Supervising teachers’ orientations and conceptions about content and process in teaching practice

ABSTRACT

Research has identified the importance of teaching practice in student teachers’ professional development. Supervising teachers are crucial in this process. While the focus previously has mostly been on student teachers’ pedagogical development, it is equally important to understand how supervisors enable development processes through their conceptions of their task. The aim of this study is to shed light on supervising teachers’ conceptions about practice supervision in terms of affordances and supervision orientations. The qualitative data (N = 26) consisted of a discussion item and written assignments concerning the supervision process collected in connection to supervision training. The data were analysed through content analysis. We identified four supervision orientations. The teaching orientation was dominant, yet differences in how supervisors conceptualise affordances during practice emerged. The results highlight the need to support supervisors in conceptualising the relational dimension as an affordance and strengthen supervisors’ sense of their role as teacher educators.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher education
• practice supervision
• supervision orientations
• teaching practice
• supervising teacher

Introduction

Student teachers’ professional development has been studied substantially within educational research. We know that teaching practice is central for the student teachers’ professional development and is one of the elements in teacher education that challenges student teachers the most (Butler and Cuenca 2012; Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014). Teaching practice is guided by supervisors who support student teachers in lesson planning, provide feedback, function as role models for teaching (Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014; Russell and Russell 2011) and for social encounters with pupils (Atjonen 2012). High quality practice supervision is one of the cornerstones of teacher education programmes (Mouhu 2014; Välijärvi et al. 2007). Since theory and practice meet during teaching practice, it can be viewed as the interactional space between teacher education and the educational field, where the student and supervisor enter the mutual space from two different contextual points of departure (Anspal, Leijen, and Löfström 2019; Hultman, Schoultz, and Stolpe 2011; Ivanova and Skara-Mincane 2016; Martikainen 2014). According to prior studies, the supervisor has a crucial role regarding the student teacher’s professional development, for instance through providing emotional, social and instructional support during teaching practice (Butler and Cuenca 2012; Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014). Supervisors and students also mentioned professional engagement and a supportive practice environment as crucial for student teachers’ professional development (Ulvik and Smith 2011). Research on conceptions about mentoring novice teachers has identified dimensions of mentor responsibilities; developing interpersonal ties and providing emotional and professional support (Schatz-Oppenheimer 2017). We may assume that these dimensions are no less important for student teachers during teaching practice. As the supervising teacher is central in the professional development of future teachers, it is necessary to understand how their different pedagogical solutions affect the practice experience. Therefore, our aim is to shed light on supervising teachers’ conceptions about process and content in practice supervision, and their use of supervision orientations, which influence how they undertake supervision. We are not of aware of studies that have used the supervision orientations model by Sanna Vehviläinen (2014) in the context of practice supervision in teacher education, and find it worthwhile to explore the model in this particular context, in order to identify less explicit dimensions of practice supervision. We posed the following research questions: How do supervising teachers conceptualise supervision in terms of its affordances and processes? How are supervision orientations manifested in the affordances and process of supervision? The results can be applied in the implementation of teaching practice and in the development of supervisor training with the aim to guarantee high-quality practice supervision.

Dimensions of the supervision process

In line with a socio-dynamic view of supervision, practice supervision is a reflective process (Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014), which occurs through interaction between supervisor and student (Butler and Cuenca 2012). A socio-dynamic approach to supervision draws on a constructivist approach and adopts a holistic view of the human being and of learning as an activity that takes place through social interaction (Peavy and Han 2003; Peavy 2000). In the context of teaching practice, the relationship between the supervisor and student teacher takes place within a social dimension and can be viewed as dynamic since both parties learn together and from each other (Peavy 2000).

Supervision is a pedagogical process, initiating it involves several learning processes starting simultaneously for both student and supervisor (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016) hence, the groundwork for teaching practice should be carefully prepared (Stimpson et al. 2000). The goals of teaching practice should be created in collaboration between supervisor and student teacher through discussion regarding following dimensions of supervision; goal-orientation and value of the process, responsibilities and division of labour, and boundaries and resources (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016; Vehviläinen 2014).

Open communication between the student and supervisor is the key to discovering common purpose regarding the practice (Byrd and Fogleman 2012; Graham 2006; Martikainen 2014). The goal for teaching practice is not always clear to student teachers (Byrd and Fogleman 2012). To enhance learning, goal-orientation is of benefit to both structuring and evaluating an activity (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). The clearer aims and learning outcomes, the more coherent practice experience for both supervisor and student (Stimpson et al. 2000; Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). Goal setting helps to pinpoint students’ motivation (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016), self-efficacy (Bandura 1991, 1989), competence and self-regulation skills (Zimmerman 1989). In addition, the values each party associates with the process, such as the meaningfulness of practice, is another essential discussion topic (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). Raising awareness about expectations is important since the supervision relationship can be influenced by beliefs or earlier experiences that might affect future assumptions about supervision (Byrd and Fogleman 2012).

