It is not always the case that supervisors have influence on how many student or which one to supervise.

Some supervisors are allocated certain students, while others can choose more freely.

If you have an influence on which students to supervise and how to group them, the recommendations are:

• Create groups of max 7 students. The ideal size is 4-5
• If possible, try to match students thematically, theoretically, or methodologically

Just as in individual supervision, aligning expectations is also important in collective supervision. However, in collective supervision, it is even more important to align expectations, partly because there are several persons involved in the activities, partly because many students are still unfamiliar with the format and therefore it needs more clarification of activities. Here are several suggestions on how supervisors can be clear and transparent about expectations:

• Make it clear whether collective supervision is voluntary or mandatory. Also, make it clear whether it is a supplement or a substitute for individual supervision. 
• Communicate how you supervise collectively. Ideally, describe the format in as much detail as possible in a supervisor letter, i.e., that you describe your supervision practice and expectations in writing, rather than having to say the same things orally every time a new supervision process starts – and at the risk of forgetting important information. At the first supervision meeting, elaborate on some points from the letter and ask for students' responses.  ​See a specific example of a supervisor's letter here (Danish)
• Communicate clearly why you are supervising collectively. Give a small "sales pitch" about the benefits. E.g., in a welcoming mail or at the first meeting. You are welcome to use this scheme: Benefits and challenges of collective academic supervision
• Begin your first meeting by sharing expectations. Make sure that the students know the premises and expectations of their roles. In particular, it is important to inform students about the consequences if they are not prepared. For example, you can tell them that if they have not prepared feedback for each other, they cannot expect to receive feedback themselves, and they can only have an observational role during the meeting.
• End each meeting with a brief evaluation of the meeting form, collaboration, and effort: What works? What needs to be changed?

To ensure progress and throughout the process, it is crucial that there is a clear plan. Here's a checklist for planning the process:

• Make a meeting for the entire term-plan. Insert clear milestones and deadlines for submission of text drafts/student presentations
• Allot 3-5 days for preparation before each meeting
• Remember to book the necessary meeting rooms with a PP projector and whiteboard well in advance if you have many students and if you cannot be in your office.

Here's an example of a meetingplan:

• Strictly manage the speaking time.  Use a visible clock on the table to ensure that everyone receives feedback.
• Try linking the projects, for example: "Arne, can you elaborate on your reasons for choosing Habermas’ theory, just like we talked about how Eva can do in her project"?
• Help student to qualify and concretise their feedback, e.g., "Kerstin, can you elaborate on what you mean by saying that the introduction to Arne's thesis is good"?
• Help students to derive general learning points from the meeting, e.g.," What are your take aways from today about criteria for a good discussion section?
• Be present as an academic authority that corrects potential misconceptions among the students
• Give feedback yourself sometimes to model good feedback before the students practice it.

There are several ways of organizing the dialogue in collective meetings:

1. The first and classical way is for everyone to give feedback to everyone. The advantage of this model is that students receive feedback from many. On the other hand, students can freewheel more because they can stake on that the others have prepared better. Moreover, the model is not suitable for groups of more than 4-5 students in total, because it is time-consuming in the meeting and preparation-load is heavy for the students.
2. Another model is to allow students to give feedback in pairs. This ensures that students feel more obligated to comment on others' texts, because their "performance" becomes more visible to everyone, including the supervisor. On the other hand, this is a vulnerable model if a student – despite preparation – cannot provide useful feedback. However, the supervisor might be able compensate for this afterwards by adding feedback.

Both models can work fine in the same supervision process, but  the first model is best suited in  the beginning of the writing process, because here the text drafts will often be short (e.g., students share drafts for their problem statements).

Furthermore, it is a good idea to ritualise the supervision, i.e. to organise it in the same way each time, because it creates recognition among the students. For example, a fixed structure for the collective supervision meetings could look like this:

To fully use the potential of student peer-feedback, it must be carefully instructed by the supervisor. Otherwise, students may not find it safe or worthwhile spending time on. Here are some tips for supervisors:

• Agree that feedback is always based on a written draft/oral presentation
• Ask students to include a cover letter describing what they would like feedback on, such as
  • How complete is the text? 
  • What challenges are you facing? 
  • What would like feedback on?
• Consider to give students different roles when commenting on fellow students'  text drafts, e.g. "the devil's advocate" or "the critical censor", "sweet friend" or "caring mother", "the instructor who can only give good advice", etc. It helps students to take on the role of being critical or praiseful.
• Conclude the meeting by asking students about their feedback output and how they will use the feedback in the coming writing stage.
• Suggest that students de-brief and take notes for each other.

Finally, it's a good idea to provide clear and detailed instructions on how to give and receive feedback. Here are some suggested instructions you can give your students:

How to give good peer feedback?
The three C's

Criteria: Substantiate your feedback. E.g., Your text is easy to read because you use meta-communication to guide the reader Concrete: Be specific when you praise as well as criticize. E.g., Here on page 9, you strongly support your claim when you write… /Figure 2 is difficult to read because you don’t have any body text explaining it. NOT: You are a good writer/Your figures are not good Constructive. Provide suggestions for how to improve the text/project. E.g., I suggest that you make a stronger argument for using this method. For instance, you could write that…. NOT: You need to re-write it. Don’t excuse your feedback!

How to receive peer feedback?

Listen to the feedback and take notes Avoid going into a dialogue or explaining your text – it is intended to be read as a text per se  Don’t apologize for your text. It is part of a longer process, and no one expects it to be perfect Ask for concrete examples if the feedback is vague or unclear to you Inform the other(s) about which part of the feedback you found particularly useful