Thoughts Are Free—Differences Between Unstructured and Structured Reflections of Teachers with Different Levels of Expertise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study aims to examine the differences between unstructured reflective practices and those guided by model-based reflection prompts within the context of prospective teachers. Conducted using a qualitative research design, the study demonstrates overall coherence in its theoretical and methodological structure. The literature review and theoretical foundations are well-developed and grounded in up-to-date sources. Moreover, the manuscript is written in a fluent and comprehensible style. The topic addressed is timely and significant in the field of teacher education, with the potential to offer valuable contributions to the literature.
Regarding the coding scheme presented in Table 1, the distinction between Level 2 and Level 5 is clearly articulated; however, the differences among the other levels are not sufficiently specified. Clarifying how all levels are differentiated would enhance the transparency and validity of the coding process. Additionally, while the data analysis relies solely on interviews coded by two independent researchers based on established criteria, including direct quotations from participants would strengthen the study’s trustworthiness. In particular, incorporating representative quotes from bachelor’s and master’s level students, teacher trainees, and experienced teachers would help illustrate how each code was applied during the analysis.
The study relies on a single data collection method (interviews), and although the coding was conducted by multiple coders, it remains unclear whether other trustworthiness-enhancing strategies—such as data triangulation or member checking—were employed. Including such methodological details would improve the study's rigor and credibility.
Moreover, several inconsistencies have been identified in the reference list in terms of adherence to APA style. For instance, in the citation of Landis and Koch (1977), the journal name Biometrics should begin with a capital letter, as it is a proper noun. Additionally, the article titles in the references for Roberts (2016) and Korthagen and Kessels (1999) are incorrectly capitalized; in APA style, only the first word of the title, the first word after a colon, and proper nouns should be capitalized. Given these issues, I recommend that the entire reference list be carefully reviewed and revised by current APA guidelines to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Overall, this research addresses an important issue and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field of reflective practices in teacher education. However, the manuscript would benefit greatly from a more detailed explanation of the coding scheme and the inclusion of illustrative participant quotes. These revisions would considerably strengthen the academic quality and persuasive power of the study, bringing it closer to being suitable for publication.
Author Response
In order to make it easier to identify the revisions, they have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Comment 1: This study aims to examine the differences between unstructured reflective practices and those guided by model-based reflection prompts within the context of prospective teachers. Conducted using a qualitative research design, the study demonstrates overall coherence in its theoretical and methodological structure. The literature review and theoretical foundations are well-developed and grounded in up-to-date sources. Moreover, the manuscript is written in a fluent and comprehensible style. The topic addressed is timely and significant in the field of teacher education, with the potential to offer valuable contributions to the literature.
Response 1: Many thanks for the positive feedback, which is much appreciated.
Comment 2: Regarding the coding scheme presented in Table 1, the distinction between Level 2 and Level 5 is clearly articulated; however, the differences among the other levels are not sufficiently specified. Clarifying how all levels are differentiated would enhance the transparency and validity of the coding process.
Response 2: We added a paragraph to Section 3.1 to describe the levels in more detail.: “The five levels are defined by an increasing level of complexity and depth of reflection. Level 1 (Description) merely involves stating observations without judgment. Level 2 (Evaluation) adds a critical component, implicitly or explicitly judging the appropriateness of behaviors based on teaching standards. Level 3 (Explanation) further deepens reflection by requiring justifications of these judgments, explicitly linking them to standards of quality teaching. Level 4 (Analysis) moves beyond simple justification to a detailed examination of causal relationships between teaching actions and student outcomes. Lastly, Level 5 (Planning) distinguishes itself by focusing on constructive, actionable strategies aimed at improving future teaching practices, requiring substantiation of the proposed methods or approaches.”
Comment 3: Additionally, while the data analysis relies solely on interviews coded by two independent researchers based on established criteria, including direct quotations from participants would strengthen the study’s trustworthiness. In particular, incorporating representative quotes from bachelor’s and master’s level students, teacher trainees, and experienced teachers would help illustrate how each code was applied during the analysis.
Response 3: For each level of reflection, we added representative anchor examples based on direct quotations from participants in table 1. However, we did not consider it necessary to differentiate between these according to level of expertise. The reason for this was that there were hardly any differences in terms of content.
Comment 4: The study relies on a single data collection method (interviews), and although the coding was conducted by multiple coders, it remains unclear whether other trustworthiness-enhancing strategies—such as data triangulation or member checking—were employed. Including such methodological details would improve the study's rigor and credibility.
Response 4: Unfortunately we didn’t use other strategies like data triangulation or member checking. We included this limitation in the discussion: “Additionally, future studies with similar designs could further investigate interpretations based on our results by validating data gathered in think-aloud interviews using additional methods, such as member checking.”