The second dimension of supervision is to have agreements regarding rights, roles, responsibilities and division of labour. While these may not fully coincide, sufficient alignment is necessary (Byrd and Fogleman 2012; Stimpson et al. 2000; Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). Planning the practice teaching lectures is an example of shared responsibilities (Byrd and Fogleman 2012; Stimpson et al. 2000). Lack of communication might lead to misunderstandings concerning responsibilities (Byrd and Fogleman 2012; Stimpson et al. 2000). Additionally, identifying common supervision methods is important for guaranteeing fair and equal treatment of students (Byrd and Fogleman 2012; Stimpson et al. 2000). Furthermore, it is necessary for supervisors to identify resources that have implications for activities in teaching practice (Stimpson et al. 2000). Resources include students’ background knowledge and development areas (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). The identification also involves pinpointing the resources that the supervisor needs for accomplishing the supervision work (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). Agreements on boundaries, such as consequences if either party does not act as agreed (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016), and practicalities regarding supervision meetings (Stimpson et al. 2000) define how the practical matters turn out.

Supervision also involves a relational dimension (Butler and Cuenca 2012; Rakicioglu-Soylemez and Eroz-Tuga 2014). The supervisor facilitates the socialisation of the student teacher into the school community (Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012; Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014; Rakicioglu-Soylemez and Eroz-Tuga 2014) and functions as a source of emotional support (Butler and Cuenca 2012; Caires and Almeida 2007; Ulvik and Smith 2011). At best, a supervision relationship is characterised by active listening, sharing teaching experiences (Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014), a constructive atmosphere and collaboration (Butler and Cuenca 2012; Martikainen 2014; Russell and Russell 2011). The supervision relationship involves elements of sensitivity, interpersonal skills (Stimpson et al. 2000), empathy, respect, encouragement and comfort (Martikainen 2014). Past research has shown that the collaboration between the supervisor and university is crucial for successful teaching practice, in terms of the university providing support to supervisors and students (Graham 2006). The above mentioned factors highlight the wide scope that the relational dimension reaches.

Supervision orientations

Supervision as a practice can be conceptualised through orientations that emphasise distinct functions of supervision. Including a supportive orientation, an inquiry orientation, a problem-solving orientation and a teaching orientation (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021; Vehviläinen 2014). Ideally, the orientations complement each other and occur in varying degrees depending on the context (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). Since orientations influence further actions of supervision, it is necessary for supervisors to acknowledge these (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). In supervision that embraces a socio-dynamic and constructivist view, a student-centred approach forms the point of departure, and the supervisor is expected to have the ability to transform supervision in a direction conducive to student learning (Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016).

The student-supervisor relationship is important for emotional support during teaching practice for student teachers (Caires and Almeida 2007; Ulvik and Smith 2011). Achieving a good relationship, the supervising teacher needs to show engagement, listen carefully and communicate an accepting atmosphere (Ulvik and Smith 2011; Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). Such an atmosphere is facilitated by appreciating professional, cultural, and individual diversity (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). These elements above, characterise the supportive orientation, which involves presence and communication that holds up and consolidates (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021).

Interaction, dialogue and collaboration are important characteristics of supervision (Caires and Almeida 2007; Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen 2014; Martikainen 2014; Ulvik and Smith 2011). Conscious investigation and reflection on experiences, thoughts and emotions through dialogic and constructive interaction, may trigger important learning processes (Peavy 2000). Correspondingly, the inquiry orientation involves interaction through listening, interpreting experiences and asking questions that invites to exploration (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). In line with socio-dynamic and constructivist supervision, an inquiry orientation builds on the notion of reality as social experience, linguistically created and open to interpretation (Vehviläinen 2014). Since constructivist supervision emphasises interpretation, no supervision advice can receive the status of truth, rather the “best guess for now” (Peavy 2000, 6).

In addition, advising and providing constructive feedback are means of supervision (Martikainen 2014; Pihko et al. 2014; Ulvik and Smith 2011). Student teachers appreciate supervision that provides them with encouraging, constructive feedback and open, mutual interaction that supports their professional development (Pihko et al. 2014; Ulvik and Smith 2011). The solution and resource-oriented problem-solving orientation emphasises advising and feedback as tools for students to solve challenges independently, and the supervisor’s role is to support students in using their resources, that guides them towards a solution (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021).

