How can we support preservice teachers in using reflection to solve real-world classroom challenges and actively build new understanding based on their prior knowledge? Reflective practice involves a cycle that begins with concrete experiences, moves into evaluation and analysis, and ultimately may lead to assimilation, reframing, and a plan of action (Dewey, 1938; Gibbs, 1988; Schön, 1983). Because teaching involves addressing real-world, ill-structured problems, novice educators require guidance in developing adaptive expertise (Darling-Hammond, 2005). Scaffolding metacognitive skills aid preservice teachers in navigating such problems, although traditional metacognitive interventions, usually designed for well-structured problems, may not fully address classroom variability (Lin et al., 2005). Adaptive metacognition, therefore, is crucial, helping teachers adjust practices by recognizing unique, hidden aspects of classroom scenarios.

Lin and Lehman (1999) found that “reason justification” prompts effectively supported problem-solving in novel, contextually dissimilar tasks, underscoring the importance of selecting instructional scaffolds that align with learning goals. Similarly, studies by Azevedo and Hadwin (2005) highlight the importance of scaffolding in aiding novice teachers’ metacognitive development. Tailored prompts and feedback mechanisms should be aligned with various learning contexts and objectives to enhance their effectiveness.

Adaptive metacognition, self-study, and critical incident reflection (Tripp, 1993) further encourage teachers to examine and approach complex classroom situations with flexible, strategic actions. Tripp’s triple-loop learning model incorporates reflective cycles that address emotional and cognitive responses, promoting deeper reflection and problem-solving skills. Preservice teachers require support that guides them through the complexities of a task, embeds expert advice, reduces cognitive load, and helps place focus on aspects of the task that are relevant to the learning goals. The structure of prompts can vary depending on the learning goals, the characteristics of the learners, and the instructional context (Weaver et al., 2019).

Common variations in prompt structure include:

Furthermore, several critical studies indicate that various types of reflection prompts may impact self-regulation and problem-solving in different ways (Bixler and Land, 2010; Bulu and Pedersen, 2010; Chen, 2010; Jung et al., 2021). Problem-solving triggered by discordant experience parallels the concepts of disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 1991) and critical incident reflection (Tripp, 1993). Common and recurrent events in the course of teaching provide an opportunity to explore differentiated solutions through focused self-study or inquiry into one’s own practice concerning particular issues and critical events involved in teaching (Anselmann, 2023; Weaver et al., 2022). “Critical reflection is best understood as critical thinking applied to personal experiences. This occurs when practitioners step back from a problem or experience and reflectively ask probing questions to make meaning from specified events” (Cole et al., 2022, p. 1). When preservice teachers reflect on critical incidences in their teaching, they articulate their reasoning and explore multiple possible solutions, which may build metacognitive strategies that support adaptation and adaptive expertise.

Based on these studies, we investigated the efficacy of two different types of prompts in our research. The traditional descriptive prompt developed by the course professor as the original prompt asked participants to describe a lesson’s implementation process, mechanics, assessment, and learning outcomes in alignment with InTASC Standards (see Supplementary Appendix A). In contrast, the critical incident protocol developed by Tripp (1994) required participants to identify a significant event during the lesson, analyze it, and develop a plan of action with a rationale for their decisions (see Supplementary Appendix B). Next, we explored and identified various assessment techniques in order to detect differences in students’ reflective practice based on the type of prompt used.

There are various methods for assessing the quality of reflection, most of which involve content analysis often discussed in terms of phases, levels, or types of reflection. These frameworks often use hierarchical categorization. One of the most influential is van Manen (1977) seminal work on levels of reflectivity. Van Manen (1977) identified three levels of reflection:

Although Van Manen’s (1977) model represents reflection as hierarchical, when the phases of reflection are considered on a continuum rather than as levels, teachers at various professional stages may employ a combination of types of reflection depending on the context, situation, and prior experiences. Harris et al. (2010) suggested that the mentoring process, electronic portfolios, reciprocal journals, and professional growth plans are all examples of how to evaluate reflection so that it promotes growth and impacts instructional practice. Furthermore, teachers do not necessarily move through reflection phases linearly. Contextual factors, such as a challenging classroom situation, supervisory feedback, or collaborative discussions in a team meeting, can trigger deeper reflection and problem-solving at any stage (Harris et al., 2010).

