The Use of Supervision Notes as a Targeted Training Strategy

Introduction

The development of clinical supervision has, more or less, followed the same trajectory established by the development of counseling and psychotherapy (Bernard, 2005). Just as the process of therapy began deeply entrenched in discussions of theoretical orientation, and the relevance of the therapeutic relationship started within each theoretical approach, so too did supervision emerge from the psychotherapy theory literature (Bernard & Leddick, 1980) to be followed and sustained by decades of literature and research addressing the supervisory relationship (Bernard, 2005, 2008). It was not until the 1960s that “training” in counseling skills as we know it today was spawned, with a significant contribution made by scholars at the University of Massachusetts and their progeny (Carkhuff & Truax, 1965; Cormier, Hackney, & Segrist, 1974; Hackney & Cormier, 1973; Hackney, Ivey, & Oetting, 1970; Ivey, 1971; Ivey, Normington, Miller, Morrill, & Haase, 1968). Since then, skills courses teaching the fundamentals of the counseling process have become endemic to master’s programs in counseling and related mental health professions.

Another significant influence in the deconstruction of counseling interactions (that soon evolved into an appreciation of reflection as a training activity) came from Michigan State University in the work of Kagan and his colleagues (Kagan & Krathwohl, 1967; Kagan, Krathwohl, & Farquahar, 1965; Kagan, Krathwohl, & Miller, 1963). Interestingly, Kagan (1980) was one of the first to see the supervision training potential of his earlier work and Interpersonal Process Recall began to influence the work of supervision more directly, changing supervisor training forever (Bernard, 2005).

In the 50 or so years since training became more systematic for the counseling professions, clinical supervision has made enormous strides in its own right. Whereas the theory and practice of supervision once drew almost exclusively from our understanding of counseling and psychotherapy, it is now favored with its own literature that includes journals devoted to its advancement (e.g., The Clinical Supervisor), a plethora of books and monographs, professional ethical codes, a sophisticated research base, and recognition from certification bodies (e.g., Approved Clinical Supervisor, CCE, 2000). Training and education in clinical supervision has grown exponentially in mental health professional degree programs, especially in post-master’s programs. As such, the literature has included more attention to supervisor training and education. Surprisingly, however, much of the pedagogy for the training of clinical supervisors must still be deciphered from supervision literature in general.

Training Clinical Supervisors

The professional literature about clinical supervision is much more developed than the literature that describes the process of becoming a supervisor. Milne, Sheikh, Pattison, and Wilkinson (2011) noted: “No apparent consensus exists on what constitutes effective supervisor training” (p. 54). The primary foci for supervisor training to date are twofold: (1) the description of a knowledge base for supervision and a delineation of requisite competencies for the practice of supervision (e.g., Borders et al., 1991; Falender et al., 2004), and (2) models of supervisor development (e.g., Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010; Watkins, 1990, 1993, 1994). The knowledge base for supervisors across mental health disciplines includes theory, models, relationship factors, multicultural competencies relevant to the supervisory relationship, methods, ethics, legal parameters, and evaluation skills. Each of these domains represents a literature that is growing in its breadth and depth. The supervisor developmental models have been helpful in underscoring the significant role change that is embedded in becoming a supervisor. For example, Watkins’ (1990) use of the term “role shock” has been a comfort to many a fledgling supervisor who, though reasonably competent as a therapist, was blindsided by the challenges of taking on the role of supervisor.

Despite a rich professional literature across the distinct domains of supervision and supervisor developmental models that provide insight into the learning process, there has been less focus on pedagogy to achieve supervisor competence. In part, this may be because many of the skills required for clinical supervisors parallel those required of their supervisees. In fact, a prerequisite for becoming a supervisor is an assessment that the professional has counseling skills that are more advanced than those of the person(s) he or she will supervise (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). As a result, the demarcation between theory and practice for clinical supervision has not been as decisive as it has been for counseling and psychotherapy. Said differently, a mental health training program will have a curriculum devoted to theory, another to assessment, and still another to helping skills using a text devoted solely to such (e.g., Hackney & Cormier, 2013; Hill, 2009); supervisor training is more likely to be comprised of a sole curricular offering, if that. The challenge for the supervisor-in-training (SIT), then, is to translate the various themes within the supervision literature to practice in a role that requires both self-awareness and a skill set that is both reminiscent of that required of the therapist yet different from it.

As noted at the beginning of this article, the mental health professions only moved to providing a pedagogical model that viewed training as essential for psychotherapy competence in the 1960s. Supervision, too, has developed its knowledge base and has provided—with some exceptions—less specificity with regard to delivery methods. Even those authors whose work focuses on supervision methods speak primarily to the supervisor, not to the trainer of the supervisor. This is the case in literature on live supervision in its various forms, on the use of technology for supervision, and on processes for group supervision or triadic supervision, to name just a few. Those professionals responsible for education and training supervisors have been accustomed to taking these skill-based contributions and finding pedagogical methods to present them to their students or interns, supervisors-in-training (SITs).

The remainder of this article will describe a pedagogical strategy for assisting SITs in using the documentation of their supervision to develop both an understanding and an ability to articulate their use of theory in supervision, use of a supervision model, and an ability to assess the developmental level of their supervisee. In the tradition of skills development for therapists-in-training, this strategy requires both the opportunity for skill demonstration and reflection. Prior to describing the strategy itself, I will briefly describe the conceptualization of supervision models on which it is based, followed by an equally brief description of the development of documentation in supervision.

Models of Clinical Supervision

At this point in the evolution of clinical supervision, there are three major “categories” of supervision models: those that reflect and derive from a psychotherapy theory, those that focus on the supervisee’s developmental stages, and those that have been referred to either as social role models or process models (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Each of these categories provides advantages that the others do not.

When supervisors work within a consistent theoretical framework, they are able to model their use of theory to the supervisee. Said differently, by definition, theory will be more integrated into supervision for the supervisor who views supervision as an extension of cognitive behavioral therapy (e.g., Liese & Beck, 1997) or person-centered therapy (e.g., Farber, 2012), and so forth.

Developmental models of supervision (e.g., Stoltenberg, 1981) have made a significant contribution to our understanding of different needs of supervisees at different points in their training. They offer the promise of tracking the development of the supervisee across stages.

Process models of supervision (e.g., Bernard, 1979; Holloway, 1995) are unique in that they typically were developed in an attempt to understand supervision per se more clearly. As such, the focus has often been on describing the interactions between supervisor and supervisee and larger contextual matters. Those who have proposed either developmental models or process models tend to claim that they are pantheoretical and, therefore, highly adaptable.

Of course, these are only rudimentary descriptions of these primary categories for supervision models. There are many resources for a full description of each (e.g., Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Falender & Schrafranske, 2004). In addition, some authors have offered “integrated” models that are typically a blend of two of the major categories (e.g., Pearson, 2006; James, Milne, Marie-Blackburn, & Armstrong, 2006), though some have blended constructs from two different models within a major category to arrive at a new model (e.g., Young, Lambie, Hutchinson, & Thurston-Dyer, 2011). Bernard and Goodyear (2014) refer to all of these as “second-generation” models.

Watkins (2011) argued that most supervisors, especially those who have themselves been trained using the supervision literature, borrow widely from all three categories of supervision models. Bernard and Goodyear (2014) reinforced this notion, stressing that no supervisor will conduct supervision without some leakage of theoretical bias, even if the supervisor adheres to a process model of supervision. Furthermore, Bernard and Goodyear stated that it is endemic to supervision for the supervisor to make some assessment of the supervisee’s developmental level. Not to do so would be “folly.” Finally, most supervisors who have come to age as the field has grown refer to a favorite process model when they describe their work. In summary, it is time for supervisor trainers to view their challenge as helping SITs to draw from and integrate contributions from all three major categories. This moves us well beyond a more common training approach of using one model in a particular supervisory interaction and moving on to another at another time. “Trying out” different models or wedding oneself to one model are both training models with deficits. Instead, beyond learning the skills to use a particular model, SITs should eventually be asked to consider how all three major model categories were utilized for a single supervision session. This is a complex task and SITs need assistance in the form of pedagogical structure.

The Documentation of Supervision

Clinician notes often seem dictated by third-party payers. Thus, prescription is high regarding a justification for service and tying interventions to the diagnosis. Risk management is also documented in clinical notes. Notes kept for training purposes (i.e., those typically required by clinical training programs) tend to be less prescriptive and more reflective. Therapists-in-training are more likely to be asked to consider matters of personal growth, to document hypotheses about the importance of various interactions with clients, to defend goals and interventions as theoretically consistent, to consider cultural dynamics that may be operating within the relationship with the client, and so forth. These notes are rich sources of data for supervision.

