ongoing consultation cases have been briefly described. The last vital facet of supervision that will be considered is the role of feelings, specifically, those from the CIT and consultee. Feelings emanated immediately from consultation case issues, and surfaced both outside of and within supervision sessions, thereby spanning the entire supervision process. The four subcategories of 152 feelings that were evident in the data were confusion, worrying, frustration, and positive feelings. Most often, feelings related to the CIT?s or consultee?s perceived effectiveness in working through the main concerns of the problem-solving process. As the supervisor, of course I also experienced feelings, but these were not inherently included in the data set (i.e., I did not necessarily talk directly about my feelings with CITs, and my own notes related to thematic concerns rather than personal feelings); therefore, supervisor feelings are not part of the emerging theory. Confusion. At one point or another, all CITs arrived at a point in each of their cases where they expressed being confused or not knowing what to do; I also occasionally expressed confusion, usually paralleled with the confusion of the CIT. Most often, confusion was related to the problem-solving process ? especially during the problem identification stage, and sometimes during intervention design and intervention evaluation. Intertwined within the problem identification and intervention stages, CITs and I discussed confusion about the use of data (e.g., how data informs the concern, how to use the data from an instructional assessment, etc.). An excerpt from a supervision session with Anne exemplifies confusion as a concern for CITs: I?m just trying to think about what you do?I had no ideas. It?s part of the reason I?m like?I can?t even get my head around problem identification. Because I have no idea where?even if I think it?s a concern I just don?t even know where to go from there. Just because I don?t have any experience with those sort of interventions. In this example, Anne was unsure how to move from the problem identification stage towards the development of an appropriate intervention in one of her cases. The 153 confusion stemmed in part from a large time gap between case sessions (four weeks) due to the consultee?s lack of availability to meet followed by the school?s Spring break. Anne was not sure exactly where the case left off, what had changed for the student in the interim, and how to resume the process most effectively with the consultee. Our ensuing discussion in supervision was future oriented and focused on Anne having a plan of action for her upcoming session. We discussed her taking things ?one step at a time,? revisiting the problem identification process to make sure they had identified the correct problem to work on prior to diving into an intervention, and honoring the teacher?s main concerns, which in this instance were salient behavioral concerns about the student. In a separate example from one of Emma?s cases, confusion appeared a multitude of times (more than any other session for any other CIT), and was a concern for both Emma and me. The confusion we experienced led to feelings of frustration (explored later in this section). Again, the crux of the confusion related to difficulty in identifying the problem, as was summarized by Emma in her reflective log: I am not sure where to go next with this. The teacher may do a reading IA with [the student] next week?Hopefully that will help her clarify her concerns so that we have more direction next week. I don?t want to direct our conversations towards a certain concern and the teacher is still ?fuzzy? about what she would like to focus on. We are having trouble because [the student] seems to struggle in all aspects of reading. Although the dyad knew that they wanted to intervene in the area of reading, what specific aspect of reading (they had narrowed it down to decoding, sight words, or metacognitive strategies) to address was not clear. 154 In supervision, Emma and I talked at length about identifying the problem, but our discussions only seemed to snowball the confusion we both felt. Even though Emma initially stated, ?I feel like the problem has been identified since like day one?,? it quickly became apparent that she and her consultee had not clearly identified what they wanted to work on. Further, as in Anne?s case, they had not met in a very long time due to scheduling complications and Spring break. Given the lack of problem clarity, I moved our supervision conversation back to the problem identification stage by asking, ?So, what?right now on the Student Documentation Form, and just in general, what is your?what is the problem that you?re gonna work on?? We talked at length about what the CIT knew from data the dyad had collected (including two prior Instructional Assessments) and from previous sessions with the consultee. Our conversation felt circuitous to me (both in the moment and while listening back to the tape of our supervision) and did not seem to add clarity to the problem. The discussion did bring out a worry from Emma that the process was taking too long, which added perceived pressure for her to forge ahead. In an attempt to address the confusion as well as Emma?s feelings about the process, I utilized a variety of strategies with mixed success ? ?thinking out loud,? reinforcing the CIT, planning for the next session; I also used communication skills such as clarifying, perception checking, and summarizing. Despite all that we tried, we were not able to move beyond our confusion in this session. From my perspective, I think that part of our getting stuck related to my own lack of comprehensive content knowledge in the area of reading. As such, I ended our dialogue by telling Emma that I would talk to the metasupervisor to elicit insight that could help move Emma and her consultee forward. Being genuine about my own 155 confusion was important ?I let Emma know that I did not have the answer. The feedback provided by the metasupervisor (as well as peer supervision facilitated by the metasupervisor in the consultation course) helped Emma progress in the case, feeling more successful than she did in the supervision session detailed above. Worrying about the CIT-consultee relationship. In addition to confusion, all CITs described experiencing worries at some point in the supervision process. This finding is consistent with what would be expected for beginner to advanced beginner CITs according to developmental models of supervision. Worrying most often related (both indirectly and directly) to the relationship between the CIT and the consultee. The fact that the CIT-consultee relationship was a central area concern for CITs fits well with the consultee-centered approach to consultation, which was espoused in the consultation courses students were engaged in at the time of the study. Examples of such worries abounded in the data. For one, CITs worried about how issues of time (e.g., the problem-solving process taking too long) might negatively impact their relationship with the consultee. The CIT-consultee relationship related to other concerns as well, such as worries about being sufficiently collaborative (e.g., not doing work without the teacher), and having anxiety over a teacher?s negative reputation (e.g., Anne: ?[Her reputation] always made me not really want to go meet with her?). CITs also expressed not wanting to ?overwhelm? or ?overstress? the teacher. For example, Alice stated in supervision ?I don?t like feeling like I?m burdening somebody. And I?ve gotten that impression a couple of times.? Alice went on to describe that ?there are moments where I sense that she does feel like this is?that she?s meeting with me for my class project? rather than to assist her in solving a problem in the classroom. By 156 internalizing this message, Alice perceived the teacher was doing her a favor by helping her complete course requirements, rather than Alice helping the teacher or student. Alice was not the only CIT who got this disenfranchising impression from a consultee. Not wanting to feel like a burden related to extensive feelings of empathy that CITs had for their consultees. In particular, CITs acknowledged the incredibly busy schedules of their consultees. Alice expressed empathizing with the busy life of a teacher as she had spent time in the schools prior to the practicum experience. Anne struggled to balance her own desire to meet more frequently to best help the student with her knowledge that the teacher simply did not have the time at the very end of the year to meet as frequently as she had previously. Jane, Emma, and Kathy all described wanting to do what would be most helpful for the teacher. In fact, Jane?s empathy for her consultee was so strong that she used it to disagree with my suggestion that the consultee was ready to ?wash her hands of the case? due to her busy schedule at the end of the year: She was committing to doing some things?I feel like within the context of what we could do given her lesson plans and given all the time they?ll be in school. So I don?t think she completely was kind of pushing it on. And she?s someone who I feel like is?if she felt like there was more time in school to do so, she would have done an intervention. Having an understanding of the teacher?s needs is an essential element for establishing a positive CIT-consultee relationship, and appears to be an important component of establishing a collaborative dynamic. CITs? keen awareness of their relationships with their consultees affected actions 157 taken in case sessions, especially when the relationship dynamics were not positive. For example, Jane described how her negative CIT-consultee relationship reverberated in the teacher?s relationship with the student, and impacted Jane?s behavior in the session: I mean?I?m gonna admit to you that I am really leery about that and I understand how it?s ultimately beneficial for the student and for her to start thinking about that relationship and the why behind it. But I am very leery with someone who it feels to me I have very easily set off in the past about bringing something?I mean?I kind of?I?m gonna be honest. I kind of want to move along and be done. And I know that?s maybe not the most appropriate attitude, but it?s been a difficult road with her? Jane felt ?leery? about saying the wrong thing that might set the teacher off. This was a legitimate concern as Jane had been the subject of an emotional reaction during an earlier session with this consultee. Similar worries about if or how to take action (in various forms) in a session were common to all CITs. For some, like with Jane, there was concern about the use of words. For example, Emma stated: ?I think I always [know what to say] when I get in there but then I feel like in advance I?m just like, ?I don?t know what we?re gonna say!?? In another example, Kathy expressed concern over not knowing how to talk about a classroom observation with her teacher. CITs also expressed concerns about engaging in specific behaviors. For example, Emma retrospectively stated that in her systems case she was ?at first?wary of having people...like adults do these silly activities? that she utilized to help increase teamwork; however, she felt successful after having done so. Kathy described worries about her actions being too ?assertive,? ?directive? and not 158 ?flexible.? Balancing CIT worries with appropriate actions in the consultation case was evident in supervision session discussions about comfort level ? both the CIT?s and the consultee?s. Regarding more common concerns, for example arranging a workable meeting schedule with the consultee, this was relatively straightforward; I stated variations of ?if you have to be a little bit flexible with the timing do it to the extent that you can, but you have to feel comfortable with it too.? The point was that the CIT should adjust her actions, in one case how often she meets with the consultee, with empathy in mind; but doing so should not derail the problem-solving process, and she should not be apologetic for the work that needed to be done. However, discussions about comfort level became more complicated when idiosyncratic complications arose. In Jane?s very challenging case early in the semester, we extensively explored these issues. As expressed previously in the results section, the goal of supervision was not necessarily for the CIT to achieve total comfort ? this might actually be a hindrance towards growth. On the other hand, the goal was not to achieve CIT growth through torturous experiences. Given Jane?s feelings of ?leeriness? as illustrated above, her comfort level would theoretically be achieved via inaction ? not doing anything that would stir the pot. I did not perceive this to be an acceptable solution. Instead, we talked about whether Jane?s lack of action would benefit the student and whether ?there [was] a way to communicate that without getting [the teacher] riled up, or? feeling defensive?? We discussed the frame of the problem in terms of what their dyad had identified (a behavioral concern), whether this was really the problem 159 (based on two classroom observations, no) and what the problem really was (a strained relationship between teacher and student). I recognized Jane?s feelings of discomfort in confronting these difficult issues, but also encouraged her to step out of her comfort zone. My message came out as ambivalent due to my empathy for her challenging situation (?I want you to be comfortable but I also want you to be uncomfortable.?) In the end, Jane?s worries determined her actions. She and the consultee felt more comfortable by never addressing the concern that both Jane and I perceived to be the true problem. Overall, the my strategic responses to CIT worries and the consideration of comfort level differed per circumstance, and included use of IC communication skills (paraphrasing, clarifying, or perception checking), challenging or reinforcing the CIT, and asking questions aimed to help the CIT think about how to address the concern. What all of the responses had in common is that the CIT?s concern at that moment was recognized and not dismissed. Supervision sessions served as a setting where CITs could express their worries (either via written log or in person), consider how those worries were effecting their actions in a given case, and potentially change their behavior in their upcoming session. Frustration. Neither confusion nor worrying conveyed as strong an emotional valence as other feelings experienced by CITs and consultees, especially frustration (clearly negative in nature). Frustration surfaced in the cases of three of the five CITs ? Anne, Emma, and Kathy. For the other two CITs (Alice and Jane) the dominant feelings that resulted from their cases were confusion, worries, and positive feelings. The reason for differences in feelings ties back to the various interactions between supervisor, CIT, consultee, and case content and process issues. Anne and