The development of research supervisors’ pedagogical content knowledge in a lesson study project

Figures & data

Figure 1. The interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke and Hollingsworth 2002).

Table 1. Characteristics of participating supervisors

Participant	Id	Alias	Age (years)	Education	Supervising (years)
Supervisor (S)	S1	Carrie	49	MSc	2
	S2	Samantha	34	MSc	9
	S3	Charlotte	46	PhD	7
	S4	Miranda	37	MSc	7
Facilitator (F)	F	John James	42	MSc	5

Table 2. Overview of data gathering during lesson study phases

	LS Phase	Meeting	LS instrument	Measures	T1	T2	T3	T4
Cycle 1 March-May	Preparation	LS meeting 1	Discrepancy analysis
		LS meeting 2	CIMO logic	Video observation 1
				Learning report 1
		LS meeting 3	LS preparation form	Video observation 2
				Learning report 2
		LS meeting 4	LS preparation form	Video observation 3				A
	Teach and observe	Research lesson	Observation form
	Discussion	Teacher-student	Student interview
	Evaluation	LS meeting 5	LS preparation form	Video recording 4
				Learning report 3
		LS meeting 6	CIMO logic	Video observation 5				A
Cycle 2 May-June	Preparation	LS meeting 7	LS preparation form	Video observation 6				A
	Teach and observe	Research lesson	Observation form
	Discussion	Teacher-student	Student interview
	Evaluation	LS meeting 8	LS preparation form	Video observation 7				A
				Learning report 4				N
Cycle 3 June- July	Preparation	LS meeting 9	LS preparation form	Video observation 8		A
	Teach and observe	Research lesson	Observation form
	Discussion	Teacher-student	Student interview
	Evaluation	LS meeting 10		Video observation 9		A
				Teacher interview

Note. LS = Lesson Study; T = teacher; A = absent at LS meeting; N = learning report was not handed in

Table 3. Frequencies and percentages of reported indicators of change, PCK components, and learning activities

	Carrie	Samantha	Charlotte	Miranda	Total
	f	f	f	f	f	%
Indicator of change in
Supervisor knowledge	12	14	21	17	64	84.2
Supervisor practice	2	1	5	2	10	13.2
Supervisor attitude or beliefs	1	0	1	0	2	2.6
PCK component of
Instructional strategies	10	10	17	12	49	64.5
Student understanding	3	5	9	8	25	32.9
Orientation to teaching	1	0	1	0	2	2.6
Assessment of research	0	0	0	0	0	0.0
Research curriculum	0	0	0	0	0	0.0
Learning activities
Considering own practice	14	19	44	21	98	39.5
Considering student practice	13	14	36	25	88	35.5
Getting ideas from others	7	8	8	8	31	12.5
Experimenting	4	6	3	4	17	6.9
Experiencing friction	4	4	4	2	14	5.6

Note: % = percentage of total number of indicators of change/PCK components (n = 76) or learning activities (n = 248).

Table 4. Frequencies of the nine IMPG translation processes between the four domains

		Carrie		Samantha		Charlotte		Miranda		Total
		f		f		f		f		f	%
1. DP to DC	Reflection	8		11		27		14		58	29.0
2. PD to DP	Enactment	10		7		19		10		47	22.2
3. DC to DP	Enactment	4		6		19		11		40	19.3
4. ED to PD	Reflection	4		5		7		3		19	9.2
5. PD to DC	Reflection	3		4		6		7		19	9.7
6. DP to PD	Reflection	3		2		4		3		14	5.8
7. DC to PD	Reflection	0		2		3		2		6	3.4
8. PD to ED	Enactment	0		1		2		0		3	1.4
9. ED to DP	Enactment	0		0		0		0		0	0.0

Figure 2. Representations of growth networks of the PCK of instructional strategies, one with four IMPG translation processes (Left/Carrie/Learning report2), and one with six processes (Right/Samantha/Observation1).

Figure 3. Representations of growth networks of the PCK of student understanding, one with nine IMPG translation processes (Left/Miranda/Observation2), and one with four processes (Right/Charlotte/Observation5).

Clarke, D., and H. Hollingsworth. 2002. “Elaborating a Model of Teacher Professional Growth.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (8): 947–967. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar