UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Toward an understanding of the role functions of the supervisory conference in theological field education Lehtinen, Jean Marie 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 L43.pdf [ 5.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055824.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055824-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055824-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055824-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055824-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055824-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055824-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055824-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055824.ris

Full Text

TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE FUNCTIONS OF THE SUPERVISORY CONFERENCE IN THEOLOGICAL FIELD EDUCATION by J E A N M A R I E L E H T I N E N A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Administrative, Adult and Higher Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A September 1987 ® Jean Marie Lehtinen, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Administrative, Adult and Higher Education The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: September 1987 ABSTRACT Throughout the history of theological education there have been many articles written about field education and the need for effective supervision, but few works describe research on the role functions of the supervisory conference. Studies have suggested that examining the supervisory process is complex and not easily researched. For accreditation, the Association of Theological Schools requires field education and supervision as an integral part of the Master of Divinity degree. The purpose of this study was to further the understanding of supervision from the perspectives of supervisors and students engaged in the process of theological field education. An exploratory field research methodology was used. Previous research in theological field education supervision proved inadequate for hypotheses testing. The specific purpose of the study was to search for answers to two questions. First, how do supervisors and students describe the role functions of the supervisory conference? And second, what are the relationships between the role functions of the supervisory conference and conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, personality type, age, gender, educational level, and experience? Interviews of supervisors and students were the source of data for the study. The interviews included asking demographic information, asking the role functions of the supervisory conference, and administering four instruments: the Paragraph Completion Test, the Preactive Behavior Instrument, the Supervisory Beliefs Inventory, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The role functions were content ii analyzed and correlated with age, gender, experience, educational level, conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality types. Analyses were performed on the aggregated groups of supervisors and students, and on nine individual supervisor/student pairs. The results of the study indicated general agreement between the field education supervisors and their students in understanding the role functions of the supervisory conference. The mean scores on conceptual level for supervisors and students were not significantly different. Supervisors rated themselves higher in constructive openness than their students. Students estimated their supervisors to be more directive than the supervisors believed themselves to be. The personality types of supervisors and students were similar on the perceiving and judging preferences. When the data were examined by supervisor/student pairs, a more precise description of the supervisory interaction became apparent. For example, the effects of different conceptual levels and personality types became evident in the supervisory relationship. This finding suggests that future research in supervision should use individual pairs instead of aggregated groups. Two important role function themes mentioned least often by students were "relating of religious traditions and values to the human and social needs which have been identified in the ministry placement" and the "linking of theology with the practice of ministry." These two themes represent key strategies for those preparing for future ministry, and should play an integral part in field education. iii This study has raised several questions for future research: Is the supervisor the key element in the learning of the student? Or is the context of field education the key to learning? What does the student learn from the supervisory conference and the field placement? And finally, is the articulation of the supervisor's own theology and experience an essential componet in the supervisory process, and therefore, a component in supervisor training programs? iv T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S Abstract ii List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Acknowledgement ix Chapter I. Introduction 1 A . Purpose and Research Questions 5 B. Definition of Terms 6 C. Justification of Study 7 D. Organization of the Thesis 8 Chapter II. Review of the Literature 9 A . Historical Overview of Theological Field Education 9 B . Research in Differing Perceptions of Supervision 12 C. Four Influences on Supervision 14 1. Conceptual Level 14 2. Constructive Openness 18 3. Orientation to Supervision 20 4. Personality Type ( 23 D. Theological Field Education Supervision 28 E . Summary of Literature Review 32 Chapter III. Research Design 35 A . Description of Sample 35 B. Data Sources and Collection 37 1. Description of Interviews 37 2. Description of Instruments 38 3. Effectiveness of Supervisors 41 4. DependentJndependent Variables 42 5. Confidentiality 42 C. Analysis of Data 42 D. Design Limitations 45 Chapter IV. Findings 47 A . Role Function Themes Describing Supervision 47 B. Individual Characteristics Influencing Supervision 52 1. Conceptual Level 52 2. Constructive Openness 54 3. Orientation to Supervision 55 4. Personality Type 56 C. Demographic and Individual Characteristics Correlations 59 D. Different vs. Same Incidents 68 E. Effectiveness of Supervisors 81 F . The Most Important Functions of Supervision 82 G. Summary of Findings 83 v Chapter V . Conclusions 87 A. Conclusions • 87 B. Limitations of the study 96 C. Implications and Recommendations 98 Chapter V I . References 102 Appendix A : Certificate of Approval I l l Appendix B: Interview Schedules 112 Appendix C: Instruments 116 Appendix D: Categories for Content Analysis 127 vi List of Tables Table 1: Behavioral Properties of Conceptual Levels 16 Table 2: Four Preferences of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 24 Table 3: Descriptions of the Sixteen M B T I Types 26 Table 4: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample 36 Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges of Individual Characteristics 53 Table 6: Description and Frequency of Myers-Briggs Personality Types 57 Table 7: Myers-Briggs Personality Process Preferences 58 Table 8: Correlations of Themes and Demographic Characteristics 60 Table 9: Correlations of Themes with Individual Characteristics 63 Table 10: Interview Events as Perceived by Supervisors and Students 69 Table 11: Demographic and Individual. Characteristics of Three Pairs 73 Table 12: Most Important Functions of Supervision 83 vii List of Figures Figure 1: Free and Binding Responses of Various Verbal Communications 19 Figure 2: The Supervisory Responsibility Continuum 22 Figure 3: Role Function Themes in Order of Frequency 49 viii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T I would like to thank Dr. James E . Thornton for his advice and support during the writing of this thesis. To the members of my committee, Dr. Daniel D. Pratt, Peter P. Grimmett, and Rev. James McCullum, a special word of thanks for the hours of reading, suggesting changes and for meetings. Many thanks to Dr. John B. Collins for the hours of working with me to develop the statistical analyses for this study, and for help in interpretating the results. Recognition and thanks to the students and supervisors who participated in the study. To the administration, to the library personnel, and to the Director of Field Education, Rev. James McCullum, all of whom made my experience at Vancouver School of Theology a memorable one. And finally, thanks to Alice Boner, who patiently read and made editing suggestions for several drafts. ix C H A P T E R I. I N T R O D U C T I O N A number of church-related seminaries, colleges and universities offer theological education leading to the Master of Divinity degree. This degree combines academic (theology) courses with practical (field education) courses to train both ordained and non-ordained personnel for full-time ministry in the church. It is the responsibility of the theological school to provide its own program of supervised theological field education (TFE). In addition to this type of school program there is another independent organization offering chaplaincy training that shares this responsibility. Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) provides parallel training to the theological school or seminary. The National Association of Clinical Pastoral Education certifies CPE supervisors, who work with students in clinical settings, such as hospitals, correctional institutions, and counseling agencies. Since 1917, the National Association of Clinical Pastoral Education has provided a set of standards for both CPE supervisors and training centers. However, these standards do not apply to T F E supervisors or field placements. This study centers on the field education component of theological education. Field education allows students to practice their future ministry role in a supervised work environment conducive to personal growth and professional identity. Within the theological school, the Director of Field Education is responsible for the overall direction and coordination of the program. The T F E supervisors, responsible to the director, work directly with students in a placement outside the theological institution. The parish is the ordinary context for T F E , although for specific student needs another setting may be more appropriate, for example a 1 Introduction / 2 diocesan or conference religious education department. Supervision is defined as a "method of education designed to effect those personal changes which will permit the integration into practice of self-understanding, relevant theory, substantive knowledge, and functional skills" (Klink, 1966, p. 177). The basic theoretical model for T F E supervision varies with the seminary or school. If there is a strong C P E influence within the school, the basic theoretical model of supervision is taken from the fields of psychiatry and psychology with a primary focus on individual growth and professional socialization. When C P E does not form the framework, the theoretical models for supervision can be found within the social sciences. These include teacher training and instruction, adult education, professional training, family therapy, social work, cultural context and social analysis, social field theory, and counseling psychology. The Association for Theological Field Education (ATFE) provides its members with a set of guidelines developed by Ellis L . Larsen (1983) as criteria for field education programs accredited by the Association of Theological Schools. These guidelines have not been officially approved by A T F E , and Larsen recommends much more discussion before seeking approval. The guidelines suggest several objectives for T F E . Two of these objectives were found important for this study. The objectives are: first, "to bring together the activities of thinking and acting theologically (theory and praxis), along with allowing life to inform theology;" second, "to relate students to a competent supervision process which will support personal and spiritual formation, critical reflection, shared ministry, and professional competence" (Larsen, 1983, p. 162). The same guidelines (p. 164) Introduction / 3 state the following about supervision: The students shall work and learn in relationship with qualified supervisors. Such supervision shall include: 1. Regularly held conferences . . . 2. Conferences which focus upon the following, as they emerge from the work setting itself: a) the student's personal development behaviorally, affectively and cognitively; b) the student's ability to function as a pastoral theologian, to 'do' theology; c) the student's spirituality and its development. 3. An openness on the part of the supervisor also to submit his or her own experiences and development for examination - while nevertheless putting the prime focus on the supervisee. The guidelines give some direction, but Directors of Field Education have continued to express concern about the quality of supervision and the training of supervisors. Field education supervisors shared a similar concern. At an in-service meeting of TFE supervisors, a number commented on the differing expectations they and their students had regarding supervision. This problem is not unique to TFE. In teacher education, Staab (1984) found differing expectations among student teachers, university supervisors, and sponsor teachers regarding student preparation for instruction. Perrine (1984) also found differing perceptions of role between science teachers and their supervisors. Thus, it is not surprising to find differing expectations or perceptions between theological field education supervisors and their students. From these observations, and from personal experience working in TFE, it became important to the researcher to determine whether differing expectations could be accounted for in at least two ways. One, whether the supervisors and students held common or diverse understandings of the role functions of the supervisory conference. Two, whether thinking, verbal communication, supervisory Introduction / 4 style and personality influenced expectations. Accordingly, an exploratory research design, using an interview, was constructed. How a person thinks, influences the way he or she understands a context and participates in events. In this study, conceptual level, derived from information processing theory (Schroder, Driver, & Strufert 1967), was used to understand how a person thinks. Language influences the communication between two or more people. Wallen (1972) suggested that positive, freeing language encouraged and supported trusting relationships, while negative, binding language inhibited trust. Grimmett (1982) used Wallen's idea of freeing and binding verbal communication and found a i close relationship between how a person thinks and speaks: he named this relationship "constructive openness." How a supervisor approaches supervision influences the perceptions and expectations within the supervisory interaction. Glickman (1981) described this interaction as directive, collaborative or non-directive. A great variety of studies suggest that personality influences the interactions between people. Personality type as described in the work of Isabel Briggs Myers (Myers & McCulley, 1985) indicated the influence of personality type on career choices, work-patterns, as well as, on supervisory relationships. Introduction / 5 A. PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of four independent variables, namely, conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type, on the understandings of supervisors and students of the role functions of the T F E supervisory conference. The research questions were: 1. How do supervisors and students in T F E describe the role functions of the supervisory conference? 2. What are the relationships between these descriptions of the role functions of the supervisory conference and a. the conceptual levels of supervisors and students? b. the constructive openness of supervisors and the supervisors' constructive openness as estimated by students? c. the orientation to supervision of supervisors and the orientation to supervision experienced by the students? d. the personality types of supervisors and students? e. the supervisor' and students' demographic characteristics of age, gender, educational level, the number of years supervisors have engaged in supervision at the school, and the number of years students have worked before entrance into theological education. Role and function are considered as separate concepts in role theory (Gross, 1958). In T F E literature role and function are generally considered within the concept of role (Bunting, 1979). However, for the purposes of this study they Introduction / 6 were used as a single concept - role functions. B. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following are the general definitions used in this study. Theological Field Education Supervision: A method of education designed to enable personal change under supervision; it includes the integration into the practice of the ministry, self-understanding, relevant theory, substantive knowledge, professional skills and strategies. This educational method takes place within a theological education context. Role functions: The actual performance of an incumbent in a position which can be referred to as an expectation for an incumbent in that position (Gross, 1958). Supervisory conference: The weekly, formal interaction between the supervisor and the student; the interaction is based on the student's learning covenant or contract. Previous experience: In this study, previous experience is used in two different ways: 1. the number of years the supervisor has supervised for the school. 2. the number of years the student has worked before entrance into theological education. The following definitions are specific to the instruments used in this study. Conceptual Level: " A characteristic based on a developmental personality theory that describes persons on a developmental hierarchy of increasing conceptual complexity, self-responsibility, and independence" (Hunt et al., 1978b, p. 78). Constructive Openness: A measure of the degree to which the supervisor uses freeing or binding verbal communication. Introduction / 7 1. Freeing verbal communication is a way of responding which results in growth-producing relationships. 2. Binding verbal communication is a way of responding that can diminishes autonomy in a relationship (Wallen, 1972). Orientation to supervision: Orientation to supervision is based on three approaches: 1. Directive, the supervisor is in charge of the direction of the supervisory process; 2. Collaborative, the student and supervisor mutually develop a contract; 3. Non-directive, the student is in charge of the direction of the supervisory process, the supervisor acts as a facilitator (Glickman, 1981). Personality type: A description of "the way individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment" (Myers & McCulley, p. 1, 1985). 1. - Perception is the many ways to become aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. 2. Judgment is the variety of ways to come to conclusions about what has been perceived. C. JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY Existing T F E literature dealt with such topics as the need for supervision (Hoover, 1980), models of supervision (Beers & Schaper, 1984), and supervisory training programs (Bunting 1979). But nowhere were the role functions of the supervisory conference described from the perspectives of those engaged in supervision, namely, supervisors and students. Nor was there any exploration of the possible influences of conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to Introduction / 8 supervision, and personality type on the supervisory interaction. If this study found that these characteristics did, in fact, influence the supervisory conference, there would be sufficient evidence for more care in the selection, training, and placement of students with supervisors. D. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS This introductory chapter, has stated the purpose, background, definition of terms, assumptions, and justification of the study. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature pertaining to the historical development of T F E supervision, research on differing perceptions of supervision, four individual characteristics that influence supervision, and T F E supervision. Chapter Three outlines the research design, describing the sample, data sources and collection, and the data analysis. Chapter Four describes the findings in relation to the research questions proposed in Chapter One. Chapter Five presents the conclusions of the study, its limitations, and implications and recommendations for theological field education. C H A P T E R II. R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E The literature review is organized into the following parts: First a historical overview of theological field education; second, differing expectations and perceptions of supervision; third, the influence of conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type on supervision; four, current understandings of the role functions of T F E supervisory conference; and five, a summary. A. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THEOLOGICAL FIELD EDUCATION Since 1921 the field education component to theological studies has been recognized as a powerful aid in helping students coordinate their learned knowledge with practical experience (Boisen, 1951). Theological field education (TFE) has theoretical roots in the "practical" field of theology (Blakemore, 1949). Blakemore's reference to the practical however referred to classroom courses which explained and analyzed the practice of ministry. Glen (1953) recommended that field work be accompanied by pastoral supervision, but he neither defined nor described supervision. Wise (1954) distinguished between clinical training supervision and field work supervision. According to him, the aim of clinical supervision was to gain understanding of persons, both as an individual and as groups; the aim of field supervision was to overcome "certain fundamental inadequacies of students" (p. 191). Froyd (1955) traced the historical development of speculative and practical theology and in so doing, posed the question, "What is the function of field work supervision?" 9 Review of the Literature / 10 In the early 1960's clinical supervision for T F E supervisors was specifically encouraged by Furgeson (1961) and Southard (1963). The first director of field work was appointed in 1964. Palmer (1964) was convinced that a vital field experience properly supervised could bring about a competence that could never be developed in the seminary alone. In 1966, The Association of Theological Schools commissioned a study of theological education. Fielding (1966) edited this study which subsequently influenced the development of theological education. The section on field education was written by Thomas Klink (1966) writing from a C P E perspective, defined supervision in terms of "an educational procedure" (p. 176). He addressed techniques and principles of supervision, supervision as career preparation for ministry, the choices a supervisor makes in educational practice, in-service education and finally learning style. Klink's contribution to the study ultimately became the reference for further development of the modern practice of T F E supervision. The societal changes of the sixties were reflected in T F E literature. No longer could classroom discussions alone meet the training needs of the students (Ashbrook, 1966 and Zimmerman, 1968). Rather, students were required to experience the practice of ministry in the field. Once this became the accepted practice, the need for supervision became apparent, and a variety of supervisory models quickly developed. Models were taken from professions which required field work. Among those professions were teacher education, adult education, social work, psychiatry, and family therapy. Review of the Literature / 11 With the development of these models came the pressing need to train supervisors. Rohlfs (1978) among others, addressed this concern. A t the same time, there was a gradual development in the content and process of supervision. Mackie (1966) encouraged supervisors to help students reflect on experience as a way of learning. Gessell (1968) and Bergland (1969) both recommended reflecting theologically on experience, and added the idea of relating experience to religious tradition. By the early seventies theological reflection was essential to supervision. In fact, for Hunter (1976) one criteria for site selection was the opportunity for theological reflection. And Larsen (1983) included it as a component of supervision in the Association for Theological Field Education program guidelines, thus assuring its place in T F E supervision. Training to be aware of the societal mission of the church has become the ministry focus of the eighties. Seabright (1983) developed a model of supervision to integrate social justice concerns with ministry functioning. Cartwright (1983) added the dimension of focusing on the cultural context of the field placement. The 1985 theme for the 10th Biennial Consultation of the Association for Theological Field Education was "Who is my neighbour?" emphasizing social and global concerns. The role of supervisor has been variously defined. Lowndes (1969) followed Klink in defining supervision in an educational mode, referring to the supervisor as teacher. Whitehead and Whitehead (1975) suggested that the role of supervisor Review of the Literature / 12 was helper. Way (1970) defined the role as one of "working alongside" the student. Stewart (1971) delineated supervision in terms of styles of supervision, "institutional model . . . guide . . . peer to peer" (p. 25). Beisswenger (1974) wrote about the various modes of supervision. He described the role of supervisor as 1) an evaluator of work, 2) an instructor, 3) an apprentice relationship, 4) a trainer, 5) resource person for the student, 6) a consultant to the student and 7) a spiritual guide. Beisswenger's work has influenced the subsequent training of supervisors. His article has been included in materials used in training supervisors at Saint Thomas Theological Seminary and Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado. Finally, Sanderson (1978) suggested that the supervisor was a role model for those preparing for ministry. This review of the historical development of T F E supervision traced the growth of Field education from an academic study of the practice of ministry to an experiential model of learning by practice of ministry in a supervised placement. There appeared to be no agreed upon definition of supervision nor was there total agreement on the role functions of the supervisory conference. Since theological field education is still in a formative period, the present study was intended to contribute to its development. JB. RESEARCH IN DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERVISION A number of research studies investigated the differing perceptions of supervision. Cross and Brown (1983) had supervisees in counselor supervision judge the perceived effectiveness of supervision, they found differing perceptions of effectiveness between supervisors and supervisees. From their study of specific Review of the Literature / 13 counselor supervisory theory in practice, Goodyear, Abadie, and Efros (1984) also found differing perceptions of supervision. Their results confirmed "that theoretical orientation is related to a supervisor's manifest behaviors, roles, and attitudes" (p. 234). Leithwood and Montgomery (1984) studied the obstacles preventing school principals from becoming effective. Principals and their administrators perceived different impediments to effectiveness. The principals saw school board relations as the most difficult of obstacles. Administrators saw a lack of school board knowledge and skill as the most difficult obstacle facing the principals. In elementary science supervision, Perrine (1984) contrasted the teachers' ideal supervisory interaction and their actual experience with supervisors, as well as supervisors' ideal interaction and their actual interaction. He found that teachers had higher expectations of supervisors than supervisors had of themselves. In speech and hearing research involving supervisors and supervisees, Roberts and Smith (1982) found that the supervisors set the content and interaction pattern of the supervisory conferences, and that the supervisees followed their supervisors lead. This finding was contrary to the assumption that the supervisees should become more self-directing and independent (Glickman, 1981). Differing perceptions of student teachers were found in a study by Staab (1984). Sponsor teachers and university supervisors had differing perceptions of the student teachers' preparation for instruction. Two studies found some congruence instead of differences of perception. Stahl, Review of the Literature / 14 Querin, Rudy, and Crawford (1983) found congruence between head nurse role activities and supervisory expectations. But then suggested that there were several areas of potential conflict: role overlap, role definition, and organizational structure. Worthington (1984) found "changes in supervisees' perceptions of supervisory behavior as the counselors gain experience were . . . relatively congruent with previous research and theory" (p. 63). The literature in this section has indicated that both difference and congruence were possible in the perceptions of supervisors and supervisees regarding supervision. However, there appeared to be more research indicating differences, than congruence of perceptions. It was to be expected that supervisors and students in theological field education would reflect the same types of perceptions. C. FOUR INFLUENCES ON SUPERVISION Theological field education borrowed extensively from other professional training programs to develop its own supervisory models. This section of the literature review considered four individual characteristics that have been shown to influence supervisory practice. They are conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. 