Kathy each talked about 160 frustration with regard to only one of their cases, while Emma had frustrations arise in all three of her cases. One of the reasons Anne had frustration in only one case was because it was the one that she did not feel finished successfully. In her other two cases during the semester, there were successful outcomes for the student or the system. Anne described her unsuccessful case in supervision: It was frustrating. It made me feel uh?in the other [cases] you?re like, ?Look he really can do something!? But then you?re looking at this one, you?re like there are maybe cases that you can work all year with somebody and still be totally frustrated.?like we didn?t make any progress with the student I was working with but the other student they?ve been working with literally since the beginning of the year has made zero progress all year. He is probably is worse off than when he started being an IIT case. So that was kind of frustrating sort of?like, I don?t know what?s going on. Is it just that the case manager and the teacher didn?t work well together? Or is it that they were ineffectual? Or that?it?s a bigger problem than they are able to fix with their resources? Or?you know, I don?t even know. Anne?s frustrations were also related to the consultee?s perception of the process and Anne?s perception of working with the consultee. In her log, Anne reflected that ?by the end of the case [the consultee] seemed happy to have worked with me but [was] still frustrated with our progress with the case and with the student himself.? Of the teacher, Anne wrote: ?This was certainly my most challenging teacher to work with ? both because it was the least straightforward case and the teacher with the most negative 161 attitudes.? All of the above were contributing factors to feelings of frustration that emerged from the case. For Kathy, frustrations were present in her case with Mr. Y, certainly the most challenging case she worked on during the year, and derived mainly from difficulties in clearly identifying a problem: Kathy: I guess I?m feeling frustrated because even if we?re doing a classroom observation and I?m seeing issues with respect to his instruction differentiation across a broad range of students?.I have concerns that I guess?I guess I?m not understanding what the focus of this case is at this point. Like there?s the student, there?s the global issue of instruction he?s brought up. S: You don?t know, Kathy. That?s what?s frustrating and confusing. It?s not clear at all what the focus of the case is. And that?s the most general as you get. What is the problem? That?s the first step of anything. Although Kathy stated that she was ?not understanding what the focus of the case? was, she also alluded to the instructional components that she and the teacher would eventually work on together. When the problem became clearer through our supervision dialogues, Kathy and I were able to work on figuring out how to effectively clarify and prioritize a problem in the problem identification stage with this teacher. Our conversations included a consideration of case content and process issues. Talking about process to alleviate frustrations was essential because in addition to lacking problem clarity, Kathy was frustrated with the teacher?s tendency to tell lengthy stories that moved the dyad away from achieving problem clarity (described earlier). Unlike Anne and Kathy, Emma referred to feelings of frustration (both her own 162 and her consultees) at some point regarding all three of her cases. Emma?s frustrations appeared to represent an important idiosyncratic experience ? her frustrations with our last supervision session and perhaps the larger process of supervision. Understanding this point requires painting a clearer picture of Emma?s experience in supervision. On the surface, Emma was very direct in describing case frustrations. For example, in one of her cases, Emma logged about her teacher?s ?distress? and ?strong feelings of frustration and anger? at the student. She also wrote about her own feelings in the second case with the same teacher: ?I feel very frustrated. This case is not progressing and it is now almost mid-May.? In supervision, Emma elaborated on her own feelings, stating, ?we just keep kind of like going around in circles? We were really clear. And then now it?s like we?re not clear anymore?? With this information, one might immediately surmise that Emma and her consultee were frustrated due to lack of case progress, and Emma also was frustrated that the problem they identified lacked clarity. Frustration in these areas is consistent with what Anne and Kathy experienced. However, more subtle interactions between Emma and me in supervision suggested that she was also frustrated with our process together. In talking about having a lack of problem clarity, I suggested to Emma several times, in several ways, that she and the teacher needed to ?go back and clarify? the problem identification stage and prioritize a single problem to work on. Even if they did not intervene on this problem together, it could be transitioned to the summer or the following school year. We also discussed addressing process concerns (closing a case effectively and the lack of case progress) in a genuine way, similar to what I had discussed in supervision with Kathy. Emma?s responses during our dialogue appeared to reflect increased frustration 163 throughout the conversation; she made it clear that she had tried everything we were talking about, and did not know where to go next. The following sequential (although not successive) excerpts demonstrate our struggle: S: But if just in the beginning of the session you went back to the process, how might you do that in terms of a conversation with the teacher? Emma: We do that every session. That?s why I?m just kind of frustrated because we do that every time. And it?s like I go through the process we?ve gone through. What?s the process? And somehow, every time I go back in? . . . S: But what if you going back to the process though, Emma, with who you are right now in this supervision session. With the genuine side of yourself where you? Emma: That?s what I?ve been?I?ve done. I said, you know, ?I?m really confused. Like you know, we?ve gone back and forth. We?re not sure what we?re looking at.? You know, when I talked about the spelling and the reading I really felt like those sessions went really well and it was really clear and the teacher? S: Well yeah, the session before this was totally?crystal clear on what was being done. Emma: Yeah, that?s why I just don?t?it?s not happening the way?and? . . . S: And it?s not a personal thing, you?re just talking about the content of the case. And you?you?re putting it in the context of, ?We?re running out of time with what we?re doing so let?s talk about how we?re gonna end this case over the 164 course of the next few weeks.? You know? I know it sounds like it?s completely frustrating because it sounds like this is really been what you?ve been doing for the last few weeks, and? Emma: Twelve weeks. S: Yeah, well no I mean even specifically of going back and saying ?We?re losing focus?Let?s?? Emma: Yeah, I know. S: I mean having that same conversation but I don?t?you know, without having the clarity on the problem you can?t go forward. Emma: Which is why I haven?t pushed the person before because I don?t feel like we? Following this dialogue, Emma abruptly stated, ?Let?s move on??, which was followed by a supervisor challenge. However, in the moment Emma still felt frustrated with our process: S: Do you feel better about it or are you? CIT: Um?I still feel frustrated. S: You still feel frustrated. CIT: But I think I?m just gonna feel that way, but it?s fine. S: I think that hopefully having a good conversation with the teacher about it where you?re?I want you to feel like you?re able to be genuine with her about your frustrations? CIT: Yeah, I feel fine being genuine with her. 165 By this point in our session, I had intuited that Emma felt frustrated with what she perceived to be an unhelpful supervision session in addition to frustrations with her case. I felt that our supervision session had become circuitous; this was similar to Emma?s experience in working with the teacher. I asked her to reflect more specifically on what was frustrating her: S: Because your frustrations are with?I don?t know if they?re with the process or with?what would you say they?re with? I don?t want to identify them for you?Are your frustrations with her? Are they with the process? Are they with the student? Like where are?where would you put them? CIT: It?s not with the student, definitely. Probably?I don?t know. I don?t think it?s with her. It?s more with what we?re doing. It?s more with me partly. I would say if anything, I?m frustrated with myself more than anyone else. I am frustrated with myself that I haven?t been able to? Instead of putting her frustrations on me or our supervision process, which likely contributed, at least in part, Emma put them on herself. Emma may have reacted differently if I had framed the question about her frustration more directly (e.g., ?Do you have any frustrations about our supervision process??). After this interchange, Emma let me know that this was where our conversation would end: S: So we?re talking about your own frustrations with yourself. That?s tough to do but might be a really genuine thing that gets you forward, you know? Emma: I?m just looking at time, actually. Positive feelings. All CITs experienced a variety of positive feelings in their consultation cases in the schools. Feeling positive about cases related to perceptions of 166 empowerment such as one?s own increased growth in consultation skills, the consultee?s increased ability to help the student, and the student?s academic or behavioral improvement. When CITs perceived an increase in their own skills, it led to feelings of increased confidence and effectiveness to practice as a consultant. In a sense, this was the opposite of feeling like a burden or hindrance in the session, a common worry for CITs discussed earlier. Anne illustrated this idea during a supervision session: Anne: And like at first I felt like I had no idea even how to be helpful and that it was a joke that I was there, almost. You know? I was like, I don?t know how to help you. I don?t know what I?m doing, you know? S: Well that quickly changed, right? In that first case that you had. Anne: Yeah, once you feel a little more confident it?s easier to be like maybe you can help them make progress. Anne went on to describe that her increased confidence came from learning process skills such as ?how the [problem-solving] process works,? and communicating with purpose. Once she felt she had internalized some of these skills, her feelings of self-confidence in practice increased, thereby allowing her to feel that she could effectively help the teacher and student. Like Anne, Alice gained self-confidence during the semester, which helped her to feel empowered to practice as a consultant. She had a unique experience of attending a problem-solving training in a local county. This was important because she only took the first semester of consultation coursework, and the training helped bridge some gaps in content knowledge and simulated practice. Alice expressed her positive feelings: 167 I feel good about this and the training I went to last week?it helped so much. Because even though like you study and stuff it just was great to have this like arena where you could just practice it and have people watching and giving you that feedback? Alice?s increased feelings of confidence attained outside of the supervision session echoed in her case. ?I mean it just?it got me excited... I wanted to call up the teacher and be like ?We have to meet now!?? The dyad ended up having a very successful process working through a complicated case with a multitude of concerns. Alice was empowered as a consultant, the teacher and Alice attained problem clarity and prioritized an academic intervention with the student, and the student gained confidence in writing skills through their intervention. Other examples of positive feelings also resonated in the data. Jane logged about her systems case, specifically her strong working relationship with the consultee and the excellent work they had done together: I particularly enjoyed working with this teacher and it seems that we worked together especially well. We got a lot done? Additionally, we were able to do so in such a way that kept the teacher?s main goals and concerns in mind. I truly get the impression that this teacher is leaving the process feeling empowered and better able to work with her students than she had felt prior to working together. Both Jane and the consultee were empowered by the problem-solving process, and it expectedly had a positive impact on a large group of students. Kathy had positive feelings about all of her cases. In her systems case, she had gotten together a group including the principal, key administrators, and teachers, to 168 establish a school-based process regarding students entering the school. In supervision, Kathy and I talked about the positive feelings she had in initiating this process. Additionally, with regard to her individual cases, Kathy felt successful in having helped the consultees identify the problem clearly; her confidence to do so stemmed from her own growth, especially with respect to communication skills: For like communication skills I feel like I?ve had the opportunity to grow a lot because at first I feel like my main work that I needed to do was have opportunities to practice the skills. And to have the skills?to treat the skills themselves to be a little more fluent. And then I have had the opportunity to learn sort of how to be more skillful or thoughtful about the skills. So, applying them appropriately. Not just how, but the process of communicating using those skills. Kathy?s increased skill growth shined in her case sessions, as we reflected on together during supervision, and resulted in her own positive feelings, as well as positive feelings from the consultees that she worked with. Even Emma, who exhibited much frustration during the semester, had positive feelings emerge in all of her cases, even her seemingly most frustrating case, described earlier. Emma expressed feeling like ?the teacher has been really empowered and feels more positive and?sees how [the student] can learn and [the teacher?s] perspective has changed.? On the other hand, the positive feelings were tempered by Emma being dissatisfied with perceived lack of student progress in the case, and not being clear if the positive teacher impact was enough (?I don?t know in that case, is that the goal??). I attempted to use ?cheerleading? to enhance Emma?s positive feelings: You guys have empowered?you?ve empowered the teacher, you?ve empowered 169 the teacher?s work with the student, the knowledge about the student is so much more enhanced then it was before. The teacher?s able to do activities that she