Furthermore, supervision requires clarifying competencies, desired learning outcomes (Byrd and Fogleman 2012) and specifying the steps and activities to reach set goals (Stimpson et al. 2000; Vehviläinen 2014). The teaching orientation strives to structure supervision into a systematically progressive learning process, through which the supervisor has a more active role compared to other orientations (Vehviläinen 2014). This orientation brings proactive means such as identifying teaching models (Salo et al. 2019), assignments and tools to support students’ learning through scaffolding, that is, gradually removing support as the student gains confidence (Vehviläinen 2014; Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016).

Since Vehviläinen’s (2014) model regarding the supervision orientations is a general model applicable in a variety of supervision contexts, we found it to have theoretical appeal. While not having been applied, to our knowledge, in precisely this supervision context before, our application of the model can be seen as an exploration of the applicability of the model in the context of teaching practice. Supervision orientations influence how supervision is realised, in terms of which pedagogical opportunities are identified and perceived, and how these are approached by the supervising teacher (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021; Vehviläinen 2014). The novel contribution of this research is its application of the supervision orientations in the teaching practice context from the perspective of practice supervisors. Connecting conceptions of the supervision process with the orientations not only adds another dimension to our analysis, but the fact that we view these two; supervision orientations and process, in conjuncture with each other adds a layer of complexity to the analysis. While viewing two dimensions separately may certainly enrich the understanding of practice supervision, but it may miss out on the intersections of these dimensions, something that this study sought to expose.

Method

Context

The study was carried out in the context of Finnish teacher education. In Finland, a bachelor’s degree is required for working as an early childhood education teacher and a master’s degree for a subject teacher or basic education teacher in grades 1–6. In both cases, the education includes supervised teaching practice lasting 7–9 weeks. The practice usually takes place in university training schools i.e. a school that is a part of the university and in which the school teachers are university employees, but there can also be collaboration with municipal schools and day care units that are not university units. We recognise that this practice model, which is unusual in Finland, is common in other parts of the world. In Finland, teacher education has a longstanding tradition of being research based and a university level education (Niemi 2011). Supervision models and practices beyond a university-related school context come into contrast with the generally ambitious nature of the development of teacher education in the country. We identify interesting research potential in this largely unexplored territory of supervision. While practice supervisors in university training schools are trained for the supervision task and it is generally a part of their work description, this is not automatically the case when teaching practice takes place in municipal schools and day care units. In the context of this study, supervisors from municipalities are trained in collaboration with a university training school even though they collaborate with a university teacher education track that does not have its own training school.

Data collection

The data were collected in 2019–2020 during a training course for supervisors. The aim of a training course is to reflect on goals, challenges, content of practice supervision and to support supervisors professional development (Mouhu 2014). The participants in the training were teachers who lacked formal supervisor training or used the training as a continuing training opportunity in case they already had undertaken supervisor training.

The participating teachers’ understanding of practice supervision was accessed through individual course assignments that prompted expressions of understandings, experiences, reflection, and a group discussion task. Thus, the data were not specifically generated for the purpose of this research and the study did not affect the content or assignments of the supervisor training. Rather, the training provided an opportunity to access authentic course materials to explore teachers’ reflections and understandings of supervision, and these were utilised in the study. The intention was not to evaluate the trainings impact. The training consisted of 12 hours spread over four days during one academic year. The content was organised along the themes of practice theory, students’ varying supervision needs, development of a practical supervision toolkit and reflection on supervisor identity.

Participants

A total of 26 teachers participated in the training, all of whom also consented to the use of their group work for research purposes. In addition, 11 participants consented to allowing the use of their individual assignments as research data. The participants were early childhood education teachers (n = 2), basic education teachers (n = 2), subject teachers (n = 5) and special education teachers (n = 2). Participation in the research was voluntary and based on informed consent. No incentives for participation were used and no personal identifiers were collected. To protect the identity of the research participants, the data were treated with confidentiality throughout the whole analysis process. In Finland, an ethics review is not required for this type of non-risk research involving healthy, fully informed volunteer adults (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, TENK 2019).

The data consisted of four group assignments and 11 individual written course assignments regarding the supervision process. We collected both individual and group assignments to access reflections about the supervision process on a broad scale. Firstly, the participants were asked to reflect individually on their thoughts about the supervision process: what happens before, during and after the practice period and document their thoughts. Participants were free to choose how to document the supervision process. Most participants documented the supervision process as a timeline. These were filled with thoughts to consider and sometimes complemented with illustrations or symbols. The word count varied from 67 to 261 per timeline. In total, the material generated 354 documented contributions.

Some data were generated through a group reflection task. The participants discussed their individual reflections about the supervision process in four groups of 3–6 participants. Within these groups, the participants agreed on vital elements of the process and documented them on a paper in bullet point format. Direct quotations, marked in italics, have been used to illustrate results from both data sets.

