authentically engaged learning through live supervision: a phenomenological study

CounselorEducation&Supervision•March2014•Volume53 19

© 2014 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 11/28/12Revised 08/01/13

Accepted 08/05/13DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00046.x

Authentically Engaged Learning Through Live Supervision: A Phenomenological Study

StevenMoody,KatieKostohryz,andLinwoodVereen

Thisphenomenologicalstudyexploredtheexperientiallearningof5master’s-levelcounseling students undergoing live supervision in a group techniques course. Multiple themes were identified to provide a textural-structural description of how students authentically engaged in the learning process. Implications for counselor education and directions for future research are presented.

Keywords: experiential learning, live supervision, group counseling, counselor training

Continued study of the learning processes of counseling students is paramount within counselor education.Auxier,Hughes, andKline (2003)noted thatinformed dialogue surrounding the learning processes integral to counselor identity development can occur only when there is exploratory research in this area. Gibson, Dollarhide, and Moss (2010) noted that research into counselor professional identity can provide counselor educators and supervisors with insight when creating learning interventions that promote counselor develop-ment. One such intervention is live supervision in which direct observation is coupled with communication between the supervisor and the supervisee dur-ing the session (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Bernard and Goodyear (2014) concluded that live supervision provides an opportunity for counselors to connect personal beliefs and theoretical concepts with practice. In addition, it creates a forum in which individuals learning to become group leaders can draw from the knowledge of a supervisor and integrate this with their personal experiences and beliefs. The experiential learning that is created through live supervision is an avenue to foster counselor identity development.

Learning experientially can be an integral component in counselor de-velopmentandpersonal transformation.SkovholtandRonnestad(1992)identifiedindividuation,self-reflection,theuseofexternalfeedback,andthe integration of personal and professional schema as critical themes in counselordevelopment.AccordingtoAuxieretal.(2003),theaddedele-ment of addressing emotional reactions and integrating those reactions into counseling behaviors is important for student progression. The supervisor may work to create an environment of personal engagement as well as col-laboration with other students.

Steven Moody, Department of Counseling, Adult and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University; Katie Kostohryz, Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park; Linwood Vereen, De-partment of Counseling, Idaho State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven Moody, Department of Counseling, Adult and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University, Gabel Hall 201C, DeKalb, IL 60115-2828 (e-mail: [email protected]).

ACACEAS_v53_n1_0314TEXT.indd 19 2/4/2014 8:49:00 AM

20 CounselorEducation&Supervision•March2014•Volume53

When counselor educators facilitate live supervision with multiple students, group dynamics emerge, placing counselor educators in a unique position to foster a supportive group environment. The Council for Accreditation of CounselingandRelatedEducationalPrograms(CACREP;2009)Standardshighlight four key principles that help beginning counselors to understand group dynamics. They include group process, an understanding of member roles, knowledge of developmental theories, and therapeutic factors of group work.GroupconceptssuchasYalomandLeszcz’s(2005)therapeuticfactorsofgroupworkandTuckman’s(1965)classicalmodelofgroupdevelopmentprovide insight for counselor educators regarding how to model effective group leader interventions. The interplay of individual learning constructs and group leader development within the lived experience of the students lends itselftostudyingtheprocessesthatunfoldthroughlivesupervision.Howeachstudent integrates learning constructs with personal beliefs during live supervi-sion is an important area of evaluation.

Bernard and Goodyear (2014) asserted that evaluation was a defining aspect of the supervisory process. Given the impact that evaluation has on the supervisory relationship and the supervisee’s overall development, the supervisor should critically examine the timing and content of the evalua-tion and feedback provided. Bernard and Goodyear suggested that in order for supervisors to provide an optimal learning environment, live supervision should be balanced across the dimensions of directing versus depending, cognitive clarification versus emotional encouragement, confronting versus encouraging, didactic-distant versus emotionally involved, joining versus challenging, and providing direction versus resignation. This guideline is consistent with the guidelines for constructivist-developmental learning theory encouraging intrapersonal awareness (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2010).