wasn?t doing before and they?re with purpose. There?s so many things! But Emma remained frustrated. In this example, Emma?s feelings of frustration did not preclude her feeling positively about at least some aspects of the case, yet her overall experience was colored negatively. Given what we know about Emma?s experiences of frustration in her cases and in supervision, this may be considered an idiosyncratic response. It also brings up the issue of how we define success in supervision, which will be considered in further detail in the discussion section of this study. A Grounded Theory of the Supervision Process in Pre-Service Level Consultation Training In the preceding sections, I outlined the experiences of the participants in this study, which can be used to form a theory of the supervision process in pre-service level consultation training. A picture representing the core story of this process is illustrated in Figure 4.5. In the diagram, the supervision pentagon, conceptualized prior to beginning the study and originally presented in chapter two, is embedded as a central facet of the supervision process. As in the original diagram, solid lines reflect direct relationships between individuals, dotted lines indicated indirect relationships, and some relationships are unidirectional while others are bidirectional. The direct, bidirectional interactions between the supervisor and the CIT are at the heart of this model. As emerged from the data, interactions between the CITs and me focused on past experiences, the present moment, and future application. Interactions were strategically 170 differentiated in a manner responsive to CIT needs based on perceptions of CIT skill level (represented in the diagram by the CIT?s developmental continuum), requests for assistance, consultation case process and content concerns, and semester timing, which related to CIT skill development. Although supervision was co-constructed, as the supervisor my interactions fluctuated on a continuum of collaborative to expert in relation to perceived CIT needs. The supervision pentagon representing the interactive supervision process is embedded across three concentric circles. The center circle represents actual supervision sessions and everything that happens within. Moving outward, the next circle is representative of the content and process issues that occur in the consultation cases that CITs take on in the schools. Concerns at this level are quite varied as they are contingent on the CITs own unique characteristics (including social identities, individual needs, and developmental changes in skills over the course of the semester), consultee characteristics, and the concerns being problem-solved. The third circle represents everything that happens outside of supervision sessions, for example coursework, E- mailing, and reflection. Feelings, represented by the bidirectional arrow stretching across the three circles are a consistent part of the supervision process. Feelings that appeared most frequently in the data included confusion, worrying, frustration, and positive feelings, and surfaced in the data from CITs and consultees. Feelings most often emanated directly from the content and process concerns of the case (the second circle), but on rare occasions, stemmed directly from supervision sessions themselves (e.g., CIT frustration with what she perceived to be an ineffective supervision session). 171 Figure 4.5. Grounded Theory of the Supervision Process in Pre-service Level Consultation Training Expert to Collab. Strategically Differentiated CIT-Sup. Interactions Developmental Continuum Beg. of Semester End of Semester Awareness Application Content Process Sup. CIT Student Metasup. C-tee CIT and C-tee Feelings: Confusion, Worries, Frustration, & Positive 172 Because CIT feelings and consultation case concerns were so intertwined, strategically differentiated interactions served a dual purpose of (a) addressing case content and process issues (through a consideration of past, present, and future), and (b) responding to feelings emanating from the process. In this way, strategic interactions attempted to assist our supervisory dyad in alleviating feelings that might otherwise block progress such as CIT skill growth, consultee empowerment, student progress, or moving forward through problem solving, or to augment feelings that promoted positive outcomes in these areas. Figure 4.5 represents the theory of consultation supervision based on the overall experiences of participants. It is also important to explore how the theory was uniquely applicable to each CIT. The facets of the theory have been configured into tabular form with each CIT?s application summarized in Table 4.6. Even though some of the examples provided in this table are universally applicable, the examples presented are those that appeared most prevalently in the data for that individual. 173 Table 4.6 Individual Application of the Emerging Theory of Supervision in Pre-service Level Consultation Training Facet of Theoretical Model CIT Outside of session Case concerns Strategies in session Feelings Alice ? Not enrolled in coursework ? E-mails with consultee and supervisor ? Participated in an outside training ? Scheduling ? Problem-solving out of order ? ?Staying true to the process? ? Taking notes ? Not able to compare cases (because only managed one). ? Supervisor challenging ? Empathy about consultee?s time commitments ? Increased confidence ? Empowerment Anne ? Other CITs used her case project as a reference tool ? Scheduling ? Using collaborative language ? Collaborating resources ? Logs/tapes to consider communication skills ? Comparing cases ? Plan for upcoming ? Worried about teacher resistance ? Confusion about problem ? Frustration about 174 ? Lack of shared frame of problem session challenging case ? Increased confidence Emma ? Limited reflectivity in logs ? Helped another CIT in completing an instructional assess. ? Involuntary consultees ? Lack of audiotapes in systems case ? Difficulty identifying problem ? ?Going in circles? ? Case comparisons (with one consultee). ? Supervisor not answering questions. ? Challenging ? Planning for upcoming session ? Worried about not knowing what to say ? Confusion about problem ? Frustrated about cases, self, and supervision. ? Consultee empowerment Jane ? ?I will think about it? not followed up with work outside of session ? Not following up ? Negative relationship with a consultee ? Sensitive communication with consultee ? Tape to address process comm. and collaborative language ? Reflective questions ? Worried about overstepping personal boundaries ? Worried about saying the wrong thing 175 with outside research ? Inaccurate frame of problem ? Deferring ? Challenging ? Comparing cases ? Supervisor shared exp. ? Lack of comfort level ? Empathy for conultee ? Positive relationship Kathy ? Long logs ? Listened to tapes of supervision sessions ? Created materials for case ? E-mails with consultee and supervisor ? Consulted with peers ? Lengthy comm. process with consultee ? Problem-solving process ? Gender dynamics ? Use of tape to address process comm. and collaborative language ? Comparing comm. skills between sessions, and cases ? Taking notes ? Empathy for consultee?s schedule ? Worried about saying the wrong thing, flexibility and assertiveness ? Frustration about long case, lack of problem clarity, and comm. dynamics ? Positive feelings 176 about own growth and empowering consultee 177 Chapter 5: Discussion In the previous chapter, the data were fused together in the formation of a grounded theory of the supervision process for CITs engaged in pre-service level consultation practicum experiences in the schools. This chapter begins with a consideration of the emerging theory with respect to the guiding research questions. Next, consistent with GT methods (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), I revisited the literature in order to align this grounded theory with extant models of supervision as well as to distinguish the unique theoretical findings that emerged. Following a reconsideration of the literature, the strengths and limitations of the study are discussed. The chapter concludes with an examination of implications for consultation training, practice, and future research. Discussion of Emerging Theory and Research Questions The purpose of the current study was to explore the process of university-based supervision for pre-service level, school-based consultants engaged in a consultation course with practicum experience. The guiding research questions were: (a) how does the process of university-based supervision in pre-service level, school-based consultation training work? (b) what content and process concerns arise for CITs during their practicum experiences? (c) how are these concerns considered through the supervision process?, and (d) what are the interactions between the CITs and me as part of supervision? The process of university-based supervision for CITs. A central aim of this study was to gain insight into the supervision process for CITs within pre-service level consultation training. Not surprisingly, the main purpose of supervision was to provide 178 CITs a place to discuss and reflect upon their ongoing practicum experiences as case managers in the schools. All CITs were acting as consultants for the first time and needed structured support to augment their awareness, understanding, and application of skills. Although this happened to some extent through coursework, supervision sessions provided an individualized opportunity to support the CITs in working through challenges that arose. This was essential given the variety of case concerns that each CIT took on during the semester (e.g., see Table 4.1). The supervision process allowed a supervisor to monitor CITs? growth via reflective logs, case session tapes, and discussions in supervision sessions in order to determine individual as well as universal cohort needs. Sometimes needs that became apparent during supervision sessions were later addressed during the next consultation course session. Supplementary to addressing specific pulls from actual cases, supervision was a place where CITs reflected upon what it means to be a school psychologist and the role consultation would have in their future practice; these discussion arose more frequently towards the end of the year. In addition to instructional and supportive functions, this study demonstrated that the supervision process is not limited to what happens within the confines of individual supervision sessions. There are numerous happenings in between sessions including coursework, reflection (e.g., use of journals, logs, and tapes), E-mailing, and interactions of the CIT with me, the metasupervisor, other CITs, and the consultee. Events that occur outside of supervision sessions are a critical component of CITs? ongoing process of learning and should not be ignored. In fact, supervision is a critical meeting place for all of the events that happened during the week, where reflection and learning can be tied to 179 application. Without the meeting point of supervision sessions, it seems that CITs? experiences would be like potential energy that never changed into kinetic energy. Beyond being a place to support CITs? reflection, learning, and overall growth, supervision sessions also provided an opportunity for CITs to express, either directly or indirectly, feelings (their own or their perceptions of the consultees? feelings) about ongoing consultation case experiences. The CIT and I attempted, albeit not always successfully, to harness and mitigate feelings such as confusion, worries, and frustrations, and to increase positive feelings such as confidence, growth and empowerment. Although many of the functions of supervision described above seem self-evident, they are especially pertinent given the pre-service level of training that was the setting for this study. The need for extensive support at pre-service levels is not stressed in the literature (Crespi, 2003). For example Harvey and Struzziero?s (2008) book, the major work in school psychology on supervision, is subtitled ?From Intern to Expert.? Skill training begins prior to internship year. The data from this study provide a compelling rationale for the role of intensive university-based supervision of these experiences, especially in consultation. There is no evidence that this type of supervision is conducted at the internship or early professional levels in the domain of consultation. Content and process: Concerns and their consideration in supervision. As demonstrated in Table 4.2 of the results section, CITs experienced a large and diverse number of concerns in their practice as consultants in the schools. Generally, most content issues had been broached at some point during the two semesters of consultation coursework. For example, the CITs and I frequently discussed the business of particular problem solving stages as they consulted within them, connecting theoretical knowledge 180 directly to applied experience. We also often considered the specifics of case content such as the nature of academic and behavioral concerns and interventions to address those concerns; the range of these concerns varied greatly, as was demonstrated in the description of participants? cases (Table 4.1). When I did not feel that I had sufficient knowledge in a content area to address a CIT?s concern, I was genuine with the CIT, consulted with the metasupervisor, and the concern was readdressed in the subsequent supervision session. There were also a variety of process concerns that came up for CITs in their cases. Addressing process issues was less straightforward than tackling content concerns. In the results section, I described several process issues such as CITs dealing with scheduling concerns, addressing ineffective communication processes, working through negative relationships with the consultee, and facilitating collaboration. In consideration of the data, supervision sessions are an extremely important setting for CITs to reflect upon and plan how to address these complex issues. Strategic interactions provided the means for CITs and I to work through concerns. These were initiated by the CIT and me, but more often by me. Using logs and tapes as a point of reflective departure was a critically important strategy in supervision sessions. Logs and tapes, by their nature, led to a consideration of past sessions and helped us address use of communication skills, the CIT-consultee relationship, and the burgeoning frame of the problem (which sometimes differed between the CIT and consultee). Logs and tapes helped the CIT identify their own application and misapplication of skills and enabled me to be a fly on the wall, thereby 181 enhancing the capacity to ?spot patterns and links? (Rowling, p. 519) in the case session (i.e., the Pensieve Principle). Using moment-to-moment strategies, the CIT and I were able to move from reflections on the past towards future application. The momentary bridges mainly