Observation is a central part of qualitative research (Marshall and Rossman 2016) and was conducted during the training by the researchers to develop a better understanding of the research context, to get acquainted with the participants and to be available for questions about the study. Field notes were made to support the data collection process, but these are not reported here. Rather, they have provided support for recollection and reflection.

Data analysis

The data were analysed by applying content analysis (Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas 2013). The first step of the analysis was to merge both parts of the assignment (individual and group) into one database. The data were sorted according to the structure of the assignment: what happens at the beginning, during and in the end of practice. In the deductive process, data were organised along the theoretical dimensions of the supervision process (Elo and Kyngäs 2008). The theory-informed categories were named: objectives, context, process management and relational aspect. To highlight reoccurring themes, categorisation was made based on thematic similarities. The process resulted in 25 categories, which were given descriptive titles based on the content of the dimensions originating from theory. Frequencies have been reported to illustrate the prevalence of findings. The analysis regarding theory-informed categories and the categorisation based on thematic similarities was reviewed several times by the three researchers to agree on interpretation of the content.

Further, the analysis included the representation of supervision orientations in the data. The characteristics of the theory-informed supervision orientations: supportive, inquiry, problem-solving and teaching orientation, were compared and matched with the earlier stated 25 categories. In terms of content, some categories were suitable within several orientations and could therefore be identified numerous times in different orientations. Thus, the analysis did not lock a category to a specific orientation if the category in terms of content was compatible with several orientations.

While we applied an inductive approach, we were open to any sightings that would complement the theoretical dimensions as we applied a theoretical model not used in this context before. However, we did not identify content that would have raised the need to consider dimensions beyond the model.

Results

The results indicate variation in how supervising teachers conceptualise affordances of the supervision process and demonstrate how multifaceted the process of practice supervision is. All four supervision orientations proposed in earlier research were identified during the supervision process, with the teaching orientation dominating in frequency over other orientations.

Affordances of supervision process

The supervisors’ conceptions about process and content in practice supervision were expressed through four following affordances: objectives, context, process management, relational aspect and related sub-categories (Table 1).

Table 1. Affordances of a supervision process

Affordances	Beginning	During	End
Objectives (I = 27; G = 12)	Discussion about objectives (I = 6; G = 2) Inspection of important documents (I = 6; G = 2)	Review of evaluation form (I = 4; G = 3) Review of internal information (I = 2; G = 1)	Evaluation of teaching practice (I = 9; G = 4)
Context (I = 47; G = 17)	Planning the teaching practice (I = 11; G = 3) Discussion about expectations (I = 9; G = 3)	Implementation of teaching practice (I = 10; G = 2) Presentation of expectations (I = 5; G = 1) Discussion about responsibilities, obligations, rights (I = 4; G = 4)	Evaluation of expectations (I = 8; G = 4)
Process management (I = 61; G = 19)	Discussion about affecting factors (I = 2; G = 0) Discussion about practicalities (I = 9; G = 2) Review of previous knowledge, experience (I = 7; G = 2)	Agreement on supervision times (I = 9; G = 2) Agreement on form and method (I = 9; G = 3) Previous knowledge and experience as a starting point (I = 4; G = 3) Provision of support, tips (I = 7; G = 3)	Evaluation of strengths, development areas (I = 9; G = 3) Discussion about teacher identity (I = 5; G = 1)
Relational aspect (I = 24; G = 7)	Organisational preparations (I = 8; G = 3) Collegial aspects (I = 2; G = 0) Technical arrangements (I = 2; G = 0)	Including the student teacher (I = 8; G = 2)	Administrative issues (I = 4; G = 2)

I = individual assignment (n = 11), G = group assignment (n = 4)

Reaching consensus around objectives

The supervisor must ensure that both supervisor and student teacher have a sufficiently shared understanding of the teaching practice objectives. Variation emerged in the sub-categories from the documented reflections: discussion about objectives, inspection of important documents, review of evaluation form, review of internal information and evaluation of practice. The following excerpts illustrate the objectives: “familiarize yourself with the goals of the practice”; “discussion about expectations, experiences, goals with the student”. The emphasis on goal setting provides a fruitful starting point for the supervision process along with an exploration of expectations of both parties. The supervisors also highlighted the importance of providing “information about the school and policy documents” and reflecting together on didactics and the local curriculum. Such descriptions as, “students get to know the curriculum and what it concretely means, how to ‘measure’ knowledge/ learning” highlight the importance of familiarising students with the local context early on. The supervisor is in fact aware of other parallel pedagogical objectives, such as the pupils’ learning objectives in the short and long terms, which should also be considered during teaching practice. Reviewing internal information consisted of discussions regarding professional secrecy and introducing student teachers to everyday routines. Several supervisors emphasised the evaluation of teaching practice, discussions concerning achievement of learning objectives and providing overall summative feedback. Nevertheless, the affordance concerning objectives lies in finding agreement on goals, guidelines and expectations related to teaching practice, to ensure supervision of shared pedagogical ambitions.