The documentation of clinical supervision has not received a great deal of attention in the literature outside of admonitions to keep records of one’s supervision for ethical reasons, for troubleshooting with challenging supervisees, or for legal protection (Falvey, 2002; Luepker, 2003). Although it is reasonable to assume that the SIT is often asked to document supervision for training purposes as well as risk management, the former has not been elevated in the professional literature as a pedagogical strategy. As a result, most trainers are left to their own instincts regarding how to use supervision notes to enhance the development of the SIT as a clinical supervisor, a role that is universally accepted as complex and nuanced.

The Beginning of Supervisor Training

The author is the instructor of a doctoral level course in the theory and practice of supervision. During this initial course (which is followed by internships in supervision), SITs are assigned two master’s level practicum students to supervise. Therefore, fledgling supervisors are asked to supervise fledgling counselors. Supervision of supervision, therefore, is intense and consists of recordings of supervision sessions, individual and group supervision, and critical review of supervision notes. Weekly seminar includes discussion of readings on various aspects of supervision, some practice of methods, and case presentations. In short, unlike their training to become counselors, SITs are asked to integrate a significant amount of knowledge and simultaneously conduct supervision. This is daunting for them. Without pedagogical structure, the activity of supervision and the interactions with supervisees (who themselves are seeing clients for the first time) will always take precedence over the more thoughtful, reflective process of good supervision. The outline for the supervision notes was designed, therefore, both to ground SITs in some concrete activity while eventually moving SITs to more reflection.

The First Seven Weeks of Training

Any instructor of a course that combines theory and practice is at a disadvantage on the front end. The fact is that it would be preferable if SITs already had some command of all of the disparate domains within the supervision literature as well as some experience practicing certain supervision methods before they meet their first supervisee. That said we have found the richness of this instructional model far outweighs the disadvantages. In addition, we have found that the assignment of two supervisees is better than one. Having done both, it is much more likely that SITs will learn more about personal style across several dimensions if assigned more than one supervisee. We are also deliberate in assignments and attempt to give SITs master’s level students who are quite distinct from each other.

Still, SITs do not have the knowledge base to be reflective about models during the first half of the course. Instead, the required notes ask them to be as deliberate as possible in their supervision, and they offer SITs instructors an opportunity to monitor their supervision and influence it. To this end, SITs are required to submit electronically answers to seven questions within 48 hours of their weekly sessions with their supervisees. The instructor will respond with comments in advance of the next session SITs have with their supervisees. What follows is a discussion of the seven questions posed to SITs after conducting each supervision session during the first half of the semester.

1. What were your pre-session goals for the supervision session?

2. What was the extent to which pre-session goals were met?

Supervisors must be deliberate in their supervision. One of the common complaints of supervisors from supervisees is that they (supervisors) appeared unprepared or lacked investment in the process. Therefore, SITs are required immediately to stipulate goals for their session, even if the goal is to assist the supervisee in articulating his or her own goals for supervision. Process goals are distinguished from outcome goals and SITs are encouraged to assist their supervisees to do the same in their counseling. Finally, these two questions are paired so that SITs can begin their supervision experience with success.

If they have planned reasonable goals, they are likely to meet them. If their goals are too modest, too ambitious, or “fuzzy,” the SITs supervisor can respond with appropriate feedback. These questions also reinforce the professional imperative of self-assessment.

3. What were the major topics that emerged during the supervision session initiated either by you or by your supervisee)?

Early in supervisor training, it is greatly advantageous to know what SITs consider important. If a supervisor-in-training is intimidated by the new role of supervisor, he or she may be more concrete than otherwise would be the case, including reference to virtually all topics covered in the session. Differentiating what is important from less important topics is the first task for SITs. The SITs supervisor can observe through the answer to question three who is controlling the supervision session and to what end. Finally, sometimes we ask SITs to submit these notes along with a recording of the supervision session. Matching the notes to the actual session can lead to many fruitful discussions with SITs.