initiated by me included challenging, deferring, limiting the amount covered in a session, sharing personal experiences, reinforcing, referring to research, and asking questions (both reflective questions, and those intended to let a CIT answer her own questions). The CIT and supervisor mutually used the strategies of making comparisons, prioritizing what to work on, thinking together out loud, and discussing the use of reflection. Strategies that were more future oriented included reflecting on lessons learned, supervisor modeling, CIT rehearsal, note-writing, and creating a plan for an upcoming session. One intention of future oriented interactions was to help CITs enter into their next session with increased confidence to practice. Future oriented strategies also were aimed at helping CITs to practice as consultants beyond the given case, for example during future cases later in the semester, or even at the eventual intern or professional levels. Outcomes of supervision. Supervision researchers are continually faced with the challenge of not having a standard to judge effectiveness (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995; Wheeler & Richards, 2007). Therefore, the question that surfaces is how do we know that supervision was successful? When the discussion moves in that direction, numerous additional questions arise. First of all, what outcomes are of primary importance? Are we mainly concerned with CITs? consultation case outcomes in the schools or do outcomes of supervision on the supervisee interest us the 182 most? I would surmise that given the focus of this study on the supervision process, outcomes on the supervisee would be the most important to consider. Successful supervision outcomes are reflected via evidence of CIT learning, skill development, and growth. All of the CITs were aware of their own growth over the course of the semester, and expressed this within their logs or during supervision sessions; I also commented on my perceptions of a CIT?s growth through verbal and written support. Discussions about growth were sometimes tied directly to instances from a CIT?s case session (e.g., an effective application of communication skills), providing evidence of improved application of skills. Positive feelings that emerged in supervision may also indicate successful supervision outcomes as these feelings related to increased confidence in skills, empowerment, and growth ? both for CITs and consultees. Looking at supervision sessions alone provides a starting point for considering supervision outcomes, but supervision outcomes and consultation case outcomes are inherently connected. One criterion for effective supervision likely relates to helping CITs work through the main concerns in their cases. Therefore, consultation case outcomes would be essential to consider in determining the impact of supervision. But then, there are a multitude of potential consultation case outcomes. Does a successful case mean that the student reached the goals set by the CIT and consultee? What if the student reaches the goals, but the problem that was identified was inaccurate? For example, Jane and Anne both had cases where behavioral concerns were likely misidentified, but the students showed improvement according to the data. To make this issue even more complex, Instructional Consultation is concerned with consultee outcomes (e.g., becoming a more effective instructor) in addition to student 183 outcomes. Would a case be considered successful if the consultee is empowered to effectively change her instruction, but for some reason the student does not make the progress expected? This happened in one of Emma?s cases. Defining consultation supervision outcomes is clearly a complex issue that will require further investigation in future research (discussed further below). Supervisor and CIT interactions: Co-constructing supervision. Interactions between a supervisor and CIT can be thought of more broadly than specific strategies utilized within supervision sessions. Consistent with the constructivist frame of the current study, the CIT and I worked together to co-construct supervision sessions; collaboration occurred both outside and inside of supervision sessions. Outside of supervision sessions, I attended and co-instructed the ongoing second semester consultation course in which four of the five (not Alice) CITs were students. This allowed me to stay in tune with the depth and breadth of CITs? developing content knowledge individually and as a group. To be reflexive in describing my own role as supervisor and researcher, I must note that my attendance in this course also shaded my perceptions of CITs, including their distinctions in knowledge, understanding, and enthusiasm based on participation during course sessions. I used all of the information I attained from being a part of the course as an additional source of information for structuring supervision sessions. Notably, the data showed more co-constructed meaning in middle to end of the semester supervision sessions (e.g., CITs answering their own questions and prioritizing their own needs). This continuum reflects Vygotsky?s (1962) social constructivist approach, specifically the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and scaffolding. The 184 supervisor is a more-skilled other that can help the CIT approach challenges in cases that might not have been approached (or approached correctly) without the supervision process. The supervisor can adjust (or scaffold) the level of support provided to fit with the amount of guidance needed by the CIT. As was evident in the data as a whole, CITs were given increased levels of autonomy throughout the year. There were also differences between CIT needs that surfaced for many reasons already discussed. In addition, it is important to remember that each CIT came to the supervision process with her own unique characteristics. For example, each individual had her own worldview through which she perceived the consultation training and supervision process. For some, our interactions likely fit well while for others incongruities likely surfaced. Speaking from my own experiences when I was a CIT, I remember struggling through what Gutkin and Conoley (1990) referred to as the ?paradox of school psychology? (p. 212) ?my desire to provide direct services to children while being asked to work with adults. Through consultation training and supervision, I came to greatly value the importance of indirect service delivery, but it was certainly a challenge to change my perspectives on practice. It is likely that some CITs had similar experiences (there is evidence that at least one did), and if so, I wonder to what extent they struggled through the training or supervision process, and how that affected the data. Another facet of our co-construction of supervision that is important to consider involves our collaboration. While some of our interactions were collaborative, others were initiated mainly by me. This meant that even though my supervisee-centered, constructivist approach was evident in many ways in the data, so too was my functioning sometimes as an expert. Although I did practice with constructivism in mind from our 185 earliest supervision sessions, it would have been inappropriate to expect CITs to bear too much responsibility for constructing meaning such as complex case conceptualizations before having become comfortable with their own levels of awareness and conceptual understanding. This notion is consistent with the fact that CITs in this study were practicing at the pre-service level. Supervisees further along in the practice continuum (e.g., internship or inservice levels) may be able to take on even more responsibility in the co- construction of supervision sessions after they have had this level of support. In reality, those practicing at internship or inservice levels may not have had this level of supported training; it would make sense to provide these individuals with more intensive supervision during their initial applied consultation experiences. Revisiting the Literature: Sculpting a Differentiated Model of Consultation Supervision This study was conceived based on several premises: (a) Consultation practice has become increasingly valued in the field of school psychology (Reschly, 2008); (b) competent consultation practice involves application of complex skills that are not necessarily intuitive and therefore should not be learned on the fly (O?Roark, 2002); (c) despite premises (a) and (b), the practice of pre-service level consultation training, including the practice of supervision, is limited at best (Anton-Lahart & Rosenfield, 2004); and (d) even though supervision is considered an essential component of training in the fields of education and psychology (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Harvey & Struzziero, 2008), the role of supervision in the training of school-based consultants at pre-service levels is not yet fully articulated or understood. 186 Bernard and Goodyear (2009) distinguished between the terms ?supervision? and ?training? and suggested that training has a more limited scope than supervision, follows prescriptive procedures, focuses on specific skills, and takes place in conjunction with a course rather than real clients. Further, they separated the terms ?trainee? and ?supervisee,? where ?supervisee is the more inclusive term? and a ?trainee connotes a supervisee who is still enrolled in a formal training program? (p. 8). The theoretical model currently being developed is a model of supervision as part of training, although unlike Bernard and Goodyear?s definition, CITs work with real consultees (teachers) and clients (students). Supervision as part of pre-service level training, especially with regard to school-based consultation, does not have its own literature base, making the current study substantially unique. Consistent with the purpose of contributing knowledge to advance the understanding of supervision as part of pre-service level consultation training, in this section I discuss the connections and distinctions of the theory emerging from this research with extant models of supervision and learning. As described in chapters one and two, there are multiple models from both the general education and psychology (especially clinical and counseling) literature that inform the practice of supervision in the field of school psychology, although the literature specific to the supervision of school psychologists is sparse (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). Moreover, there are currently no distinct models of school-based consultation supervision, let alone the presence of supervision for consultants at the pre-service training level in most programs (Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield, 2004). 187 In consideration of the results of this study, three central areas provide a foundational basis in developing a consultation supervision theory: (1) Process-oriented developmental models of supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982); (2) a differentiated model of supervision (Glatthorn, 1984, 1997), and (3) Differentiated Instruction (Hall, 2002; Tomlinson, 2001, 2004, 2008). Using these three areas as keystones, the description, position, and significance of the developing theory of consultation supervision (itself grounded in data) is strengthened. Developmental Approaches to Supervision Data in this study were sampled purposefully from the beginning, middle, and end of the semester for each CIT to be representative of potential differences that might be present in the supervision process over time. Differences in application of strategies in supervision sessions were evident from the beginning to end of the semester. To summarize findings reported in the results section, beginning of the semester sessions showed more instances of supervisor modeling, CIT rehearsal, and use of logs. By the middle of the semester, the CIT and I increasingly referred to CITs? tapes, and I most frequently made supportive comments, and referred to research. From the middle to the end of the semester, prioritizing what to work on during a session occurred more frequently, as did the consideration of reflective questions. By end of the semester supervision sessions, instances of making comparisons, talking about lessons learned, and planning for final sessions with the consultee (the closure stage) were present at higher levels than before. Although the differences in strategies utilized in supervision over the course of the semester are clear from looking at the data, it is difficult to state with certainty that 188 these changes occurred due to developmental changes in the CIT as opposed to idiosyncratic factors such as individual needs or case variables. The issue of specifying developmental differences in a CIT is also difficult because of the limited time window of the data set (one semester). Stage-based developmental models of supervision such as the IDM (Stoltenberg, 2008; Stoltenberg, 2005; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998) and life-span developmental models (e.g., Ronnestad & Skovholt, 1993; 2003) are more concerned with the distinctions between levels rather than differences within. On the other hand, process developmental models that focus on ?processes that occur within a fairly limited, discrete period? of time (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009, p. 92) may be more applicable to the discussion of CIT development during one semester of pre-service training. Process developmental models include Loganbill et al.?s (1982) model of supervision as well as a multitude of reflective models of practice that were described by Bernard and Goodyear (2009). In Loganbill et al.?s (1982) model, development in supervision is considered a circular rather than linear process. According to this model, the supervisee works through eight developmental issues (competence, emotional awareness, autonomy, theoretical identity, respect for individual differences, purpose and direction, personal motivation, and professional ethics) during three recurring stages (stagnation, confusion, and integration). Stages are revisited more than once during supervision, each time with ?increasing thoroughness? (p. 17). As the supervisor is expected to maintain awareness of eight issues over three stages, over 24 positions are to be considered; this model is quite complex. 