Consolidating the organisational and individual context

During teaching practice, the school as an organisational context, meets the student as an individual actor. The supervisor’s role is hence to bring together the perspectives of the two contexts, to form a coherent whole. The sub-categories related to the organisational context were planning the teaching practice, implementation of teaching practice, and discussion about responsibilities, obligations and rights. The following excerpts illustrate the planning activities: “planning the course as a whole and distribution of lessons” and “leave room in the calendar for the student’s independent days” as well as agreeing on time schedules and providing student teachers with guidelines for practice teaching. Other reflection patterns discovered included division of roles and responsibilities, agreements on common rules and the supervisor’s duty to act if challenges arise. Furthermore, the sub-categories related to the individual actor were discussions about expectations, presentation of expectations, and evaluation of these. Reflections concerning these themes were illustrated in excerpts, such as “getting to know students” through discussions about earlier teaching experience. At the end of the supervision process, concluding discussions and reflections about the teaching practice was mentioned, as well as evaluation of earlier stated expectations through asking questions of the following character: “have the student’s expectations been met?” or “were some experiences not materialised?”. Carrying through teaching practice from the organisational perspective, including procedures, rules, responsibilities and practice, must be aligned with individual processes, including individual expectations, learning and reflection. The supervisors’ reflections suggest a cognisant effort on their part to consolidate both an organisational and an individual perspective in the learning environment that the school provide to its individual actors.

Managing the practical and the reflective

The affordance process management was the most extensive one. The supervisor’s main role concerning this affordance is to bring together questions of both practical and reflective character related to practice supervision. Discussion topics of practical character were affecting factors, practicalities, agreement on supervision times and provision of support and suggestions on how to manage teaching situations. These involved matters such as exchanging contact information and agreeing on supervision schedules. Alternative ways to support student teachers was to provide ideas by sharing lecture plans, literature and teaching material. Discussions of reflective character, on the other hand, were reviewing previous knowledge and teaching experience, agreeing on form and method of supervision, identifying previous knowledge and experience as a starting point, evaluating strengths and development areas and finally, reflecting on the teacher identity, which was less frequently mentioned amongst the reflections. These topics above concern the student teacher’s professional development and include metacognitive reflections. Examples of such reflections and sensitivity to students’ needs were illustrated in several excerpts such as, “be sensitive to the student’s needs regarding supervision, subject knowledge, pupil contact”, “the student knows his/her strengths and areas of development” and “help the student experiencing more confidence”. The supervisors’ reflections show that, managing a supervision process implicate dealing with multifaceted issues, with a range from supervision schedules to discussions about student teachers’ teacher identity. However, regardless of whether questions are of a practical or reflective character, they are equally important for instilling a sense of social support and availability of support for the student teacher.

The relational aspect of practice supervision

The least emphasised affordance was the relational aspect, involving organisational preparations, collegial aspects, technical arrangements, including the student and administrative issues. The role of organisational preparations is to prepare the student teacher’s arrival at the school, by informing pupils, families and colleagues about the student teacher’s presence. Equally important is to provide the student teachers “presence” prior to their arrival by informing them about school rules and what necessities to bring (such as clothes for outdoor activities). These preparations are central to the student teacher’s integration into the school community, since it signals that the school anticipates and is prepared for the student teachers’ arrival. Reflections concerning collegial aspects and technical arrangements were not documented by many of the participants. However, technical arrangements (such as access to keys/computer) may contribute to the student teacher’s perception of being welcomed and regarded as a member of the collegium with a valuable and independent role within the school community. If the student teacher is always dependent on someone else for unlocking doors or accessing a computer, it may signal a lack of appreciation of the student teacher as a member of the collegium, which may result in feelings of non-independency and hamper the student teacher’s sense of developing their own professionalism. Alternatively, inclusiveness could be signalled through relatively ordinary but nevertheless important practices such as “welcome and show around” and “presentation of the school and relevant personnel”, which demonstrated integration into the school community. Collaboration and communication between the university and supervisor is relevant not only for the student teacher’s pedagogical development but also to develop the teaching practice as a whole. The supervisor offers an insight into the learning processes during practice that university teachers might not have access to. The key point regarding the relational dimension of practice supervision is to emphasise that it is a reciprocal relationship, which need to be understood from both the individual’s and the organisation’s point of view. The school needs support from the university in receiving the student teacher, and in turn, the school needs to support the student teacher’s integration into the school community.