Although literature exists that explores counselor identity development withinthecontextofthelearner(Auxieretal.,2003;Gibsonetal.,2010),there are additional needs to determine what elements in live supervision facilitate integrating the self into the learning process. No studies were found that addressed the factors contributing to student engagement in an experiential learning opportunity to better understand the processes students undergo as they integrate themselves as individual learners into their work as group leaders. The current study attempted to uncover the dynamics of student engagement in the learning process by investigating the experiences of five master’s-level students as they facilitated and observed small group sessions in their group techniques course. To increase the understanding of how master’s-level students experience live supervision and engage in the experiential learning process, we posed the following question: What is the experience of learning group leadership constructs and personally integrating this knowledge throughout live supervision?

Method

A qualitative research methodology was used to explore how students engage in this learning environment. Luttrell (2010) defined qualitative research as



“an effort to highlight the meanings people make and the actions they take, and to offer interpretations for how and why” (p. 1). To facilitate an under-standing of the students’ life worlds as they engaged in learning through live supervision,weusedaphenomenologicalapproach(Hays&Wood,2011;Wertz,2005)overthecourseofonesemesterwithparticipantsenrolledinagrouptechniquescoursethatmettherequirementsoftheCACREP(2009)Standards. Following institutional review board approval, students in the group techniques course were invited to participate in the study.

Context

The study was conducted within the context of a single group techniques course.Theclasswasdesignedtohaveadidacticformatduringthefirst8weeks of the semester and an experiential learning portion during the second 8weeksofthesemester.Theexperientiallearningcomponentconsistedoffacilitating and observing groups with the use of a two-way mirror (look-ing glass) with live supervision. The groups consisted of either members from an undergraduate wellness course or classmates from the same group techniques course. The groups were run in two time slots with each group being cofacilitated by the master’s students. This allowed the counselors-in-training to observe the groups behind the two-way mirror during the time slot that they were not cofacilitating. Multiple doctoral students provided supervision for the various groups being run. This format was not foreign to the students given that the counseling department in which the students were enrolled provided multiple experiential learning opportunities that were coupled with live supervision in a similar format.

Participants

The sample consisted of four women and one man in their 2nd and final year of their program. The first author made an announcement in a group techniques course initially asking for participants at the beginning of the semester. No compensation was provided to any potential volunteers. The study was not discussed during class because one of the authors (third author) was the instructor of record for the class and was blinded to par-ticipants until after grades were submitted at the end of the semester. Five of 22 individuals in the class e-mailed the first author to inform him that they would be willing to participate. The participants were contacted, and initial interviews were scheduled upon completion of the informed consent form. Participants were selected because they had direct experience with the phenomenon under study. Additionally, because grounding the data in the experience is paramount in phenomenology (Wertz, 2005), theseparticipants were solicited because they would be directly involved with live supervision during the course of the research study.

Theparticipantshadcompletedatleast32credithours,includingcourseworkinbasiccounselingskills;hadcompletedaclinicalpracticum;andwerecurrently enrolled in a clinical internship. Three participants were complet-ing their degrees in clinical mental health counseling, and the other two



studentswerecompleting specializations inmarriage, couple, and familycounseling. Three of the participants cofacilitated the counseling groups in which members were enrolled in an undergraduate wellness course, and the remaining two participants cofacilitated the process groups in which master’s-level counselors-in-training served as group members.

Data Collection and Analysis

Key phenomenological elements were maintained throughout data collec-tion and analysis. The key elements included suspending scientific assump-tions regarding the phenomenon, gaining access to the lived experience through interviews, analyzing themeaninggiven to thephenomenonbyeach participant, and identifying basic components that are general across the phenomenon (Wertz, 2005). We met initially to bracket personal as-sumptions and biases that might be relevant to the research project and to develop initial questions. The primary bias that we identified was the con-sistent importance placed on experiential learning across the curriculum. Thisisevidentinthegrouptechniquescourse,whichincludedan8-weekexperiential learning component.