189 Despite its complexity, the model has relevance to the emerging theory of consultation supervision. First of all, this process model demonstrates the multitude of concerns that an individual CIT may face. The need for a supervisor to differentiate the supervision process (a developing facet of the emerging theory) for each individual is apparent. Second, it demonstrates that many supervisee differences are present within levels of development. For example, supervisees that are all functioning within a novice level of development may experience stagnation, confusion, and/or integration on one or several of the eight concerns at a given time. This is important to consider in providing supervision at a single level (e.g., pre-service training) over a short period of time (e.g., a single semester), where a given supervisee?s developmental progress may not necessarily cross from one stage to the next. Reflective models of practice also provide insight into CIT development in pre- service level consultation supervision. As summarized by Bernard and Goodyear (2009), the reflective process in supervision begins with a catalyzing or trigger event, a situation that brings forth surprise, discomfort, or confusion from the supervisee. The supervisee connects the event to her own skills, personal issues, and/or case conceptualization. The supervisor helps facilitate a ?critical reevaluation of the situation? utilizing the supervisee?s skills, knowledge, and self-awareness, and helps them achieve a ?new perspective of what occurred? that will change their future application in similar situations (p. 93). This description of reflection in supervision corresponds incredibly well within the emerging theoretical model. CITs experienced trigger events during their applied experiences in the schools (represented in the theoretical model by the circle of 190 consultation content and process concerns). Feelings were elicited by these events, most apparently confusion, worrying, frustration, and positive feelings. This affected the CITs perceptions of the case and their own skills. Strategies were utilized in supervision in consideration of emerging feelings and to help the CITs gain new insights into their case and themselves. Reflection spanned past events (via logs and tapes), momentary discussions, and contemplation of future application. Bernard and Goodyear (2009) made three important points about reflective processes in supervision. First, they stated ?it is likely that all supervisors facilitate some level of reflective processes with their supervisees? (p. 93). This was clearly true in the supervision process with CITs. Second, by facilitating reflection, supervisors encourage supervisees to be continuously reflective about both the case and their own practice. Again, this occurred in the current study. For example, instances of reflective questions such as ?How do you feel about??? or ?What are your thoughts about??? were not only directly asked by me, but also modeled, rehearsed, and discussed with regard to a CIT?s future application of skills. The third point made by Bernard and Gooyear (2009) was that the reflective process is not simply about discovering something new; it is about linking discovery to ?some externally validated understandings of professional practice? (p. 94). This seems especially relevant to a model of supervision at the pre-service level where CITs are acquiring and developing their own conceptual knowledge, which is being applied in practice for the first time. Bernard and Goodyear (2009) concluded that the supervisee?s developmental level impacts the quantity and quality of reflection as part of the supervision process: 191 Some level of reflection always is a part of supervision, but? supervision of a more novice supervisee has a greater teaching component. The intent is to help the supervisee accrue and master the essential practice skills and to develop an appreciation for what constitutes a good or effective skill or way of thinking. Gradually, though, the proportion of time focused on teaching will drop as the proportion of time devoted to fostering reflection increases. The ultimate outcome is the ability to use those reflective skills to self-supervise (p. 94) It is not surprising then that the results of the study showed the highest levels of reflective questions, discussion of lessons learned, reflective comparisons, and CITs answering their own questions at the end of the semester. The Role of Differentiation The application of developmental models of supervision practice helps provide an initial structure for understanding the role of supervision in pre-service level consultation training. However, developmental models alone do not provide sufficient explanatory power for all that happened in the supervision process in this study. For one, strategies were not only differentiated based on developmental differences between CITs ? other idiosyncratic factors, including variable CIT characteristics and case variables (e.g., consultee characteristics and concerns identified) were clearly relevant. Second, as mentioned earlier, one semester of supervision provided a very limited opportunity to consider developmental progress. Although some of the CIT?s may have moved from beginner to advanced beginner levels during one semester, differentiating supervision processes for individuals based solely on these subtle differences would not have allowed for a sufficiently individualized experience. Lastly, even though some 192 developmental differences were evident in looking at specific strategies used in supervision, or at process variables such as reflection, these differences were common across CITs; there were still a multitude of differences between CITs not accounted for by developmental models. Differentiated instruction. Given the fact that the theoretical model being considered takes place at the pre-service training level, development of CITs? conceptual knowledge base was a clear focus of supervision. As has been made clear, the supervision process was tied to two semesters of a consultation course that had specific expectations for learning. Therefore, supervision served an instructional purpose in this study, tying the CITs experiences to the curriculum of the course. I tried to identify each CIT?s unique needs (based on the various interactions between the CIT, consultee, and the case) and differentiate (in construction with the CIT) the use of strategies in supervision. This notion of differentiation fits well with literature on Differentiated Instruction (Hall, 2002; Tomlinson, 2001, 2004, 2008) in the schools. Differentiated Instruction is a teaching theory that recognizes instruction should not be approached in a cookie-cutter manner because not all students are alike (Hall, 2002). The idea is that teachers should be flexible in their instructional approaches rather than expecting that students alter themselves for the curriculum; instruction should adapt with respect to individual student needs. Tomlinson (2004) defined the process of differentiating instruction as: Ensuring that what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that student's readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning. A readiness match maximizes the 193 chance of appropriate challenge and growth. An interest match heightens motivation. A learning profile match increases efficiency of learning. Effective differentiation most likely emanates from ongoing assessment of student needs (p. 188). Although the literature on Differentiated Instruction is primarily about instruction with K to 12 students, it seems potentially applicable to any individual learning new skills, including CITs engaged in supervision. In the supervision process being considered in this study, I continuously monitored CITs? needs via reflective logs and audiotapes, tools that provided indications about CITs? levels of growth. I used this information to assess the CITs? conceptual understanding taken from the consultation course, how that information was applied in practice, and in conjunction with CIT feedback, to more deeply understand each individual?s needs. With data from each CIT, the CIT and I could jointly structure a supervision session in advance (e.g., CIT requests for assistance) and in the moment (e.g., prioritizing an area of focus within in the session) with the goal of best addressing individual needs. Individual CITs were also expected to be active participants in the supervision process, and at many levels, take responsibility for their own learning. This is consistent with the notion that while the responsibility for differentiated practice falls primarily with the teacher, the learner has a role in the process as well ? including self-advocacy and self-awareness (Tomlinson, 2004). Differentiated supervision. The current study of supervision is not the first to recognize the importance of differentiating based on the needs of the supervisee, although 194 it is unique in its focus on differentiated supervision at pre-service levels, and certainly is distinct in the focus on school-based consultation training. A differentiated approach was originally developed as a supervision model for teachers in the schools in order to provide options for how they received supervision and evaluation (Glatthorn, 1997). There are three core values Glatthorn described as ?crucial in supporting the differentiated system? (p.10) ? collaboration, inquiry, and continuous improvement. These fit perfectly with the foundations of the study at hand. With regard to differentiated supervision for CITs, collaboration is relevant on two levels. First, within supervision sessions, there was a stress on the CIT and me having a collaborative relationship in which we worked through presenting problems together. This form of collaboration is at the heart of this paper, including the fact that it is framed from a constructivist worldview in which the supervisor and supervisee are both seen as key contributors to the supervision process. At a second level, discussions about how to best create a collaborative relationship between CIT and consultee frequently occurred in supervision. For example, we often discussed the importance of using communication skills such as overall collaborative language, paraphrasing, and perception checking to make sure the consultee was effectively heard; these communication skills were critical to developing a collaborative CIT-consultee relationship. I also intentionally modeled the use of these skills with my own communication style during our supervision sessions. Inquiry is the second core value Glatthorn (1997) identified as fundamental to supporting a differentiated system. Supervisees and the supervisor ?see themselves as reflective practitioners? that ?assertively look for problems, pose difficult questions for 195 themselves, build the knowledge base, reflect and use metacognition, and see evaluation as an essential part of the change process? (p. 10). Inquiry and reflection are also essential underpinnings of the supervision process with CITs. In fact, from a larger systemic perspective, the School Psychology Program and greater College of Education at this study?s site expect that training programs will produce reflective practitioners (University of Maryland, School Psychology Program, 2009). Throughout the supervision process, CITs analyzed and reflected on their own skills, built their knowledge through continuous inquiry (including questions posed by themselves as well as me), and used feedback to improve. The third core value in Differentiated Supervision is continuous improvement, the idea that change is incremental rather than instantaneous. While Glatthorn (1997) explicated this value as relevant at a systems-level (e.g., changes in curriculum, technology, school climate, models of teaching), continuous improvement is pertinent at an individual level as well; this was true for CITs in this study. They entered the course as novices and hence had much to learn with regards to conceptual knowledge and applied skills. In addition, as an advanced student in the program acting as supervisor, there was also much room for my own individual growth. Again, consistent with the constructivist perspective that framed this study, I treated the supervision process as an opportunity for the CITs and me to learn from each other rather than just a medium for me to impart knowledge. Moreover, consistent with the expectations of consultee-centered consultation, consultees are encompassed under this idea of continuous improvement: several of the CITs worked with consultees to change their classroom instruction in a way 196 that was both acceptable to the consultee and more effective for students, and would hopefully be incorporated into the consultee?s future instructional repertoire. Differentiated supervision in practice. From the broadest perspective, as in Glatthorn?s (1997) model, pre-service consultation training was differentiated based on individual needs. Moreover, supervision for CITs did not operate from a ?one-up? (Glatthorn, 1997, p. 4) or expert model; although I was an advanced student in the program when acting as supervisor, the supervision process was constructivist in nature and involved collaborative problem solving, mutual construction of knowledge, and encouragement for CITs to answer their own questions. Of course, as CITs were novice level trainees engaged in their first applied consultation experiences, there were instances when I and/or metasupervisor did take an expert approach with CITs. Actually, the fact that supervision functioned on a continuum of collaborative to expert may be considered another form of differentiated practice that emerged in the data, and is also consistent with Glatthorn?s model (e.g., the differences in supervision that would be provided to non-tenured versus experienced teachers). In addition to gaining support from me, CITs received support and feedback from their colleagues in the program as well as their school site-supervisors ? these factors fall outside of supervision sessions, but within the larger supervision process, and are similar to Glatthorn?s (1997) stress on the importance of peer-supervision. Another similarity between Glatthorn?s model and the current theory of supervision is that time is accentuated as a precious commodity. According to Glatthorn, the supervisor should limit access to frequent supervision for those who need it the most. In the current study, CITs were required to participate in weekly supervision sessions, 197 receiving one hour (at a minimum) of time with me per session. This is consistent with the assumption that since the CITs are at beginner to advanced beginner development levels, they require more intensive supervisory support. In addition to the similarities between the emerging theory and Glatthorn?s model, there are several important differences that should be briefly explored. Again, these differences are not surprising given the divergence between expectations of practice at pre-service and inservice levels. One important difference is that unlike working with highly experienced or skilled teachers in the schools, supervision of CITs at the pre- service level requires some uniform instruction of content knowledge through two semesters of consultation course work and reinforcement of content in supervision sessions. For Glatthorn, providing options to teachers about both professional development and evaluation is precisely what made his model differentiated; that is, a teacher and supervisor dyad jointly choose approaches to best suit the teacher?s individual needs. In the current study, the