4. List supervision interventions that were implemented in this session, including a rationale for each.

This is sometimes a challenge for SITs in the first several weeks. Often, interventions are confused with directives. As a result, if a supervisor-in-training did not advise the supervisee to “do” something in particular, the supervisor-in-training would struggle to identify interventions. Our position is that most supervisory activity is an intervention. In fact, many early supervision of supervision (sup of sup) sessions are spent underscoring interactions that attend to the working alliance or to assessing the developmental stage of the supervisee on a particular criterion, and so forth. Supervisors-in-training often do not appreciate the influence that their behavior can have as they do not yet fully appreciate their position of power. Once they grasp that interventions can be viewed as casting a wide net, SITs are better positioned to be deliberate about which activities to choose in light of their process and outcome goals for their supervision session.

5. List area(s) where your supervisee needs to grow. How did you attend to this in the session?

6. Note strengths of the supervisee demonstrated in this session.

These two questions combined attend to two training goals: First, SITs have an opportunity to consider whether supervision interventions as described in the answer to question 4 and the rationale given line up with how SITs perceive the learning needs of the supervisees. Some SITs quickly view these questions as integral to each other; others, however, demonstrate a lack of connection between their perception of the deficits of the supervisees and their own activities. The SITs supervisor can use these notes to point out the discrepancy and help SITs to link the two.

Second, by asking for both supervisee strengths and areas of weakness after each supervision session, the notes assist SITs to avoid the pitfall that has been documented in the supervision literature, that is, one-sided supervision that is either too glowing or too critical. The SITs supervisor must be sure that actual recorded sessions follow suit and reflect both supportive comments and challenging feedback delivered to the supervisee.

7. What are your goals for the next supervision?

This final question completes the cycle from pre-session goals to establishing goals for the next session.

These notes form an infrastructure for the supervision activity and they beckon SITs to be intentional. They are, however, only the skeleton of what SITs are attempting to assimilate during the first several weeks of providing supervision. Establishing appropriate boundaries, attending to the working alliance, understanding a host of interpersonal, intrapersonal, and cultural dynamics that are taking place in supervision, as well as learning new models and methods of supervision—all of these make the front end of training a dizzying learning experience. For this reason, supervision documentation is best kept simple so that SITs can experience some sense of clarity as they begin to grapple with the much more complex and nuanced aspects of the delivery of supervision.

Examples: The First Seven Weeks

Georgia

Even though SITs are new to supervision during their first few weeks of training, they can be encouraged to be more intentional. It is quite common, for example, to see an answer regarding pre-session goals to be vague. This was the case with Georgia, one new SIT, her goal was: “To discuss a client.” The context for such a goal may have been that discussions with her supervisee during the first couple of weeks had been devoted to introductions, general overview of practicum requirements, and the supervisee becoming acclimated to the site. Therefore, it was possible that the upcoming session may have been the first in which the supervisee will have had the experience of seeing a client. Still, such a goal will not serve SITs well for very long in the session. Georgia was encouraged to think about what she had learned about her supervisee during the first two sessions and what she might predict would be part of the discussion about a client. Because recordings are required of all counseling sessions, Georgia needed to think about how she was going to use the recording in supervision. Even though Georgia did not yet have all the models she needed to be sophisticated in her approach, she could rely on her counseling skills to make some assessment of her supervisee and translate the limited data into workable goals.

Amy

There are two relatively common issues for SITs during the first seven weeks of training: (a) blending questions three (about major topics) and four (about supervision interventions) when it is preferable that they remain distinct, or (b) conversely, having no connection between the two. When blending is occurring, it can be difficult to see much difference between the SIT description of major topics that emerged during supervision and intervention. For example, Amy, the supervisor-in-training, reported that her school counseling supervisee, Holly, was floundering at her position. “Holly seems to be wanting/needing a concrete direction and doesn’t feel she has gotten this. She discussed the topic of expectations and how she feels weighed down by expectations right now.” When Amy turned to interventions, she continued to talk about Holly’s anxiety: “I tried to get a better sense of where the pressure she is feeling is coming from. I asked her if she had gotten any direction from her site supervisor, and she said that she’s gotten more general advice, but not a lot of specific direction. She was fearful of asking for more concrete direction for fear of seeming like she doesn’t know what she’s doing.” Then Amy moved to her intervention: “I provided her with ways she could go about asking for help without giving the impression that she is unclear.” In this case, the SITs supervisor needs to help Amy (a) be clearer in her distinctions between topics covered in supervision and supervision interventions, and (b) step back and view her intervention as not only part of this story, but of the story of Holly’s learning overall. In other words, is this situation totally unique (which is rarely the case) or is being weighed down by expectations a feeling that is familiar to Holly? Might Amy’s supervision intervention address both the present situation and larger themes that affect Holly’s development as a counselor? Amy offered Holly advice. Is there any other way she might have proceeded to assist Holly? If advice is warranted, what is the supervisor’s-in-training plan for moving beyond advice? What criterion will she use to know when the time is right?

