Thoughts Are Free—Differences Between Unstructured and Structured Reflections of Teachers with Different Levels of Expertise
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Reflection as Part of Professional Competence
2.2. Models for Structuring and Evaluating Reflection
2.3. Structured vs. Unstructured Reflection
2.4. Prompts and the Effect of Structuring
2.5. Level of Expertise and Depth of Reflection
2.6. Research Questions
- How do structured and unstructured reflection formats differ in terms of reflection performance (e.g., in terms of depth of reflection achieved, content addressed, and theoretical references)?
- To what extent does teachers’ level of experience influence the quality of reflection in structured and unstructured reflection formats?
3. Method
3.1. Design
- Unstructured Reflection—Participants freely reflected on the first vignette without specific structural guidelines. The exact prompt for all respondents was: “Please read the situation description and reflect on the teacher’s behavior. Include theoretical approaches in your reflection. Please verbalize all your thoughts aloud—everything that comes to mind.” Participants were informed beforehand that, for methodological reasons, the interviewer would not react during this phase and that they should engage in expressing all their thoughts freely. After participants had articulated their responses, a brief moment of silence was observed before they were asked if they had completed their reflection. The interviewer then transitioned to the second phase of the interview.
- Structured Reflection—The reflection on the second vignette was guided by model-based reflection prompts provided by the interviewer. The instruction in this phase was: “Please read the situation description. Unlike in the first scenario, we will not begin the reflection immediately. Instead, please read through the situation first and let me know when you are done.” Subsequently, all participants were asked the following guiding questions (in that order):
- (a)
- What stands out in this situation? [Description]
- (b)
- How do you assess the teacher’s behavior? [Evaluation]
- (c)
- Are there criteria that led you to this assessment? [Explanation]
- (d)
- What do you think the students would think about this behavior? What effect do you believe the teacher’s behavior has on the students? [Analysis]
- (e)
- Have you encountered theoretical content related to [vignette 1/2] during your studies, and can you apply it to this situation? [Theoretical Reference]
- (f)
- How would you have reacted in this situation?/If you were to give advice to this teacher, what would it be? [Planning]
3.2. Sample
4. Results
4.1. Performance in Unstructured and Structured Reflections
4.2. Differences Regarding Level of Expertise
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
str. | structured |
unstr. | unstructured |
SD | standard deviation |
Appendix A
Interview Nr. | Level of Expertise | Vignette | Content Aspects | Level of Reflection | Theoretical Reference | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
unstr. | str. | unstr. | str. | unstr. | str. | unstr. | str. | ||
1 | Bachelor | chemistry | math | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | no | no |
2 | Master | chemistry | math | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | no | no |
3 | Trainee | math | chemistry | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | no | no |
4 | Trainee | math | chemistry | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | no | no |
5 | Experienced | chemistry | math | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | no | no |
6 | Master | chemistry | math | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | no | no |
7 | Experienced | math | chemistry | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | no | no |
8 | Trainee | math | chemistry | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | no | no |
9 | Master | chemistry | math | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | no | no |
10 | Bachelor | chemistry | math | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | no | no |
11 | Master | math | chemistry | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | no | no |
12 | Bachelor | math | chemistry | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | no | no |
13 | Bachelor | chemistry | math | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | no | no |
14 | Bachelor | chemistry | math | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | no | no |
15 | Bachelor | math | chemistry | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | no | no |
16 | Experienced | math | chemistry | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | no | no |
17 | Experienced | chemistry | math | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | no | no |
18 | Experienced | chemistry | math | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | no | no |
19 | Experienced | math | chemistry | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | no | no |
20 | Master | math | chemistry | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | yes | no |
21 | Master | chemistry | math | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | no | no |
22 | Trainee | chemistry | math | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | no | yes |
References
- Aeppli, J., & Lötscher, H. (2016). EDAMA—Ein Rahmenmodell für Reflexion [EDAMA—A framework model for reflection]. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen-und Lehrerbildung, 34(1), 78–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allas, R., Leijen, Ä., & Toom, A. (2017). Supporting the construction of teacher’s practical knowledge through different interactive formats of oral reflection and written reflection. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 600–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, R. M., & Casbergue, R. M. (1996, April 8). Frequency and levels of reflection: Their relationship to the evolution of novice through expert teachers’ recall. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, USA. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED398203.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- Beauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: Issues emerging from a review of current literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, A. A. P., & Motta, E. (2021). “I reflect, therefore I am… a good professional”. On the relationship between reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action and professional performance in vocational education. Vocations and Learning, 14(2), 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarà, M. (2015). What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, P. F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington. [Google Scholar]
- Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Heath and Company. [Google Scholar]
- Dreyfus, H. L., Dreyfus, S. E., & Athanasiou, T. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gentner, N., & Seufert, T. (2020). The double-edged interactions of prompts and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 15(2), 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Polytechnic, Further Education Unit. [Google Scholar]
- Gulikers, J. T., Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2008). The effect of practical experience on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approach, and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 172–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, L. (2022). How should reflection be supported in higher education?—A meta-analysis of reflection interventions. Reflective Practice, 23(1), 118–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husu, J., Toom, A., & Patrikainen, S. (2008). Guided reflection as a means to demonstrate and develop student teachers’ reflective competencies. Reflective Practice, 9(1), 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakfar, A. E., & Rahmatillah, R. (2023). A systematic review on the significance of reflective teaching in teaching performance. English Journal of Merdeka: Culture, Language, and Teaching of English, 8(2), 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jalilifar, A., Khazaie, S., & Kasgari, Z. A. (2014). Critical discourse analysis of teachers’ written diaries genre: The critical thinking impact on cognition in focus. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, J. (2012). The focus, role, and meaning of experienced teachers’ reflection in physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, J., Lu, Y.-H., & Ding, A.-C. E. (2022). How do prompts shape preservice teachers’ reflections? A case study in an online technology integration class. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(3), 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaçaniku, F., Gjelaj, M., & Saqipi, B. (2019). Context guided instruction to develop reflection competence of education professionals. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 41(1), 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korthagen, F. A., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
- Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korthagen, F. A., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 47–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kost, D. (2019). Reflexionsprozesse von Studierenden des Physiklehramtes [Reflection processes of physics students] [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Gießen]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krauskopf, K., & Fehn-Winterling, K. (2023). Kognitive und affektive Facetten strukturierter unterrichtsreflexion. Eine quasi-experimentelle studie zu schriftlichen reflexionen mit und ohne unterrichtsvideografie [Cognitive and affective facets of structured classroom reflection. A quasi-experimental study of written reflections with and without classroom videography]. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(5), 1165–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaBoskey, V. K. (1993). Why reflection in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(1), 9–12. [Google Scholar]
- Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenske, G., & Lohse-Bossenz, H. (2023). Stichwort: Reflexion im pädagogischen Kontext [Keyword: Reflection in a pedagogical context]. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(5), 1133–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review, 67(2), 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, M. (2005). Reflection in teacher education: How can it be supported? Educational Action Research, 13(4), 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayring, P. (2021). Qualitative Content Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide. Sage Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- McArdle, K., & Coutts, N. (2003). A strong core of qualities—A model of the professional educator that moves beyond reflection. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(2), 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mena Marcos, J. J., Sánchez, E., & Tillema, H. (2009). Teacher reflection on action: What is said (in research) and what is done (in teaching). Reflective Practice, 10(2), 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michos, K., & Petko, D. (2024). Reflection using mobile portfolios during teaching internships: Tracing the influence of mentors and peers on teacher self-efficacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 33(3), 291–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Philp-Clark, C., & Grieshaber, S. (2024). Teacher critical reflection: What can be learned from quality research? The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(2), 697–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahmawati, Y., Taylor, P. C., & Koul, R. K. (2013). Critical reflections of a chemistry teacher educator in revealing teaching identity: A critical autoethnography research. JRPK: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Kimia, 3(1), 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey, G. D., & Buchwald, F. (2011). The expertise reversal effect: Cognitive load and motivational explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, P. (2016). Reflection: A renewed and practical focus for an existing problem in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryken, A. E., & Hamel, F. L. (2016). Looking again at “surface-level” reflections: Framing a competence view of early teacher thinking. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(1), 31–53. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/teaceducquar.43.4.31 (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
- Shoffner, M. (2008). Informal reflection in pre-service teacher education. Reflective Practice, 9(2), 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sööt, A., & Viskus, E. (2015). Reflection on teaching: A way to learn from practice. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1941–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stenberg, K. (2010). Identity work as a tool for promoting the professional development of student teachers. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stender, J., Watson, C., Vogelsang, C., & Schaper, N. (2021). Wie hängen bildungswissenschaftliches Professionswissen, Einstellungen zu Reflexion und die Reflexionsperformanz angehender Lehrpersonen zusammen? [What is the relationship between professional knowledge in educational science, attitudes towards reflection and the reflective performance of prospective teachers?]. Herausforderung Lehrer*Innenbildung—Zeitschrift Zur Konzeption, Gestaltung Und Diskussion, 4(1), 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toom, A., Husu, J., & Patrikainen, S. (2015). Student teachers’ patterns of reflection in the context of teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Beveren, L., Roets, G., Buysse, A., & Rutten, K. (2018). We all reflect, but why? A systematic review of the purposes of reflection in higher education in social and behavioral sciences. Educational Research Review, 24, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Aufschnaiter, C., Fraij, A., & Kost, D. (2019). Reflexion und Reflexivität in der lehrerbildung [Reflection and reflexivity in teacher education]. Herausforderung Lehrer*innenbildung—Zeitschrift zur Konzeption, Gestaltung und Diskussion, 2(1), 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, R., & Grudnoff, L. (2011). Making sense of reflection: A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’ perceptions of reflection for practice. Reflective Practice, 12(3), 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Subcategories: Vignette 1 (Chemistry) | Subcategories: Vignette 2 (Math) | |
---|---|---|---|
Content Aspects | (1) Classroom management | (1) Homogeneous learning groups | |
(2) Teacher clarity and lesson organization | (2) Time on task | ||
(3) Time on task | (3) Teacher clarity and lesson organization | ||
(4) Scaffolding | (4) Adaptive teaching competence | ||
(5) Lesson goal | (5) Lesson goal | ||
(6) Other | (6) Other | ||
Level of Reflection | Level 1: Description | Level 1 of the reflection level category (Description) represents the ability to describe the situation or the teacher’s and students’ behavior in the vignette in one’s own words (What is the case?). In such a description (descriptive reflection), one’s perception is expressed by assigning characteristics to the situation or behavior without making a value judgment about the observed aspects. That is, the focus lies on stating what something is or how it functions, rather than evaluating whether it is good or bad. | Anchor example: “At the beginning, there is a disruption of the lesson that somehow happens with these paper balls. It’s mainly one pupil who is apparently disrupting the lesson, but this in turn has a certain ripple effect on other pupils, who are then also distracted, so in principle a certain ripple effect is triggered by this disruption. And so everyone is admonished, yes.” |
Level 2: Evaluation | Level 2 of the reflection level category (Evaluation) represents the ability to assess the situation or the teacher’s behavior in terms of its appropriateness for high-quality teaching as a standard (How is it?). This includes indirect negative evaluations through imperative statements (e.g., “She should not have done it this way”). Distinction from Level 5 (Planning) Participants often do not evaluate the situation “directly” (using adjectives such as “good,” “bad,” “hindering,” “beneficial,” etc.) but rather “indirectly” by naming alternatives derived from the situation description itself. These alternatives do not constitute a constructive (independent) development of action alternatives but merely indicate that a characteristic of the situation “should have been different.” For instance, if participants demand “more student-centered instruction,” this implies an indirect evaluation, which is coded as Level 2. Level 5 would only be coded if participants elaborated on the means or methods by which a higher degree of student-centered instruction could be achieved. | Anchor example: “Okay, so what I find problematic about this group division is that I immediately noticed that each student works on their own. Of course, it’s often the case in groups that everyone has to understand the task themselves first. But somehow the students don’t interact in their groups at all. And especially how the groups are divided up. So, for example, that the high-performing groups, the high-performing students are in one group and the low-performing students are in another, because I think that’s somehow not the point of group work, because the others aren’t pulled along or supported at all. And that’s why I think the teacher should divide up the groups a bit more fairly. Of course, that doesn’t always work, for example, if there are methods where groups are somehow thrown together or numbers are counted. But somehow, I don’t think the group division here is very well chosen. It’s just stupid that the low achievers end up understanding almost nothing. Yes, there should definitely be a way for the lower achievers to at least ask questions at the end or for things to be explained to them better. For example, one approach would be to mix up the groups again afterwards so that they can explain it to each other. But I think that’s rather a bad idea.” | |
Level 3: Explanation | Level 3 of the reflection level category (Explanation) represents the ability to substantiate the evaluation of the situation or the teacher’s behavior by referring to underlying reasons (Why is it good or bad?). These reasons are anchored in the appropriateness of the behavior for achieving high-quality teaching (as defined in Level 2). | Anchor example: “So the teacher has now opted for homogeneous learning groups, i.e., a division with more people of similar ability, pupils, exactly. But that may not necessarily have been beneficial in any case. So, as I understand it here, the same text tasks or the same text task were given to all groups. So that doesn’t mean differentiated by level. And some students then had the problem that they were not able to solve the task in their group, because this group would be relatively low-achieving, for example, because they couldn’t understand it. And yes, in this respect, perhaps a heterogeneous division, i.e., with higher to lower-performing students, would have been better so that they could support each other in the learning process.” | |