Many researchers adopt mixed-methods approaches, integrating qualitative insights with quantitative measures to gain a more comprehensive understanding of reflective practice. These approaches help capture the interaction between metacognition, feedback, self-efficacy, and goal orientation. For example, Chen and Chen (2022) used empirical analysis to examine external environmental factors and individual psychology and qualitative analysis to explain the mechanism of the results. Findings demonstrated that combining reflection with pedagogical self-efficacy and goal orientation fosters sustainable learning by enabling teachers to continuously evaluate and adjust their teaching strategies (Chen and Chen, 2022). Similarly, Wu and Looi (2012) studied how scaffolded prompts in a computer-based tutoring system impacted reflective thinking. Their findings showed that structured questioning elicited higher levels of reflection and encouraged double-loop learning, where individuals examine underlying assumptions and refine their metacognitive strategies.

Other studies have reinforced the role of assessment tools in guiding effective reflection. Kaya and Adiguzel (2021) conducted a qualitative case study supplemented by quantitative data, showing that structured reflection opportunities improved pedagogical content knowledge and multimodal reflective thinking. Similarly, Ratminingsih et al. (2017) discovered that self and peer assessments, along with peer collaboration, fostered a culture of feedback and improved instructional decision-making. Their research emphasizes the importance of supportive environments that include well-designed reflection tasks and feedback mechanisms, which positively influence goal orientation and reflective practice (Chen and Chen, 2022).

Recent research has explored various methods for supporting preservice teachers’ reflective practice, examining both the effectiveness of specific reflection techniques and how different prompt designs influence the quality and focus of reflective thinking.

Anselmann (2023) conducted a pre-post design study with 53 preservice teachers who participated in either online or face-to-face training using the critical incident technique (CIT) for teacher education to determine if the training sufficiently improved their reflection skills. The study was conducted over multiple data collection periods, during which participants completed both online and face-to-face formats. Data were collected through an online questionnaire that included validated scales on educational satisfaction, reflection skills, and learning logs. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and qualitative data analysis. The results show that the students significantly enhanced their teaching reflection abilities after completing the training.

Jung et al. (2021) conducted an exploratory case study to analyze the written reflections of 21 preservice teachers in response to three types of prompts (standard-based, concept-based, and task-based) in an online technology integration class. They examined these reflections at the sentence level using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The analysis was guided by a framework that includes descriptive, rationalistic, and anticipatory dimensions. Their results revealed that standard-based prompts generated reflections that were mainly composed of anticipatory and assertive components. In contrast, concept-based and task-based prompts generated reflections that primarily included descriptive and evaluative components. The type of prompt, the use of specific keywords and verb tenses, and the characteristics of the anchoring experience shaped reflections.

Elsayary (2023) examined how preservice teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and self-regulation develop in online learning through a reflective practice framework. The study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, when teaching shifted to an online format. The participants were preservice teachers in an early childhood program in the United Arab Emirates. Preservice teachers’ reflection practices had a significant impact on their metacognitive regulation and knowledge development. The use of the reflective practice model connected metacognitive knowledge (declarative, procedural, conditional) with metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, evaluating) in a cyclical process, leading to enhanced self-regulation and preparation for future teaching roles.

While these studies demonstrate that structured reflection techniques enhance preservice teacher development, they primarily focus on individual interventions or overall effectiveness, rather than systematically comparing different scaffolding methods to identify which ones are most effective for specific learning outcomes. Building on this research, this study triangulated the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT), Reflective Thinking Attributes (RTA), Analytical Scoring Rubric (ASR), and Kember et al. (2008) Four Category Scheme to assess students’ development in reflective thinking and metacognitive regulation. Although previous studies have examined critical incidents, prompt categories, and the development of pedagogical reasoning, this research provides a unique contribution by directly comparing traditional descriptive prompts with critical incident prompts to assess their respective impacts on pedagogical reasoning and metacognition. Thoughtful assessment and intentional instructional strategies are key to accurately measuring students’ reflective thinking growth.

