Search

Diagnosing teachers are teachers who perceive diagnostic information about students' learning process, interpret these aspects, decide how to respond, and act based on this diagnostic decision. During supervision meetings about the undergraduate thesis supervisors make in-the-moment decisions while interacting with their students. We regarded research supervision as a teaching process for the supervisor and a learning process for the student. We tried to grasp supervisors' in-the-moment decisions and students' perceptions of supervisors' actions. Supervisor decisions and student perceptions were measured with video-stimulated recall interviews and coded using a content analysis approach. The results showed that the in-the-moment decisions our supervisors made had a strong focus on student learning. Supervisors often asked questions to empower students or to increase student understanding. These supervising strategies seemed to be adapted to students' needs, as the latter had positive perceptions when their control increased or when they received stimuli to think for themselves.

Supervision meetings give teachers and students opportunities to interact with each other and to co-regulate students' learning processes. Co-regulation refers to the transitional process of a student who is becoming a self-regulated learner by interacting with a more capable other such as a teacher. During a task, teachers are expected to pull back their support and give opportunities to students to take responsibility. This study aims to explore the shifting patterns of co-regulation, feedback perception, and motivation during a 5-month research project. Participants were 20 students conducting research in pairs and six teachers who supervised these students. Two videotaped supervision meetings at the beginning and end of the research process and questionnaires on feedback perception and motivation were analysed. Results on co-regulation showed a constant and comparable level of regulation at the start and at the end of students' research projects. Feedback perception did not change, but motivation decreased significantly.

Current international demands to strengthen the teaching profession have led to an increased development and use of professional content standards. The study aims to provide insight in the construct validity of content standards by researching experts' underlying assumptions and preferences when participating in a delphi method. In three rounds 21 experts judged and revised content standards about teaching students research skills. The method resulted in nine content standards with a high degree of consensus and support. A qualitative analysis of experts' comments and a Homals analysis on their preferences showed that they differ in the assumptions and preferences from which they judged the content standards. The value of consensus approaches for developing and validating content standards is discussed. (Contains 2 figures and 3 tables.)