Jordon

A second common issue is having no connection between major events and interventions. Supervisor-in-training, Jordan, for example, reported as part of question three that “Taylor (the supervisee) said that she was ‘derailed’ in the session as she had come in with an intention to gather necessary information for a treatment plan for her client, M. Instead, she felt that she got caught up in M.’s story about her guilt toward her mother and her child.” Jordan’s answer to question four was as follows: “The teacher role was more prominent in this session as it was rich with skills that Taylor was employing. M. can be talkative in the session so Taylor will need to work on doing some tracking and following her story.” This vague (even convoluted) answer did not tell how Jordan was using the teacher role to implement an intervention. Furthermore, it was clear that Jordan was unable to make a clear link between his process goals for himself and outcome goals for his supervisee. Thus, the SITs’ supervisor was alerted to help Jordan understand what was the meaning of a supervision intervention. Much from Jordan’s description of major topics with his supervisee, Taylor, can be used as subject matter for this particular lesson on connecting major events and intervention.

Lucy

Questions five (about supervisee growth needs) and six (about noting demonstrated strengths) rarely trip up new SITs and usually guide SITs to appreciate strengths in even the weakest (in their judgment) supervisee and to recognize that even the strongest supervisees have supervision needs. The only issue that arises is if there is no clear link, or at best a fuzzy link, between what is reported in these answers and what came before. For example, supervisor-in-training, Lucy, reported the following interventions to question four: “We viewed the session that Barb, my supervisee, had with her client, Z., and stopped several times to look at her use of micro-skills and her internal process during the session. We explored her facial expression and tone in session that can sometimes be interpreted as businesslike or bored, and identified strategies for being able to be more relaxed in session.” However, Lucy’s answer to question five was: “We focused on Barb’s ability to build rapport in the session and to demonstrate empathy for her client. We discussed the importance of being authentic in session and identified nervousness as a barrier to her doing so.” First, this answer leans more toward interventions rather than underscoring areas for growth; second, although there is a connection between paralanguage discussed under interventions and displaying empathy; this is the first time in the notes that nervousness per se has been mentioned relative to this supervisee. This is worth noting to the SIT.

The Second Seven to Eight Weeks of Training

By week eight of training, SITs have been introduced to the major models of supervision as well as a host of other topics that impact clinical supervision (c.f., Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Though it is still very early in their development, we have found that they are ready to begin addressing integration of the three major categories of supervision models. More to the point, the training goal is for SITs to appreciate the theoretical assumptions they are making as they conduct supervision. Conversely, if their work is absent of such assumptions, week eight of training is not too early to start reflecting on this fact. What follows is a discussion of the several questions posed to the SITs for documentation of supervision in the second half of the semester.

This lengthy final question again asks SITs to think in terms of their new learning, this time as it relates to planning a subsequent supervision session. Further, it asks the supervisor-in-training to sift through possibilities and determine what is pertinent to their supervision with a particular supervisee. We are not asking for forced application; therefore, SITs are not asked to address all three model categories. Rather, the supervisor-in-training is asked to address deliberate and relevant application.

Examples: The Second Seven to Eight Weeks

Sam

There are many variables that make the second half of SITs education different. By now, if things have gone well, a satisfying and secure working relationship has been formed between the SIT and the supervisee. Further, the SIT has had an opportunity to study, discuss, and practice elements of models from the three major model categories. In what follows, supervisor-in-training, Sam, is documenting his first session using the new outline for notes. In his last (week seven) supervision notes, he described the growth needs of his supervisee, Annette, as follows: “Annette can grow by stretching her theoretical view and by trying to be more flexible in her conceptualization of her clients. Additionally, she can work on understanding her client’s perspective and exploring themes in seemingly vague messages.” Sam’s pre-session goals for this session with Annette were an extension of these observations.

Sam has chosen the Integrative Developmental Model ([IDM] Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010) as his developmental model and the Discrimination Model (Bernard, 1979, 1997) as his process model. Thus his answers to questions two (about developmental model) and three (about process model) are as follows:

In addition to these models, Sam described his person-centered theoretical approach in answer to question four (about using theory in session):

Sam’s development had been steady as he has learned more about supervision and its processes. He was also working with a strong supervisee who had made good progress during her practicum. That said, it was doubtful that his articulation of his working models would take center stage if not required as part of supervision documentation.