The first and second authors conducted two rounds of interviews and a focus group with the participants. The participants were divided between the first and second authors for the two rounds of interviews, and the focus group involved all the participants and the first two authors. The first round involved three questions: (a) “What was your experience of receiving super-visoryfeedback?”(b)“Whatareyourperceptionsofthereflectiveprocesswhile learning experientially with supervision?” and (c) “What aspects of experiential learning fostered your development, if any, as a counselor?” We clustered invariant meaning units (Hays & Wood, 2011) to describetextures of the experience. Next, we coded the interviews individually via horizontalizationandthencollectivelycomparedresultsfromtheseparatecoding activities and reviewed personal memos.

On the basis of the textural description from the first round of interviews, the second round questioning further explored critical incidents that prompted movementinandoutofthereflectiveprocess,thedifferencesbetweenob-servation and action during live supervision, and the changing perceptions of the usefulness of peer and supervisory interactions. The questions for the second round of interviews focused on the shift in experience across the live supervision sessions, relational aspects important to participants, dynamics involvedinandoutofthereflectiveprocess,andhowemotionsinfluencedthe process. The second round questions included the following: (a) “As you reflectback,whathasoccurredasyoucontinuedinyourexperienceduringthe group techniques class?” (b) “What was your experience of moving in and outofthereflectiveprocess?”(c)“Weretherecriticalpointsorincidentsthatpromptedthisprocess?Didthisshiftacrossthe8-weekprocess?”(d)“Tellmeabout the relationship between what was observed and learned behind the glass and your application of group leadership,” (e) “In what ways did you seek feedback from people behind the glass?” and (f) “Was there an interac-



tionofemotionswiththereflectiveprocess,and,ifso,couldyoudescribe?”Uponcompletionof the secondroundof interviews,depthwasadded

to the textural description, and we began to create a structural description (Hays&Wood,2011)byseekingvariationsinexperience.Throughoutthesecond round of coding, we continued to write memos and come together to establish a consensus about the findings. In establishing the textural-structural description,weusedKolb’s(1984)experientiallearningmodelasaheuris-tic guide to understand engagement in relation to established experiential learningconstructs.Wertz(2005)notedthataresearchermaydeliberatelyabandon the epoche in an effort to reveal aspects of the material of study.

Thefocusgroupprovidedanopportunityfortheparticipantstoreflecton the textural-structural description that we developed. Additionally, we were interested in further clarifying how subjective and objective feedback affected the experience and expanding the discussion regarding engage-ment in the live supervision experience. The focus group questions included the following: (a) “What times were subjective and objective feedback most helpful (across the semester and behind the glass vs. in front of the glass)?” and (b) “What times were you most engaged and then least engaged in the process, and what factors contributed to those times?” The focus group pro-vided confirmatory remarks and added to the richness of the data compiled during the initial interviews.

Strategies for Trustworthiness

Multiple techniques were used to increase the trustworthiness of the study. Maxwell (2010) described trustworthiness as the degree that one can rely on the concepts and conclusions drawn from a study. The participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon under study may be influenced by theadditional reflection thatoccurredduring the interviews.Toaddress thethreats to trustworthiness, we were intensely involved by completing memos throughout the project and using triangulation by individually coding the interviews and then comparing conclusions drawn and assessing for per-sonal biases captured in the memos. The focus group confirmed that the final textural-structural description that we developed was consistent with all the participants’ experiences. Special attention was paid to one of the participant’s explanations of a lack of engagement in the process under study and how this cross-case analysis could inform the study. Further elabo-ration on the subject was achieved through specific questioning about the subjective and objective nature of the feedback and at what times students felt most engaged. The final results and concept map were presented to the participants, and the themes identified for the experience were confirmed.

Results

The textural-structural description for experiential learning in group work was best represented by the theme critical subjective learning, which represented an ideal, engaged learning experience. The final description was supported by the themes of engagement in the experience, group engagement, implementation



of the self, and facilitation of feedback. These themes are viewed in the context of each individual’s learning environment through the live supervision portion of a group counseling techniques course. The themes were distinct, interact-ing constructs that informed how the participants perceived their learning. Concepts were supported by the participants throughout the interviews, and salient excerpts and examples are given in each of the subsequent sections.

