Search

In this study, we aimed to identify how the learning activities elicited in a lesson study project contributed to self-perceived change in supervisors' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Lesson study is a method which combines both professional and educational development. During a lesson study project, teachers collaborate in a team and develop, teach, evaluate, and redesign a research lesson. During the 4-month lesson study project described here, four supervisors designed a protocol for research supervision meetings aimed at enhancing undergraduate students' learning. During the project, they experimented with open questioning and giving positive feedback instead of giving instruction and explanations. A mixed-methods design was used in this study. Data on the supervisors' learning activities and PCK were gathered using learner reports, video-recordings of meetings, and exit interviews. The analyses of these data showed that the lesson study project contributed to the development of the supervisors' PCK on instructional strategies and student understanding. The learning activity that contributed most to these changes was reflecting on their own practice and that of their students.

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.

In higher education, students often write an undergraduate thesis and receive one-to-one or small group support. During mentoring, 10 teachers ideally diagnose students' research skills, to be able to adapt their support to students' needs. In this study, we aimed to answer the question of how mentors apply the diagnostic phases of a diagnostic question, a diagnosis, a diagnostic check and an intervention, during mentoring meetings about 15 students' research skills. Four mentors participated in this multiple case study. Qualitative data were gathered and sixteen videotaped mentoring meetings were coded on the four diagnostic phases. The results were compared within and between mentors, showing that mentors asked several diagnostic questions, seldom articulated and shared their diagnoses explicitly with students, and mainly used interventions. We concluded that more support is needed for mentors who do not automatically use their diagnostic questions to formulate explicit diagnoses about students' research skills.

This study aimed to evaluate a training programme for Dutch teachers in six institutes for nursing education to support students' reflection skills. The research question was: what are the feasibility, quality and effects of the programme? The training programme focused on four competences of teachers regarding instructing, guiding, giving feedback on and assessing students' reflection skills. The programme development was informed by research-based features of effective teacher professional development and expertise about reflection and feedback. Nineteen teachers took part in the training programme and eight teachers formed a control group. Pre-measurements concerned teachers' initial knowledge, experience, beliefs, practices and self-assessment of competences. During the programme, data were gathered about participants' appraisal of the content and activities, learning concerns and perceived results. Post-measurements concerned quality and effects of the programme, using teachers' assessment of own development, current teaching activities and repeated measurement of certain practices, beliefs and self-assessment of competences. Teachers' appraisal of the training programme was fairly positive. Results indicate that teachers can develop competences in supporting students' reflection skills and improve their practice in a relatively modest amount of time by participating in a purposeful and coherent programme including relevant content, active learning and expert feedback. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

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.)