1. Conceptual Level A n early research study "Abstract and Concrete Behavior: An Experimental Study With Special Tests" (Goldstein & Scheerer, 1941) demonstrated two modes of behavior. Concrete behavior was characterized by a realistic attitude that lacked conscious activity in the sense of reasoning, awareness or self-account of one's Review of the Literature / 15 doing. Experience was used unreflectively, and apprehension was confined to the immediate situation. Abstract behavior was characterized by an attitude of consciousness and volition. It included the ability to detach the ego from outer-inner experience, to assume a mental set, to account for acts to oneself, to simultaneously hold in mind a number of thoughts while considering future plans, and the ability to think and act symbolically (p. 239 ff). Bieri (1955), and Harvey and Schroder (1963) continued to develop and refine this early work of Goldstein and Scheerer. Information processing psychology contributed greatly to the theoretical development of conceptual level. Joyce, Lamb, and Sibol (1966) used information processing theory to study teachers' effectiveness and found that concrete level thinking teachers were not able to use information to increase student effectiveness. However, abstract level teachers could take more definite actions as they received more information about their students. A significant contribution to information processing and testing came from the work of Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967). They studied conceptual level with the "emphasis on how a person thinks or uses an attitude as a structure for processing new information, as opposed to emphasis upon content, upon what a person thinks, what his attitudes are, and so forth" (p. 5). They further suggested not just two levels of conceptual development but four. Table 1 describes the four levels and the behavioral properties of each level. In counseling supervision, Lichtenberg and Heck (1979) found a relationship Review of the Literature / 16 T a b l e 1 B e h a v i o r a l P r o p e r t i e s of Four C o n c e p t u a l L e v e l s SCORES CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURES BEHAVIORAL PROPERTIES 1 :0 1 .5 L e v e l One: S i m p l e C o n c e p t u a l S t r u c t u r e C a t e g o r i c a l ( b l a c k / w h i t e ) t h i n k i n g ; E x c l u s i o n o f c o n f l i c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ; L i t t l e s e l f - c o n c e p t ( b e h a v i o r a n c h o r e d 1n e x t e r n a I s ) . I n 2.0 L e v e l Two: M o d e r a t e l y L e s s a b s o l u t i s m ; S i m p l e C o n c e p t u a l Some awarenes s of s e l f as a c a u s a l a g e n t : 2.5 S t r u c t u r e I n s t a b i l i t y and noncomm1tment; N e g a t 1 v 1 s t 1 c ( r e b e l l i o u s ) o r i e n t a t i o n . 3 .0 L e v e l T h r e e : M o d e r a t e l y Le s s d e t e r m i n i s t i c o r J u d g m e n t a l ; Complex C o n c e p t u a l S e v e r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s on e a c h s i t u a t i o n ; 3.5 S t r u c t u r e C o n s i d e r a b l e awareness o f s e l f a s c a u s a l a g e n t ; A d a p t i v e b e h a v i o r . 4 . 0 L e v e l F o u r : Complex E f f e c t i v e a d a p t a t i o n t o complex c h a n g i n g C o n c e p t u a l S t r u c t u r e s i t u a t i o n s ; H i g h t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b i g u i t y ; T h e o r e t i c a l o u t l o o k ; A c u t e awarenes s of s e l f ; No c o m p l e t e c l o s u r e i n d e c i s i o n mak ing . N o t e . S c o r e s a r e t a k e n f rom the s e v e n p o i n t s c a l e o f the P a r a g r a p h C o m p l e t i o n T e s t . T a b l e a d a p t e d from S i l v e r ( 1975.. pp . 5 1 - 5 2 ) . between the level of cognitive complexity and the style of counseling that was used. Higher cognitive complexity counselors were able to respond to clients with a greater degree of variability than lower cognitive complexity counselors. Blocher (1983) found similar relationships between cognitive level and the process of counselor supervision. In the learning environment the importance of challenge, involvement, support, structure, feedback, innovation, and integration were stressed. These elements were also found at the higher levels of abstraction. Southern (1984) suggested a cognitive-structural approach to counselor supervision that emphasized the influence of language. Review of the Literature / 17 In the training of school administrators, Silver (1975) found a positive relationship between conceptual level and ability to deal with a complex environment. The higher the conceptual level score, the greater the ability of the principal to deal with the complex setting of a school. Sprinthall and Thies-Sprinthall (1980) researched the cognitive conceptual level of supervisors and the effects of conceptual level on supervisory interaction in teacher training. They found that evaluations by high conceptual level supervisors of high conceptual level students showed the students to be flexible, innovative, and responsive; while low conceptual level supervisors rated high conceptual level students as average to mediocre to limited. Grimmett (1984) explored the relationship between clinical supervision and the supervisors' and supervisees' conceptual development. He found abstract conceptual level supervisors more effective than concrete conceptual level supervisors. Olsen (1970) studied the Lutheran internship experience in terms of the conceptual levels of the interns and supervisors. The findings indicated that high conceptual level students had high satisfaction in complex environments while low conceptual level students were less satisfied in similar environments. The same finding applied to the supervisors in Olsen's study. This study of conceptual level and placement satisfaction appeared to be a unique contribution to theological field education. Glickman (1985a) demonstrated that a relationship existed between orientation to supervision and conceptual level. Those who used a directive approach to Review of the Literature / 18 supervision, characteristic of low level abstraction, tended to generate solutions to problems for teachers. Those who used a collaborative approach to supervision, characteristic of moderate level abstraction, negotiated agreements to the solution of problems and suggested changes needed for future action. Those who used a non-directive approach to supervision, characteristic of high level abstraction, actively facilitated the teachers' own perception of issues and problems, leading to teacher self-planning. Thies-Sprinthall (1984) sums up the influence of conceptual level in a basic assumption: "Humans behave in accord with the level of complexity of their mental structures. Those at less complex levels of cognitive capacity tend to exhibit rigid, concrete and less adaptive behavior in problem solving situations" (p. 53). This review of conceptual level literature and its impact on supervision in counseling, administration and teacher training indicated the importance of this characteristic in the supervisory interaction. It was assumed by the researcher that the same dynamic would contribute to an understanding of T F E supervision. 2. Constructive Openness The literature background for the concept of constructive openness was based on the works of Wallen (1972) and Grimmett (1982). In his work in teacher training, Wallen (1972) developed what he called a continuum of the interpersonal effect of various responses. He theorized that effects of "freeing responses" would be "certain ways to respond which will result in a growth-producing relationship. Review of the Literature / 19 These ways free the other individual to grow by making him feel that he can change or not as he pleases" (p. 86). A t the other end of the continuum, he described "binding responses," as "responses have a binding or cueing effect on the individual. These kinds of responses diminish the other person's autonomy by making him feel controlled or the object of someone else's impulses" (p. 88). Figure 1 summarizes Wallen's continuum. SCORES MOST FREEING VERBAL COMMUNICATION RESPONSES . ( I n c r e a s e s o t h e r ' s autonomy as a p e r s o n and s e n s e of e q u a l i t y ) 8 A c t t v e , a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n i n g 7 P a r a p h r a s i n g 6 P e r c e p t i o n c h e c k 5 S e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o h e l p you u n d e r s t a n d t h e o t h e r 4 O f f e r i n g I n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to the o t h e r ' s c o n c e r n s 3 S h a r i n g I n f o r m a t i o n t h a t has I n f l u e n c e d y o u r f e e l i n g s and v i ewpo1nts 2 D i r e c t l y r e p o r t i n g y o u r own f e e l i n g s 1 O f f e r i n g new a l t e r n a t i v e s 1 C h a n g i n g t h e s u b j e c t w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n 2 E x p l a i n i n g the o t h e r , i n t e r p r e t i n g the o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r 3 A d v i c e and p e r s u a s i o n 4 V i g o r o u s ag reement 5 E x p e c t a t i o n s 6 D e n y i n g o t h e r ' s f e e l i n g s 7 A p p r o v a l on p e r s o n a l g r o u n d s 8 D i s a p p r o v a l on p e r s o n a l g rounds 9 Commands and o r d e r s ^ 10 E m o t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n MOST BINDING VERBAL COMMUNICATION RESPONSES ( D i m i n i s h e s o t h e r ' s autonomy by I n c r e a s i n g s e n s e o f s u b o r d i n a t i o n ) F i g u r e 1. The F r e e i n g and B i n d i n g Re sponse s of V a r i o u s V e r b a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n s . ( A d a p t e d f rom W a l l e n , 1972. S c o r e s f rom t h e P r e a c t i v e B e h a v i o r I n s t r u m e n t , G r l m m e t t , 1982) Review of the Literature / 20 In his continuum, Wallen (1972) suggested eight freeing responses and ten binding responses of verbal communication, and ordered them in a descending manner, with the most freeing verbal communication at the top, and the most binding at the bottom. Using Wallen's eighteen statements in a random order, Grimmett (1982), developed the Preactive Behavior Instrument to measure constructive openness of the supervisory interaction. This instrument was designed to measure how constructive and open the verbal communication was between supervisor and student during a supervisory experience. It was first used with supervisors to predict how open they thought they would be in a supervisory conference, which was then compared to the observed conference. The results indicated that the instrument was a good predictor of supervisor interactive constructive openness (Grimmett, 1982). He also found a positive relationship between constructive openness and conceptual level with both students and supervisors. If constructive openness can be a predictor of supervisory interaction, it is an important influence to consider when studying supervision. The researcher found no library follow-up references for the use of the Preactive Behavior Instrument. 3. Orientation to Supervision In his work with supervisors of teachers in the educational system, Glickman (1981) developed the Supervisory Beliefs Inventory to measure the beliefs of supervisors about their orientation or approach to supervision. He proposed a continuum to indicate supervisor-student responsibility for ten supervisory behaviors. A t one end of the continuum, the student has the most responsibility Review of the Literature / 21 and the supervisor the least; at the other end the supervisor has the greatest responsibility and the student the least. Placement of supervisor's behavior along the responsibility continuum indicates the supervisor's orientation or approach to supervision. The orientations can be directive, collaborative, or non-directive. Figure 2 presents the responsibility continuum, the ten supervisor behaviors, and the end product for each interaction. The behaviors characteristic of a directive orientation to supervision are: clarifying, presenting, directing, demonstrating, standardizing, and reinforcing. The product of this process is an assignment for the student from the supervisor. The behaviors characteristic of a collaborative orientation to supervision are: presenting, clarifying, listening, problem solving, and negotiating. The product of this process is a supervisor and student contract. The behaviors characteristic of a non-directive orientation to supervision are: listening, encouraging, clarifying, presenting, and negotiating. The product of this process is a student self-plan. Responses to the Supervisory Beliefs Inventory, indicated to the supervisor his or her beliefs about supervision. The scores suggested the percentage of time a supervisor used a directive, collaborative, or non-directive approach to supervision. Glickman (1981) did not give the meaning of "percentage of time" in reference to the use of a specific orientation. It needs to be noted that this instrument measured self perception, not actual behavior. Becoming a self-directed individual appears to be Glickman's intention for students in using a non-directive approach to supervision. This idea was supported by MAXIMUM STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY /K Behav ior D i r e c t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n C o l l a b o r a t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n N o n - D i r e c t i v e O r i e n t a t i o n L i s t e n i n g Superv i sor l i s t e n s to Superv i so r l i s t e n s a t t e n t i v e l y s tudent . to student concerns . C l a r i f y i n g Superv i so r c l a r i f i e s s t u d e n t ' s problem. Superv i sor asks student to present pe rcep t i on s of areas f o r improvement. Superv i so r asks ques t i ons and repharases student statement to make sure problem i s c l e a r l y unders tood . Encourag ing Superv i so r encourages student to e l a b o r a t e on concern Present ing Prob1 em s o l v i n g Negot iat ing Demonstrat1ng D1rect1ng S t a n d a r d i z i n g R e i n f o r c i n g Product of i n t e r a t ion Superv i so r p resent s ideas on what and how data w i l l be coI 1ected. Superv i s o r demonstrates a p p r o p r i a t e behav ior . Supe rv i s o r d i r e c t s student on what a c t i o n s w i l l take pi ace. Superv i s o r se t s b a s e l i n e data and s tandard fo r improvement. Superv i s o r uses mater i a l or s o c i a l I ncent i ves . Assignment f o r student by s u p e r v i s o r Superv i sor presents pe rcep t i on s of areas f o r improvement. Superv i sor and student propose a l t e r n a t 1 v e a c t 1 o n s . Superv i sor and student r e v i s e , r e j e c t , and agree on p l a n . When asked by s tudent , s u p e r v i s o r o f f e r s thoughts and p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s . Superv i so r asks s tudent to determine what a c t i o n s w i l l be taken. Superv i sor and student con t r ac t Student s e l f - p l a n S5 3 " (t> P s MAXIMUM SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY to to F i gu re 2. The Superv i so ry R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Continuum I n d i c a t i n g O r i e n t a t i o n to S u p e r v i s i o n (adapted from Gl lckman 1981. pp. 22-34) . Review of the Literature / 23 Armstrong and Shanker (1983), they found the non-directive approach to supervision generally satisfactory for supervising undergraduate research students. Flanders (1976) found those clinical supervisors who rated "low involvement" were described in a way similar to non-directive supervisors. Glatthorn (1984) described differential supervision, and his description of supervision for "self-development" was similar to Glickman's non-directive orientation. The Supervisory Beliefs Inventory can suggest to supervisors what they believe about supervision. In its present form there were some difficulties with the accuracy of "percentage of time" and with using scores that add to one hundred percent with the possibility of equal percentages on all three orientations. However, these limitations considered, this instrument can provide an agenda for discussion between supervisor and student, and among supervisors to help them clarify their own supervisory orientation. 4. Personality Type In the psychological literature, there are many and varied descriptions of personality. For the purposes of this study the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was used for the following advantages: a) the functions of personality are integrated; b) the instrument is comprehensive, and describes the functioning of all people; c) it is essentially "value free," that is, no one personality function is better than any other; d) the instrument is relatively easy to administer and to score (Kleiner, 1983). The MBTI , based on Jungian dimensions of mental functioning, was developed by Review of the Literature / 24 Isabel Myers and her daughter, Katharine Briggs (1943). Personality type consists of four essential processes: sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling; two attitudes: extraversion and introversion; and two orientations to the outer world: judgment and perception. A l l processes, attitudes, and orientations are used by everyone, everyday. People differ primarily in the priority they give to each of them (Myers & McCulley, 1985). Table 2 provides an introduction to the Myers-Briggs four preferences of personality type theory. T a b l e 2 The F o u r P r e f e r e n c e s C o n s t i t u t i n g P e r s o n a l i t y Types (MBTI) Index P r e f e n c e s between A f f e c t s C h o i c e s as t o EI E I E x t r a v e r s i o n o r I n t r o v e r s i o n Whether to d i r e c t p e r c e p t i o n judgment m a i n l y on the o u t e r w o r l d (E ) o r m a i n l y on the w o r l d of Ideas ( I ) SN S N S e n s i n g P e r c e p t i o n I n t u i t i v e P e r c e p t i o n Which k i n d of p e r c e p t i o n 1s p r e f e r r e d when one needs or w i s h e s t o p e r c e i v e TF T F T h i n k i n g Judgment F e e l i n g Judgment Which k i n d of Judgment t o t r u s t when one needs or w i she s t o make a d e c i s i o n JP J P Judgment P e r c e p t 1 on Whether t o d e a l w i t h the o u t e r w o r l d i n the j u d g i n g ( J ) a t t i t u d e ( u s i n g T o r F) o r i n the p e r c e p t i v e ( P ) . a t t i t u d e ( u s i n g S o r N) N o t e . A d a p t e d f rom Myers and M c C u l l e y , 1985, p. 3. Extraversion suggests that a person's interest and energy flow mainly from the outer world of actions, objects, and persons. Introversion suggests that a person's interest and energy flow mainly to the inner world of concepts and ideas. Everyone uses both attitudes, but individuals usually prefer one direction more than the other. Sensing and intuition are two ways of perceiving or taking in the world. Sensing Review of the Literature / 25 people prefer to use their five senses to establish what exists, and what is occurring in the present moment. Intuitive people prefer to look at the possibilities, meanings, and relationships by way of insight. Thinking and feeling are the rational ways of bringing life events into harmony with reason - the judging, evaluating, or decision making functions. Thinking is the logical reasoning process, and links ideas together by making logical connections. Feeling is the way to come to decisions by weighing relative values and relationships. It is a subjective decision making process. Judgment oriented persons prefer to live in a planned, orderly way with an interest in controlling events. Perception oriented persons prefer to live in a flexible, spontaneous way, with interest in understanding and adapting to events. When the eight preferences are used in all possible combinations, sixteen basic personality types are produced. Table 3 gives a brief description of the sixteen types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been used in educational research to help teachers understand childrens' learning patterns and styles (Golay, 1982; Lawrence, 1979), and in teacher training to determine how teacher personality affects the classroom environment (DeNovellis & Lawrence, 1983). Personality type theory has been used by personnel management in business (Hartzler & Hartzler, 1982; Hirsh, 1985; Kleiner, 1983), as well as in career development (Keirsey & Bates, 1984; Hughes, Mosier & Hung, 1981). Review of the Literature / T a b l e 3 B r i e f D e s c r i p t i o n s of the S i x t e e n M y e r s - B r i g g s P e r s o n a l i t y T y p e s E N T J I n t u i t i v e , I n n o v a t i v e ORGANIZER; a g g r e s s i v e , a n a l y t i c , s y s t e m a t i c ; more tuned t o new Ideas and p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a n t o p e o p l e ' s f e e 11ngs. E S T J F a c t - m i n d e d , p r a c t i c a l ORGANIZER; a g g r e s s i v e , a n a l y t i c , s y s t e m a t i c ; more i n t e r e s t e d i n g e t t i n g t h e Job done t h a n In p e o p l e ' s f e e l I n g s . I N T P I n q u i s i t i v e ANALYZER; r e f l e c t i v e i n d e p e n d e n t , c u r i o u s ; more i n t e r e s t e d In o r g a n i z i n g i d e a s t h a n s i t u a t i o n s of p e o p l e . I S T P P r a c t i c a l ANALYZER; v a l u e s e x a c t n e s s ; more I n t e r e s t e d In o r g a n i z i n g d a t a t h a n s i t u a t i o n s o r p e o p l e ; r e f l e c t i v e , a c o o l and c u r i o u s o b s e r v e r of l i f e . I S F p O b s e r v a n t , l o y a l HELPER; r e f l e c t i v e r e a l i s t i c ; e m p a t h l c ; p a t i e n t w i t h d e t a i l s , g e n t l e and r e t i r i n g ; shuns d i s a g r e e m e n t s ; e n j o y s t h e moment. I N F P I m a g i n a t i v e , I ndependent HELPER; r e f l e c t i v e . I n q u i s i t i v e , e m p a t h i c , l o y a l t o i d e a l s : more i n t e r e s t e d In p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a n p r a c t i c a l i t i e s . E S F J P r a c t i c a l HARMONIZER and worke r w i t h p e o p l e : c o n s c i e n t i o u s , r e a l i s t i c and w e l l t u n e d t o t h e h e r e and now. E N F J I m a g i n a t i v e HARMONIZER and w o r k e r w i t h p e o p l e ; s o c i a b l e , e x p r e s s l v o , o r d o r l y . o p l n i o n e d . c o n s c i e n t i o u s ; c u r i o u s a b o u t new i d e a s and p o s s i b i l i t i e s . E S T P REAL IST IC ADAPTER In the w o r l d o f m a t e r i a l t h i n g s : good n a t u r e d t o l e r a n t , e a s y g o i n g ; o r i e n t e d to p r a c t i c a l , f i r s t hand e x p e r i e n c e ; h i g h l y o b s e r v a n t of d e t a i l