Engagement in the Experience

Engaging in the experience encompassed the time spent during live supervi-sionandothertimesoutsidetheclassperiodwhenreflectioncouldoccur.The live supervision consisted of both watching from behind and performing in front of the glass. Students shared how they were able to authentically en-gage in the experience and how they were able to integrate the self into what had been learned previously in the didactic portion of class. The following example captures Participant 1’s experiences of engaging in the experience:

I think when I read the book, it’s just, like . . . I want to say black and white. It is—but it’s just, like, different shades of gray . . . it can go in between here. When I’m actually seeing and doing it, though, it really adds color . . . seems like a really creative or almost magical way of looking at it but it does add the color to it, adds the realness, it adds the humanity to it.

This example highlights the impact that engaging in a live experiential ex-ercise can have in the depth of learning that is created. Participant 2 further described an integration of emotion into the process:

In learning it’s more intellectual and so it’s just like, you’re thinking about things and, um, for me like when I’m in a class, it’s more about what I’m thinking about. Whereas when you’re watching people, it’s more of, you know, how are they feeling? Or what affect might they be having? And that might impact what I’m experiencing.

The emotional impact articulated by this participant varied depending on his or her experience in front of or behind the glass. Participants reported a sense of secondary anxiety when behind the glass that enhanced their abil-ity to engage in the learning process. Behind the glass, supervisors offered feedback while the group was in session, providing an opportunity for mul-tiple perspectives to be explored. A safety net of being supported behind the glass facilitated vicarious learning in this environment. Participants reported that when engaging in discussions behind the glass, they were more likely to integrate feedback the following week when leading group. The experience of being behind the glass was reported to be easier because there was less pressure because of participants’ level of engagement and interaction with peers and the supervisor in comparison with group members.

Group Engagement

Theparticipantsrecognizedthatfactors,includingtrustwithinthegroup,consistency of supervision, and perceived credibility of those with whom they worked,influencedthelevelofgroupengagement.Consistencyincreased



the trust between participants and promoted a sense of shared experience. Although the specific experiences of group leaders varied, consistency in supervision and relationships with peers and supervisors were evident. This theme was a key factor in the supervisory groups coming together and pro-moting an environment whereby a student could gain trust in others and relate in an authentic way. The type of group participants led also affected their perception of the usefulness of bringing the self into the experience and their ability to accomplish this. The type of group affected the elements of responsibility and genuineness felt by the individual when leading a group and when observing from behind the glass. A clear distinction was evident when the group leaders perceived the group as being an authentic encoun-ter as opposed to a role-playing exercise with cohort members. Although individuals practicing their leadership skills varied, students behind the glass were able to take away that their processes were much the same as those of the group leaders being observed. Participant 1 reported, “There was a lot of parallel processing going and, I mean, we were a group maybe avoiding our own personal things just as much as they were.”

Over time, students began to identify member roles and, while behind the glass, identified with feelings of the group leader in addition to pro-cessing how they might or might not have interacted in a similar situation. Participant3reported,“Eventhoughtheyweren’tinthesameroom,theywere as close as they could be and I think they can see the shifts and they can feel, you know, feel that energy where a tape is harder.” This comment illustrates how participating in live supervision through observation helped to facilitate students’ integration of group leadership constructs.

Implementation of the Self

Just as engagement in the experience and group engagement were important to the learning process, the extent to which students brought themselves into the learning experience affected the overall process. This can be further explained by Participant 2’s explanation:

I think it kind of goes back to, um, just being your authentic self. Because I think, like, when you’re learning, or when I’m learning, I might kind of remove myself from what I might do. Or it’s just like, I’ve got to learn these things, you know, this is what a group is,it’salittlebitmoreconcrete.Um,butthenintheexperience,Ican’t—it’sharderforme to remove myself from it, like, I’m fully there.

This participant’s comment demonstrates the value of individually exploring authenticity within the experience as opposed to being removed from the learningprocess.Participantsrecognizedthatimplementingtheselfconsistedof receiving feedback, experiencing a range of emotions, taking risks, being vulnerable, being invested, having confidence, and not being defensive.