differentiation that was provided to CITs was not about providing options, or at least not in the way described by Glatthorn. For example, since all CITs were considered to be at beginner levels of development, they were all engaged in an intensive developmental supervision process. Engaging in only cooperative or self- directed development was not an option, although some components of cooperative and self-directed development such as learning from peers and promoting self-reflection accompanied the intensive approach. Quite different from Glatthorn?s model, differentiated supervision in pre-service level consultation training was reflected by variations in strategies applied in supervision 198 sessions (by the CITs and me) over the course of the semester, related to differences in timing (e.g., needs at the beginning, middle, or end of the semester), case concerns (e.g., process and content of case, dynamics with the consultee), and differences between each CIT (e.g., idiosyncratic qualities and needs). However, CITs were never so developmentally distinct from one another that one CIT needed to meet with me less frequently, or where peer supervision (let alone self-supervision) would have sufficed. A last major difference from Glatthorn?s model involves the role of evaluation as part of supervision. For one, as was true with professional development, CITs were not provided with options about how they would be evaluated. Second, from my perspective, evaluation was more growth-focused than administrative in nature. As an advanced student acting as supervisor, it was not my role to formally or directly evaluate the CITs ? this was the responsibility of the metasupervisor/course professor. I did discuss CITs? progress with the course professor on a weekly basis, and provided input regarding mid-semester and end-of-year developmental progress assessments. In a sense, my formal evaluation role may be considered evaluation by extension. However, ultimately it was the course professor who determined final grades and met with the CITs for end-of-year evaluation/feedback conferences. My primary face-to-face evaluator roles were to monitor ongoing developmental progress, which I did in concordance with reflective participation from the CITs, and to provide critical written (on logs) and verbal (during sessions) feedback to CITs. Another reason the role of evaluation in the current model is unique stems from supervision taking place at pre-service levels of training. CITs were only in their second year (out of five) of the doctoral program, and will ideally go on to engage in three years 199 of additional supervised experiences in the schools, some of which is consultation- focused, following their consultation sequence: assessment training and practica (year three); a full-year of field work (year four), and internship (year five), all prior to practicing independently in the field. There is no guarantee that consultation skills will be practiced in year three or four, although several students do engage in such experiences. In addition, according to the University of Maryland School Psychology Program handbook (2009), at least 20 percent of a doctoral student?s internship year must involve consultation-based practice, but the quality of supervision the content of the practice are not specified. From an optimistic perspective, although it is important as part of practicum supervision to monitor CITs? ability to function in a professional capacity, CITs will have additional opportunities to learn and practice skills over the next several years prior to beginning independent practice. For example, during member checking Kathy described her application of consultation skills with the teacher of a student she was counseling; this included clearly identifying a problem to work on, clarifying the teacher?s high inference language, and collaboratively developing an intervention. In this ideal circumstance, the supervisor and metasupervisor can emphasize the importance of individual developmental progress rather than overstress supervisee?s independent ?responsibility to the profession and?future clients? (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009, p.20), since the CIT?s full-time professional practice as a school psychologist is still a few years away. However, the reality is that following pre-service level training, many trainees may not experience equivalent or more intensive consultation training or supervision; this 200 may be especially true in specialist-level programs where trainees spend less time in the program than doctoral-level trainees. This provides further credence to emphasizing the development of consultation skills at the pre-service level, and including intensive supervision at early stages of CIT skill development. If pre-service levels are the ?last stop? for intensive consultation training and supervision, having a summative focus in determining readiness for entry to the field may be necessary. Limitations This research study is not without its limitations. For one, the researcher?s own institution, the University of Maryland, was chosen as the locale for this study. Although there are several reasons that ?backyard research? (Glesne, 2006, p. 31) is common, there are also many potential limitations. Backyard research may lead to confusion of the researcher?s role for both the researcher and the participants, and may result in additional political and ethical dilemmas (Glesne, 2006). Even though conducting backyard research can often be problematic, there are several caveats that mitigated this limitation in the present study. First, the participants were unlikely to experience role confusion because I clearly acted as their supervisor while the data were collected. The member checking process was conducted one year following the end of the consultation course; I was no longer the participants? supervisor and was solely in the role of researcher. Role confusion would be more troublesome if traditional interviews were used as a form of data collection, for example simultaneously acting as an interviewer and supervisor. This was not the case in the current study due to the use of the actual supervision sessions (as opposed to interviews) as data. Second, doing backyard research is less troublesome in research where work is being done to improve something such as 201 schooling experiences (e.g., in this case, consultation training practices), or when the data focuses on the researcher?s and trainees? applied thoughts and behavior (Glesne, 2006). Third, the University of Maryland School Psychology Program is distinctive from other programs in its inclusion of intensive consultation training experiences such as practicum and supervision, and is therefore uniquely suited for an idiographic investigation. Another criticism relevant to the study?s research design is that unlike traditional GT studies, interviews were not utilized as a form of data. This disallowed the use of traditional conceptualizations of theoretical sampling in which data are collected from initial interviews and ?suggest further interview questions or observations based on evolving theoretical analysis? (Strauss & Corbin, p. 85). To cope with this limitation, theoretical sampling was used in a manner true to GT research (described in chapter three), albeit not in the same way described above. A consequence of not interviewing participants following their semester of consultation supervision was that the data only reflect CITs? experiences in the moment rather than retrospectively, which may have provided additional insights. As opposed to CITs, my momentary (as the supervisor) and retrospective (as the supervisor and the researcher) actions and reflections are represented. This differential impacted the way meaning was constructed in this study, and may have been prevented if I had conducted the member checking process as a face to face interview with participants. The idiographic nature of this study might be criticized by some for having a lack of broad generalizability, a common criticism of qualitative research (Glesne, 2006). Conversely, I believe this study has strong ?transferability?, or potential applicability to the reader which is ?achieved when the researcher provides sufficient information about 202 the self (the researcher as an instrument) and the research context, processes, participants, and researcher-participant relationships to enable the reader to decide how the findings may transfer? (Morrow, 2005, p. 252). As will be discussed in further detail below, leaders in school psychology training programs may find relevance and applicability in the data, and make important changes to their consultation training practices, for example the inclusion of university-based supervision. Another limitation stems from the data?s inclusion of a single cohort and one supervisor across all of the cases. This could be problematic if there are any particular cohort effects such as dynamics or tendencies that are specific to this group of individuals or to me as the supervisor. Moreover, to ensure participant confidentiality given the small size of the School Psychology Program at the research site, participants? social identities were not explicated in great detail. Although it was essential to minimize descriptions of participants? identities, doing so restricted my capacity to capture nuanced differences between participants. This was a necessary limitation in this constructivist study. To add to this limitation, as I acknowledged in writing about my self-reflexivity, it was difficult to evaluate myself as supervisor, including various individualized pieces I brought to the supervision table. For example, my own feelings about the supervision process were not explicated in the data and therefore are not included as part of the model. Accordingly, the model that emerged from this study is that of on an interactive supervision process rather than focused on the individualized nature of relationships between myself and CITs. 203 Implications for Training and Practice The data and discussion from this study may be considered relevant by school psychologist trainers as they design or revise the structure of consultation training at their college or university sites. For some, establishing a consultation training program that includes practicum experiences and intensive university-based supervision may be extremely challenging, especially in non-doctoral programs in which class size is higher than in the program in which this study took place, and where students take fewer credit hours and spend less time in the schools before internship than in doctoral programs. All school psychologist trainees spend time in school-based settings and likely engage in some consultation practice, regardless of whether or not their applied training experience is consultation-specific. Like the CITs in this study, they have consultation- related experiences outside of supervision sessions including interactions and reflections. Without university-based supervision on consultation experiences, trainees risk what may be termed misguided discovery, or having internal reflective processes that are not linked to ?externally validated understandings of good professional practice? (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009, p. 94). What is even more concerning is the ?potential for [CITs] to inadvertently cause harm [to consultees or students] through acts of omission or commission? in practice (O?Roark, 2002, p. 520). The number and complexity of concerns that arise for CITs provides another rationale for the importance of supervision in consultation training at the pre-service level as well as beyond. Not only did all CITs experience a large number of concerns that stemmed from their ongoing cases, many of the concerns were idiosyncratic, depending on the interactions of the CIT and case variables including the consultee. Supervision 204 sessions provided an opportunity for CITs to make sense of their individual concerns in collaboration with a supervisor. Moreover, I was able to provide feedback in areas that CITs would not have realized were concerns without supervision. Despite the challenges that trainers may face in being able to pragmatically implement consultation training and supervision as is illustrated in this study, it is likely possible to put into practice some components. Training programs should include at least a one semester consultation training course. This course should be tied to applied consultation experiences in the schools ? a didactic-practicum model. In this study, CITs had two semesters of coursework that were aligned with a consultation-specific practicum in the schools. Assignments to practicum sites were purposeful as school placements already had functional problem-solving teams; this is important as practicum at schools without problem-solving teams may not provide adequate opportunities for CIT skill development (Newman & Burkhouse, 2008). Didactic and applied components of consultation training can be aligned so that CITs most effectively develop conceptual awareness, understanding, and organized knowledge, and move towards application of skills. To provide one example, in the Spring semester CITs learned about systems-level consultation through readings, discussion, and practice in the classroom immediately prior to first applying those skills for the first time as consultants in the schools. When instruction and application are strategically combined, it enhances the ability for a learner to develop his or her skills (Joyce & Showers, 1980). When possible, trainees should take on more than one consultation case during their practicum. The importance of doing so was demonstrated by how helpful CITs 205 considered case comparisons, which enabled them to make sense of their experiences. Alice, who had only one semester of consultation coursework and one applied case, was at an experiential disadvantage compared to the other CITs; according to Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield (2004), the reality is that this experience is typical of most consultation training programs. Based on the results of this study, it seems apparent that university-based supervision should be a part of the consultation experience, with the expectation of some audiotaping and reflective journaling. Group supervision is an option for larger programs where one-on-one supervision may not be possible; this process has several advantages in addition to maximizing time, but it is not without its limitations (see Bernard & Goodyear, 2009 for a full consideration of benefits and pitfalls). A remaining question is who should act as the consultation supervisor? In considering my own experiences as supervisor in conjunction with the results of this study, it seems reasonable for an advanced student to act in this role. When this is the case, concurrent metasupervision is essential as there are many times when a novice to advanced beginner supervisor may need support. In addition, advanced students acting in the role of consultation supervisor would benefit from participating in ongoing supervision coursework to maximize the development of skills (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009); unfortunately, this was not the case in the current study. However, as I described earlier, I developed awareness, conceptual understanding, and applied skills as a supervisor through a combination of reading supervision literature for my dissertation and receiving ongoing metasupervision. 