s o f t h i n g s . I N F J P e o p l e - o r i e n t a t e d INNOVATOR of I deas ; s e r i o u s , q u i e t l y f o r c e f u l and p e r s e v e r i n g ; c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e common g o o d , w i t h h e l p i n g o t h e r s deve1 op . E S F P REAL IST IC ADAPTER i n human r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; f r i e n d l y and e a s y w i t h p e o p l e , h i g h l y o b s e r v a n t of t h e i r f e e l i n g s and n e e d s ; o r i e n t e d to p r a c t i c a l , f i r s t hand e x p e r i e n c e . I N T J L o g i c a l , c r i t i c a l , d e c i s i v e INNOVATOR of i d e a s ; s e r i o u s , I n t e n t , h i g h l y I n d e p e n d e n t , c o n c e r n e d w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n d e t e r m i n e d and o f t e n s t u b b o r n . I S T J A n a l y t i c a l MANAGER OF FACTS AND DETA ILS ; d e p e n d a b l e , d e c i s i v e , p a i n s t a k i n g and s y s t e m a t i c : c o n c e r n e d w i t h s y s tems and o r g a n i z a t i o n ; s t a b l e and c o n s e r v a t i v e . E N F P Warmly e n t h u s i a s t i c PLANNER OF CHANGE; I m a g i n a t i v e , i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ; p u r s u e s i n s p i r a t i o n w i t h i m p u l s i v e e n e r g y ; s e e k s to u n d e r s t a n d and i n s p i r e o t h e r s . I S F J S v m D a t h e t i c MANAGER OF FACTS AND DETA ILS ; c o n c e r n e d w i t h p e o p l e s ' w e l f a r e ; d e p e n d a b l e , p a i n s t a k i n g and s y s t e m a t i c ; s t a b l e and c o n s e r v a t i v e . E N T P I n v e n t i v e , a n a l y t i c a l PLANNER OF OF CHANGE; e n t h u s i a s t i c and i n d e p e n d e n t p u r s u e s i n s p i r a t i o n w i t h I m p u l s i v e e n e r g y ; s e e k s t o u n d e r s t a n d and i n s p i r e o t h e r s . N o t e . T a k e n f r o m L a w r e n c e , 1982, p. 15 Review of the Literature / 27 A new area of research with personality type has been the attempt to determine the ease of verbal communication between types. Yeakley (1983, 1982) has proposed to relate psychological type to communication level. He defined communication as the "process of creating an acceptable degree of shared meaning between people" (1983, p. 23). Yeakley believes that for two people to communicate effectively, they have to use the same communication style at the same time. Communication tends to break down when people are using different styles and especially when they are using opposite styles. Effective communication demands adjustment. (1982, p. 34) And "when dyad members are identical in psychological type they are also identical in communication style preferences and therefore have the lowest possible adjustment index" for communication (1982, p. 35). As Yeakley continues to work on communication adjustment, there may develop more accurate ways of looking at the level of communication between supervisors and students. The M B T I has been used in education, management and career development. It has been successful in establishing understandings of the interaction between students and teachers, better working relationships in organizations, and helping people to choose a career. The most helpful aspect of the theory was its ability to describe accurately, in simple terms, the very complex processes of human behavior. The sixteen descriptions of personality type enabled people to have a common language to talk about their differences in a non-threatening way, because each type has its own strengths and weaknesses. The foregoing research has indicated that understanding personality type contributed to better working relationships among people. Theological field education supervision can share these Review of the Literature / 28 benefits by use of the instrument. D. THEOLOGICAL FIELD EDUCATION SUPERVISION The role functions of the supervisory conference have been variously described in the T F E literature. Becker (1967) based supervisor training on the supervisor's role as teacher; Goodwin (1969) suggested the role of "helper;" Lowndes (1969) took the view that the supervisor was the "overviewer" of the student's work; Oates (1975) suggested the model of a "coach;" Beisswenger (1974) suggested a variety of supervisor modes, each with an experiential basis; Bunting (1979) saw the primary concern of the supervisor as helping the student reflect on the context and person of the student; Klink (1966) considered the process of supervision in educational terms; Sanderson (1978) was cautious in calling the supervisor a role model for students; and Stewart (1971) emphasized the need for the supervisor to be sensitive and personal. However, the clearest and most developed presentation of a framework for the role functions of the supervisory conference came from the work of George I. Hunter (1982). Hunter (1982) agreed with Klink (1966) that theological field education was essentially an educational process and that the supervisor was first and foremost a teacher or educator (Becker, 1967; Southard, 1963). Hunter suggested four educational roles for the supervisor: First, the supervisor was to teach the student "to link theology with the practice of ministry." Second, the supervisor was to help the student "to relate religious traditions and values to the human and social needs which have been identified in the ministry setting." Third, the supervisor was "to select appropriate resources for understanding and responding Review of the Literature / 29 to actual occasions/events of ministry." Fourth, the supervisor was "to integrate feed-back, consultation, and supervision with assessment of ministry and the planning for new ministry" (p. 33). Each of the these educational roles of the supervisor can be supported in T F E literature. For example, linking theology and practice was affirmed in Goodwin (1969), Seabright (1983), Whitehead and Whitehead (1975). The concept of relating religious values to social justice was supported and encouraged by Beers and Schaper (1984), and Conlon (1983). The supervisor as a resource for the student was suggest by Beisswenger (1974), Froyd (1963), Klink (1966), and Steere (1969). And giving appropriate feedback to the student was important in works by Bunting (1979), Gessell (1968), and Hoover (1980). Among those who supported Hunter's idea that the supervisor was to serve as a role model for the student are Froyd (1963), Mackie (1966), and Sanderson (1978). In order for the supervisor to be effective in a placement, he or she must be able to manage the relationships between the student, the lay training committee and the parishioners. It was assumed that the supervisor had the authority within the setting to assign and oversee the work of the student. The supervisor also needed to be able to work in a collegial manner with both student and staff. These supervisor requirements were also suggested by Lowndes (1969), Nace (1975), Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary (1985), Sanderson (1978), and Telfer (1974). Hunter (1982) stated that of all the supervisors' relationships, the most important Review of the Literature / 30 was the personal one with the student. This relationship had three characteristics: a) it was intensive, with the relationship concentrating on the present reality of the student's field experience; b) it was intimate, suggesting that the supervisor and student had a close working association that was somewhat informal; and c) it was holistic, recognizing the intellectual and affective life of the student as well as professional skills and strategies (p. 39). The importance of the relationship between supervisor and student has appeared in theological field education literature. Adams (1971) described the relationship as intensive when he suggested that the supervisor be a consultant to the student. Gilmore and Justes (1983) suggested the need to investigate the area of intimacy between men supervisors and women students. Rhodes and Finson (1986) were concerned about the role models for women in church leadership, new issues in supervision regarding sexism, and issues regarding the influence of feminist theology on supervision. Hoover (1980) suggested the interpersonal nature of the relationship, while Oates (1975) emphasized the pastoral nature of the relationship. As a final example, Weeks and Johnston (1986) proposed a personal relationship that allowed the supervisor to intervene in the student's development in order to increase the likelihood of the student's growth. According to Hunter, supervision was intentional, not a casual encounter between the supervisor and student. Supervision was structured, the covenant agreement formed the foundation of supervision, and conferences were scheduled regularly. Supervision was disciplined, students were expected to set goals and objectives for their field experience (1982, p. 39). These ideas found support in Klink (1966) Review of the Literature / 31 and Larsen (1983), who gave specific guidelines for the supervisory conference. Steere (1969) and Weeks and Johnston (1986) addressed the need for "regular" (structured) supervision. For Hunter the supervisor provided an introduction and orientation when the student first entered the field education placement. The supervisor, in consultation with leaders or committees within the placement, and with the student, arranged for actual ministry tasks for student engagement. The process of supervision included techniques for recovering data -- case studies, verbatims - to be used during supervisory conferences. During the supervisory conference there was opportunity for supervisor and student to analyze and reflect on the student's personal, theological, and professional experience in field education. A t other times during the conference the supervisor and student had time to assess and evaluate the student's personal, theological, and professional growth and development. Finally, the supervisor and student planned for new ministry interventions that called for a change in goals or other experiences that would assist the student's growth (1982, p. 41). The above functions of supervision were found scattered throughout the field education literature. Becker (1967), Hampton and Pregnall (1975), and Telfer (1974) suggested the case method as a way of recovering data for supervision. Theological reflection was encouraged as part of the conference by Bergland (1969), Dawson (1986), and St. Clair (1969). In addition to theological reflection, Conlon (1983) emphasized the analysis of the social context of ministry. Birtch (1966) addressed the need to assess student involvement in ministry. Both Klink Review of the Literature / 32 (1966) and Oates (1975) insisted that student evaluation be a part of the supervisory conference. Larsen (1983) strongly suggested the need to initiate the student into the placement as well as to develop a learning covenant. Southard (1963) suggested the need for analysis of student work. Steere (1969) developed a Supervisory Assessment Questionnaire to detect different perceptions of supervision in eight areas similar to the areas suggested by Hunter. And Whitehead and Whitehead (1975) listed the importance of personal, theological, and professional growth of the student as the focus of supervision. In summary, the theological field education literature affirms and supports Hunter's (1982) twenty-two themes or categories describing the role functions of the supervisory conference. Because of Hunter's clear descriptions and the support found in the literature, his work was used in the present study as the categories for content analysis to be described in Chapter Three. E. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review considered the historical development of theological field education. It reviewed the gradual change in theological education, from lecturing on the practical in the classroom, to working in the field, to supervised field education as a requirement of the Master of Divinity degree. Theological field education took from Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) the need for personal relationships, appropriate feedback, a strong emphasis on the need for individual supervision, especially a regular supervisory conference, and a clear process for bringing data to the conference in the form of case studies and verbatims. Review of the Literature / 33 Differing perceptions of supervision by supervisors and students were found in counselor supervision. Principals and administrators perceived different impediments to effectiveness. Elementary school science teachers and supervisors had differing perceptions of the ideal and the actual superviosry interaction. In speech and hearing research the perception was that supervisors set the content and direction for the conference. To understand the role functions of the supervisory conference in T F E , it was deemed important to consider four individual characteristics found to influence field supervision in related disciplines. The four individual characteristics were conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. Teacher education suggested that high conceptual level supervisors were better able to judge and encourage student progress than lower conceptual level supervisors. The work on constructive openness demonstrated that the kind of verbal communication used in a supervisory interaction influenced trust between individuals. The approach to supervision (directive, collaborative, and non-directive) influenced how students can become independent and self-directing in a supervisory relationship. Finally, the Myers-Briggs approach to personality type provided the student and supervisor with a common language to understand and describe their differences. The final section of the review considered the role functions of the supervisory conference as suggested by George I. Hunter, and as substantiated by other writers in T F E . Hunter's (1982) contribution is important because he brought together in an orderly and developed way many of the ideas present in the Review of the Literature / 34 literature. He suggested the fundamental approach to supervision was an educational process, with experiential learning as the method of learning. The responsibility of the supervisor was to provide the tools and environment for student learning, especially the supervisory conference. The conference was the classroom where experience was assessed, analyzed, evaluated, reflected upon and used as the basis for change and growth. CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN Since previous research in T F E had not provided enough information for hypothesis testing, the researcher chose an exploratory methodology for the research design (Borg & Gall, 1983). This allowed investigation of a variety of supervisory relationships with a view to finding answers to questions rather than developing hypotheses. The relationships and interactions examined in this study have appeared in the research of other professions having a field education component. This chapter is divided into the following sections: a description of the sample, the sources and procedures for data collection, and the process used for content analysis of the interviews. A final section mentions several design limitations. A. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE The sample used in this study consisted of 30 students and 28 supervisors in Level III of T F E at a Canadian school of theology, Fall 1986. This school is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools. Table 4 reports the demographic characteristics of the group, including age, gender, supervisory and work experience, educational level and Church affiliation. Supervisors and students were close in age . within a range of seven years. Eighty-nine percent of the supervisors were men. Eighty-six percent of the women students were supervised by men, although three women were supervised by the three women supervisors. 35 T a b l e 4. Demograph ic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Sample Research Design / 36 C h a r a c t e r 1st i c s Superv i s o r s N = 28 S t u d e n t s N = 30 Mean Age S u p e r v i s o r y e x p e r i e n c e i n y e a r s S t u d e n t work e x p e r i e n c e i n y e a r s 48 .93 2.64 SD Range Mean SD 9 . 13 2 .45 P e r c e n t a g e 32 - 65 1 - 10 41 .63 10.4 14.63 10.0 Range 26 - 60 38 P e r c e n t a g e G e n d e r : Ma le Fema1e E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l : Some c o l 1ege C o l l e g e e q u i v a l e n t B a c h e l o r of A r t s M a s t e r of D i v i n i t y L1 c e n t l a t e D o c t o r o f D i v i n i t y M a s t e r of A r t s D o c t o r o f P h i l o s o p h y O t h e r Denom1nat1 o n : U n i t e d C h u r c h o f Canada A n g l i c a n C h u r c h of Canada U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h P r e s b y t e r I an -Canada L u t h e r a n P r e s b y t e r 1an-USA C h u r c h o f the Naza rene Roman C a t h o l 1 c 89 .3% 1 1 . 7% 10.7% 39 . 3% 7 . 1% 7 . 1% 25 .0% 7. 1% 3 .6% 39 . 3% 28 .6% 10.7% 7. 1% 7 . 1% 3. 3% 3 .6% 3 .6% 7 0 . 0 % 30 .0% 6 . 7% 3. 3% 63 . 3% 23 . 3% 3 . 3% 4 3 . 3 % 33 . 3% 6 . 7% 10.0% 3 .3% Supervisors' experience ranged from one to three years. Forty-three percent had supervised for less than one year. The students averaged fifteen years of work experience before coming to theological education. Seven percent of the students had less than a year of work experience. Sixty-four percent of the supervisors held masters degrees in divinity and/or Research Design / 37 theology. Twenty-one percent had degrees beyond the masters level. Sixty-three percent of the students had baccalaureate degrees, twenty-three percent had a masters degree. Most of the students expected to graduate in the Spring of 1987 with a Master of Divinity degree. Church denomination was ecumenical, with the largest representation from the United Church of Canada. B. DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION Data sources included interviews of supervisors and students, instruments measuring conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision and personality type, and the researcher's rating of the supervisors' professional effectiveness. 1. Description of Interviews Supervisors were interviewed during the six weeks following the completion of field education; students at the end of evaluation week following the completion their field education experience. The interview schedules are found in Appendix B. Interviews involved four steps. Step one: demographic information was elicited. Step two: the participant was asked to describe the role of supervisor, to name the most important functions of supervision, and to prioritize three of these functions. Step 3: supervisors and students were asked to relate an incident critical to learning. Probing questions were than asked regarding the perceptions of both supervisors and students. These questions asked the focus of the incident, Research Design / 38 the students' ability to integrate, the role and functions of the supervisor during the supervisory conference, and the perceived growth of the student. Step 4: was given over to assessments of conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. The following instruments were used: 1. The Paragraph Completion Test (Hunt et al., 1978b) 2. The Preactive Behavior Instrument (Grimmett, 1982) 3. The Supervisory Beliefs Inventory (Glickman, 1981). 4. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G (Myers & McCulley, 1985) Those interviewees who had not already taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator were asked to do so. The researcher administered and scored these tests, except for the Paragraph Completion Test, which was scored by a trained scorer. The researcher also took notes and taped comments made during the interviews. 2. Description of Instruments a. Paragraph Completion Test: Conceptual Level The Paragraph Completion Test (Hunt et al., 1978b) was designed to measure complex, integrative thinking. It was used to assess the conceptual level of the participants. The instrument consisted of six sentence stems related to three interpersonal relations: uncertainty, conflict, and authority. Each stem called for a timed three sentence response. Each paragraph was judged on its cognitive structure, not content. The scores were obtained by averaging the highest three responses. Validity, as described by Gardiner and Schroder (1972) was established in over a hundred studies in which the test consistent^ predicted behavioral performances Research Design / 39 congruent with theoretical expectations. Reliability was also satisfactory; the five sentence stems in current use typically correlate in the .60 to .75 range indicating relative homogeneity of the sampled stimulus. b. Preactive Behavior Instrument: Constructive Openness This instrument was used to assess constructive openness. It was designed to predict the level of freeing or binding responses that supervisors thought they would use in a conference. Grimmett (1982) randomly ordered Wallen's (1972) eighteen freeing and binding items so that they could be rated on a Likert scale which indicated frequency of agreement or disagreement. The instrument was piloted with sixty-six graduate students. Fifty-two percent scored at the predicted level and forty-nine percent within one level of the predicted level. These findings were taken as evidence that the Preactive Behavior Instrument was adequate for measuring, with reasonable accuracy, participant level of constructive openness. The researcher adapted the instrument by substituting T F E language for teacher training language. For example "pastoral" was substituted for "teaching" behaviors in statement number five. See Appendix C: Instruments for copies of the adaptations and procedures for scoring. c. Supervisory Beliefs Inventory: Orientation to Supervision This inventory was designed for supervisors to assess their own beliefs about supervision and staff development. It consists of fifteen forced-choice statements which reflect attitudes that are either directive, collaborative, or non-directive. The results, reported in percentages, indicated the proportion of time the supervisor Research Design / 40 used one of these approaches. In this study, supervisors answered according to their own beliefs, while students answered according to how they experienced their supervisor. A reasonable estimate of reliability for the Supervisory Beliefs Inventory was based on item descriptions which showed clear distinctions between directive, collaborative, and non-directive orientations. Responses between options indicated "good" item discrimination. According to the author, Glickman (1981), a "good" item discrimination indicated internal consistency and was considered a reasonable estimate of validity. Inventory scores were indicated in percentages, representing the total amount of time a supervisor used a specific orientation. Thus making it possible to have the same percentage of time for each orientation. The instrument was designed for teachers' professional development. Again the researcher substituted T F E language for teacher language. Statements about staff development were included in the adaptation even though it was not applicable to all T F E placements. Participants were instructed to respond "as i f the situation with a staff member occurred in their own setting. See Appendix C: Instruments for copies of the adaptations and scoring procedures, d. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Personality Type This instrument was used to assist participants in recognizing their own basic preferences on perception and judgment. The MBTI has 126 forced-choice statements. Scoring identifies both individual preferences and the strength of Research Design / 41 preferences. Split-half reliability for internal consistency, using males and females from ages 9 to 60+ was given according to the dichotomies: Extr aversion-Intro version .82, Sensing-Intuitive .84, Thinking-Feeling .83, and Judging-Perception .86. Validity was determined by the ability of the indicator to demonstrate relationships and outcomes predicted by the theory. The M B T I was significantly correlated with 39 different personality instruments measuring the same or similar items. 3. Effectiveness of Supervisors After the interviews were completed, the researcher in consultation with the director of field education, rated the supervisors' professional effectiveness. A Likert scale of 5 to 1 was used; 5 equalling excellent and 1 unacceptable. The criteria for rating depended upon how effective the supervisor was in carrying out responsibilities to the student and to the school. A rating of excellent indicated that the supervisor was a "natural" in interaction with the students. Good indicated effectiveness with regard to both the student and the school. Adequate indicated that the supervisor fulfilled responsibilities with some difficulty. Acceptable indicated that the supervisor needed frequent help from the director. Unacceptable indicated that the supervisor was less than effective. Four months after the first ratings, the researcher re-rated the supervisors. Intra-rater reliability was .78 an acceptable level for reliability. Research Design / 42 4. Dependent-Independent Variables The interviews provided the data for the dependent variable, that is the role functions of the supervisory conference. The four instruments provided the data for the independent variables: conceptual level (Paragraph Completion Test), constructive openness (Preactive Behavior Instrument), orientation to supervision (Supervisory Beliefs Inventory), and personality types (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). The demographic questions provided the data for the explanatory variables of age, gender, experience, and educational level. 5. Confidentiality The confidentiality of all interviews and test results was assured by the following procedures: 1. The subjects' names were not reported. Each subject was assigned a code number. Data collection tools used only the code number. The key to the code was destroyed upon completion of the study. 