A variety of emotions were described by participants when leading group. Some reported that a certain level of anxiety was necessary for growth;however, too much could be debilitating. Students also reported that this productive level of anxiety was exciting. To further explain experiencing the



relationship between these emotions, Participant 4 reported, “I think that that scared feeling then turned into excitement . . . fear and excitement are close. And so parts of it changed to where it was more of an excitement to being able to actually do it.” On the other hand, those who were leading a group with members made up of peers from their cohort did not feel that an appropriate level of anxiety was present to effectively implement new skills. Participant3providedanexampleofhowtheabsenceofemotioninhibitedhis or her learning: “That anxiety piece is missing. . . . The 1st week was five or six students that you’ve never seen before and wanting to be prepared and, um, just that’s missing.” Additionally, this participant reported, “The situation that I’m in isn’t authentic.”

Behind the glass, there was safety in exploring and implementing the self while experiencing anxiety to a lesser degree. As the group engagement changed,theparticipants’willingnesstoriskandbevulnerablewasinflu-enced. Motivation and risk taking were lower when participants’ perceived level of the usefulness of the group was lower. Additionally, vulnerability was reported to be higher in group sessions than in individual sessions because live supervision exposed students to supervision across the entire group ses-sion as opposed to showing only portions of their work during supervision atalaterdate.Participant5reportedontheinfluenceofemotionandtrustwhen implementing the self:

It can be tapping into those insecurities. I mean it can be somewhat nerve-wracking to know that someone’s watching. . . . On the other hand, it’s kind of comforting to know that somebody’s back there and so if something did go terribly wrong, you’re not, we’re not completely on your own.

Participants described a variety of personal and professional experiences thatinfluencedtheirabilitytoengageinthelearningexperience.Theseex-periencesallowedstudentstimetopauseandreflectontheirlearning.Oneparticipant coined the term “pause button” to describe an event in his or her personalorprofessionallifethattriggeredareflectionofgroupexperience.Thisparticipantdescribedreflectionasaprocessofcomingtotermswithwhathad occurred in session. The student worked to resolve internal dissonance and, once this occurred, would push a pause button and leave the processing until the following week’s group. The student’s personal, work, and school experiences would often create a situation in which the student would take thepausebuttonoffandfurtherreflectontheexperience.Iftheseoutsideinfluences did not spark something significant throughout the week, theparticipant would keep the pause button on until it was time to prepare to lead group the next week.

Facilitation of Feedback

The participants shared their experiences in the process of receiving and facilitating feedback in group learning. The following example captures Participant2’sexperiencesofreflectionasitrelatestolearning:



It’s almost like a threefold process. Like, you have the learning then you have the experi-encewhichkindofsolidifiestheskillsanddifferentthingsmore,andthenthereflectionprocess kind of even further does that.

Participants identified levels of feedback, quality of relationship, timing, and type of feedback as important variables. Different levels of feedback with peers, cofacilitators, and supervisors were present in this study. The relationship with each of the different players in live supervision was critical to exploring the way feedback passed through the individual’s developing internal filter. Feedback was more likely to go through the filter if the person providing the feedback had perceived credibility, consistency in experience, andsimilartheoreticalorientations.Participant5shared,

The more I hear feedback, the easier it gets. . . . You have to learn how to filter some of that information. . . . It was almost like you were learning how to learn almost. It was like learning how to use what you needed to learn.

Participants further discussed their level of confidence leading a group. Participant5reported,“IgrewinconfidenceasIlearnednewthings.”Thesame participant shared his or her experience of how the relationship af-fected his or her confidence: “I’m afraid to look stupid . . . to the people behind the glass. . . . As my confidence grew and as my trust grew in them, youknow,itgotalittleeasier.”Thisreflectstheimpactanddynamicsthatthegroup engagement had on the implementation of the self in the process. An additional level of credibility was present when the feedback was consistent.