Representations of supervision orientations

Four supervision orientations were identified: teaching orientation, supportive orientation, problem-solving orientation and inquiry orientation. The supervision process and its affordances were viewed in light of these orientations (Table 2).

Table 2. Representations of supervision orientations (N = 354)

Orientations*	Affordances	Beginning	During	End
Teachingorientation Traced in 18 categories	OBJECTIVES (68) CONTEXT (114) PROCESS MANAGEMENT (72) RELATIONAL ASPECT (27)	Discussion about objectives (9) Inspection of important documents (17) Planning the teaching practice (26) Discussion about expectations (17) Discussion about practicalities (21) Organisational preparations (16) Collegial aspects (3)	Review of evaluation form (10) Review of internal information (6) Implementation of teaching practice (35) Presentation of expectations (10) Discussion about responsibilities, obligations, rights (13) Agreement on form and method (26) Previous knowledge, experience as starting point (8) Provision of support, tips (17)	Evaluation of teaching practice (26) Evaluation of expectations (13) Administrative issues (8)
Supportive orientation Traced in 12 categories	OBJECTIVES (10) CONTEXT (13) PROCESS MANAGEMENT (90) RELATIONAL ASPECT (41)	Discussion about practicalities (21) Review of previous knowledge, experience (12) Organisational preparations (16) Collegial aspects (3) Technical arrangements (2)	Review of evaluation form (10) Discussion about responsibilities, obligations, rights (13) Agreement on form and method (26) Previous knowledge, experience as starting point (8) Including the student teacher (20)	Evaluation of strengths, development areas (16) Discussion about teacher identity (7)
Problem-solving orientation Traced in 10 categories	OBJECTIVES (26) CONTEXT (58) PROCESS MANAGEMENT (70) RELATIONAL ASPECT (8)	Discussion about affecting factors (2) Review of previous knowledge, experience (12)	Implementation of teaching practice (35) Presentation of expectations (10) Discussion about responsibilities, obligations, rights (13) Agreement on supervision times (14) Agreement on form and method (26)	Evaluation of teaching practice (26) Evaluation of strengths, development areas (16) Administrative issues (8)
Inquiry orientation Traced in 8 categories	OBJECTIVES (36) CONTEXT (36) PROCESS MANAGEMENT (41) RELATIONAL ASPECT (0)		Review of evaluation form (10) Presentation of expectations (10) Discussion about responsibilities, obligations, rights (13) Agreement on form and method (26) Previous knowledge, experience as starting point (8)	Evaluation of teaching practice (26) Evaluation of expectations (13) Discussion about teacher identity (7)

* Each orientation is added as a layer on the four affordances. The 25 categories in the table are only shown within the cells where specific orientations were represented.

The quantity in the parenthesis indicates the frequencies of documented reflections related to a certain category or affordance.

The teaching orientation was by far the most frequent orientation in this study. It was identified in 18 different sub-categories and appeared in 281 documented reflections. The teaching orientation was also the most occurring orientation within the affordances: objectives and context. A teaching orientation strives for a progressive learning process and was particularly evident in sub-categories such as planning the practice, discussing practicalities for supervision, when implementing and evaluating teaching practice. Reflections referring to a progressive learning process were for instance providing a clear framework, “planning based on the goals”, “reflect on the whole: how, and in what ways did your lessons improve?” and “evaluate the teaching practice: challenges, development, strengths”. Proactive means support and facilitate the student teachers’ learning and are distinctive traits for the teaching orientation. Proactive means were identified in reflections such as, support in planning, “provide suggestions and ideas for how to plan and implement” and when agreeing on form and method for supervision. These results show that supervisors mainly recognise teaching practice as a learning experience, and that they are prepared to support student teachers through the process by offering clarity and structure.

The supportive orientation was represented in 12 sub-categories and involved 154 reflections throughout the process. The supportive orientation was also the most frequent orientation concerning the affordances of process management and the relational aspect. Likewise, as the orientation characters: creating an accepting and welcoming atmosphere, the results show that the supportive orientation was applied in sub-categories such as including the student teacher and in organisational preparations. Documentation underlining the creation of a welcoming atmosphere were, “involve every member of the personnel to take care of the student”, “welcome and show around” and “meet the student, inform them about clothes, working hours”. Like teaching orientation, supportive orientation was also represented when discussing practicalities, agreeing on form and method of supervision and when evaluating strengths and development areas as the following excerpt highlights: “we want students to feel more secure, find their nascent teacher identity, have positive experiences”. Commentaries such as these suggest that supervisors consider the long-term impact and consequences of a student teacher’s practice experience for the continued career in teaching.