2. Individual test scores were not available to persons outside of the researcher's thesis committee. The certificate of approval for this study from the University of British Columbia Behavioral Sciences Screening Committee is included in Appendix A . C. ANALYSIS OF DATA Content analysis was used to quantify answers for statistical manipulation. The specific kind of content category used was "thematic analysis" (Budd, Throp & Donohew, 1967). The initial set of theme categories which emerged from this analysis was very similar to Hunter's (1982) description of the role functions of Research Design / 43 the supervisory experience. The researcher adapted this description to form a set of twenty-two theme categories. Intra-coder reliability was determined by selecting a random sample of ten interviews coded by the researcher. These were re-coded three months later using the same theme categories and coding criteria. A reliability co-efficient of .75 was established. See Appendix D for this set of theme categories and their indicators. After analyzing the interviews, the frequency of role functions themes was recorded. Each theme frequency was than calculated by groups of supervisors and students. The groups were compared for differences using the t-test for two independent groups. A second t-test was used to compare the groups for differences of perception on constructive openness, and supervisory beliefs. The supervisors' scores represented the supervisors' judgments of their own verbal communication and their beliefs about supervision. The students' scores represented their estimates of constructive openness and orientation to supervision of their supervisors. Pearson correlations were used to determine the relationships between supervisors' and students' age, gender, educational level, experience, conceptual level, constructive openness, and orientation to supervision. A second Pearson correlation was used to determine the relationship between the twenty-two role functions of the supervisory conference, and the variables of age, gender, experience, conceptual level, constructive openness, and orientation to supervision of both supervisors and students. Research Design / 44 Personality type, measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, was analyzed by comparing type descriptions. A general description of the sample was determined by examining the two processes of perception (sensing or intuition), and judgment (thinking or feeling). These descriptions were than compared with the type and career choice descriptions in Myers and McCulley, 1985, p. 257. Content analysis was also used to categorize the answers to the probing questions asked during the interviews. The categories were as follows: a. What was the focus of the conference? 1) practical; 2) theological; 3) both practical and theological; 4) the relationship between student and supervisor; 5) student's personal growth; 6) unfocused. b. Did the student exhibit integration of academic and field experience? 1) much evidence; 2) evident; 3) some evidence; 4) not evident. c. What type of growth did the student exhibit? 1) deeper supervisor-student relationship; 2) student gained insight for future action; 3) student was affirmed and supported by supervisor; 4) student and supervisor became more mutual; 5) unclear about student growth. d. Were there any impediments to the student's growth? 1) yes; 2) no. These categories were derived from interview discussions of the supervisory conference. The categories were cross-tabulated by supervisors and students groups to obtain a Chi-square test of significance. The variables used in the cross-tabulation were the event description categories and educational level. During the analysis of the probing questions, it was discovered that within each Research Design / 45 of nine pairs, supervisor and student identified the same conference and supervision issue or field event. This finding prompted the researcher to explore further. These nine individual pairs were separated from the other nineteen pairs to see if those who coincidentally chose to discuss the same conference were any different from those who chose to discuss a different conference. Of particular interest to the researcher was the possibility of investigating the supervisor's perceptions of the student's ability to integrate academic background with current field placement experience. Also to consider how supervisors perceived the focus of the conference, the kind of growth the student exhibited, and whether or not the supervisor recognized any impediments to the student's growth. These were compared with the student's answers to the same questions. A n A N O V A was used to test for the differences between the nine and the nineteen pairs of supervisors and students, and the thirty variables used in this study. Each of the nine pairs were described on the same independent variables. From these nine pairs, the researcher selected three to illustrate the masking effect of data aggregation: for one pair the data were of the same order, for a second pair the data were of different orders, and for a third pair the data had some commonalities. D. DESIGN LIMITATIONS The research design was limited in several ways. In using Hunter's (1982) description of the role and functions of supervision, the researcher may have divided the descriptions into categories too narrowly defined, resulting in only a few answers in some categories. The timing of the student interviews may have Research Design / 46 influenced the responses due to "evaluation" fatigue. A final limitation was the interview instrument itself. There may have been different responses if there had been clearer distinctions between role and function. CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS This chapter reports the content analysis of the interviews, and the themes that were consistently used by the participants to describe the role functions of the supervisory conference. It presents the relationships found between the dependent variable of role functions themes, and the independent variables of conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. Correlations are reported between the themes and the demographic and individual characteristics of both supervisors and students. Correlations are also reported showing the relationships between the researcher's ratings of the supervisors' effectiveness and the demographic data, individual characteristics, and the students' report of integration. The findings regarding the pairs where both supervisor and student described the same incident during the interviews are reported. There is an account of how supervisors and students prioritized the functions of supervision as described in the interviews. The final section presents a summary of the findings. A. ROLE FUNCTION THEMES DESCRIBING SUPERVISION Role function themes were determined by content analysis of the responses of students and supervisors during their interviews. They were asked to describe the role of the supervisor, state the functions of supervision and prioritize what they considered to be the three most important functions. They also described an incident which occurred in a field placement conference that they felt led to insightful learning. Finally, they described the role of the supervisor and functions of supervision as experienced in that specific conference. 47 Findings / 48 From the participants' responses, the following consistent themes emerged: The supervisor 1. is a teacher. 2. teaches the student to link theology with the practice of ministry. 3. helps the student relate religious values to society's needs. 4. selects appropriate resources for the student. 5. gives appropriate feedback to the student. 6. is a role model for the student. 7. manages the student in the placement. 8. has the authority in the placement to make student assignments. 9. works in a collegial manner with both staff and student. The relationship between the supervisor and student is 10. personal, 11. intensive, 12. intimate, and 13. holistic. Supervision is 14. intentional, 15. structured, and 16. disciplined. 17. Supervisor provides an entry for student into the placement. 18. The student engages in actual ministry experience in the placement. During the supervisory conference 19. the student presents data about his or her ministry experience. 20. student experience is analyzed and reflected upon. 21. supervisor and student assess and evaluate student's growth. 22. supervisor and student plan for future changes. The means and standard deviations for the frequencies with which supervisors and students mentioned the twenty-two themes in their descriptions of the role functions of the supervisory conference are reported in Figure 3. These data Findings / 49 Legend: 'N' = Number of times mentioned ' t ' = t-test 'M' = Means 'd f ' = degrees of freedom 'SD' = Standard Deviations 'p ' = s ignif icance level (* p<<.05) Conference ana lys i s / ref lect ion Supervisors M=2.46, SD=1.77 69 Students M=1.50. SD=1.28 45 t=2.36 df=48.87 p=.022* Conference assessment/evaluation Supervisors M=1.86, SD=1.60 52 Students M=1.63. SD=1.35 49 t=0.57 df=52.98 p=.596 Relationship is intimate Supervisors M=1.29. SD=1.36 36 Students M=1.73. SD=1.51 52 t=-1.19 df=55.93 p=.239 Relationship is ho l i s t i c Supervisors M=1.14. SD=0.97 32 Students M=1.10. 5D=1.40 33 t=0.14 df=51.83 p=.892 Supervision is intentional Supervisors M=1.25. SD=1.14 35 Students M=0.87. SD=0.78 26 t=1.48 df=47.12 p=.144 Supervisor is col legia] Supervisors M=0.82, SD=1.22 23 Students M=1.23. SD=1.41 37 t = -1.19 df=55.71 p=.237 Supervisor is role model Supervisors M=0.89. SD=0.99 25 Students M=0.87. SD=1 . 11 26 t=0.09 df=55.93 p=.925 Supervisor provides student entry Supervisors M=0.96. SD=0.99 27 Students M=0.63. SD=0.93 19 t=1.30 df=54.86 p=.198 Relationship is intensive Supervisors M=0.71. SD=0.98 20 Students M=0.43, SD=0.63 13 t= 1 .29 df = 45.48 p=.202 Supervisor has authority Supervisors M=0.57, SD=0.96 16 Students M=0.47, SD=0.78 14 t=0.46 df=51.99 p=.651 Supervisor gives feedback Supervisors M=0.36, SD=0.56 10 Students M=0.57. SD=0.77 17 t=-1.19 df=52.76 p=.240 Student plan for change Supervisors M=0.61, SD=0.69 17 Students M=0.30. SD=0.65 9 t=1 .75 df = 55. 19 p=.086 Supervisor is manager Supervisors M=0.50. SD=0.69 14 Students M=0.40. SD=0.86 12 t=0.49 df=54.97 p=.626 Supervisor resources student Supervisors M=0.21, SD=0.57 6 Students M=0.57. SD=0.77 17 t=-1.99 df=53.13 p=.052 Supervision is d i sc ip l ined Supervisors M=0.36, SD=0.62 10 Students M=0.30. SD=0.70 9 t=0.33 df=55.85 p=.744 Links theology and pract ice Supervisors M=0.46. SD=0.92 13 Students M=0.07. SD=0.25 2 t=2.20 df=30.81 p=.035* Student is engaged in ministry Supervisors M=1.04. SD=1.50 Students M=0.57, SD=1.10 t=1 .35 df = 49.40 p= . 184 29 17 Supervision is structured Supervisors M=0.21, SD=0.42 Students M=0.10. SD=0.31 t=1.18 df=49.21 p=.243 Conference data is recovered Supervisors M=1.04. SD=1.14 Students M=0.53. SD=0.63 t=2.06 df=41.45 p=.046* Supervisor is teacher Supervisors M=0.86. SD=1.58 Stuaents M=0.47. S0=O.86 t= 1 . 16 df =4 1 . 08 p- . 254 29 16 24 14 Relationship is personal Supervisors M=0.M, SD=0.32 Students M=0.17, SD=0.46 t=-0.58 df=51.43 p=.566 Relates values to society Supervisors M=0.04, SD=0.19 Students M=0.00. SD=0.00 t=1.00 df=27.00 p=.326 1 0 Figure 3 Role Function Themes in Order of Frequency Findings / 50 were taken from interview questions eight and nine (see Appendix B: Interview Schedules). As a result of t-tests, the data indicated that supervisors and students differed significantly on three role function themes. Supervisors reported more frequently than students the themes of "analysis and reflection" on student growth (t=2.36, df= 48.87, p = .002), the "recovery of data" from the student's experience for use in the supervisory conference (t=2.06, df= 41.45, p = .046), and the "linking of theology with the practice of ministry" (t=2.20, df=30.81, p = .035). They were similar on at least seven role function themes: the supervisor is a role model (t=0.09, df=55.93, p = .925), the supervisory relationship is holistic (t=0.14, df=51.83, p = .892), supervision is disciplined (t=0.33, df=55.85, p = .744), the supervisor has authority (t=0.46, df=51.99, p = .651), the supervisor is a manager (t=0.49, df= 54.97, p = .626), during the conference there was assessment and evaluation (t=0.5, df= 52.98, p = .596), and the personal nature of the relationship (t=0.58, df=51.43, p = .566). The data from question eight, describing role functions in a general way, was separated from question nine, describing role functions in these specific supervisory conferences (see Appendix B). This separation was done in order to identify additional themes on which supervisors and students differed significantly. The separated data are not reported in Figure 3. The results of the t-tests for question eight indicated significant differences on two themes. Supervisors again mentioned more frequently than students the Findings / 51 linking of theology with practice of ministry (t=2.05, df=30.21, p = .049). Students, however, mentioned more often than supervisors the theme stating that the supervisor is a resource for the student (t=2.37, df= 47.00, p = .022). In a general way, supervisors saw themselves helping students link theology to the practice of ministry, while students saw their supervisors more in terms of resources for information and direction. These themes forcus on the practice of professional ministry. The results of the t-test for question nine indicated significant differences on three themes. The recovery of data for supervision was again mentioned more frequently by supervisors than by students (t=2.18, df=43.77, p = .035). Supervisors more often than students considered themselves a teacher (t=3.10, df= 27.00, p = .004). Students mentioned more often than supervisors that the supervisory relationship was characterized as intimate (t = 2.29, df=43.22, p = .027). In specific terms or from the perspective of an actual, conference, supervisors saw themselves as a teacher, eliciting data from the student for the conference, and students were concerned about the intimacy of their relationship with the supervisor. These themes focus on the supervisory relationship. In summary, it was evident that supervisors spoke about their role functions primarily from the perspective of their supervisory responsibilities. That is, they saw themselves as teachers, helping students to recover data from their experience in order to link it with their theology, as well as helping the student with analysis and reflection. The students, on the other hand, focused on the intimacy or closeness of the supervisory relationship, and saw their supervisors Findings / 52 as a resource for information and direction within their placement. B. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS INFLUENCING SUPERVISION In addition to their descriptions of the role functions of the Field education supervisory conference, both supervisors and students were influenced by other individual characteristics. The four characteristics used in this study were conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. Scores on conceptual level and personality type were used to compare supervisors and students. When constructive openness and orientation to supervision were used to compare supervisors and students, supervisors' scores were used, and the students' estimates of their supervisors' scores were utilized. Table 5 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and ranges of these individual characteristics. 1. Conceptual Level Results of the Paragraph Completion Test showed that supervisors and students did not differ signiFicantly on conceptual level (see Table 5). The average conceptual level was Level Two, indicating moderately simple conceptual structure. This conceptual level indicated that supervisors and students had the potential to recognize and accept alternatives. But they were reluctant to assign items to rigid categories, and found it difficult to assign alternative perspectives; to use conditional statements; to project hypothetical outcomes; to make exceptions to certain rules, and to tolerate some ambiguity (Silver, 1975). Table 5 Means, Standard Deviat ions, and Ranges of Conceptua1 *Leve1, Construct ive Openness, and Or ien ta t ion to Supervis ion for Supervisors and Students Superv i sors Students Mean SD Range Poss ib le Observed Mean SO Range Poss ib le Observed Conceptual level 2.08 0.34 Construct ive openness * 5.62 0.79 Or i enta t i on D i r ec t i on •* 17.00 11.60 Co l l abora t i ve * * * 41.88 7.21 Non-Direct ive 4 1.40 9.31 1-7 0-8 100% 100% 100% 1.70- 3.00 4.05- 6.78 00.00-46.90 26.80-53.60 20.10-60.30 2.24 4 .84 26.58 33.95 39.75 0.69 1.61 14 .88 10. 10 14 . 50 1-7 0-8 100% 100% 100% 1.20- 4.20 0.85- 6.78 6.70-53.60 6.70-53.60 13.40-67.00 Note. The students ' scores on cons t ruc t i ve openness and o r i en ta t i on to superv is ion are estimates of the i r superv i sor s ' const ruct ive openness and o r i e n t a t i o n to superv i s ion. * Supervisors ' const ruct ive openness was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than students ' estimates (t=2.17. df=27, p=.039) ** Supervisors ' d i r e c t i v e o r i en ta t i on was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than students ' estimates (t=-3.13, df=27. p=.004) * * * Supervisors ' c o l l abo ra t i ve o r i e n t a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than students ' estimates <t=3.43, df=27, p=.002)'. Findings / 54 2. Constructive Openness The results of the Preactive Behavior Instrument indicated a significant difference between how supervisors rated themselves on constructive openness and how students rated their supervisors (see Table 5). Supervisors considered themselves to be constructively more open (M = 5.62) in their verbal communication than students experienced them (t=2.17, df=27, p = .039). Grimmett (1982) characterized a high constructive openness score of seven as follows: Communication is deemed more helpful if statements are specific rather than general, tentative rather than absolute, and informing rather than ordering. The most helpful kinds of information are seen to be 1) behaviour description-the reporting of specific acts, 2) description of one's feelings, 3) perception-checking responses, and 4) paraphrasing the other's comments in order to ensure that one understands in the way intended, (p. 76) Students experienced their supervisors' verbal communication ability as less open (M = 4.84). A low constructive openness score is characterized as follows: [such communication can] coerce the supervisee into a state of dependency upon the authority figure . . . Supervisee feelings are unwittingly or wittingly denied, supervisors express value judgments from their own frame of reference, evincing approval or disapproval of the . . . behaviour of supervisees. Because they are ultimately responsible for the maintenance of the instructional program, supervisors may lose all patience and use their authority to command supervisees to make certain changes. (Grimmett, 1982, pp. 78-79) The above verbal communication behaviors are at the more extreme ends of Wallen's (1972) freeing and binding continuum (see Figure 1 in Chapter Two). The T F E supervisors' perceptions of themselves were in the upper middle range (range = 4.05 to 6.78, M = 5.62),- the students' perceptions of the supervisors were in the lower middle range (range= 0.85 to 6.78, M=4.84) with scores in the Findings / 55 very low ranges (0.85). These scores indicated that supervisors did not rate themselves as using binding communication, while certain students reported definitely experiencing binding verbal communication. 3. Orientation to Supervision On the Supervisory Beliefs Inventory, supervisors rated themselves as using a directive orientation to supervision about 17% of the time. But students estimated their supervisors' use of a directive orientation to be 27% of the time (see Table 5). Glickman (1981) described a directive orientation to supervision with the following supervisory behaviors: Supervisors were engaged primarily in the behaviors of clarifying and presenting her [or his] thinking, directing what will happen, demonstrating appropriate teaching [pastoral] behaviors, and standardizing a target level of student progress. The supervisor used praise and rewards as an incentive or reinforcement for carrying out the plan. (p. 21) Supervisors believed that they were using a collaborative orientation about 42% of the time, while students experienced it only 34% of the time. Glickman (1981) characterized collaborative supervision as a joint supervisor and student responsibility: A . The supervisor encounters the teacher [student] with his or her perceptions of the instructional [pastoral] area needing improvement (presenting). B. The supervisor asks for teacher [student] perceptions of instructional [pastoral] area (clarifying). C. The supervisor listens to teacher [student] perceptions (listening). D. Supervisor and teacher [student] propose alternative actions for improvement (problem solving). E. Supervisor and teacher [student] discuss and alter actions until a joint plan is agreed upon (negotiating), (p. 30) Findings / 56 Both supervisors (41%) and students (40%) reported using or experiencing a non-directive orientation to supervision. Glickman (1981) describes non-directive supervision in the behavioral terms of listening, encouraging, clarifying, presenting and problem solving . . . to create a teacher [student] self-plan. (p. 36) In summary, theological field education supervisors viewed themselves as being collaborative while their students experienced them as directive. 4. Personali ty Type According to Myers and McCulley (1985), there are sixteen personality types. These types are determined by various combinations of extraversion and introversion, sensing and intuition, thinking and feeling, and judging and perceiving. A short description and the frequency of the types for supervisors and students in this study are given in Table 6. It was difficult to describe the personality type of the two groups of supervisors and students in general terms because of the small percentage of each type. Therefore, in order to get a general understanding of the two groups, personalitj r was examined according to the supervisors and students process preferences of perception (sensing and intuition) and judgement (thinking and feeling). See Table 2 in Chapter Two for a description of these two process preferences. The adaptation of personality type to the process preferences is shown in Table 7. It was clear from Table 7, that supervisors and students shared general preferences for the processes of intuition and feeling. Sixty-three percent of the Findings / 57 Table G Desc r i p t i on and Frequency of Myers-Briggs Per sona l i t y Types Type D e s c r i p t i o n Superv1sors N = 27 Students N = 30 ENF J Imaginative harmonlzer 19V. 20% ENFP E n t h u s i a s t i c planner of change 26% 10% INFP Imaginative helper 1 1% 17% INFJ Peop le -o r i en ted innovator 4% 20% ISFd Sympathetic manager of f ac t s 1 9% 7% ESFJ P r a c t i c a l harmonlzer 4% 3% INTJ D e c i s i v e innovator 15% 10% ENTP A n a l y t i c planner of c.hange 4% 3% ISTJ A n a l y t i c manager of f ac t s 0% 3% INTP I n q u i s i t i v e analyzer 0% 3% EST J P r a c t i c a l organ izer 0% 3% ENTJ Innovat ive orang lzer 4% 0% ISFP Observant he lper -- --ISTP P r a c t i c a l ana lyzer -- --ESTP R e a l i s t i c adpater to things -- --ESFP R e a l i s t i c adpater to people — — Note. One superv i sor d i d not return the Meyers-Briggs Type Ind icator . Table adapted from Lawrence (1979). total sample was described as preferring the intuitive-feeling process. This percentage was higher than the fifty-five percent national average of intuitive-feeling types found among clergy of all denominations (Myers & McCulley, 1985, p. 257). The intuitive-feeling personality types were described in the following terms: This type tends to have personal warmth, to see possibilities, to be enthusiastic and Findings / 58 Table 7 The Myers-Briggs Per sona l i t y Process Preferences of Supervisors and Students Process Preferences Supervisors Students Combined N=27 N=30 N = 57 I n t u i t i v e - F e e l i n g 59% 67% 63% I n tu i t i ve -Th ink ing 22% 17% 19% Sens ing-Fee l ing 19% 10% 14% Sensing-Thinking 0% 7% 4% insightful, and to be most satisfied when understanding and communicating with others. From an educational perspective, Myers and McCulley (1985) described the intuitive-feeling type teacher as flexible, offering encouragement, inspiration, variety and creativity; as getting ideas from subject content, courses, readings and knowledge of student development; and as planning weekly with general goals, and with student needs and personal growth in mind. Nineteen percent of the supervisors and students were intuitive-thinking processing types. The description of the intuitive-thinking educational setting was similar to the above description of the intuitive-feeling, except the thinking preference encouraged the use of synthesis, logic and more order than the feeling preference. Fourteen percent of both groups were sensing-feeling. Teachers were described as role models; as obtaining ideas from curriculum, manuals, textbooks, workshops, and other's experience; as planning yearly with detailed objectives for lessons, while taking student abilities into consideration. Success was contributing to the students' education. Findings / 59 The above descriptions of teacher behavior according to type was helpful in considering the teaching behaviors of field education supervisors. Considered from a field education perspective the supervisor obtained ideas from actual situations in the field placement or from case studies and verbatims by the students. Evaluation of students was based on the competencies acquired by the student, and by feedback given to the supervisor by parishioners and the supervisors' own observations. In addition to the educational behavior, other differences in personality type affect the way individuals interact with others and the environment. For example, from this study intuitive-thinking supervisors focused their attention on possibilities and approached their supervision with impersonal analysis; while sensing-feeling students focused on facts and approached supervision looking for personal warmth. The influence of personality type on the supervisory interaction became more evident when individual pairs of supervisors and students were analyzed. C. DEMOGRAPHIC AND INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS CORRELATIONS This section of the findings first, indicates the relationship between age, gender and experience, and the role functions themes; and second, indicates the relationship between conceptual level, constructive openness and orientation to supervision, and the role function themes. Pearson correlations, with significance level set at p<.05, were used to determine the relationships between the themes describing the role functions of the supervisory conference and the demographic and individual characteristics. Table 8 reports the correlations of role functions themes with the demographic characteristics of supervisors and students. Findings / 60 Table 8 Correlations of Role Function Themes with Oemographlc Characterist ics of Supervisors and Students Themes Characterist ics Age Sex Supervisory Student Work Experience Experience Sup Stu Sup Stu 1. Supervisor 1s teacher .09 - .07 - .03 - .02 . 