As noted previously, there were two different experiences of receiving feedback, namely, behind the glass and in front of the glass. It was found that the timing of feedback was important when facilitating feedback. Feedback given immediately after leading a group was reported to enhance learning. Participants reported that subjective and objective types of feed-back were used to enhance their learning. Objective feedback was found to be more helpful initially when leading a group, and then more subjective feedback was welcomed as confidence increased. Additionally, participants reported that it was easier to be objective when behind the glass, but their subjective responses were missing because they were partially removed from the direct experience. During times when emotions were perceived to be higher than normal, subjective feedback was difficult to comprehend and integrate.Participant1notedthat“I’mrightstillinthatmoment[when]some of those emotions and my feelings are really fresh and so I’m able to really, um, gain a richer understanding of what was going on for myself.” The feedback provided a critical medium in which group engagement and personal integration could either mature or stagnate. In instances in which an optimal learning environment was created, a significant depth to the subjective learning was evident to the participants.

Critical Subjective Learning

Critical subjective learning represents the composite textural-structural description identified in this research endeavor. The final synthesis of data



addressed the experience of learning group leadership constructs and the personal integration of this knowledge during live supervision. All other concepts were embodied in this one central theme of experience. Critical subjective learning was the experiential apex that was achieved through the process of engaging in the experience, engaging in the group, implement-ing the self, and facilitating feedback within the context of learning to be agroupleaderwiththeassistanceoflivesupervision.Reachingapointofcritical subjective learning was not guaranteed and varied for participants on the basis of successful group engagement and implementation of the self. Thiswascharacterizedbythetypeandtimingoffeedbackaswellasbythecontext of the specific group leadership experience. The critical subjective learning process is presented in Figure 1.

Conceptualizationofthisprocesswasachievedbyvisualizingthegroupengagement as being synonymous with the thickness of the looking glass where live supervision was performed. At the beginning of the live supervi-sion experience, the looking glass was perceived to be relatively thick with a great distance between the experience and the participants learning to become group leaders. A thick looking glass at the beginning of the live supervision relationship was indicative of participants’ anxiety about becoming involved, maintaining emotional distance from the group, and preferring objective rather than subjective feedback. For those instances in which critical subjective learning emerged, the thickness of the looking

FIGURe 1

Critical Subjective learning Process

Experience (watch and perform)

Feedback/Reflection

Group Engagement Implementation of the Self

Critical Subjective Learning

Looking Glass Internal Filter



glass was reduced throughout the process of learning experientially and as relational qualities developed. What was initially identified as fear shifted to excitement as individuals began to personally relate to the experience, and student preferences progressed toward subjective feedback. As this way of relating to others shifted, the element of integrating oneself into the learning process shifted.

Implementing the self into the experience varied, and the participants’ internal filters continually changed as they found ways of using the experi-ence for learning. Originally, the internal filter was seen to be diffuse and not conducive to the integration of feedback. The various forms of feedback from the supervisor and peers heightened anxieties as opposed to resolving conflictforthestudent.Asconfidencegrew,thefilterbecamemorerefinedand the student became more integrated into the process of leading groups. The integration of the self, as well as engagement in the experience, was tied to the context and feedback received.

The perceived consistency and credibility in the peer and supervisory relationships were found to be paramount in the progression toward criti-cal subjective learning. A learning environment that facilitated students’ implementation of the self and engagement in the experience nurtured the learning of a process (as opposed to a need to prove one’s knowledge), self-directed learning among the multiple perspectives being presented, and a general letting go of barriers that prohibited the implementation of the self into the learning process.

Discussion

For the participants in this study, the critical subjective learning experi-ence was central to the process of learning to lead groups. The emergent phenomenological description outlines the process of engaging in learning and frames the themes of engagement in the experience, group engage-ment, implementation of the self, and facilitation of feedback. The results evidence that preparation for a career in professional counseling requires introspection, investment, and engagement, thereby creating the critical subjective learning required. These findings are consistent with research by McAuliffe and Eriksen (2010), who suggested that from a constructivist perspectiveandthroughreflectionandengagement,counseloreducatorscan encourage intrapersonal awareness and facilitate intentional behavioral change. Furthermore, the emergent themes can be a blueprint to facilitate the transformative process that is highlighted in constructivist pedagogy through experiential engagement (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2010).