Level 4: Analysis | Level 4 of the reflection level category (Analysis) pertains to the ability to establish connections between the teacher’s actions and the resulting effects on the students in the classroom. This level focuses on understanding the causes and consequences of the teacher’s behavior, linking observed instructional practices to their impact on student learning and classroom dynamics. | Anchor example: “I suspect that they might either still see her as a little unsure […] I don’t know how close she really is to the students or whether she’s somehow teaching past them. And then the students don’t really feel like they’re being picked up on and then somehow lose interest in the whole thing and don’t take it as seriously or don’t feel like having to have everything explained to them again and again and the teacher is then simply the only one who can help them somehow and a feeling of dependency somehow arises. So yes, it’s not ideal, but in any case, they respect her as the person who should know. They then ask about the details, so they already have the feeling that the teacher definitely knows how to do it. Only in terms of authority, perhaps and transparency, the students might think yes, maybe she could have explained it differently or something.” | |
Level 5: Planning | Level 5 of the reflection level category (Planning) refers to the ability to propose justified alternatives to the teacher’s classroom management behavior (How could it be improved?). Distinction from Level 2 (Evaluation) The suggested alternatives must be substantiated to distinguish them from indirect evaluations without a constructive component (Level 2). Justifications are not present when participants merely call for “more student-centered teaching” without elaborating on the methods or strategies that could achieve higher student engagement. The key criterion here is the constructive aspect of generating alternative actions. | Anchor example: “But I also think that the fact that the students ask about details in more detail, i.e., it doesn’t say here that they are asking about the basic implementation, but only about details, which for me would be rather minor aspects that may not have been understood, I also thought directly. [...] But when I read that, a lot of alternatives simply go straight through my head. And I would have used marble phases on the one hand. But above all, I would have tried to visualize the instructions for the experiment in some way using fixed material, which would perhaps remain somewhere on the blackboard, so that the whole process could really be retraced at any time. Because if the whole thing is only done orally and that’s how it seems here, since she clearly demands this concentration again and again, saying “Please concentrate, because this is important now!”, so basically appealing to the students, so you are doing this now so that it can go on well right away, it sounds as if it would have happened mainly orally and yes, I will also directly think of an alternative or a criterion why I see the whole thing relatively, yes, critically, that the whole thing is perhaps not sufficiently visualized and only explained orally.” | |
Theoretical Reference | Theoretical Reference | A theory relevant to the vignette is explicitly referenced. Participants must explicitly refer to a theory or empirical findings on teaching quality or use a concept or term that is the subject of a theoretical framework. Potential references include dimensions and empirical findings on teaching quality, classroom management techniques, and approaches to handling classroom disruptions. | |
Lack of Theoretical Reference | The unit of analysis contains no explicitly mentioned theoretical foundation. |
Category | Unstructured Reflection | Structured Reflection | |
---|---|---|---|
Content Aspects | Median | 3.00 | 3.00 |
Mean | 3.05 | 2.95 | |
SD | 1.09 | 0.95 | |
Level of Reflection | Median | 2.50 | 3.00 |
Mean | 2.64 | 3.32 | |
SD | 0.79 | 0.95 | |
Theoretical Reference (in %) | yes | 4.5 | 4.5 |
no | 95.5 | 95.5 |
Category | Bachelor | Master | Trainees | Experienced | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
unstr. | str. | unstr. | str. | unstr. | str. | unstr. | str. | ||
Content Aspects | Median | 3.00 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 |
Mean | 3.00 | 2.83 | 3.33 | 3.17 | 3.00 | 2.75 | 2.83 | 3.00 | |
SD | 0.63 | 0.98 | 1.21 | 1.47 | 1.63 | 0.50 | 1.17 | 0.63 | |
Level of Reflection | Median | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 2.50 | 4.00 |
Mean | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.67 | 3.33 | 2.75 | 3.50 | 2.67 | 3.50 | |
SD | 0.55 | 0.90 | 1.21 | 1.03 | 0.50 | 1.29 | 0.82 | 0.84 | |
Theoretical Reference (in %) | yes | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
no | 100.0 | 100.0 | 83.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 75.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vogelsang, C.; Scholl, D.; Meier, J.; Küth, S. Thoughts Are Free—Differences Between Unstructured and Structured Reflections of Teachers with Different Levels of Expertise. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070820
Vogelsang C, Scholl D, Meier J, Küth S. Thoughts Are Free—Differences Between Unstructured and Structured Reflections of Teachers with Different Levels of Expertise. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(7):820. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070820
Chicago/Turabian StyleVogelsang, Christoph, Daniel Scholl, Jana Meier, and Simon Küth. 2025. "Thoughts Are Free—Differences Between Unstructured and Structured Reflections of Teachers with Different Levels of Expertise" Education Sciences 15, no. 7: 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070820
APA StyleVogelsang, C., Scholl, D., Meier, J., & Küth, S. (2025). Thoughts Are Free—Differences Between Unstructured and Structured Reflections of Teachers with Different Levels of Expertise. Education Sciences, 15(7), 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15070820