14 .02 2. Links theology and p r a d t c e - . 15 . 15 . 18 - . 18 - .02 .01 3. Relates values to society - . 32* .00 .07 .00 - . 13 .00 4. Supervisor resources student .25 — .19 -.28 . 18 . 1 1 • -.04 5. Supervisor gives feedback - .05 -.11 - .20 -.11 -.36* .03 Supervisor is 6 . Role model - . 14 -.11 .08 - .05 - .OO - . 25 7 . Manager .27 - . 12 .09 .21 - . 17 .03 8 . Author i ty . 39* -.04 - .04 .27 - .01 .21 9. Co l leg ia l -.47* -.26 -.25 .05 -.20 - .08 Relationship is 10. Persona 1 .38* - .24 -.25 .24 . 39* -.21 1 1 . Intens1ve . 12 .09 . 14 -.23 .25 .22 12 . Intimate -.04 .27 - . 36* - .23 - .01 .22 13 . Hoi 1st 1c - . 17 . 14 - .07 - .26 - . 12 .07 Supervision Is 14 . Intentlonal - .08 . 12 . 18 .02 -.26 .20 15. Structured - .04 .08 - . 38* .27 -.21 . 18 16 . 01sc1plined . - .06 - .04 - . 55* .03 -.11 -.02 17. Supervisor provides entry .09 .31 - . 13 -.30 . 15 . 13 18. Student engage In ministry - .32 - .09 - .23 .26 -.27 - . 10 During the conference 19 . Data is recovered .20 - . 18 - .09 . 14 - . 17 - .43* 20. Ana 1ys1s/ref1ect1on - . 19 - .02 - .04 .09 -.31 - .08 21 . Assessment/eva1uat1 on .01 - .05 . 26 - .04 . 39* - .02 22 . Plan for change . 13 .42* . 14 - . 20 .31 .31 * Correlations are s ign i f icant at p<.05 or beyond. Findings / 61 Age The age of the supervisor related significantly to four role functions themes (see Table 8). Older supervisors discussed more frequently than younger supervisors the themes relating to their authority (r = .39, p<.05) and the personal nature of the supervisory relationship (r = .38, p<.05). The same group mentioned less often the theme of collegiality (r = -.47, p<.01). Younger supervisors mentioned more frequently than older supervisors the theme of relating religious values to society's needs (r = -.32, p<.05). This same theme represented only 3.3% of the supervisors. The personal nature of the supervisory relationship theme represented 10%. Therefore these two themes need to be interpreted with some caution. Only one theme influenced older students more than younger ones. The older students were more concerned about planning for change with their supervisors (r = .42, p<.01). Gender The gender of the supervisors correlated significantly with three themes (see Table 8). Women supervisors mentioned more frequently than men the need for a disciplined (r=-.55, p<.01) and structured (r = -.38, p<.05) supervisory conference, and for the supervisory relationship to be intimate (r = -.36, p<.05). The gender of the students did not correlate significantly with any of the role functions themes. Experience The experience of the supervisors correlated significantly with three themes (see Findings / 62 Table 8). Supervisors with more experience were found to mention more often than less experienced supervisors the following themes: their responsibility to assist the student to analyze and reflect (r = .39, p<.05); the personal nature of the supervisory relationship (r = .39, p<.05); however, more experienced supervisors had less need to give appropriate feedback to the student (r = -.36, p<.05). Students with more years of work experience before coming to theological education than students with fewer years of experience reported less often the theme of recovering data for supervision (r=-.43, p<.01). Individual characteristics of conceptual level, constructive openness, and orientation to supervision were correlated with the role function themes, these are reported in Table 9. Conceptual Level Both supervisors and students with higher conceptual levels mentioned the need to give students appropriate feedback (supervisors, r=.37, p = .025 and students, r = .37, p = .023). Higher conceptual level supervisors mentioned more often than lower conceptual level supervisors the need for students to be engaged in actual ministry (r = .36, p = .029). A t the same time, higher conceptual level students did not mention this theme in any significant way, but they did mention the theme of intentionality (r = .35, p = .030). Intentionality was not a significant theme for supervisors. The data indicated that higher conceptual level supervisors and students were able to give and receive feedback, but they differed on two other themes. Higher Findings / 63 T a b l e 9 C o m e 1 a t J o n s of R o l e f u n c t 1 o n Themes w i t h 1 n o i v i a u a l C h a r a c t e r 1 s t t c s o f S u p e r v i s o r s and S t u o e n t s Themes C h a r a c t e r 1 s t 1 C S C o n c e p t u a 1 C o n s t r u c t w e O r i e n t a t i o n t o s u p e r v t s i o n L e v e 1 Ooennes s D i r e c t i v e Co l 1 a o o r a t i ve N o n - D 1 r e c t i ve Sup 5 t u Sup S t u Sup S tu Sup S t u Sup S t u 1. S u p e r v i s o r i s t e a c h e r - . 0 3 .07 - . 0 1 - . 2 2 - . 1 1 . 3 5 * . 15 - . 3 2 ' - . 0 1 _ . 13 2. L i n k t h e o l o g y a n d p r a c l t c e - . 16 - . 2 4 - . 18 - .08 .21 . 3 7 ' . 10 .08 - . 3 3 " - . 4 3 * 3. R e l a t e s v a l u e s t o s o c i e t y - . 0 5 .00 .01 .00 - . 17 .00 . 3 2 - .00 - . 0 3 .00 4 . S u p e r v i s o r r e s o u r c e s s t u f l e n t - . 11 - .26 - .01 - . 1 1 .07 .25 .09 - .03 - . 14 - . 2 4 5. S u p e r v i s o r g i v e s f e e d D a c k S u p e r v i s o r Is . 37 * . 3 7 * . 10 .28 - .21 - . 4 1 " - . 2 2 - . 12 . 3 9 ' . 5 2 " 6. R o l e model .03 .03 - . 12 .09 - .22 - . 1 7 .09 .01 .23 . 17 7 . Manager - . 17 .05 - . 5 0 ' . 19 .23 - . 0 8 - . 0 7 - . 0 7 - . 2 5 . 15 8. A u t h o r 1ty - . 2 0 - . 3 0 - - . 2 9 - . 4 1 * .28 . 3 1 * - . 11 .09 - . 2 5 .- . 4 0 " 9 . C o l l e g i a l R e l a t i o n s h i p 1s .OS - .05 .28 .26 - . 2 7 - . 5 1 - - . 2 5 . 3 3 * . 5 5 * .26 10. P e r s o n a 1 - .25 - .06 .09 .00 . 16 - . 0 3 - . 3 0 - . 16 .04 . 15 11 . I n t e n s i v e - . 10 .21 .05 - . 0 4 .09 .01 . 14 - . 1 1 - . 2 1 .07 12. I n t I m a t e .21 . 16 .23 .01 - . 16 - . 15 - . 0 3 .07 .23 . 10 13. H o i i s t i c S u p e r v i s i o n Is . 12 . 12 . 12 - . 18 - . 0 5 - . 0 5 . 14 . 19 - . 0 2 - . 0 7 14. I n t e n t 1ona l - . 0 6 . 3 5 * - . 18 . 13 • ' 7 - . 18 - . 0 8 .01 - . 12 . 18 15. S t r u c t u r e d .06 - . 10 - . 3 1 . 16 - . 1 1 - . 10 . 12 - . 0 2 - . 0 1 . 12 16. D l s d p l 1ned .00 .08 - . 0 8 .24 - . 15 - . 2 0 . 14 - . 0 5 . 10 .24 . 17. S u p e r v i s o r p r o v i d e s e n t r y - . 14 . 1 1 .02 .08 - . 16 . 18 .08 - . 20 . 17 - .03 18. S t u d e n t engage In m i n i s t r y D u r i n g c o n f e r e n c e • . 3 6 - - . 14 - .04 - . 2 9 - . 18 .21 .25 - . 3 8 * .03 .06 19. D a t a 1s r e c o v e r e d - .03 .09 - . 10 . 11 .20 .04 - . 16 - .08 - . 10 .21 2 0 . Ana 1 y s 1 s / r e f 1 e c t I o n .07 .30 - .04 . 5 0 " . 12 - . 2 9 - . 10 . 2 0 - . 0 8 . 17 21 . A s s e s s m e n t / e v a 1 u a t I o n - .03 . 10 .26 - . 0 3 - . 12 - . 18 - . 0 2 . 10 . 16 .07 22 . P l a n f o r c h a n g e - .30 - . 0 4 . 14 .09 - . 0 0 - .02 - .31 . 16 .27 - . 0 8 • C o r r e l a t i o n s s i g n l g l e a n t a t p<-05 o r beyond conceptual level supervisors and students differed respectively on how often they mentioned the themes of students' engagement in actual ministry and the intentionality of supervision. In order to understand the differences between supervisors and students with the same conceptual level, the researcher reviewed the interview data for examples of Findings / 64 how higher conceptual level interviewees described these two themes. Higher conceptual level supervisors described pastoral care crises and alternative decisions in tentative and conditional terms. Higher conceptual level students did not describe pastoral care crises in the same tentative or conditional terms. Their responses tended to be more rigid. This may be an indication of the domain specific characteristic of the Paragraph Completion Test. For example, a person can function at a higher conceptual level in some domains and not in others (D. Pratt, personal communication, March 1987). A second theme on which higher conceptual level supervisors and students differed was intentionality of supervision. For example, higher conceptual level supervisors described intentionality in conditional terms, like "we do supervision between appointments, or when an issue comes up." Higher conceptual level students described intentionality in terms of the supervisor providing them with options, resources, and an opportunity to develop their own gifts. The differences may be the result of different understandings of intentionality, or the fact that the category was imprecise, or it may be an indication of domain specific behavior. Constructive Openness Verbal communication in a supervisory relationship is very important (see Table 9). Supervisors with lower constructively open communication mentioned more frequently than other supervisors the theme concerning their management role with students, lay training committee members, and parishioners (r = -.50, p = .003). Students who rated their supervisors as having lower constructive Findings / 65 openness focused on the authority of the supervisor (r = -.41, p = .013). Low constructive openness was characterized by communication that diminished the students' autonomy by increasing their sense of subordination. From the interviews it was found that low constructively open supervisors used words such as "strong supervision," "confrontation," "being frank" to describe their supervision. Students who rated their supervisors low in constructive openness used phrases like "my supervisor was autocratic," "I felt like I was on trial," and "we had a communication problem." Finally, students who rated their supervisors as being high in constructive openness felt free to mention the theme of analysis and reflection as an important role function of supervision (r = .50, p = .002). Students who experienced open and trusting communication on the part of their supervisors were able to analyze and reflect on their pastoral behavior in an environment that increased their autonomy and sense of equality. In the interviews, these students described their supervisory experience in the following ways: during the conference "we reflected on my agenda," "I was left to do what I felt was necessary," the supervisor "modeled" how to do analysis, and the words "shared," and "affirmed," "supported" were frequently used during the interviews. Orientation to Supervision Three orientations to supervision were explored in this study (see Table 9). Each orientation was correlated with the themes describing the role functions of the supervisory conference in the context of T F E . When directive supervisors were correlated with the twenty-two themes, no significant relationships were found. Findings / 66 When students who believed their supervisor used a directive approach were correlated with the themes, four significant relationships were found. The more directive the students found their supervisors, the less mention they made of collegiality (r = -.51, p = .002) and feedback (r = -41, p = .012), and they more often mentioned the supervisor as teacher (r = .35, p = .028) with the authority to make student assignments (r = .31, p = .048). These findings are congruent with the description of a directive orientation to supervision as described by Glickman (1981). There was an apparent contradiction in the role of supervisor as teacher between the more directive supervisors (r=-.17) and students (r = .35) who estimated their supervisors as directive. Information from the interviews did not give insight into these differing understandings of the teacher role. The students mentioned that the supervisor was a teacher or educator; one student suggested that the supervisor was authoritarian as a teacher. The directive supervisors described the teacher role as "suggesting to the student how to deal with a problem" and gave a sense that the supervisor was the one to tell the student "how to do" ministry. Students who experienced collaborative supervisors, expressed the theme of collegiality more often than students who experienced other orientations to supervision (r = .33, p = .036). However, they expressed less often the need for students to be engaged in actual ministry (r = .-38, p = .020) and the role of supervisor as "teacher" (r = -.32, p = .044). Findings / 67 Both non-directive supervisors and students who experienced non-directive supervision mentioned significantly more often than other orientations the need for appropriate feedback to the student (supervisors, r=.39, p = .020; students, r = .52, p = .002). And both groups mentioned less often than other orientations, the need to link theology with the practice of ministry (supervisors, r = -.33, p = .045; students, r = -.43, p = .009). Non-directive supervisors mentioned more often than supervisors using other orientations, the need to be collegial in supervisory relationships (r = .55, p = .00T). Students experiencing non-directive supervision made less mention of the authority of the supervisor to make student assignments (r = -.39, p = .016). In summary, the demographic and individual characteristics of supervisors and students related to fifteen of the twenty-two themes. The themes that related to demographic characteristics were: younger supervisors worked collegially, older supervisors mentioned their authority, and older students were more conscious of planning for change. Women supervisors were concerned about the intimacy of the supervisory relationship, and more concerned than men that supervision be structured and disciplined. More experienced supervisors considered it important to provide feedback, analysis and reflection for the student while maintaining a personal relationship. Students with less years of work experience were more concerned about ways to bring data to the supervisory conference. The themes that related to the individual characteristics were: High conceptual level students and supervisors were both interested in appropriate feedback. Higher conceptual level supervisors wanted to be certain that students were Findings / 68 engaged in actual ministry, while higher conceptual level students wanted supervision to be intentional. Regarding constructive openness, the more open the supervisor the less concern for the role of manager; while students who rated their supervisors more open, were less concerned about the supervisors' authority and more interested in analysis and reflection on their work. Orientation to supervision was related to the supervisory relationship. Students who experienced directive supervision characterized the supervisor as a teacher with authority to make assignments, as less collegial, and less interested in giving feedback. Students who experienced collaborative supervision characterized their supervisors as collegial, with less emphasis on the supervisor as teacher, and less interested in engaging in "actual" ministry. Non-directive supervision was characterized by both students and supervisors as a time for appropriate feedback, with little mention of the need to link theology with the practice of ministry. Non-directive supervisors saw themselves as collegial, while the students of non-directive supervisors were not concerned about the authority of the supervisors to make student assignments. D. DIFFERENT VS. SAME INCIDENTS During the interviews supervisors and students were asked to describe an event which was critical to their learning. The following areas were probed: the focus of the incident, the integration of the student's academic background and field experience, the positive growth of the student, and any impediments to the student's growth. No significant differences were found between the answers of the supervisors and those of the students. Table 10 presents a description in Findings / 69 Table 10 Interview Events as Perce ived by Superv i sors and Students Event D e s c r i p t i o n N Supprv1sors N = 2B N S tudent s N=30 Kind of event Pnstorn l concern e 2B . G% i o 35 . 7% Unclear expecta t ions 9 32 . 1% 8 2B . G7-Issues of c o n f l i c t 5 1 7 . 9"/. 5 1 7 . 9% Student growth 6 2 1 . 4% 5 1 7 . 9% Inc1 dent D1f ferent 19 67 .9% 19 G7 . 9% Same 9 3 2 . 2% 9 32 . 1% Focus of event Pract lea l 14 50 . 0% 16 57 . 1% T heo1og1ca1 4 14 .37. 2 07 . 1% Both p r a c t i c a l and t h e o l o g i c a l 6 2 1 . 4% 5 1 7 . 9% Superv i sory r e l a t i o n s h i p 1 03 . 6% 4 1 4 . 3% Student growth Issue 3 10.7% 0 --1ntegra t1 on Much evidence 8 28 .6% 5 16.7% E v1 dent 10 35 . 7% 12 40 .0% Some evidence 7 25.0% 7 2 3 . 3% Not ev ident 3 10.7% 6 20.0% P o s i t i v e student growth Deeper superv i so ry r e l a t i o n s h i p 5 1 7 . 9% 12 4 2 . 9% Greater student Insight 14 50 . 0% 8 2B . 6% Student a f f i r m e d 3 10.7% 8 28 .67. Unc1 ear 1 03 .6% 0 Student growth Impeded Yes 15 53 . 6% 8 28 . 6% No 13 46 . 4% 20 7 1 . 4% Findings / 70 percentages of how supervisors and students answered the probing questions describing a supervisory conference event. There were twenty-eight pairs of supervisors and students in this study. Within nine pairs both supervisor and student described the same event or incident. The researcher wanted to see if the nine pairs in which both supervisor and student described the same incident (to be referred to as the "same incident group") were any different from the nineteen pairs in which both supervisor and student described different incidents (to be referred to as the "different incident group"). It was of interest to the researcher to discover if those pairs in which both participants described the same incident might indicate some uniqueness in their supervisory experience. Two additional analyses were made to determine differences between the two groups. The first, an A N O V A was used to analyze the variance between the participants in the "different incident group" and the "same incident group," and age, educational level, conceptual level, constructive openness and orientation to supervision. A second analysis, using all of the independent variables examined the "same incident group" to discover the interaction patterns between supervisor and student that were not apparent when the pairs were aggregated. Three of these pairs were described. There was a four year difference between the supervisors in the same and different incident groups. Students in both groups were 42 years old. A l l three women supervisors were in the same incident group. Eighty-eight percent of the same incident group were women students. There was no difference in educational background between supervisors in the same and different groups and the total group of supervisors. Both in the different group had in the same incident group held a Master of Divinity a baccalaureate degree or had a baccalaureate degree Findings / 71 degree or higher. Students higher, while the students or less. In both the same and different groups, conceptual levels were not significantly different. In both groups, however, supervisors rated themselves significantly more open in their constructive openness than their students did (F = 4.50, F ^ r o ^ = .039). Students who shared the same incident as their supervisors, estimated their supervisors' openness closer to the way the supervisors rated themselves (different supervisors Mean = 5.63, different students Mean = 4.61; same supervisors Mean = 5.61, same students Mean = 5.49). Supervisors in both groups saw themselves significantly less directive than their students (F = 6.28, q ^ = .015). This was similar to the findings in the total sample. Students in the same incident group rated their supervisors significantly less collaborative than students in the different group (F= 11.25, F^ ^ = .001). There were no significant differences in the non-directive orientation to supervision between this group or between supervisors and students of other orientations. Regarding the role functions of the supervisory conference both supervisors and students in the same incident group mentioned the need to link theology with the practice of ministry significantly more frequently than supervisors and students in the different group (F = 4.55, ^ ^ = .038). And supervisors mentioned the theme more frequently than students in both groups. Supervisors and students in the same incident group significantly differed regarding the recovery of data for Findings / 72 supervision. Supervisors mentioned it more often than students (F=4.05, ^(prob) = ' ^ ^ ' Supervisors mentioned the recovery of data more often in both groups, but in the same incident group the difference was greater. Supervisors in the same incident group mentioned the need for analysis and reflection more frequently than supervisors in the different group. Supervisors in the same incident group mentioned analysis and reflection significantly more often than the students in the same incident group (F = 4.85, F ^ r o ^ = .032). With regard to assessment and evaluation, supervisors in both groups mentioned it more often than students, but there was a greater difference in the frequency of mention in the group that did not share a common incident (F = 6.48, F ^ r o ^ = .014). These findings did not add any new insights into how supervisors and students described the role functions of the supervisory conference. After analyzing the nine individual pairs, three pairs were selected to illustrate interaction patterns not apparent when the aggregated group of supervisors and students were analyzed. These three cases were selected because they represented pairs that were matched or mismatched on a number of variables. Table 11 describes these three pairs and compares them to the total sample of supervisors and students. Pair A supervisor and student were 46 years old. The supervisor had supervised for five years and the student had worked for 20 years prior to theological education. The supervisor had a Master of Divinity degree and the student had a baccalaureate degree. Both supervisor and student characterized their experience Table 11 Demographic and Individual Cha rac te r i s t i c s of Three Supervisory Pa irs Cha rac te r i s t i c s Total Sample Sup Stu Sup Stu Sup Stu Superv i sors Students A A D D H H N = 28 N = 30 Means Means Age (years) 46 46 59 50 50 35 49 42 Experience (years) 5 20 1 35 3 10 3 15 Gender M F M F M F -- --Conceptual Level 2.0 2.3 2.5 1 .7 2.2 1.8 2. 1 2.2 Construct ive Openness 6 . 2 5.8 4.8 3 . 4 5 . 4 5.7 5.6 4 . 8 Or ienta t ion to Supervis ion D i rect i ve 7% 20% 34% 4 7% 4 7% 40% 17% 27% Col 1aborat ive 47'/. 34% 40% 34% 34% 40% 4 2% 34% Non-D1rect1ve 47% 47% 27% 20% 20% 20% 4 1% 40% Educational Level MDiv BA MDiv No Degree MDiv BA MD1V + BA + Myers-Etr iggs ISFJ INFJ ENTJ ESFd ENFP ENFJ NF NF Persona l i ty Type Findings / 74 as rewarding. The same incident they described dealt with the expectations of a small group of parishioners who disagreed with how the student was functioning in a specific situation. Hard feelings were generated that primarily involved one parishioner. The supervisor and student analyzed and evaluated the situation. As a result of the conference, the student was able to work out a solution with the group and the person involved. Both supervisor and student were satisfied with the resolution. They both named the incident "pastoral." They agreed that the student evidenced integration of her academic background with the present situation, and that there was growth on the part of the student. They disagreed on the focus of the conference. The supervisor saw the interaction as a practical resolution of a problem, while the student saw it in terms of relationship building between supervisor and student. The supervisor thought there were some impediments to the student's growth, while the student was unaware of any. Both supervisor and student in Pair A scored at a conceptual level of Two. They were both lower than the mean of the total sample. The supervisor rated himself as being 10% more open than other supervisors. The student rated her supervisor 19% more open than other students rated their supervisors. They agreed that the orientation to supervision used by the supervisor was primarily non-directive. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator designated the supervisor an I S F J and the student I N F J . Their types showed agreement on three preferences: introversion or the inward orientation to concepts and ideas; feeling or decision making based on personal values rather than logic; and judgment, living their Findings / 75 lives in a planned and orderly way. They disagreed on how they Find things out. The supervisor used his five senses to tell him what was actually present in the environment, while the student used intuition to look for possibilities. A good indication of the "judgment" preferences of the two personality types in pair A was reflected in the themes used to describe the role functions of the supervisory conference. They both mentioned the following themes as ways of regulating and controlling the situation: the supervisor has authority to make student assignments; supervision is intentional and disciplined; the student is adequately initiated into the placement; and analysis, reflection and planning are part of the conference. In addition, the supervisor mentioned the need for supervision to be structured, and the conference to include assessment and evaluation. The student mentioned the need for feedback, the need for supervisor to be role model, and need for the student to be engaged in actual ministry. Because both supervisor and student made decisions based on personal value, it was not unexpected to find that both mentioned the supervisory relationship as intensive and holistic. The student, in addition, indicated that it should be intimate, a characteristic response of the women students and supervisors in this sample. There were no unusual problems or concerns in this pair. Pair D exhibited a stormy relationship and were atypical of the group that described the same incident (see Table 11). The male supervisor was 59 years old and the female student was 50 years old. This was the supervisor's first supervisory experience; the student had more than double the work experience of other students. The supervisor had an equivalent to a Master of Divinity, while Findings / 76 the student had not completed college. The incident that Pair D described concerned the ability of the student to receive and integrate evaluative feedback from the supervisor. Both supervisor and student agreed that the incident was one of conflict between themselves; that the student had demonstrated some integration of academic background with the present situation; and that there were definite impediments to the student's growth. They disagreed on the focus: the supervisor saw the personal growth of the student as the focus; the student saw the focus on practical issues. As a result of this supervisory interaction, the supervisor considered that their relationship had deepened; the student felt more affirmed and supported. The supervisor's conceptual level (2.5) was 20% higher than other supervisors, while the student's conceptual level (1.7) was 25% lower than other students. Both supervisor and student were lower on constructive openness scores than their peers; the supervisor 15% lower and the student 31% lower. The supervisor rated himself collaborative, and the student rated him directive. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator of personality designated the supervisor an E N T J and the student an E S F J . This combination of personality types indicates differences in two critical areas: they were opposite in both the way they perceived the world, and the way they made decisions. The supervisor focused on the possibilities and the student focused on the facts. The supervisor made decisions based on logic and the student made decisions based on personal value and relationships. Findings / 77 Pair D described the role functions of the supervisory conference as follows: the supervisor was a resource to the student, and a manager with authority to make assignments. The relationship was intensive, intimate, and holistic. Supervision was intentional; and the supervisor was responsible for initiating the student into the placement. In addition, the supervisor mentioned the following themes: the supervisor as role model; structured supervision; the student engaged in actual ministry; data recovered for the conference with focus on analysis, reflection, assessment, and evaluation. One theme mentioned by the student and not the supervisor was the teaching role of the supervisor. There appeared to be agreement regarding the role functions of the supervisory conference, but the stress and tension in the relationship had to be explained by some other factors, such as the differences in educational level, in conceptual level, in constructive openness, in orientation to supervision, and in personality. The student rated the supervisor 31% lower than her fellow-students estimates of their supervisors' constructive openness, indicating that this student perceived "binding" language rather than "freeing" language. This agreed with the supervisor's own self rating of 15% lower than his fellow-supervisors on constructive openness, indicating that he tended to use binding language. In Pair H the student worked closely with the supervisor as a colleague on a common project (see Table 11). They both experienced a rather congenial working relationship, but an unsatisfying supervisory relationship. The male supervisor was 50 years old, and the female student was 35. The supervisor had three years experience as a supervisor, while the student had 10 years of work experience Findings / 78 before coming to theological education. The supervisor had a doctorate, while the student had a baccalaureate degree. The incident that this pair described dealt with a misunderstanding of the role of the supervisor. Pair H agreed that the incident they both described was pastoral; the focus was both practical and theoretical; integration was evident; and there seemed to be no impediment to the student's growth. However, they disagreed about the kind of growth that took place in the student. The conceptual level of the supervisor was near the mean of the other supervisors (supervisor = 2.2, Mean = 2.08); the student was 21% lower than her peers (student= 1.8, Mean = 2.28). The supervisor rated himself less open than his peers by 5%. The student rated her supervisor 15% higher in constructive openness than other students. Both supervisor and student ratings of constructive openness were almost the same (supervisor = 5.36, student=5.65). The supervisor considered his dominate orientation to supervision to be directive, more than double that of other supervisors. The student was confused about her supervisor's orientation, rating him the same for both directive and collaborative (40.2% of the time for both). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator designated the supervisor an E N F P and the student an E N F J . This pattern can be compatible, except when it comes to controlling and ordering the world. The supervisor was more flexible and unplanned, while the student preferred a schedule and the setting of specific times for supervision. These different characteristics of the personality type may Findings / 79 have contributed to the uneasiness of the supervisory relationship. The supervisor and student agreed on the themes of linking theology with practice, the holistic characteristics of supervisory relationship, and analysis and reflection. This supervisor's directive approach to supervision may account for his mention of his role as manager, the intentionality of supervision, the students' engagement in actual ministry, assessment and evaluation. These themes fit within the description of a directive supervisor. The student experienced a more collaborative supervision, and in addition mentioned the themes of supervisor as resource and role model; a collegial relationship, a disciplined supervisory conference, and initiation into the placement. Though the work project expectations seemed to be clear, there was an underlying uneasiness during the field placement regarding supervision. This unease was dealt with only at the last supervisory session. The tension was resolved, but it did not come soon enough for the student or supervisor to change their behavior toward each other. The three illustrative cases added new understanding of the extent to which the role functions of the supervisory conference were related to conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. Conceptual level was found related to other variables in each of the three pairs. In Pair A conceptual level was nearly the same (supervisor = 2.0, student=2.3), the relationship was strong and generally smooth. In Pairs D and H conceptual level was found to be at two different levels (supervisor = 2.5, student =1.7) (supervisor=2.2, student=1.8) respectively, the relationships were reported as less than satisfying. Findings / 80 Constructive openness influenced the supervisory relationship of these pairs. As the "freeing" language increased so did trust, when "binding" language was used trust decreased and the relationship was not as productive. For example, in pair D, the constructive openness score for the supervisor was below the mean (Mean = 5.62, supervisor=4.80) and the student's experience of her supervisor's verbal communication was also lower than the mean for students (Mean = 4.90, student=3.39), tension and mistrust lasted beyond the conference. Regarding orientation to supervision Pair A had a good relationship that reflected the characteristics of collaborative, non-directive orientations and both supervisor and student agreed on the percentage of time each orientation was used. The student in Pair D was confused in describing the supervisory orientation. The supervisor saw himself using the collaborative orientation while the student experienced the directive orientation to supervision. Pair H agreed that the orientation to supervision was directive, but the student apparently experienced more collaboration than the supervisor reported. This may account for some of the tension about supervisory expectations. Personality type was more clearly related to the supervisory interaction when studied in the individual cases, than in the aggregation of groups. In Pair A the E S F J and the I N F J have similar preferences, the difference in perception can be complementary, grounding the "intuitive" person in reality and helping the "sensing" person see possibility. Pair D an E N T J and an E S F J , indicated the need for good communication for the relationship to develop because they used opposite processes for perception and judgment. Pair H an E N F P and an E N F J , Findings / 81 had much in common, but because of the differences in their attitude toward the world, their supervisory experience differed. The student's "judging" attitude preferred order and work done on time, while the supervisor's "perceiving" attitude preferred not having a schedule or if there was one, changing it easily. In summary, the investigation of the characteristics of the nine pairs of supervisors and students who both described the same incident during their interview indicated some difference from the nineteen who described different incidents. The differences between these same and different groups, although statistically significant, were in the same areas as the differences in the total sample, and therefore did not greatly increase the understanding of the supervisory experience. However, when the nine pairs were studied as individual pairs a greater understanding of the supervisory experience was possible. The influences of conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type were demonstrated in more detail, than when the pairs were aggregated. E. EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISORS Shortly after the interviews and before the analysis of data, the researcher rated the supervisors on a Likert scale: 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 = adequate, 2 = acceptable, 1 = unacceptable. The ratings represented the researcher's judgment of supervisor effectiveness in consultation with the director of field education at the school. The underlying question for the rating of supervisors was: how effective was this supervisor during theological field education? Four months after the first ratings the researcher re-rated the supervisors, intra-rater Findings / 82 reliability was .78. The mean of effectiveness was 3.3 which indicated that the supervisors were, on the whole, more than adequate. Correlations of effectiveness ratings were made with demographics, individual characteristics, and the students' integration. Five significant relationships (p<.05) were found. The higher the supervisors' conceptual level, the higher the rating (r = .36, p = .031); the higher constructive openness, the higher the rating (r = .49, p = .003); the more directive the supervisor, the lower the rating (r=-.44, p = .010); the more non-directive the supervisor, the higher the rating (r = .42, p = .013). Supervisors who reported that their students gave evidence of the ability to integrate academic background with their field experience, had a lower rating (r = -.40, p = .017). The ratings are congruent with the other findings in this study. F. THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF SUPERVISION One of the interview questions for both supervisors and students was: "If you had to choose three functions of supervision as most important, which ones would you choose?" Table 12 lists the words used by supervisors and students to describe the most important functions of supervision. Supervisors listed the most important functions of supervision to be reflection with the student on experience, development of student learning goals, support for the student, and student evaluation. Students listed the most important functions of supervision to be the need for affirmation and support from the supervisor, the need for the supervisor to listen and communicate, the importance of Findings / 83 Table 12 Most Important Functions of F i e l d Superv i s ion as repor ted by Superv i sors and Students Superv i sors % of T imes Students % of Times N = 2B Ment ioned N-30 Mentioned Ref1ect1 on 32% A f f i r m a t i o n and support 4 3% Learning goals 3 2% L i s t e n and communicate 30% Support 25% Superv1s1 on 2 3% Evaluat ion 25% Evaluat ion 20% Commun i ca t i on 18% Cha11enge 20% Integrate m i n i s t r y 18% Model 17% Provide exper ience 18% Teach i ng 17% Feedback 18% Informat ion 13% Model 1 1% Enab1e 13% Observe student 1 1% C o l l e g i a l 10% Guide 7% F eedback 10% Management 7% Observe student 10% Re 1 at i onsh i p 7% Ref1ect1 on 10% Superv1s ton 7% A va11ab1e 10% Teaching 7% C e l e b r a t i o n 10% supervision, and student evaluation. 1 Supervisors saw their functions in terms what they do with the student. Students saw the functions in terms relationship and the atmosphere created in the Held setting. G. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The findings of this study suggest answers to the two questions posed in Chapter One. First, how do supervisors and students in T F E describe the role functions of the supervisory conference? Second, what are the relationships between the descriptions of the role functions of the supervisor}' conference and a. the conceptual levels of the supervisors and students? b. the constructive openness of the supervisor and the constructive openness of the students estimate of their supervisors? c. the supervisors' orientation to supervision and the students' estimate of Findings / 84 their supervisors' orientation to supervision? d. the personality types of the supervisor and the students? e. the supervisors' and students' demographic characteristics of age, gender, educational level, number of years supervisors have engaged in supervision at the school, and the number of years students have worked before entrance into theological education? Supervisors and students agreed on how they described the role functions of the supervisory conference. The themes they shared most frequently focused on the supervisor as role model, the personal and holistic nature of the relationship, the fact that supervision should be disciplined, the authority and management role of the supervisor, and assessment and evaluation during the conference. Significantly different relationships were found between the following role functions themes and the independent variables. 1) The supervisor is teacher was mentioned by students who experienced directive and collaborative supervision. 2) Linking theology with the practice of ministry was suggested by supervisors and students using or experiencing directive supervision. 3) Relating religious values to society's needs was mentioned by collaborative supervisors. 4) Feedback to students was important to higher conceptual level supervisors and students, non-directive supervisors and students, and to experienced supervisors. 5) Supervisor is a manager of student placement assignment was a concern for Findings / 85 low conceptual level supervisors. 6) The authority of the supervisor was mentioned by students who experienced directive supervision. 7) The collegiality of the supervisor was mentioned by younger supervisors, non-directive supervisors, and students' experiencing collaborative supervision. 8) The personal nature of the supervisory relationship was a concern to experienced supervisors. 9) Intimacy in the supervisory relationship was mentioned by women supervisors. 10) Intentionality of supervision was important to high conceptual level students. 11) The structure and 12) the discipline of the supervisory conference were mentioned by women supervisors. 13) Student engagement in actual ministry was voiced by high conceptual level students. 14) Analysis and reflection during the conference was important to students who rated their supervisor high on constructive openness, as well as to experienced supervisors. 15) Plan for change was mentioned by older students. While working on the above research questions, the researcher discovered that within nine of the twenty-eight pairs both supervisor and student described the same incident during the interview. The twenty-eight pairs were then divided according to whether the both supervisor and student described the same incident or a different one during the interview. The group of nine pairs and the group of nineteen pairs were analyzed using an A N O V A . The two groups of nine and nineteen pairs were not found to be significantly different from the original two Findings / 86 groups of supervisors and students. A final analysis was made of the nine individual pairs of supervisors and students. This case analysis specified in more detail the relationship of conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, personality type, age, educational level, and experience oh both the interaction of the pairs and of the role functions themes that were named. Pairs A , D, and H were used to illustrate the characteristics of the same incident group. The researcher's ratings of the supervisors' effectiveness indicated that supervisors who rated high also rated high on conceptual level, constructive openness, and non-directive supervision. These findings were congruent with the other findings in this study. The supervisors' prioritization of functions indicated that they were concerned about what they do with the students. Students' prioritization indicated that they were more concerned with relationship and atmosphere created in the field placement. C H A P T E R V . C O N C L U S I O N S In this final chapter there is a restatement of the problem, methodology, and results, followed by discussion of the conclusions. The limitations of the study are delineated. Implications and recommendations are suggested for theological field education supervision. A. CONCLUSIONS Practical training for ordained ministry has progressed over the years from being a subject discussed in the classroom to experiential education in the field. This development continues to produce a concern about the meaning and quality of supervision within theological education. The Association for Theological Field Education does not have an approved set of standards for field education. Directors of field education still struggle with the nature of supervision and their own preparation in field education. Supervisors themselves are concerned about their preparation and the quality of their supervision. The search for an understanding of the role functions of the supervisory conference has taken an eclectic approach, using ideas and processes from other fields, such as teacher education and counselor training. Often among directors, supervisors and students, the question is asked: how do supervisors see their role functions and how do students experience supervision? This study adds to the growing literature on theological field education supervision by describing how supervisors and students, engaged in the practice of supervision, experienced the role functions of the supervisory conference. In addition, it explored the relationship between conceptual level, constructive 87 Conclusions / 88 openness, orientation to supervision, personality type, age, gender, educational level, and experience with the descriptions of the role functions of the supervisory conference from the perspective of supervisors and students. A n exploratory methodology was selected for two reasons: First, previous research in T F E supervision provided little information or direction for hypotheses development and testing. Second, the methodology provided the researcher with the freedom to explore a variety of variables for a better understanding of supervisory interactions. Interviews were conducted, asking interviewees to describe the role and functions of the supervisory experience. These interviews were content analyzed using the categories suggested by George I. Hunter (1982). Four instruments were used. For cognitive development, the Paragraph Completion Test was used (Hunt et al., 1978b). The Preactive Behavior Instrument (Grimmett, 1982) was used to measure verbal communication in terms of constructive openness. The Supervisory Beliefs Inventory (Glickman, 1981) characterized the orientation to supervision used by supervisors. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCulley, 1985) was used to describe personality type. Pearson correlations, t-tests, and cross tabulations were used to ' determine the relationships between the themes of the role functions of the supervisory conference and the independent variables. A n A N O V A was used to determine the relationships between the themes of the role functions, the supervisor/student pairs, and the independent variables. The initial impetus for this study was the researcher's experience as a field Conclusions / 89 education director concerned with issues of supervision. Why did some pairs of supervisors and students have difficulty working together in field education supervision? Was it a lack of clarity about the role functions of the supervisory process? Analysis of the interview data revealed the following results. The first research question asked: How do supervisors and students in T F E describe the role functions of the supervisory conference? The results of this study show that supervisors and students describe the role functions in the following way. The supervisor is a role model for the student, their relationship is personal and is characterized as holistic, that is, a recognition of Jthe intellectual and affective life of the student as well as professional skills. Although the relationship is personal, it is clear to both supervisor and student that the supervisor has the authority, within the placement to assign and manage the work of the student. Regarding the supervisory conference, both supervisors and students describe it as a disciplined process, that is, students are expected to set goals and objectives, and to carry them out. Thus, during the supervisory conference these can be assessed and evaluated. On the other hand looking at the differences, supervisors were concerned about the students bringing data to the conference in order for the supervisor to help the student link theology with the practice of ministry and to work with the student to analyze and reflect on experience. Both supervisors and students mentioned often the role function theme of "assessment and evaluation" of student growth. This particular theme emphasis may have been mentioned so often because the students were interviewed at the Conclusions / 90 end of a week of field education evaluations and the supervisors were interviewed within six weeks following their evaluations of students. Evaluation was the last experience of the students and the last interaction between the supervisors and students at the end of field education. Although both mentioned the theme of "analysis and reflection" often, supervisors mentioned it significantly more often than students. While students were engaged in field education, they also were taking a course at the school titled "Pastoral Case Conference." This course provided them an opportunity to bring an incident from the field to a small group for discussion, analysis and reflection. Students were able to practice analytic and reflective strategies in the classroom, but they did not necessarily practice these same strategies during the supervisory conference. Supervisors and students failed to mention in any consistent way the two themes of "relating religious values to society's needs" and "linking theology with the practice of ministry." This was particularly surprising because a key objective in the guidelines of the Association for Theological Field Education is to enable students to bring together the activities of thinking and acting theologically, thus, allowing life to inform theology. The theological field education literature of the last few years has suggested that the context of ministry be taken into consideration during field education supervision. The total context of field education may account for why these two themes were not mentioned more frequently by supervisors and students. During field education Conclusions / 91 students were taking another course titled "The Church and Societal Change." This course was intended to give them an opportunity to "identify, reflect upon and begin to prepare for the implications of the societal dimension of the Church's mission for congregational life and work for the ministry of the clergy" (course description). Since this course provided the students with the opportunity to develop the strategies required to relate religious values to societal needs and to link theology with the practice of ministry, they did not perceive a need to repeat the process during field education supervision. Another reason why these two themes may not have been mentioned more frequently, particularly by supervisors, was the fact that nearly half (43%) of the supervisors were new to supervision and they may not have had the necessary training to help students to develop these key strategies. Regardless of the above mentioned circumstances, the strategies of thinking and acting theologically appeared not to be taking place between supervisor and student within the placement. The following significant relationships, found in more than one category, answer the second research question: What are the relationships between role functions themes and conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, personality type, age, gender, and experience? Appropriate feedback to the student appeared as the theme with the most number of significant relationships. More experienced supervisors mentioned it less often than new supervisors, perhaps because 43% of the supervisors were new, they were more conscious of their role as giver of feedback, where as more experienced supervisors took giving feedback for granted and therefore did not Conclusions / 92 mention it. Both supervisors and students with higher conceptual levels mentioned feedback more frequently than lower conceptual level supervisors and students. This is congruent with characteristics of high conceptual level persons. They have the ability to be adaptive, less deterministic or judgmental, and more tolerant of