The problem-solving orientation was identified in ten sub-categories and documented in 162 reflections. According to the results, the problem-solving orientation was commonly used when agreeing on form and method of supervision, when evaluating teaching practice and the student teacher’s strengths and development areas as described: “the goal is that the student feels that he/she has developed and received more or new tools for working as a teacher in the future”. Common characteristics of this orientation were the use of feedback and advising as tools for supervision, demonstrated through the following reflections: “listen and be there to answer questions”, “allow the student to gain insight through trial and error” and to “arrange time for discussion and reflection”. Time for discussion may not automatically be available in the busy schedules of supervisors and often requires a conscious effort by the supervisor in order to materialise. To “listen and be there” can be interpreted as a reminder of the importance of presence as a supervisor, while “trial and error” is about daring to give responsibility to the student teacher while being there if they need support for example in a challenging situation in the classroom.

The inquiry orientation was the least prevalent in this data. It appeared in eight sub-categories and was documented in 113 reflections. Interaction in terms of interpreting experiences and asking students exploratory questions in an inviting way are common characteristics for this orientation. Reflections such as, “ask the right questions” and “questions that direct attention towards the ‘essential’” were illustrating examples of interaction through the inquiry orientation. The inquiry orientation was mainly identified amongst reflections when discussing responsibility, obligations and rights, agreeing on form and method for supervision and when evaluating teaching practice and expectations.

The manifestation of supervision orientations in the supervision process

The teaching orientation was the most occurring orientation throughout the supervision process (Table 3). It was also the most prevalent at the beginning and during the supervision process. The problem-solving orientation was the second most occurring orientation and was primarily emphasised at the end of the supervision process. The supportive orientation was quite evenly distributed throughout the process, except at the end when it was the least common orientation. The least prevalent orientation was the inquiry orientation. None of its reflections occurred at the beginning of the supervision process. Supervisors may not necessarily be aware of these orientations, even if they intuitively approach supervision through them. However, it would be important for supervisors to recognise these orientations since they may enable an explicitly pedagogical take on supervision.

Table 3. The manifestation of supervision orientations in a supervision process

Orientations	Beginning	During	End	Total
Teaching orientation	n* = 109	n = 125	n = 47	281
Supportive orientation	n = 54	n = 77	n = 23	154
Problem-solving orientation	n = 14	n = 98	n = 50	162
Inquiry orientation	n = 0	n = 67	n = 46	113

* The frequencies indicate the number of reflections related to a certain orientation during the supervision process.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to shed light on supervisors’ conceptions about practice supervision in terms of affordances and supervision orientations. The results concerning the affordances of the supervision process demonstrated the complexity of practice supervision, and thus corroborated earlier results (Jacobs, Hogarty, and West Burns 2017; Long, van Es A, and Black 2013). Supervision is a pedagogical process and teaching practice is situated in a broader context, where school and teacher education contribute, as envisioned in the socio-constructive approach (Peavy 2000).

Process management as an affordance was emphasised the most. Preparing practicalities of tangible character are indeed cornerstones of teaching practice but focusing primarily on these may take attention away from more substantive issues around supporting metacognition and reflection. The supervisor’s role is to reconcile questions of both practical and reflective character, and to support the student teacher’s professional development which is characterised by reflections of metacognitive nature. Prior studies have underlined the importance of supporting reflection in teacher identity development (Canrinus et al. 2011; Poom-Valickis and Löfström 2019). In this study, discussion about teacher identity were mentioned less frequently. Asking questions regarding the student’s teacher identity might be experienced as too personal. Nevertheless, teacher identity development emerges indirectly in connection to evaluation and professional progression during teaching practice, and supervisors benefit from recognising those implicit opportunities for prompting reflections on teacher identity.

Not surprisingly, student teachers want to feel included and welcomed in the school environment (Ulvik and Smith 2011), yet, as an affordance, the relational aspect gained the least emphasis. Receiving own keys or computer seem to be mere technical issues but may contribute to the student’s experience of being perceived as a trustworthy, independent and an appreciated member of the teacher collegium. Research suggests that supervisors are an important source of technical support (Caires, Almeida, and Vieira 2012) and that technical arrangements are crucial regarding the socialisation process during teaching practice, in terms of feeling included and recognised as teachers (Ulvik and Smith 2011). Yet, supervisors highlighted such arrangements to a lesser extent. A reciprocal nature of the relational dimension requires that student teachers perceive that they, too, have a contribution to make while being met with respect and care, and not being only on either the giving or the receiving side of the relationship.