Comment 5: Moreover, several inconsistencies have been identified in the reference list in terms of adherence to APA style. For instance, in the citation of Landis and Koch (1977), the journal name Biometrics should begin with a capital letter, as it is a proper noun. Additionally, the article titles in the references for Roberts (2016) and Korthagen and Kessels (1999) are incorrectly capitalized; in APA style, only the first word of the title, the first word after a colon, and proper nouns should be capitalized. Given these issues, I recommend that the entire reference list be carefully reviewed and revised by current APA guidelines to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Response 5: Thank you very much for the detailed feedback. We have reviewed the entire reference list and made adjustments in accordance with APA guidelines.
Overall, this research addresses an important issue and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field of reflective practices in teacher education. However, the manuscript would benefit greatly from a more detailed explanation of the coding scheme and the inclusion of illustrative participant quotes. These revisions would considerably strengthen the academic quality and persuasive power of the study, bringing it closer to being suitable for publication.
Thank you. We included illustrative participants quotes in table 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is a well-structured study written in professional language. The references are relevant and professional. The well-structured literature review provides a solid theoretical background for the topic. The methodology chosen is appropriate and the results are presented adequately; a summary table could be added. The author's own critique of the theoretical summary of the topic could be improved with more independent reasoning. The conclusions are appropriate.
Author Response
In order to make it easier to identify the revisions, they have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Comment 1: The article is a well-structured study written in professional language. The references are relevant and professional. The well-structured literature review provides a solid theoretical background for the topic. The methodology chosen is appropriate and the results are presented adequately; a summary table could be added.
Response 1: Thank you for this positive feedback. We included a summary table for all cases in Appendix A.
Comment 2: The author's own critique of the theoretical summary of the topic could be improved with more independent reasoning. The conclusions are appropriate.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have enhanced our theoretical critique in the discussion by explicitly discussing why theoretical knowledge remains abstract and infrequently integrated into teachers' reflections (drawing on Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). This reasoning is now clearly outlined and contributes to a deeper theoretical understanding of our results
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well written, clearly structured and referenced paper that explores important, and persistent, issues within teacher education and teaching. The study provides a novel way of exploring the issue and the methodology and results are clearly outlined. There are a few areas that could be clarified to further improve the paper:
- while you do not need ethical approval in Germany, the study should and would have been guided by ethical behaviours. How were participants recruited? Were they ensured of confidentiality? Did they have the right to withdraw? Did they provide informed consent?
- Most of the discussion repeats back the findings. While it is helpful when this is compared with previously published work, the depth of the discussion would be enhanced. I think the authors can dig a bit deeper into the 'so-what' of the findings, considering what this means for teacher education and professional development.
- Why were the specific vignettes designed in the way they were? What guided their development and structure?
- Please explain briefly why the two tests (Kruskall-Walls and Wilcoxon signed-rank) were deemed the most suitable tests to conduct here
Author Response
In order to make it easier to identify the revisions, they have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Comment 1: This is a well written, clearly structured and referenced paper that explores important, and persistent, issues within teacher education and teaching. The study provides a novel way of exploring the issue and the methodology and results are clearly outlined. There are a few areas that could be clarified to further improve the paper: while you do not need ethical approval in Germany, the study should and would have been guided by ethical behaviours. How were participants recruited? Were they ensured of confidentiality? Did they have the right to withdraw? Did they provide informed consent?
Response 1: Thank you very much. Of course, research must adhere to ethical procedures in Germany too. We have explained the procedure in more detail in Section 3.2.: “In general, the recruitment of participants followed convenience sampling, albeit also being stratified to guarantee all four career stages are represented as described above. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before taking part voluntarily. They were free to withdraw at any time without disadvantages. Their details were kept confidential.”
Comment 2: Most of the discussion repeats back the findings. While it is helpful when this is compared with previously published work, the depth of the discussion would be enhanced. I think the authors can dig a bit deeper into the 'so-what' of the findings, considering what this means for teacher education and professional development.
Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this important aspect. We have expanded our discussion to explicitly address the practical implications ("so-what") of our findings for teacher education and professional development. Specifically, we now provide differentiated recommendations for integrating structured reflection prompts tailored to different levels of teacher expertise (based on Toom et al., 2015; Rey & Buchwald, 2011). This clearly enhances the practical relevance and depth of our discussion.
Comment 3: Why were the specific vignettes designed in the way they were? What guided their development and structure?
Response 3: We expanded the description of the vignettes a little in Section 3.1.
Comment 4: Please explain briefly why the two tests (Kruskall-Walls and Wilcoxon signed-rank) were deemed the most suitable tests to conduct here
Response 4: We added a short section to Section 3.1.: “Due to the small sample size, we used non-parametric tests to analyze differences be-tween variables (e.g. level of reflection) in different conditions. For example, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to analyze differences between two conditions (e.g. unstructured vs. structured reflections) and the Kruskal–Wallis test to analyze differences between more than two conditions (e.g. levels of expertise). These tests do not require the variables to be distributed in a certain way. They only require ordinal scaling.”