Jiao

Supervisor-in-training Jiao’s notes in working with a different supervisee afford the SITs supervisor an opportunity to give corrective feedback. Jiao was using Rigazio-DiGilio’s Systemic Cognitive-Developmental Supervision model (SCDS, Rigazio-DiGilio, 1995; Rigazio-DiGilio, Daniels, & Ivery, 1997) with her supervisee, Joseph. She described her observations as follows:

In this instance, although the intervention was appropriate, Jiao appeared not to have fully understood the SCDS model as what she described reflected a sensorimotor state, not a concrete/action oriented state (Rigazio-DiGilio, 1995). The SITs supervisor gave feedback that reflected this misunderstanding. Therefore, by requiring this kind of application of theory in documentation, the SITs supervisor is afforded an opportunity to track the supervisor-in-training’s understanding of various models.

An interesting part of Jiao’s supervision is her application of her theoretical orientation. Her understanding of another supervisee, Nora, from that lens is as follows:

It is clear in this instance that Jiao’s own theoretical worldview influences not only how she views what is happening in her supervisee’s counseling but also her supervisory interventions. As a SIT supervisor, it will be important to determine if the supervisee shares this psychodynamic view. If not, this would be an example of theoretical leakage. Said differently, had Jiao spent adequate time exploring how the supervisee conceptualizes the situation? Was Jiao’s insight additive or taking the supervisee in a different direction? Was this direction one that the supervisee embraces? Finally, even if the supervisee appreciated and grasped the explanation provided by Jiao, did the supervisee have the skills to implement this direction? These important aspects of SIT supervision are stimulated by the requirements of this type of documentation.

Sam

In addition to explaining their use of models and theory, SITs are now asked, in question five, to describe interventions within these parameters and to consider supervision models, psychotherapy theory, and supervisee development as they form goals for the next supervision session (question seven). For example, supervisor-in-training, Sam, noted that his supervisee, Annette, was struggling with interpersonal assessment and client conceptualization. He also stated that he wanted to increase his own use of the counselor and consultant roles in supervision. Finally, he mentioned the importance for him of a person-centered approach to supervision. His descriptions of his interventions for the current session and his goals for the next session are now integrated with these observations.

Interventions: There was a moment in our session when Annette was discussing her client and the frustrations her client was feeling because of her difficulty accessing resources. I took this opportunity to encourage Annette to explore the difference between her and her client in terms of the ability to access resources. This allowed Annette to gain a deeper understanding of the level of frustration her client was experiencing.

Goals: I will continue to be focused on what Annette brings to the supervision session. I want to continue to use the counselor and consultant roles to facilitate Annette’s deeper understanding of her clients and the therapeutic process. I would also like to briefly discuss counseling theory with Annette, and see how she connects theoretical perspective with her practice. Finally, I want to maintain my encouraging stance, while finding opportunities to challenge Annette appropriately.

Comparing Documentation Before and After Strategy Implementation

A perusal of supervision notes of competent SITs prior to initiating this change found that despite substantial growth in the ability to identify the developmental needs of the supervisee, SITs were far less likely to articulate these as reflecting the models they had studied. In other words, they were not placing their supervisees’ learning challenges in any larger conceptual framework. Instead, they remained event focused or focused on individual characteristics of a supervisee. To this extent, the pedagogical strategy described here has been a success by moving SITs toward more cognitive complexity in their supervision.

Despite this, this particular pedagogical strategy is far from complete. Without having documentation onerously lengthy, it is up to the SITs supervisor to be sure that a host of other supervision constructs, including a plethora of relationship variables, are not side-stepped in favor of conceptual reflection. A sophisticated view of models and theory would most certainly include all of the important elements of supervision; however, those new to training often need significant help in making these connections.

Conclusion

This article describes the pedagogical strategy of using supervision notes as a means to target one important aspect of supervisory competence. We have found several positive outcomes of this strategy:

Although the focus here has been on supervision models, this strategy could be used in a variety of ways to underscore other key supervision variables such as the relationship aspects of the working alliance, cultural sensitivity, tracking evaluation criteria, and so forth. In short, supervision notes can be used to tell many stories about the same journey.