The metaphor of the looking glass provides a contextual framework for students’ lived experience of training to be a group counselor. Through engaged and interactive live supervision behind the glass, students have op-portunitiestogaininsight,increaseconceptualizationofgroupleadershipconstructs,andexperiencereflectivepracticethroughalivedsupervisionexperience. In front of the glass and in the clinical training experience, students are able to put theory into action, develop skill, and implement



perceived critical aspects of training in a safe environment. The clinical internship experience provides unique individual and group forums to additionally focus on counselor identity development and personal trans-formation and to frame development through experience (Auxier et al., 2003;Bernard&Goodyear,2014;Gibsonetal.,2010;Skovholt&Ronnestad,1992). Participants described that their learning was significantly affected when all individuals actively engaged in the process; thus, educators/su-pervisors and peers played an equally important role in facilitating critical subjective learning for the individuals learning to be group leaders. There are multiple implications related to the process of teaching and learning group work through a live supervision model.

Engendering the transformative impact of learning experientially requires cognitiveengagementandreflection,emotionalactivation,andashiftfrombeing a passive learner to being an active engager (Auxier et al., 2003;Skovholt&Ronnestad,1992).Asexemplifiedbytheparticipants,optimallearning occurred when anxiety shifted to excitement. Specifically, what began as anxiety later emerged as excitement for those who embraced the critical subjective learning experience compared with those who did not. The presence of anxiety for participants in the current study mirrors Auxier etal.’s(2003)findingsrelatedtotheemergenceofanxietyinexperientiallearning activities. Given the prevalence of anxiety, it is critical that counselor educators foster an environment that is safe, approachable, and discussion oriented.Theuseofreflectingteamswithinsupervisioncanassisttheedu-cator in the process of providing space and opportunity for the counselor-in-training to navigate anxiety that may emerge through the transformative process of development. As Bernard and Goodyear (2014) suggested, such elementscanbeoptimizedthroughlivesupervisionandtheuseofreflectingteams, thereby promoting student engagement. The implications of doing so are important to the development of competent professional counselors because their emotional experience must shift across time from anxiety to excitement to enhance the integration of group leadership skills.

Participants also highlighted how the timing and format of feedback affected theirlearning.Receivingfeedbackverballyinthemomentoflivesupervisionand then subsequently in written form provided prolonged engagement on multiple levels. First, the supervisor and student had multiple interactions, which increased the student’s ability to gain insight about his or her group skill development. In addition, written feedback provided by the counselor educator could specifically focus on insight and skill development, thus pro-vidinganadditionalopportunityforreflectionandtheuseofapausebutton.As described by the participants, the multiple points of feedback proved to be helpful to the development of insight and intrapersonal awareness. Second, participants experienced prolonged engagement with the feedback itself, whichincreasedreflectionandemotionalimpact.Therefore,counseloreduca-tors should work to ensure consistent opportunity for consistent engagement with feedback. These factors emerged from the timing of the feedback and contributed to increased integration and skill development.



Harnessing the benefit of prolonged engagement requires counseloreducators to create multiple opportunities for students to interact with the feedback about their group leadership skill development. Examples of enhancing prolonged interaction with the feedback include integrating re-flectiveactivities,providingbothverbalandwrittenfeedback,encouragingstudents to consider how their clinical experience with individual clients is consistent with or different from their experience in group settings, and explicitlyasking students to reflectonandrespond to the feedbackpro-vided in internship supervision. Being intentional in class structuring and internshipsupervisiondeliverywillmaximizestudents’ learningofgroupleadership skills.

InSkovholtandRonnestad’s(1992)explorationofcounselordevelopment,one critical domain identified was the movement from received knowledge toward constructed knowledge. Prolonged engagement with the supervision feedback demands that students experience the learning and integrate it into their professional selves. Another fundamental method for shifting toward constructedknowledgeistopersonalizethelearningprocess,whichcanbeaccomplished in multiple supervisory formats to encourage student-directed learning. Participants in the current study articulated that their emotional activation contributed to enhanced learning and skill development. There-fore, supervisors must develop skills in personalizing the experience forthe student whether behind the glass or in a group or individual form of supervision. Because the emotions and subjective nature of being in the experience did not translate to participants watching, supervisors must explicitlyusedialogueandreflectiontoengagestudentsbehindtheglasson an emotional and cognitive level. This process can also evolve across othermethodsofsupervision,suchasthroughtheuseofareflectingteamor triadic supervision.