206 Regardless of whether the supervisor is an advanced student, course professor (e.g., at the pre-service level), or a more experienced school psychologist (e.g., at the inservice level), it seems essential that he or she has received consultation training. It is not sufficient for a CIT to learn a complex set of skills from a supervisor who has not yet developed his or her own skills in that area. As reflected in my own experiences as a supervisor, without my own consultation knowledge base and skills that I developed through training, I would not have been able to provide appropriate guidance to CITs. For example, I often used my training as a consultee-centered consultant and my knowledge of IC to inform my practices in supervision. I intentionally modeled consultation skills, including IC-specific communication skills such as clarifying, paraphrasing, and summarizing. My IC frame also led to relevant discussions in supervision such as making distinctions between academic and behavioral problems and emphasizing the importance of collaboration. In addition to suggesting that the model of consultation supervision one applies is informed by their consultation training background, this implies that the model of supervision presented in this study may be most relevant to trainers providing supervision from a consultee-centered, IC framework. Supervisors informed from different perspectives, for instance behavioral approaches to problem solving, may be more expert in their supervisory approach, less concerned with some of the nuanced process issues that are considered in this study, and find this study less relevant to their consultation practice. Irrespective of distinctions between models of consultation, the neglect of consultation training practices including practicum and supervision (Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield, 2004) suggest it is unlikely that most supervisors have adequately developed 207 their own consultation skills. Consultation supervision being provided by supervisors who have not engaged in consultation training likely is prevalent at the inservice level as well; most school psychologist practitioners (who have not received sufficient consultation training) go on to practice as supervisors in the field (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). Furthermore, some school psychologists who are practicing in the consultant role at the inservice level may only receive administrative rather than clinical supervision. Lack of appropriate consultation training and supervision is of concern from pre-service to inservice levels. When strong pre-service level consultation training practices, including supervision, are in place, school psychologists not only feel more positive about practicing in the important role of consultant in the schools, but have begun to develop the skills to do so. These developing skills can be strengthened at internship and inservice levels, where supervision continues to be essential (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). It is also true that there are multiple concerns needing supervision support for school psychologists in practice (Crespi, 2003; Crespi & Dube, 2005); it is likely that a differentiated model of supervision at internship and inservice levels would be helpful in addressing individualized needs regarding all areas of practice, not only consultation. Future Research This study provides a starting point for the consideration of issues of supervision in consultation training. Even with only five participants, a substantial amount of data emerged, making it necessary for me to continually fine tune my lens to avoid losing sight of the forest for the trees. I was able to paint a picture of five participants? experiences in supervision and develop a theoretical model grounded in those 208 experiences that provided an explanation for the supervision process. Future researchers in this area may wish to use this theory as a foundation, and focus in on various features to elaborate. A place for future researchers to begin would be incorporating data from additional supervisors. Given the complex interactions that differed by CIT per case variables, it is likely that supervisor differences contribute additional complexity to the supervision process. Further research with additional supervisors can help verify, append, and focus this initial theoretical model. For example, researchers can look at the individual qualities a supervisor brings into the consultation supervision process, explore CIT-supervisor relationships more effectively, and consider supervisor feelings about the supervision process. Moreover, by looking at more than one supervisor, some of the limitations that came with me serving in dual roles would be eliminated. Another area in need of further examination is the nuanced interactions between supervisors and CITs. This study established the fact that interactions are differentiated between CITs based on perceived needs. It would be fascinating to more explicitly dissect supervisor-CIT exchanges to determine what strategic interactions have what impact in what circumstances (Goodyear & Bernard, 1998). This line of research could enhance the intentionality with which consultation supervisors and CITs interact. It also may have implications for supervisor training, as supervisors can be trained to most effectively use their skills from moment to moment with supervisees. Yet another critical line of follow-up research involves exploring outcomes. There are a large number of questions regarding defining outcomes as discussed earlier. It will be important for researchers to define successful versus unsuccessful consultation 209 cases as well as successful versus unsuccessful supervision. Supervision outcomes can then be tied to consultation case outcomes to increase our understanding of supervision?s impact on practice. Further, distinctions can be made between outcomes of single sessions versus an entire case. It seems that these issues could be considered quantitatively (e.g., the creation of reliable and valid instruments to evaluate outcomes), qualitatively (e.g., defining positive and negative outcomes through the words of CITs and supervisors), or via mixed-methods, in order provide maximal insight. Future researchers may wish to borrow relevant supervision outcome evaluations from the broader clinical psychology or counseling psychology supervision literature and rate the perceived effectiveness of consultation supervision sessions from the perspective of the supervisor (e.g., see McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007) and the supervisee (e.g., see Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996). Ratings of supervision sessions can be aligned with ratings of consultant skills (e.g., see Harvey & Struzziero, 2008, pp. 275-277) over time, which would demonstrate growth in application of skills; these ratings may be completed by the university or school-based site-supervisor. Measured outcomes of supervision (including perceived effectiveness and actual growth) can be tied to measures of consultee skill development (including self-measures and ratings from the CIT). The data in this study suggest that consultee changes in instructional practices, empowerment, language, and perception of the student may be important areas to consider in evaluating supervision outcomes. Lastly, client/student outcomes can be measured based on consultation-dyad goals. This data collection occurs naturally as part of the problem-solving process and may be supplemented by qualitative data from the CIT or university supervisor based on perceived frame of the problem (i.e., 210 do the supervisor, CIT, and consultee all have the same problem frame?). Data at all of these levels of the consultation process can help to further decipher the effectiveness of consultation training and supervision. Another future research area is to consider what impact consultation training has on consultation practice. We know that school psychologists do not necessarily feel ready to practice in the role of school-based consultant (Costenbader et al., 1992; Doll et al., 2005; McDougal et al., 2000), and that may be a result of insufficient consultation training support (Anton-LaHart & Rosenfield, 2004). However, one question is what are the differences, if any, between the practices of school psychologists trained at sites with intensive consultation training and supervision versus school psychologists who were trained at other sites? Investigating these issues using a quasi-experimental design would help make an important connection between training and practice. As this theoretical model gains verifiability and specificity through future research, it will be compelling to determine its relevance with regard to more research- supported models of supervision. The current model contributes to the greater supervision literature by including a focus on pre-service training, and by incorporating the concept of differentiation within developmental models of supervision. 211 Appendix A Convergence of Stage-Based Models of Development, Learning, and Supervision Stage-Based Model S ta ge o f L ea rn ing, D ev el op m en t, o r S up er vi si on Levels of Impact: Adult Learning (Joyce & Showers, 1980) Developmental Levels of Supervision (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008; Stoltenberg, 2005, 2008) Supervision Statuses (Knoff, 1986) Awareness: Realize the importance of particular content and hone in to learn more. Novice or Beginner (Level 1): No prior training or experience in the field. Focus on own behaviors, high levels of mixed emotions, and high levels of motivation. Need high levels of supervisory support. Practicum: Supervision provided by university faculty/ staff, and may be supplemented in field. Conceptual/Organized Knowledge: Organize chunked information into larger concepts. Advanced Beginner (Level 2): Shift focus from self toward the consultee. Practice with more independence and less anxiety then novices. Have Limited conceptual understanding, so need continued support in supervision, Internship: Supervision may come from an external supervisor, a 212 but with less structure and more autonomy. peer supervisor, or an administrative supervisor. Principles and Skills: Become aware of content and use skills in real or simulated situations. Competent (Level 3): Focus on the consultee in and awareness of self are both enhanced. Increased levels of reflection and confidence, and also increasingly autonomous practice). May be the final stage of development for some practitioners. Can structure supervision sessions themselves based on needs. Entry: As in internship, supervision may come from an external supervisor, a peer supervisor, or an administrative supervisor. Application/Problem Solving: Integrate concepts, principles, and skills into practice during their work. Proficient (Level 3i): Both reflection and integration of skills are at higher levels. Recognize nuances and patterns of situations, and think about long term consequences. Supervision helps maintain subjectivity, reduce resistance, and upgrade skills. Independence: One may simultaneously supervise and be supervised. 213 Expert (Not in Stoltenberg, 2005, 2008): Ability to handle complex and changing situations. No longer relies on rules or guidelines. Practice with intuitive automaticity. Supervision with same purposes as in proficiency, but may act as metasupervisor. Metasupervision: When one supervises a supervisor. 214 Appendix B Sample Consultation Supervision Log Adapted from Newman, Burkhouse, & Rosenfield (2008) Name: Date: Grade Level of Teacher/Student: Session #: 1. IC Problem-solving stage. List what stage of the problem solving process you are currently engaged (i.e., contracting, problem-identification/analysis, intervention design, intervention implementation and evaluation, termination). 2. Consultant-teacher working relationship. Discuss the collaborative working dynamic you are experiencing in your case. 3. Communication skills. Reflect on your use of language within the session, including specific skills such as clarifying questions/statements, paraphrases, perception checking, and summarizing. What could you have said differently? 4. Request(s) for feedback during supervision. What would you like to discuss further in supervision? Students are encouraged to seek answers to their own questions. 215 References Alpert, J.L., & Taufique, S.R. (2002). Consultation training: 26 years and three questions. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 13-33. Anton-LaHart, J., & Rosenfield, S. (2004). A survey of preservice consultation training in school psychology programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 41- 62. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide for overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barnett, J.E., Cornish, J.A.E., Goodyear, R.K., & Lichtenberg, J.W. (2007). Commentaries on the ethical and effective practice of clinical supervision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 268-275. Bazeley, P.A. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bernard, J.M., & Goodyear, R.K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th Boston, MA: Pearson. ed.). Buser, T. J. (2008). Counselor training: Empirical findings and current approaches. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, (86-100). Butler, S.K. (2003). Multicultural sensitivity and competence in the clinical supervision of school counselors and school psychologists: A context for providing competent services in a multicultural society. The Clinical Supervisor, 22, 125- 141. Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York: Basic Books. 216 Caplan, G., & Caplan, R. B. (1993). Mental health consultation and collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Charmaz, K. (2000). GT: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ed., pp. 509-535). Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing GT: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clarke, A.E. (2005). Situational analysis: GT after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conoley, J.C. (1981). Emergent training issues in consultation. In J.C. Conoley (Ed.), Consultation in schools: Theory, research procedures (pp. 223-263). New York: Academic Press. Conoley, J.C., & Sullilvan, J.R. (2002). Best practices in the supervision of interns. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV, (pp. 131- 144). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications. Costenbader, V.K., Schwartz, J., & Petrix, L. (1992). Consultation in the schools: The relationship between preservice training, perception of consultative skills, and actual time spent in consultation. School Psychology Review, 21, 95-108. Cramer, K., & Rosenfield, S. (2003). Clinical supervision of consultation. The clinical supervisor, 22, 111-124. Crespi, T.D. (2003). Clinical supervision in the schools: Challenges, opportunities and lost horizons [Special section]. Introduction. The Clinical Supervsor, 22, 59-73. 217 Crespi, T.D., & Dube, J.M.B. (2005). Clinical supervision in school psychology: Challenges, considerations, and ethical and legal issues for clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 24, 115-135. Creswell, J.W. (2002). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd Oaks, CA: Sage. ed.). Thousand Demerath, P. (2006). The science of context: Modes of response for qualitative researchers in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 97-113. Doll, B., Haack, K., Kosse, S., Osterloh, M., Siemers, E., & Pray, B. (2005). The dilemma of pragmatics: Why schools don?t use quality team consultation practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16 (127-155). Ellis, M., Landany, N., Krengel, M., & Schult, D. (1996). Clinical supervision research from 1981 to 1993: A methodological critique. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 43, 35-50. Erchul, W.P., & Martens, B.K. (1997). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases of practice. New York: Plenum Press. Fagan, T.K. (2004). School psychology?s significant discrepancy: Historical perspectives on personnel shortages. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 419-430. Falender, C. A., Erickson Cornish, J. A., Goodyear, R., Hatcher, R.,Kaslow, N. J., Leventhal, et al. (2004). Defining competencies in psychology supervision: A consensus statement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 771?785. Fassinger, R. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems and promise: GT in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 156-166. 218 Fischetti, B.A., & Lines, C.L. (2003). Views from the field: Models for school-based clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 22, 75-86. Garcia, M. (2004). Reflectivity in consultation. In N. Lambert, I. Hylander, & J. Sandoval (Eds). Consultee-Centered Consultation: Improving the Quality of Professional Services in School and Community Organizations (pp. 359-369). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of GT analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967; 1999). Discovery of GT: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Glatthorn, A.A. (1984). Differentiated Supervision. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glatthorn, A.A. (1997). Differentiated Supervision (2nd Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ed.). Alexandria, VA: Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd MA: Pearson. ed.). Boston, Goodyear, R., & Bernard, J. (1998, September). Clinical supervision: Lessons from the literature. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38(1), 6-22. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from PsycINFO database. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2001). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In C.F. Conrad, J.G. Haworth, & L.R. Latucca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher education: ASHE reader series (2nd Publishing. ed., pp. 57-72). Boston: Pearson Custom Gutkin, T. B. and Conoley, J. C. (1990). Reconceptualizing school psychology from a 219 service delivery perspective: Implications for practice, training, and research. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 203?23. Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. the General Curriculum. Retrieved May 31, 2009 from http:// Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing www.cast.org/ Publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html Harvey, V.S., & Struzziero, J. (2008). Professional Development and Supervision of School Psychologists: From intern to expert (2nd Publications. ed.). Bethesda, MD: NASP Hunley, S.A., Curtis, M.J., & Batsche, G. (2002). Best practices in supervision of school psychological services. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV, (pp. 103-114). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications. Hylander, I. (2003). Toward a GT of the conceptual change process in consultee- centered consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 263-280. Hylander, I. (2004). Identifying change in consultee-centered consultation. In N. Lambert, I. Hylander, & J. Sandoval (Eds). Consultee-Centered Consultation: Improving the Quality of Professional Services in School and Community Organizations (pp. 373-389). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jones, G. W. (1999). Validation of a simulation to evaluate instructional consultation problem identification skill competence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (12A), 4317. Jones, S.R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative 220 research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York: Routledge. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379?385. Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction--Eighteen years with IPR. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 262- 283). New York: Wiley. Kaufman, J. & Schwartz (2003). Models of supervision: Shaping professional identity. The Clinical Supervisor, 22, 143-158. Kivlighan, D.M. (2008). Structural changes in counselor trainee intention use and clients' session evaluation. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 560-572. Knoff, H.M. (1986). Supervision in school psychology: The forgotten or future path to effective services. School Psychology Review, 15, 529-545. Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1978). Training school psychologists: Some perspectives on a competency-based behavioral consultation model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 9, 71?82. Kratochwill, Elliott, & Busse (1995). Behavior consultation: A five-year evaluation of consultant and client outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 87-117. Kratochwill, T. R., Sheridan, S. M., Carrington-Rotto, P., & Salmon, D. (1992). Preparation of school psychologists in behavioral consultation service delivery. In T. R. Kratochwill & S. N. Elliott (Eds.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 115?152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ladany, N., Hill, C.E., Corbett, M.M., & Nutt, E.A. (1996). Nature, extent, and 221 importance of what psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to their supervisors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 10-24. Legeiwe, H. (1998). How to use computers in qualitative analysis. In Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing GT (2nd Lepage, K., Kratochwill, T.R., & Elliott, S.N. Competency-based behavior consultation ed.) (pp. 276-279). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. training:An evaluation of consultant outcomes, treatment effects, and consumer satisfaction. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 1-28. Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 3-42. McAdams, C.R., III, Foster, V.A., & Ward, T.J. (2007). Remediation and dismissal policies in counselor education: Lessons learned from a challenge in federal court. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 212-229. McDougal, J.L., Clonan, S.M., & Martens, B.K. (2000). Using organizational change procedures to promote the acceptability of prereferral intervention services: The school-based intervention team project. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 149- 171. McIntosh, D.E., & Phelps, L. (2000). Supervision in school psychology: Where will the future take us? Psychology in the Schools, 37, 33-38. Meyers, A.B. (2002). Developing nonthreatening expertise: Thoughts on consultation training from the perspective of a new faculty member. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 13, 55-67 Meyers, J. (2002). A 30 year perspective on best practices for consultation training. 222 Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 35-54. Meyers, J., & Alpert, J.L. (1983). So that?s what happened to consultation training. In J.L. Alpert & J. Meyers (Eds.), Training in consultation: Perspectives from mental health, behavioral and organizational consultation (pp. 221-231). \ Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Meyers, J., Alpert, J.L., & Fleisher, B. (1983). Models of consultation. In J.L. Alpert & J. Meyers (Eds.), Training in consultation: Perspectives from mental health, behavioral and organizational consultation (pp.5-16). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Morrow, S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250-260. National Association of School Psychologists (2004). Position statement on supervision in school psychology. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from National Association of School Psychologists website: http://www.nasponline.org/about_NASP/ positionpapers/supervision.pdf Newman, D.S., & Burkhouse, K.L.S. (2008). Consultation training at the University of Maryland: A different perspective on consultation within graduate student practicum settings. The School Psychologist, 62, 67-69. Newman, D.S., Burkhouse, K.L.S., & Rosenfield, S.A. (2008, February). Squaring the consultation triad: Supervision in consultation training. Mini-skills workshop presented at the 2008 Annual Convention of the National Association of School 223 Psychologists, New Orleans, LA. O?Roark, A. M. (2002). Assessment and intervention issues in international organizational consulting. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology: Theory, skills, and techniques (pp. 516?544). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Park, CA: Sage. ed.). Newbury Reschly (2008). School psychology paradigm shift and beyond. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V, (pp. 3-15). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications. Romans, J.S.C, Boswell, D.L., Carlozzi, A.F., & Ferguson, D.B. (1995). Training and supervision practices in clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 407-412. Ronnestad, M.H., & Skovholt, T.M. (1993). Superviion of beginning and advanced graduate students of counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 396-405. Ronnestad, M.H. & Skovholt, T.M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5-44. Rosenfield, S. (1987). Instructional consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rosenfield, S. (2002). Developing instructional consultants: From novice to competent to expert. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 97-111. 224 Rosenfield, S. (2008). Best practices in instructional consultation and instructional consultation teams. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V, (pp. 1645-1659). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications. Rosenfield, S. & Gravois, T.A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. New York: Guilford Press. Rosenfield, S., Levenisohn-Klyap, M., & Cramer, K. (in press). Educating consultants for practice in the schools. In Training and Supervision of School Psychologists in School and Community. Schein, E. (1998). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schmuck, R.A. & Miles, M.B. (1971). Organization development in schools. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books. Schmuck, R.A. & Runkel, P.J. The handbook of organization and Colleges (4 development in schools th Scholten, T. (2003). What does it mean to consult? In E. Cole & J.A. Siegel (Eds.), ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Effective consultation in school psychology, 2nd Huber. Ed. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Sheridan, S. M. (1997). Conceptual and empirical bases of conjoint behavioral consultation.School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 119?133. Sobell, L.C., Manor, H.L., Sobell, M.B., & Dum, M. (2008). Self-critiques of audiotaped therapy sessions: A motivational procedure for facilitating feedback during 225 supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2, 151-155. Stoltenberg, C.D. (2008). Developmental approaches to supervision. In C.A. Falender & E.P. Shafranske (Eds.), Casebook for clinical supervision (pp. 39-56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stoltenberg, C.D. (2005). Enhancing professional competence through developmental approaches to supervision. American Psychologist, 60, 857-864. Stoltenberg, C.D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists: A developmental approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stoltenberg, C.D., McNeill, B.W., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM Supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing GT (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Review, 26, 188. Retrieved May 31, 2009 from ERIC database. Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. University of Maryland School Psychology Doctoral Program Handbook (2009). Retrieved June 26, 2009 from the School Psychology Program Web site: 226 http://www.education. umd.edu/EDCP/SchoolPsychology/Program/doctoral University of Maryland, College Park, School Psychology Program. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from the school psychology programWeb site: http:// www.education Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . umd.edu/EDCP/ SchoolPsychology/Program/doctoral Webb, A. (2000). What makes it difficult for the supervisee to speak? In B. Lawton & C. Feltham (Eds.), Taking supervision forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counseling and Psychotherapy, (pp. 60-73). London, England: Sage. Welsh, J.S., Stanley, J.D., & Wilmoth, C. (2003). Competency-based pre-internship supervision of school psychologists: A collaborative training model. The Clinical Supervisor, 22, 177-189. Wheeler, S. & Richards, K. (2007). The impact of clinical supervision on counsellors and therapists, their practice and their clients. A systematic review of the literature. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7, 54-65. Wizda, L. (2004). An instructional consultant looks to the future. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 277-294. Worthen, V.E., & McNeill, B.W. (1996). A phenomenological investigation of ?good? supervision events. In S.B. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, (pp. 120-138). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ysseldyke, J.E., Burns, M.K., Dawson, M., Kelly, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., Rosenfield, S., & Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. 227 Zins, J.E., & Erchul, W.P. (2002). Best practices in school consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV, (pp.625-643). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications.