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.

In higher education, students often misunderstand teachers' written feedback. This is worrisome, since written feedback is the main form of feedback in higher education. Organising feedback conversations, in which feedback request forms and verbal feedback are used, is a promising intervention to prevent misunderstanding of written feedback. In this study a 2 × 2 factorial experiment (N = 128) was conducted to examine the effects of a feedback request form (with vs. without) and feedback mode (written vs. verbal feedback). Results showed that verbal feedback had a significantly higher impact on students' feedback perception than written feedback; it did not improve students' self-efficacy, or motivation. Feedback request forms did not improve students' perceptions, self-efficacy, or motivation. Based on these results, we can conclude that students have positive feedback perceptions when teachers communicate their feedback verbally and more research is needed to investigate the use of feedback request forms.

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.