We identified four supervision orientations (Vehviläinen 2014) in this study. The teaching orientation provided the most common underpinning for supervision. Characteristic of the teaching orientation is that the supervision process is structured into a systematically progressive learning process (Vehviläinen 2014). A reflection highlighting this was; providing a clear framework, which was aligned with research on the constituents of successful supervision (Byrd and Fogleman 2012; Stimpson et al. 2000; Vehviläinen and Löfström 2016). One could argue that a possible explanation for the teaching orientation being the most common is because teaching practice is a pedagogical process itself, and therefore teaching orientation becomes a natural option for supervisors. Nevertheless, the teaching orientation may not always be the optimal orientation for creating space for spontaneous solutions, mutual learning and the student’s opportunities to enact agency during teaching practice.

While the different orientations all are essential, they may be harnessed to serve specific purposes at separate phases of the supervision process. For instance, the supportive orientation creates a common workspace and is therefore well placed at the beginning of the process. Further, the supportive orientation may allow access to the inquiry state conducive for questioning and formulating challenges (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). In our study, this was not the case since the inquiry orientation was the least prevalent. In line with a constructivist view to supervision, it would be useful to approach objectives, expectations and the student’s needs in an exploratory manner. By arranging time for reflection in the end of teaching practice, as in our study, the inquiry state opened up opportunities for problem solving in which solutions could be sought together (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). Based on our results, the teaching orientation can be recognised as a general orientation influencing the whole supervision process, while the remaining three support the learning process when needed. This may indicate the employment of the orientations in a complementary way and an attempt to guide supervision in a direction that favours the student teacher’s professional development (Vehviläinen and Souto 2021). Students and supervisors have different levels of previous knowledge, therefore it would be beneficial for supervisors to recognise supervision orientations and to acknowledge how supervision as pedagogical activity can be geared towards supporting the student teacher’s development.

Furthermore, supervising teachers in Finnish university training schools are recognised as teacher educators, but this might not be the case for supervising teachers working at municipal schools and day care units. Establishing the status of supervising teachers in the municipalities as partners in teacher education warrants further effort from stakeholders involved in teaching practice. The stakeholders’ knowledge and contribution need to be respected, appreciated, and recognised at the system level to maintain a well-functioning university-school partnership (Farrell 2021; Lynch and Smith 2012). We identify that the university has a significant role in adopting an inclusive stance towards embracing supervising teachers as colleagues in teacher education and enhance their awareness of their crucial role in the student teachers’ professional and pedagogical development (Farrell 2021). This requires rethinking the premises and goals, as well an understanding and appreciation of the reciprocal nature of this partnership (Lynch and Smith 2012). Bringing together academic and practitioner knowledge in a collaborative way (Zeichner 2010), and maintaining the fundamental elements of the teaching profession – responsibility, autonomy and professional agency (Farrell 2021), a reciprocal partnership may be achieved. The supervision process and supervision orientations need to be understood in a context of teacher educatorship – not merely supervising a student who has been assigned a class to practice in. Being a teacher educator involves supporting student teachers’ professional development in a holistic and multifaceted way. Orientations may remain empty and the process random if not embedded in a vision of how the pedagogical activity of supervision contributes to educating future generations of teachers.

The results contribute to the existing knowledge base on practice supervision in teacher education by combining supervision orientations, affordances and the supervision process. At a theoretical level, this study sheds light on supervisors’ conceptions about objectives, context, process management and the relational aspect. The four supervision orientations (Vehviläinen 2014) could also be identified in this study. Simultaneously, we did not identify additional orientations despite retaining openness towards emerging signals in the data. We believe this does provide a validation that the model of orientations (Vehviläinen 2014) is applicable in the context of teaching practice.

The fact that we did not explicitly ask participants about their conceptions regarding supervision could be regarded as a limitation. We argue that the reflective nature of the course tasks did encourage participants to be less concerned about the audience and more focused on their own development as supervisors. In this sense the data are authentic manifestations of the participants’ reflections. For a fuller picture, manifestations could be completed with interviews in further studies. This would also address a concern that the study now relies wholly on researcher interpretation of the materials, which may deviate from what the participants actually had in mind when crafting their responses. Why the relational aspect was emphasised the least warrants further research. For instance, what role does it play in a supervisor’s repertoire of supervision means and methods, and how aware are supervisors of the entanglements of the relational aspect with other less obviously relational aspects.

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, and Niclas Kiljander’s Foundation for support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by grants to the first author by Svenska Kulturfonden in Finland [Svenska Kulturfonden 157646];

Notes on contributors

Lina Lindström

Lina Lindström is a PhD student in the doctoral programme SEDUCE (School, Education, Society, and Culture) at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research interests include teaching practice within teacher education and practice supervision from the supervising teachers’ point of view.

Erika Löfström

Erika Löfström is Professor of Education and leader of the Swedish-language elementary teacher education track at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research interests include teacher identity development, research ethics, and ethics of supervision.

Monica Londén

Monica Londén is university lecturer in education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research interests include university pedagogy and teachers pedagogical awareness, first year experience, study skills and learning.