ambiguity. These characteristics are needed to give and receive feedback appropriately. The type of supervision also affected feedback from the perspective of the student. The students who experienced directive supervision, that is when the supervisor controlled the relationship, were less concerned about feedback and collegiality, and more concerned about the supervisors' authority and linking theology with the practice of ministry. The supervisors for these students would have told the students how to link theology to the practice of ministry rather than both working together in a mutual way to develop this key strategy. On the other hand, non-directive supervisors and students who experienced non-directive supervision both valued the giving and receiving of appropriate feedback. Students experiencing non-directive supervision were not concerned about the authority of the supervisor. Collegiality was important to students experiencing collaborative supervision, and to both supervisors and students of non-directive supervision. Curiously, non-directive supervisors and students experiencing non-directive supervision did not focus on the strategy of linking theology to the practice of ministry. Perhaps because the supervisor was non-directive and the students were learning this strategy at school, the students did not bring it to supervision, therefore, it was not dealt with in field education. Finally, it was not surprising that students who both experienced directive supervision and rated their Conclusions / 93 supervisors as less constructively open were concerned about the authority of the supervisors. These supervisors tended to be older in age and more authority conscious and less able to treat the student as a colleague. The findings of this study indicated that this particular group of supervisors and students shared common descriptions of the role functions of the supervisory conference. When individual characteristics relating to the supervisory interaction were considered, conceptual level and personality type were similar, while constructive openness and orientation to supervision were different. An opportunity to explore differences in more detail presented itself during the study. In the total sample, it was discovered that within each of nine pairs the supervisor and student identified the same conference and supervision issue or field experience. After comparing the nine same incident pairs with the nineteen different incident pairs, it was evident that the groups were not statistically different. The only difference was that within the nine pairs both supervisor and student described the same incident. To follow-up on this finding, the researcher analyzed the nine pairs as individual cases to determine i f there were differences not apparent in the aggregated group data. The mean score of supervisors and students indicated that they had the same conceptual levels, thus masking relationships within particular pairs. When individual pairs were considered, the relationship between conceptual level and the other variables became apparent. Pairs A , D, and H were selected to illustrate this masking effect. Pair A scored at the same conceptual level, and reported a Conclusions / 94 good experience of supervision. In pairs D and H , the supervisors scored higher on conceptual level than the students. These two pairs reported experiencing tension during the supervisory conference. This finding is in the direction of affirming the research of Thies-Sprinthall (1980) who found that high conceptual level supervisors and students were flexible, innovative and responsive, while lower level relationships were characterized as more rigid and less able to deal with the interactions and complexities of supervision. Analyzing individual pairs made it possible to consider all four preferences of the Myers-Briggs personality type, rather than only the two processes of perceiving and judging. The use of sixteen type descriptions gave a more accurate understanding of the relationship between personality and the supervisory interaction. The study revealed that individual supervisors and students, who did not have similar judging and perceiving preferences reported tension in their supervisory relationship. The use of personality type in career counseling and in personnel management offers T F E directors models for adopting the instrument in training supervisors and in preparing students for supervision. The relationship of personality type and ability to communication needs to be further researched, similar to the work of Yeakley (1982, 1983). A major finding of the nine pair analysis was that the more similar the supervisor and the student, the more likely they were to have a good relationship. Again using A , D and H as examples, pair A were similar on conceptual level, constructive openness, orientation to supervision, and personality type. They were in general agreement on the role functions of the supervisory Conclusions / 95 conference. During both interviews, they agreed on positive value and success of the experience. Pair H shared common constructive openness scores. They differed on conceptual level, the supervisor being higher than the student, and they differed in orientation to supervision, the supervisor emphasized a directive approach, the student experienced a more collaborative approach. Their personality types differed in their judging preferences indicating that the supervisor was more spontaneous and unorganized, while the student was more organized and appreciated a well kept schedule. During the interview, both supervisor and student mentioned tension in the supervisory relationship. The supervisor and student in pair D had the least in common. There were differences in their educational levels, the supervisor had an equivalent of a Master of Divinity degree while the student had only two years of college. The supervisor scored at a higher conceptual level than the student. The student assessed the supervisors constructive openness lower than her fellow-students. They differed on orientation to supervision, the supervisor saw himself as collaborative and the student experience directive supervision. Their personality types were the opposite in the key preferences of perceiving and decision-making. They did agree on eight themes for the role functions of the supervisory conference. None-the-less, during the interview both the supervisor and student in pair D expressed difficulty in the supervisory relationship. It can be concluded that sharing an understanding of the role functions of the supervisory conference does not guarantee a good supervisory experience. Conclusions / 96 The above three pair summaries suggested the following questions. Should supervisors and students in theological field education be matched on as many variables as possible for a "good supervisory relationship?" Do tension and struggle in certain areas increase the student's learning? Does a supervisory conference create for the student an adequate learning environment, that is does it create an environment similar to the "real world of ministry?" These questions were not answered in this study but they should be considered for future investigation. B. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study was limited to one class of theological students and their supervisors, therefore generalizations to other theological field education programs is limited. The cooperation of both supervisors and students was excellent. They were interested in the research questions, and readily responded to the invitation to be interviewed. When using the Paragraph Completion Test, the directions to write complete sentences to the stem should have been stressed. Scores on the test may have indicated lower conceptual levels than reality, simply because some sentences were not completed. The two minute time limitation also caused stress. More recent research using the Paragraph Completion Test has indicated that the sentence stems used in this study may not have adequately related to the supervisors and students (S. Bluck, personal communication, February 3, 1987). More thought needs to be given to this test before it is used in subsequent studies. Conclusions / 97 Several supervisors and students had difficulty with one of the statements in the Preactive Behavior Instrument (see Appendix C). Item 15 of this instrument is expressed as a double negative statement, thus making it difficult to decide how to answer. The Supervisory Beliefs Inventory was easy to score but difficult to use because the scoring was based on one hundred percent over all three orientations. It was possible for an individual supervisor or student to use all three orientations equally, or to use two equally in the same conference. This could be interpreted in several ways: the supervisor did not make clear distinctions between orientations when completing the instrument; the supervisor used all three orientations depending on the needs of the student; or the supervisor generalized to all supervisory situations where all three of the orientations might have been appropriate. If the instrument had been designed to measure only one orientation, interpretation of the findings may have been more usable in investigating relationships. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was administered for other purposes before the interviews took place. Therefore, most of the strength of preference scores were unavailable to the researcher. These scores would have been helpful in the analysis of pairs in order to determine if differences in personalty type were different because of strong or weak preferences. Future researchers, using this instrument, may want to take the strength of these preference scores into consideration. Conclusions / 98 The probing questions should be re-worded in order to eliminate ambiguity. In addition to the re-wording of the probing questions, the researcher would have added a question about ranking the satisfaction of the supervisory experience and a question regarding the type of student learning. Determining the categories for content analysis posed some initial problems. Future researchers should consider determining their categories from the data, making certain that all categories are mutually exclusive. Using pre-designed categories may have misplaced some important themes. The use of Hunter's (1982) descriptions proved to be adequate for this study, however several of the categories were found to overlap. This overlapping was particularly apparent in the section on the supervisory relationship: the category "personal" may have included some items listed under intensive, intimate, and holistic. C. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of this study, it was clear to the researcher that supervision is a complex process that cannot be explained by any one methodology. A recommendation for future research in theological field education supervision is to use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. For example, by using ethnographic research methodologies, direct observations of the supervisory interaction would be possible, thus providing data on actual patterns of the role functions of the supervisory conference, rather than self-report data. From this more accurate data, additional guidelines and training programs could be developed. Conclusions / 99 Implications and recommendations for theological field education are further suggested by this study. First, the lack of a strong incorporation into the supervisory conference of the two themes of "relating religious values to society's needs" and the "linking of theology with the practice of ministry" should be considered by the members of the Association for Theological Field Education. As a recommendation from this study and from the literature, these two key strategies need to be developed in the field as well as in the classroom. Supervisors need to be trained to articulate and reflect on their own strategies in these areas so that they can enable students to develop them within the context of the field placement. A second implication of the findings from this study suggested the importance of the relationship between conceptual level and supervisory interaction. Theological field education directors should consider offering several types of supervisor training that would take conceptual level into consideration. For example, for lower conceptual level supervisors the strategies might include repetition of certain supervisory skills; sequencing learned skills to assure a gradual building on previously developed skills; and journal writing using specific questions to answer rather than open-ended questions. For higher conceptual level supervisors, strategies might include opportunity for optional readings; open-ended journal writing; optional practice sessions with colleagues rather than with training groups. A third implication of the findings from this study suggested the importance of the relationship between constructive openness and supervisory interaction. In this Conclusions / 100 study, supervisors considered themselves to be more open than students reported them to be. The verbal communication of low constructively open supervisors impeded the relationship between supervisor and student particularly as exemplified in pair H . Theological field education directors should consider the general verbal communication of supervisors including constructive openness, especially during supervisor training programs. Directors could point out areas of closed or binding communication and affirm opened or freeing communication. A fourth implication and recommendation is to use the Myers-Briggs personality type at the beginning of and as preparation for the supervisory experience. This instrument can give both supervisors and students a common language to talk about their differences and similarities. A n understanding of how personality type affects work-patterns and decision-making can lessen tension in a supervisory relationship. A last issue or concern for theological field education is the fact of the increasing number of women entering a male dominated career. The Association of Theological Schools reported that the number of women enrolled in preordination degree programs has increased 110% in the last ten years, while the enrollment of men has been in a slow decline. The ratio of men to women supervisors in all schools of theology is not known, but if the school in this study is typical, research similar to the work of Rhodes and Finson (1986) on the relationship between men supervisors and women students should be continued. From the above concern about men/women relationships, two specific recommendations are made for field education directors. First, encourage Conclusions / 101 supervisors and students to discuss this gender issue. Second, inform supervisors of specific policies regarding nonsexist language, so that students can be supported in their efforts of consciousness raising. Further research is needed to answer the questions: Is the supervisor the key element in the learning of the student? Or is the context of field education the key element in learning? What does the student learn from the supervisory conference, and the field placement? Why are supervisors not engaging students in developing the strategies for relating religious values to society's needs and linking theology to the practice of ministry? This leads to a final question: Is the articulation of the supervisor's own theology and experience an essential component in the supervisory process, and therefore, a component in supervisor training programs? Theological education needs to provide the funding and opportunity for these questions to be researched. C H A P T E R V I . R E F E R E N C E S Adams, H . B . (1971). Consultation: An alternative to supervision. Journal of  Pastoral Care, 25(3), 157-164. Armstrong, M . & Shanker, V . (1983). The supervision of undergraduate research: Student perceptions of the supervisor role. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 177-183. Ashbrook, J . B . (1966). Two kinds of learning in theological education. Journal of  Pastoral Care, 2(3), 197-202. Becker, R. J . (1967). In-parish pastoral studies: 1960-66. Theological Education, 3(3), 403-418. Beers, W., & Schaper, D. (1984-85). Methods of supervision for public ministry. Journal of Supervision and Training in Ministry, _7, 121-136. Beisswenger, D. F . (1974). Differentiating modes of supervision in theological education. Theological Education, 1_1(1), 50-58. Bergland, J . W. (1969). Field education as locus for "theological reflection." Theological Education, 5(4), 338-345. Bieri, J . (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263-268. Birtch, G. M . (1966). Theological education: A Canadian minister's view. Theological Education, _2(3), 168-172. Blakemore, W. B. (1949). The nature and structure of the practical field. Journal  of Religion, 29(4), 284-300. Blocher, D. H . (1983). Toward a cognitive developmental approach to counseling supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 1_1(1), 27-34. 102 References / 103 Boiseri, A . T. (1951). The challenge to our seminaries. Journal of Pastoral Care, _5_(1), 8-12. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M . D. (1983). Educational Research (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Briggs, K . , & Myers, I. B. (1943). The Myers Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, C A : Consulting Psychologist Press. Bunting, I. D. (1979). Field training and the theological goal of supervision. Churchman, 93(4), 321-326. Budd, R. W., Thorp, R. K . , & Donohew, L . (1967). Content analysis of  communications. New York: Macmillan. Cartwright, J . H . (1983). The cultural context: A historical/social analysis. Theological Education, 20(1), 26-36. Conlon, J . A . (1983). Theological reflection and social analysis. Report of  Proceedings of Seventeenth Biennial Consultation of the Association for  Theological Field Education, _17, 82-87. Cross, D. G. & Brown, D. (1983). Counselor supervision as a function of trainee experience: Analysis of specific behavior. Counselor Education and  Supervision, 22(3), 333-341. Dawson, C. (1986). Foundations for change: A proposed agenda for theological field education. Theological Field Education: A Collection of Key Resources, _5, 210-220. DeNovellis, R., & Lawrence, G. (1983). Correlations of teacher personality variables (Myers-Briggs) and classroom observational data. Research in  Psychological Type, _6, 37-46. Fielding, C. R. (1966). Education for ministry. Theological Education, _3_(1), 1-258. Flanders, N . A . (1976). Interaction analysis and clinical supervision. Journal of  Research and Development in Education, 9, 47-57. References / 104 Froyd, M . C. (1955). What is practical in theological education? Journal of  Religion, 35(3), 168-177. Furgeson, E . H . (1961). Implementing the doctrine of ministry in seminary education. Journal of Pastoral Care, 15(1), 13-24. Gardiner, G. S., & Schroder, H . M . (1972). Reliability and validity of the Paragraph Completion Test: Theoretical and empirical notes. Psychological  Reports, 31, 959-962. Gessell, J . M . (1968). Clinical Pastoral training and the curriculum for theological education: A position paper. Journal of Pastoral Care, 22(3), 168-170. Gilmore, M . , & Justes, E . J . (1983). Daring to be intimate: Male supervisors working with female supervisees in theological field education. Journal of  Supervision and Training in Ministry, _6, 205-215. Glatthorn, A . A . (1984). Differential supervision. V A : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glen, J . S. (1953). The pastoral responsibility of theological education. Scottish  Journal of Theology, _6(4), 396-405. Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for  helping teachers improve instruction. Alexandria, V A : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glickman, C. D. (1985a). Development as the aim of instructional supervision:  Enhancing teacher thought, commitment and collective action. Paper presented at Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development annual conference in Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263 655) Glickman, C. D. (1985b). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston: Al lyn & Bacon. Golay, K . (1982). Learning patterns and temperament styles. Newport Beach, C A : Manas-Systems. References / 105 Goldstein, K . , & Scheerer, M . (1941). Abstract and concrete behavior: A n experimental study with special tests [Special issue]. Psychological  Monographs, 53(239). Goodwin, H . M . (1969). Dilemmas confronting the supervisor in theological education. Theological Education, _5(4, Suppl. 1), 503-509. Goodyear, R. K . , Abadie, P. S., & Efros, F . (1984). Supervisory theory into practice: Differential perception of supervision by Ekstein, Ellis, Polster, and Rogers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(2), 228-237. Grimmett, P. P. (1982). The clinical supervision conference: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia. Grimmett, P. P. (1984). The supervision conference: An investigation of supervisory effectiveness through analysis of participants' conceptual functioning. In P. P. Grimmett (Ed.), Research in teacher education:  Current problems and future prospects (pp. 131-166). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Gross,, N . , Mason, W. S., & McEachern, A . W. (1958). Explorations in role  analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. New Your: John Wiley. Hampton, E . E . , & Pregnall, W. S. (1975). Training field education supervisors. Theological Education, U(4), 308-314. Hartzler, G. J . , & Hartzler, M . T. (1982). Management uses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Research in Psychological Type, _5_, 20-29. Harvey, O. J . , & Schroder, H . M . (1963). Cognitive aspects of self and motivation. In O. J . Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction:  Cognitive determinants (pp. 95-133). New York: Ronald Press. Hirsh, S. K . (1985). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in organizations: A  resource book. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Hoover, E . A . (1980). The distinction between adequate and excellent supervision: A wholistic perspective. Journal of Pastoral Care, 34(3), 190-196. References / 106 Hughes, E . J . , Mosier, N . R., & Hung, V . R. (1981). Physician satisfaction, personality type and work setting in family practice. Research in  Psychological Type, _4, 46-54. Hunt, D. E . (1978a). Conceptual level theory and research as guides to educational practice. Interchange, _8(4), 78-90. Hunt, D. E . , Butler, L . F . , Noy, J . E . , & Rosser, M . E . (1978b). Assessing  conceptual level by the paragraph completion method. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Hunter, G. I. (1976). Theological field education: A n ecumenical experience. Andover Newton Quarterly, 17(2), 118-124. Hunter, G. I. (1982). Supervision and education-formation for ministry. Cambridge: Episcopal Divinity School. Joyce, B . R., Lamb, H . , & Sibol, J . (1966). Conceptual development and information-processing: A study of teachers. Journal of Educational  Research, 59, 219-222. Keirsey, D. , & Bates, M . (1984). Please understand me. Del Mar, C A : Prometheus Books Kleiner, B. H . (1983). The interrelationship of Jungian modes of mental functioning with organizational factors: Implications for management development. Human Relations, 35(11), 997-1012. Klink, T. W. (1966). Supervision. Theological Education, _3(1), 176-217. Larsen, E . L . (1983). A provisional description of quality in field education programs. Report of Proceedings of Seventeenth Biennial Consultation of  the Association for Theological Field Education, 17, 159-166. Lawrence, G. (1979). People types and tiger stripes. Gainesville, F L : Center for Application of Psychological Type. References / 107 Lichtenberg, J . , & Heck, E . (1979). Interactional structure of interviews conducted by counselors of different levels of cognitive complexity. Journal of  Counseling Psychology, 26(1), 15-22. Leithwood, K . A . , & Montgomery, D. J . (1984). Obstacles preventing principals from becoming more effective. Education and Urban Society, 17(1), 73-88. Lowndes, R. S. (1969). Theological education and field education. Theological  Education, _5_(4 Suppl. 1), 445-454. Mackie, S. G. (1966). Patterns of ministry and the purpose of a theological school. Theological Education, _2_(2), 82-88. Myers, I. B. , & McCulley, M . H . (1985). Manual for the Myers-Briggs Type  Indicator: A guide to the development and use of the MBTI . Palo Alto, C A : Consulting Psychologist Press. Nace, R. K . (1975). The teaching parish and the supervising pastor. Theological  Education, 11(4), 319-328. Oates, W. E . (1975). Pastoral supervision today. Pastoral Psychology, 24(228), 17-29. Olsen, R. A . (1970). Training environment and conceptual level in Lutheran theological internship. Dissertation Abstract International, 31, 3363A. Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. (1985). Pacific Lutheran Theological  Seminary internship manual. Berkeley, C A : Author. Palmer, L . D. (1964). Field education: Immediate equipping for ultimate building. The College of the Bible Quarterly, 41(1), 1-7. Perrine, K . W. (1984). Teacher and supervisory perceptions of elementary science supervision. Science Education, 68(1), 3-9. Rhodes, L . , & Finson, S. (1986). Women in ministry: Implications for field education practice. Theological Field Education: A collection of key  resources, 5, 164-168. References / 108 Roberts, J . E . , & Smith, K . J . (1982). Supervisor-supervisee role differences and consistency of behavior in supervisory conferences. Journal of Speech and  Hearing Research, 25(3), 428-434. Rohlfs, C. H . (1978). A history of the development of the Perkins intern program. Perkins Journal, 31(2), 1-31. Sanderson, P. D. (1978). Key issues in the pastoral supervisory relationship. Pastoral Psychology, 26(4), 240-252. Schroder, H . M . , Driver, M . J . , & Streufert, S. (1967). Human information  processing. N Y : Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Seabright, R. F . (1983). Developing a model of supervision for the integration of social concerns and ministry functioning. Report of Proceedings of the  Seventeenth Biennial Consultation of the Association for Theological Field  Education, 17, 88-99. Silver, P. (1975). Principals' conceptual ability in relation to situation and behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly , 11(3), 49-66. Southard, S. (1963). Criteria for evaluating supervisors-in-training. Journal of  Pastoral Care, 17(4), 193-202. Southern, S. (1984). A cognitive-structural approach to counselor supervision. Viewpoints (Report No. 120). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255 803) Sprinthall, N . A . , & Thies-Sprinthall, L . (1980). Educating for teacher growth: A cognitive developmental perspective. Theory into Practice, 2^(4), 278-286. Staab, C. F . (1984). Student teachers' perceptions of their competence versus the perceptions of university supervisors and sponsor teachers. Alberta Journal  of Educational Research, 30(4), 284-298. Stahl, L . D., Querin, J . J . , Rudy, E . B . , & Crawford, M . A . (1983). Head nurses' activities and supervisors' expectations: The research. Journal of  Nursing Administration, 13(6), 27-30. References / 109 St. Clair, R. J . (1969). Toward a social field theory of supervision. Journal of  Pastoral Care, 23(3), 142-152. Steere, D. A . (1969). An experiment in supervisory training. Journal of Pastoral  Care, 23(4), 202-217. Stewart, C. W. (1971). Training pastoral supervisors for seminary field education. Journal of Pastoral Care, 25(1), 24-32. Telfer, W. A . (1974). The teaching parish program: Participatory education. Andover Newton Quarterly, 14(4), 267-271. Telfer, W. A . , & Handspicker, M . B . (1976). Teaching Parishes: Partners in theological education. Andover Newton Quarterly, _17(2), 109-117. Thies-Sprinthall, L . (1984). Promoting the developmental growth of supervising teachers: Theory, research programs, and implications. Journal of Teacher  Education, 35(3), 53-60. Wallen, J . L . (1972). The interpersonal effect of responses. In J . R. Hale & Spanjer, R. A . (Eds.). Systematic and objective analysis of instruction:  Training manual. Oregon: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Way, P. (1970). Shattering the self-evidents: Toward a constructive view of field work and contemporary theological education. Criterion, _9(2), 20-24. Weeks, S. C , & Johnston, M . B . (1986). The development of ministers: Implications for supervisory interventions. Theological Field Education: A  Collection of Key Resources,, 5, 191-209. Whitehead, J . D. , & Whitehead, E . E . (1975). Educational models in field education. Theological Education, 11(4), 269-278. Wise, C. A . (1954). The relationship between clinical training and field work supervision. Journal of Pastoral Care, 8(4), 189-194. Worthington, E . L . (1984). Empirical investigation of supervision of counselors as they gain experience. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3_1(1), 63-75. Yeakley, F . R. (1982). Communication approach for studying effects of in Psychological Type, _5, 30-48. References / 110 style preferences and adjustment as an similarity in psychological type. Research Yeakley, F . R. (1983). Implications of communication style for research of psychological type theory. Research in Ps3^chological Type, 6, 1-23. Zimmerman, J . S. (1968). The relevance of clinical pastoral training to field education. Journal of Pastoral Care, 22(1), 1-6. A P P E N D I X n : I N T E R V I E W S C H E D U L E S INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THEOLOGICAL F I ELD EDUCATION SUPERVISORS The w o r d i n g In b r a c k e t s { ) , nnd c o d i n g d e f i n i t i o n s a r e f o r the I n t e r v i e w e r ' s c o d i n g p u r p o s e s a n d r e c o r d i n g . D e m o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a t i o n : 1. S u p e r v i s o r c o d e number : 2. Age : 3. G e n d e r : 4 . D e n o m l n a t I o n : Mar I t a 1 s ta t u s : code: t = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = c o d e : c o d e 01. - GO c o d e = y e a r s c o d e 1 = f e m a l e 2 = m a l e P r e s b y t e r i a n ( C a n a d a ) P r e s b y t e r i a n (USA) U n i t e d C h u r c h o f C a n a d a A n g l i c a n C h u r c h o f C a n a d a U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h C h u r c h o f t h e N a z a r e n e s I tiq I n m a r r I e d w I d o w ( e r ) d I v o r c e d 0 t l i e r 6. E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l : c o d e : R A MA Ml) I v 00 I v PhD O t h e r 7. Y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e o f s u p e r v i s i n g a t VST? c o d e : = y e a r s _ 8. D e s c r i b e t h e r o l e o f s u p e r v i s o r , a . [ D e s c r 1 p t I o n : J D e s c r i b e t h e most I m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n s o f s u p e r v i s i o n : b . [ F u n c t I o n s : ] 1 ) 2) 3) 4 ) 5) 112 I f you h a d to c h o o n p l l i r p p f u n c t i o n s as most I m p o r l n n t , w h i c h o n e s w o u l d y o u c h o o s e ? c . [ P r i o r i t i z e d f u n c t i o n s : ] 1 ) 2) 3) 9. T e l l me a b o u t an e v e n t i n y o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h y o u r s t u d e n t t h a t was c r i t i c a l t o t h e l e a r n i n g o f y o u r s t u d e n t . [ P r o b i n g q u e s t i o n s : ( T o be u s e d o n l y to e l i c i t p n o u g h 1 n f o r m a t I on f rom t h e s t u d e n t to c l a r i f y t he e v r ? n t . ) Was the f o c u s o f t h e e v e n t on t h e o l o g i c a l i s s u e s o r p r a c t i c a l i s s u e s ? Can y o u e x p l a i n how y o u were a b l e t o I n t e g r a t e t h e s t u d e n t ' s a c a d e m i c b a c k g r o u n d a n d t h e f i e l d p l a c e m e n t e x p e r i e n c e ? How do y o u d e f i n e y o u r r o l e In t h i s e v e n t ? What s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s d i d y o u u s e ? What was p o s i t i v e a b o u t t h i s e v e n t ? What was n e g a t i v e In t i l l s e v e n t t h a t may h a v e p r e v e n t e d s t u d e n t g r o w t h ? [ C r i t i c a l e v e n t d e s c r i p t i o n : ] INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FUR THEOLOGICAL FIELD EDUCATION SIUULNIS The wording Interv1 ewer In brackets [ ] . and coding def ini t ions are for the s coding purposes and recording. Demographic Information: 1. Student code number: 2. Age: 3. Gender: Denom1na tI on: code : 1 2 3 4 5 6 code =01 - 60 code 3 years code 1 = f omnIe 2 • male Presbyterian (Canada) ProsbyterIan (USA) United Church of Canada Anglican Church of Canada United Methodist Church Church of the Nazarene Mar 1 ta1 s ta tus: code: s I ng1e marrIed w1dow(er ) d1vorced Other Educational level: code : Years of work educa tI on: experience before com I tig code: to B A MA ML) I v DD 1 v PhD Other theological years Kind of work: 8. Describe the role of supervisor, o. [Descr1pt1 on: J / 115 Describe the most Important functions of supervision, b . [ F uric t 1 ons : J 1 ) 2) 3) 4 ) 5) If you had to choose three functions as most Important, which ones would you chopseT c. [ P r i o r i t i z e d functions:) 1 ) 2) 3) 9 . Tol l me about an event In your relatIonnhlp with your supervisor that was c r i t i c a l to your learning. [Probing questions: (To be used only to e l i c i t enough Information from the student to c l a r i f y the event.) Was the focus of the event on theological Issues or pract ica l issues? Can you explain how you were able to integrate your academic background with your f i e l d placement experience? How do you define your supervisor's role in this event? What functions did the supervisor use with you? What was posi t ive about this event? What was negative In this event that may have prevented you growth?] [ C r i t i c a l event descr ipt ion:) APPENDIX C: INSTRUMENTS SUPERVISORY BELIEF INVENTORY Supervisor instructions: Circle either A or B for each item. You may not completely agree with either choice, but choose the one that is closest to how you feel. 1. A . Supervisors should give supervisees a large degree of autonomy and initiative within broadly defined limits. B. Supervisors should give supervisees directions about methods that will help them improve their pastoral ministry. 2. A . It is important for supervisees to set their own goals and objectives for professional growth. B. It is important for supervisors to help supervisees reconcile their personalities and pastoral styles with the philosophy and direction of the parish. 3. A . Supervisees are likely to feel uncomfortable and anxious if the objectives on which they will be evaluated are not clearly defined by the supervisor. B. Evaluations of supervisees are meaningless if supervisees are not able to define with their supervisors the objectives for evaluation. 4. A . A n open, trusting, warm, and personal relationship with the supervisee is the most important ingredient in supervising students. B. A supervisor who is too intimate with supervisees risks being less effective and less respected than a supervisor who keeps a certain degree of professional distance from supervisees. 5. A. M y role, as supervisor, during supervisory conferences is to make the interaction positive, to share realistic information, and to help supervisees plan their own solutions to problems. B. The methods and strategies I use with supervisees in a conference are aimed at our reaching agreement over the needs for future improvement. 6. In the initial phase of working with a supervisee: A . I develop objectives with the supervisee that will help accomplish parish goals. B. I try to identify the talents and goals of individual supervisees so they can 116 / 117 work on their own improvement. 7. When several staff and supervisee have a similar pastoral problem, I prefer to: A . Have the staff and supervisee form an ad hoc group and help them work to together to solve the problem. B . Help each one, on an individual basis, find their strengths, abilities, and resources so that each one finds his or her own solution to the problem. 8. The most important clue that a certain type of workshop or meeting is needed is when: A . The supervisor perceives that several staff and supervisee lack knowledge or skill in a specific area which is resulting in low morale, undue stress, and less effective pastoral ministry. B. Several staff and supervisee perceive the need to strengthen their abilities in the same pastoral area. 9. A . The supervisor should decide the objectives of a workshop or meeting since they have a broad perspective of the supervisee's and staff abilities and the needs of the parish. B. Supervisee, staff and supervisor should reach consensus about the objectives of a workshop or meeting before it is held. 10. A . Supervisees who feel they are growing personally will be more effective in the parish than supervisees who are not experiencing personal growth. B. The knowledge and ability of pastoral strategies and methods that have been proven over the years should be practiced by all supervisees to be effective in their ministry. 11. When I perceive that a supervisee might be correcting a staff person unnecessarily: A . I explain, during a conference with the supervisee, why the behavior was excessive. B . I ask the supervisee about the incident, but do not interject my judgments 12. A . One effective way to improve supervisee performance is to formulate clear behavioral objectives and create meaningful incentives for achieving them. B. Behavioral objectives are rewarding and helpful to some supervisees but / 118 stifling to others; also, some supervisees benefit from behavioral objectives in some situations but not in others. 13. During a pre-observation conference: A . I suggest to the supervisee what I could observe, but I let the supervisee make the final decision about the objectives and methods of observation. B . The supervisee and I mutually decide the objectives and methods of observation. 14. A . Improvement occurs very slowly if the supervisee is left on his or her own; but when a supervisee and a staff group works together on a specific problem, the supervisee learns rapidly and his or her morale remains high. B . Group activities may be enjoyable, but I find that individual, open discussion with a supervisee about a problem and its possible solutions leads to more sustained results. 15. When a workshop or meeting for supervisee and staff development is scheduled: A . The supervisee and all staff who participated in the decision to hold the workshop or meeting should be expected to attend it. B . Staff and supervisee, regardless of their role in forming a workshop or meeting, should be able to decide if the workshop or meeting is relevant to their personal or professional growth and,. if not, should not be expected to attend. / 119 S U P E R V I S O R Y B E L I E F S I N V E N T O R Y Student instructions: Circle either A or B for each item, based on HOW Y O U E X P E R I E N C E D Y O U R SUPERVISOR'S B E L I E F S A N D V A L U E S A B O U T SUPERVISION while working with you. You may not completely agree with either choice, but choose the one that is closest to your supervisor's beliefs and values. My supervisor believes that  1. A . Supervisors should give supervisees a large degree of autonomy and initiative within broadly defined limits. B. Supervisors should give supervisees directions about methods that will help them improve their pastoral ministry. 2. A . It is important for supervisees to set their own goals and objectives for professional growth. B. It is important for supervisors to help supervisees reconcile their personalities and pastoral styles with the philosophy and direction of the parish. 3. A . Supervisees are likely to feel uncomfortable and anxious if the objectives on which they will be evaluated are not clearly defined by the supervisor. B. Evaluations of supervisees are meaningless if supervisees are not able to define with their supervisors the objectives for evaluation. 4. A . A n open, trusting, warm, and personal relationship with the supervisee is the most important ingredient in supervising students. B. A supervisor who is too intimate with supervisees risks being less effective and less respected than a supervisor who keeps a certain degree of professional distance from supervisees. 5. A . His or her role, as supervisor, during supervisory conferences is to make the interaction positive, to share realistic information, and to help supervisees plan their own solutions to problems. B. The methods and strategies he or she uses with supervisees in a conference are aimed at our reaching agreement over the needs for future improvement. 6. In the initial phase of working with a supervisee: A . He or she develops objectives with the supervisee that will help accomplish / 120 parish goals. B. He or she tries to identify the talents and goals of individual supervisees so they can work on their own improvement. 7. When several staff and supervisee have a similar pastoral problem, I prefer to: A . Have the staff and supervisee form an ad hoc group and help them work together to solve the problem. B. Help each one, on an individual basis, find their strengths, abilities, and resources so that each one finds his or her own solution to the problem. 8. The most important clue that a certain type of workshop or meeting is needed is when: A . The supervisor perceives that several staff and supervisee lack knowledge or skill in a specific area which is resulting in low morale, undue stress, and less effective pastoral ministry. B. Several staff and supervisee perceive the need to strengthen their abilities in the same pastoral area. 9. A . The supervisor should decide the objectives of a workshop or meeting since they have a broad perspective of the supervisee's and staff abilities and the needs of the parish. B. Supervisee, staff and supervisor should reach consensus about the objectives of a workshop or meeting before it is held. 10. A . Supervisees who feel they are growing personally will be more effective in the parish than supervisees who are not experiencing personal growth. B. The knowledge and ability of pastoral strategies and methods that have been proven over the years should be practiced by all supervisees to be effective in their ministry. 11. When he or she perceives that a supervisee might be correcting a staff person unnecessarily: A . He or she explains, during a conference with the supervisee, why the behavior was excessive. B. He or she asks the supervisee about the incident, but does not interject his or her judgment. / 121 12. A . One effective way to improve supervisee performance is to formulate clear behavioral objectives and create meaningful incentives for achieving them. B. Behavioral objectives are rewarding and helpful to some supervisees but stifling to others; also, some supervisees benefit from behavioral objectives in some situations but not in others. 13. During a pre-observation conference: A . He or she suggests to the supervisee what he or she could observe, but let's the supervisee make the final decision about the objectives and methods of observation. B. The supervisee and he or she mutually decide the objectives and methods of observation. 14. A . Improvement occurs very slowly if the supervisee is left on his or her own; but when a supervisee and a staff group works together on a specific problem, the supervisee learns rapidly and his or her morale remains high. B. Group activities may be enjoyable, but he or she finds that individual, open discussion with a supervisee about a problem and its possible solutions leads to more sustained results. 15. When a workshop or meeting for supervisee and staff development is scheduled: A . The supervisee and all staff who participated in the decision to hold the workshop or meeting should be expected to attend it. B. Staff and supervisee, regardless of their role in forming a workshop or meeting, should be able to decide if the workshop or meeting is relevant to their personal or professional growth and, if not, should not be expected to attend. / 122 INSTRUCTIONS FDR SCORING THE SUPERVISORY BELIEF INVENTORY: Step 1. Circ le your answer from the Inventory In the columns below: Column I Column II Column III 1B 1 A 2B 2A 3A 3B 4B 4A 5B 5A 6A 6B 7A 7B 8A 8B 9A 9B 10B 10A 1 1 A 1 IB 12A 12B 13B 13A 14B 14A 15A 15B Step 2. Tal ly the by 6.7: number of c i r c l e d items in each column and multiply 2.1 Total responses In Column I 6 . 7 2.2 Total responses in Column II x 6.7 = 2.3 Total responses in Column III x 6.7 = Step 3. Interpretation: The product you obtained in step 2.1 is an approximate percentage of how often you take a DIRECTIVE approach to supervision, rather than either of the other two approaches. The product you obtained in step 2.2 is an approximate percentage of how often you take a COLLABORATIVE approach, and step 2.3 is an approximate percentage of how often you take a NON-01RECTIVE approach. The approach on which you spend the greatest percentage of time is the supervisory model that dominates your be l i e f s . If the percentage values are equal or close to equal, you take an ec lect ic approach. / 123 PREACTIVE BEHAVIOR INSTRUMENT (Supervisors) Each question is to be answered choosing one of the following categories A . F . O . S . N . Always (A) Frequently (F) Occasionally (0) Seldom (S) Never (N) 1. I would advise and even attempt to persuade the supervisee if considered necessary. A F 0 S N 2. I would d irec t ly report my feelings. A F 0 S N 3. I would show my desire to understand the supervisee as a person by checking my perception of his or her inner state. A F 0 S N 4. I would frankly te l l the supervlee what to do If he or she were floundering. A F 0 S N 5. I would praise the supervisee when he or she displays Insights into what I consider to be effective pastoral behavior. A F 0 S N G. I would attempt to use silence as a deliberate response. A F 0 S N 7. I would attmept to explain or interpret the supervisee's behavior. A F o S N 8. I would offer Information relevant to supervisee concerns which may or may not be used. A F 0 S N 9. I would try to take a general perspective when the supervisee expresses feelings. A F 0 S N 10. I wi l l disapprove of supervisee insights that do not adhere to what I understand by effective pastoral behaviors. A F 0 S N 11. I would suggest alternatives that could be tr ied . A F 0 S N 12. I would test to ensure that the message I receive Is the one the supervisee sends. . A F 0 S N 13. I would attempt to agree as much as possible with the supervisee. A F 0 S N 14. I would ask questions d irec t ly relevant to what the supervisee says. A F 0 S N 15. I would not shrink from arousing feelings of shame and unprofess 1ona11sm In the supervisee if I considered the pastoral performance less than sat isfactory. A F 0 S M 16. I would share Information that has Influenced my feelings and viewpoints. - A F 0 S N 17. I would remalnd the supervisee of his or her expectations and mine. A F 0 S N 18. I would change the subject without explanation, if I considered It necessary to do so. A F 0 S N / 124 PREACTIVE REIIAVIOR INSTRUMENT (Students) Answer each question as you experienced your supervisor functioning during supervision. Each question is to be answered choosing one of the following categories A . F . O . S . N . Always (A) Frequently (F) Occasionally (0) Seldom (S) Never (N) 1. He or she would advise and even attempt to persuade the supervisee 1f considered necessary. A F 0 S N 2. He or she would d irec t ly report his or her feelings. A F 0 S N 3. He or she would show his or her desire to understand me as a person by checking his or her perception of my Inner state. A F 0 S N 4. He or she would frankly t e l l me what to do 1f I were floundering. A F 0 S N 5. He or she would praise me when I displayed insights into what he or she considered to be effective pastoral behavior. A F 0 S N 6. He or she would attempt to use si lence as a deliberate response. A F 0 S N 7. He or she would attmept to explain or Interpret my behavior. A F 0 S N 8. He or she would offer Information relevant to my concerns which may or may not be used. A F 0 S N 9. He or she would try to take a general perspective when I express fee 1 ings. A F 0 S N 10. He or she wil l disapprove of my insights that do not adhere to what he or she understands by effective pastoral behaviors. A F 0 S N 11. He or she would suggest alternatives that could be tr ied . A F 0 S N 12. He or she would test to ensure that the message he or she received is the one I sent. A F 0 S N 13. He or she would attempt to agree as much as possible with me. A F 0 S N 14. He or she would ask questions d i rec t ly relevant to what I say. A F 0 S N 15. He or she would not shrink from arousing feelings of shame and unprofessional ism in me if he or she considered the pastoral performance less than sat isfactory. A F 0 S M 1G. He or she would share information that has Influences on his or her feelings and viewpoints. A F 0 S N 17. He or she would remind me of my expectations and his or hers. A F 0 S N 18. He or she would change the subject without explanation, if he or she considered it necessary to do so. A F 0 S N / 125 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING THE PREACTIVE BEHAVIOR INSTRUMENT: 1. Circ le the following question numbers: 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14. 15. 17 2. Put and * in front of the c i rc l ed item number 1f you responded: S (Seldom) or N (Never). Count up the * In front of 3, 6, 12. 14. Total = Count up the * 1n front of 4, 5. 9, 10. 15, 17. Total = (Maxlmun of 4) (Maximum of 6) For a l l 18 Items, put a "1" 1n front of the question number If you responded: A (Always) or F (Frequently). Transfer the "1"s from Step 5 to the box below. Multiply the transferred "1"s by the given weight to arrive at an adjusted score for each question. 8. To the "Freeing" column, add the total from Step 4. 9. To the "Binding" column, add the total from Step 3. 10. Total adjusted scores plus respective totals from Step 3 or Step 4. Freeing (maximum 42) '. Binding (maximum 59) Ouestion Number 2 3 6 8 1 1 12 14 1G We i ght < 2 < 6 < 8 < 4 < 1 K 7 K 5 x 3 Adjus ted Score +Tota1 from Step 4 + Oues t1 on Weight + Number + 1 . . . x 3 + + 4 . . . X 9 + + 5 ... X 7 + + • 7 ... X 2 + + 9 ... X 6 + + 10 ... X 8 + + 13 ... X 4 + + 15 ... X 10 + + 17 ... X 5 + + 18 ... X 1 + + +Total from Step Adjusted Score To determine constructive openness leve l , plot total adjusted freeing and binding scores on the Levels of Preactive and Interactive Verbal Communication (Constructive Openness) chart and draw a straight line between the two points. Levels of Preactive and Interactive Verbal Communicat ion (Constructive Openness) A P P E N D I X D : C A T E G O R I E S F O R C O N T E N T A N A L Y S I S CATEGORIES (THEMES) DESCRIPTORS 1. Supervisor Is teacher 2. Responsible for linking theology with practice of ministry 3. Responsible for relating religious values to needs of socIoty 4. Resource for students 5. Feedback to student 6. Role model for student 7. Supervisor Is manager 8. Supervisor has authority 9. Supervisor Is colleglal 10. Relationship is personal 11. Relationship 1s Intensive 12. Relationship 1s Intimate 13. Relationship Is hol is t ic 14. Supervision Is Intentional 15. Supervision 1s structured 1G. Supervision Is disciplined 17. Student entry Into ministry 1B. Engagement In actual 19. Recovery of data 20. Analysis and reflection on student experience 21. Assessment and evaluation of student growth 22. Plan for future educator, guide, coach, trainer, leader praxis, theologizing values, social Justice, social awareness Inform, Information, resource feedback expert, competent, mentor, counselor, fac i l i tator , sounding board time keeper, overseer, administrator, director, data collector, advisor, systems analyst l iaison, link, advocate, father, priest, pas tor partner, team, co-worker, co-pastor, mutual, cooperative personal accept, enable, empoupr, help trust, friend, care, concern, available, encourage, empathy accompany support, nurture, affirm, rea l i s t i c planned, clear expectations, growing edges, seIf-dIrected, allow student to develop own gifts conference arranged, agenda planned, organized meeting ordered, regular, commitment, weekly init iate, getting started, work out expectations, set learning goals, covenant scheduled work or tasks, observe student do 1ng ministry written material, case study, l isten, communIca t1 on share data, discuss, dialogue. Interpretation, theological reflection. Involved In process examine experience, critique. In put from others, challenge, accountable change goals, follow-up, suggestions, a 1terna t1ves 127 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055824/manifest

Comment

Related Items