FULLTEXT02

the number of tutoring sessions, the time allotted at every opportunity
and the length of time between sessions, are all factors that influence
supervisors ' opportunities for in-depth talks. The group's composition
and size is also important for talks (see Appendix 1 and 2). To supervise
small groups of 3-4 people usually gives more favorable conditions than
supervision of larger groups (cf. the thoughts on peer guidance as described
by Lauvås and others 1977). In large groups it is more difficult to
listen to all and let everyone be heard, which means you need to devote
more time to tutoring. Another factor that has significance for the supervisor
is that mentoring is based on free will, that the participants in the
group themselves are willing to be tutored.
The pattern of conversation that developed in conjunction with the tutorials
can be described and analyzed from different vantage points. In my
analysis, I have chosen to assume three different starting points, which
are also related to the ideas and tools for guidance that the supervisors
have learned and practiced. One of the starting points concerns (1) the
form of the conversation, as the supervisors, among other things, describe
how the way they ask questions gradually changed through development
of their ability to express their own thoughts, and focus on the participants
and the processes taking place in the group. This often leads to
conversational pattern change – from one in which the supervisor poses
questions to each participant, to a conversation where everyone contributes
and in which participants also ask questions of each other. Another
contributing factor to changing the form of conversation is if supervisors
develop their capacity to listen actively, creating time for reflection and
using silence as a tool.
Another way to analyze the conversations is to start from (2) the supervisors
' descriptions of the content. I have tried to see to what extent the
talking only concerns the exchange of experiences, or whether the participants
are able to connect concrete experiences to more general patterns
and theories or values. Judging by many supervisors’ descriptions at least
initially the conversations stop after participants relate to and
acknowledge each other's descriptions by referring to their own similar
experiences and situations. It is difficult for them to distinguish the
uniqueness of the situation and refer instead to their own repertoire and
the patterns that they recognize (cf. Schön, 1983). Towards the end of the
series of sessions it becomes increasingly common in the talks - using the
supervisor's questions – that they succeed in generalizing each other’s
experiences and connect them to their people's theories and their own
values. The content changes character: from experience to synthesis.
Thus the talks begin to deepen.
One approach to a mentor discussion is to see that it dissects different
levels – it goes through and tries to link experiences, theories and values.
133