The themes demand that counselor educators and supervisors become activelyinvestedintheirownprocessofreflectionandengagementaboutgroup leadership skill development. Intentionality in creating course and supervision experiences will provide a context for the construction of knowl-edge that shifts students from a passive orientation to an active orientation. Focusing on prolonged engagement with feedback, emotional activation, and supportiveexperienceswillencouragestudentstosynthesizetheirlearningand augment their group leadership skills.

Limitations

Qualitative inquiry inherently engenders a conversation of the relevance of the body of work to other counselor educators. With five participants in the currentstudy,reflectionabouthowwelltheemergentphenomenologicaldescription fits for one’s unique context is necessary. A larger number of par-ticipants could have served to increase the richness and depth of experience.

Other limitations include researcher bias and the time-limited nature of the study. As authors of this study, we have a strong belief that experiential learning and live supervision are valued learning methods. One of the authors



taught the group techniques course during this research study. Because of this overlap, the individual teaching the course did not participate in the interview process and was blinded to the study participants until after course grades were completed. The time-limited nature of the study is relevant be-cause the participants were interviewed about their learning process across one academic semester. Group leadership skill development transcends the context of an academic term, so the phenomena of inquiry could be missing elementsthathappenedoutsidethe8weeksoflivesupervision.Consider-inghowprolongingthelivesupervisionexperiencebeyond8weekscouldaffect the meaning making of the study’s conclusions.

Future Research

The current study provides a description about the lived experience of students learning to be group leaders as they engage in live supervision. Future research could expand on the framework identified in the current study by exploring more specifically the role of prolonged engagement of feedback and reciprocal feedback between the supervisor and supervisee. These constructs emerged as quite meaningful—one for its contribution to critical subjective learning, the other because it emerged as a vital element of one particular participant’s process of learning experientially—and, thus, warrant further examination.

Expanding the length of time that students receive live supervision would allow researchers to further study the impact of experientially learning to be a group leader. Because participants in this study described the impact of group engagement and engagement in the experience, it would be worth-while to consider how learning expanded or plateaued across a longer time line of exposure to live supervision and feedback.

Finally, a quantitative study could explore how well the current theory fits withstudentsacrossvariousmaster’sprograms.Researchcouldalsoexploreif there are group differences in leadership skill development between stu-dents receiving live supervision compared with those who do not receive live supervision. Measuring emotional regulation and activation across the supervision experience could also provide quantitative data to triangulate the conclusions determined in this qualitative study.

ReferencesAuxier,C.R.,Hughes,F.R.,&Kline,W.B. (2003). Identitydevelopment in counselors-in-

training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43,25–38.Bernard,J.M.,&Goodyear,R.K.(2014).Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5thed.).Boston,

MA: Pearson.Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009

CACREP accreditation manual and application.Alexandria,VA:Author.Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010). Professional identity development:

A grounded theory of transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50,21–38.

Hays,D.G.,&Wood,C.(2011).Infusingqualitativetraditionsincounselingresearchdesign.Journal of Counseling & Development, 89,288–295.

Kolb,D.A.(1984).Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Engle-woodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.



Luttrell, W. (Ed.). (2010). Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Maxwell,J.A.(2010).Validity:Howmightitbewrong?InW.Luttrell(Ed.),Qualitative educa-tional research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice(pp.279–287).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

McAuliffe, G. J., & Eriksen, K. P. (2010). Handbook of counselor preparation: Constructivist, devel-opmental, and experiential approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Skovholt,T.M.,&Ronnestad,M.H.(1992).Themesintherapistandcounselordevelopment.Journal of Counseling & Development, 70,505–515.

Tuckman,B.(1965).Developmentalsequenceinsmallgroups.Psychological Bulletin, 63,384–399.Wertz,F.J.(2005).Phenomenologicalresearchmethodsforcounselingpsychology.Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 52, 167–177.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167Yalom,I.D.,&Leszcz,M.(2005).The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New

York, NY: Basic Books.


authentically engaged learning through live supervision: a phenomenological study

Documents