This broader perspective on reflection corresponds with Experiential Learning Theory (ELT), a well-established framework that describes how learning takes place through an ongoing cycle of experience, reflection, and adaptation. ELT promotes a dynamic, iterative approach to professional learning, encouraging educators to move beyond isolated experiences and to consider how broader influences shape their developing practice. ELT outlines four interconnected stages:

In this learning cycle, learning is transformed through the interplay between content and experience, and the concrete, real-life experiences of the learner create knowledge (Burns and Danyluk, 2017; Dewey, 1933).

Reflective praxis, viewed as a cyclical or spiral model, has the potential to build metacognition, challenge beliefs, develop schema, and reconstruct knowledge, and is instrumental in modern-day designs of reflective practice activities (Gibbs, 1988; Kember et al., 2008). By emphasizing the interplay between experience and reflection, ELT provides a strong foundation for examining how different scaffolds and assessment methods influence the depth and quality of reflective practice.

To explore reflection, ill-structured problems, scaffolding and prompts, metacognition, and pedagogical reasoning, this study used a mixed-method research (MMR) methodology with an explanatory sequential design. The study began with a quantitative strand to provide general insight into preservice teachers’ metacognition, reflective thinking attributes, and problem-solving processes and followed up with the qualitative strand to gain in-depth explanations of the quantitative results (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). The data were collected across four sections of a course, and the quantitative design included non-random assignment of two of the sections to a treatment group, where they engaged in reflection based on a critical incidence reflective prompt, and two sections to a comparison group, where they engaged in reflection based on a standard open-ended prompt. The data source for the qualitative content analysis included written work from participants across both groups. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provided an in-depth perspective on the preservice teachers’ depth of reflection as it relates to metacognition, as well as how their pedagogical reasoning and problem-solving processes were impacted by the type of scaffolding prompt the students received.

The research was conducted as the first author’s doctoral dissertation project at a mid-sized research university in the southwestern region of the United States, and the second author served as the primary research mentor. The authors approached the research process from a pragmatic worldview of educational inquiry. They conceived the research as a space for researchers and participants to explore, understand, and reflect upon their own experiences in a specific context.

Participants were selected from four sections of an in-person educational technology course designed to successfully teach preservice teachers technology strategies to integrate technology into teaching. The same participants were used in the study’s quantitative and qualitative components. All students were enrolled in the Special/Elementary Education (Dual Certification) Bachelor of Science in Education program at a regional HSI university in the American Southwest, with a 40% first-generation student population. In total, N = 58 students granted permission to participate in the study, though only 49 completed both the pre- and post-course materials, and through listwise deletion, we report only on the data who participated in the entirety of the study.

In order to investigate the relationship between the type of reflective blog scaffold and retrospective pedagogical reasoning and problem-solving processes found in the preservice teachers’ post-lesson reflections, a modified version of Ge and Land (2001) analytical rubric was used. Ge’s rubric has four major constructs centered on ill-structured problem-solving processes: (a) problem representation, (b) developing solutions, (c) justifying the selection of solutions, and (d) monitoring and evaluating the problem space and solutions. Each of the constructs represents specific attributes assigned an ordinal value on different point scales; however, Ge and Land (2001) chose to use the category scales as approximate interval/ratio data, which the researcher replicated in this study.

The measure includes three categories, each with a scoring range from 0 to 10 points, including 1. Representing the problem/event or lesson, 2. Selecting/developing solutions, and 3. Making justifications for and evaluating proposed solutions. The ill-structured problem-solving constructs used in Ge and Land (2001) rubric closely parallel Shulman (2004) retrospective pedagogical reasoning processes: evaluation, which Shulman described both in terms of evaluating student learning and one’s own teaching, and reflection, which he defined as reviewing, reconstructing, and analyzing, aligns with Ge’s construct of problem representation, which involves defining problems, identifying relevant information, and searching and selecting needed information. Additionally, Shulman’s New Comprehension, which he described as the consolidation of new learnings, can be mapped onto Ge’s constructs of (1) selecting and developing solutions, (2) making justifications by constructing an argument and providing evidence, and (3) monitoring and evaluating solutions, which requires assessing the solution by examining pros and cons. Since only two of the four course sections that were studied used a critical incident protocol to reflect, Shulman’s pedagogical reasoning processes were mapped onto Ge’s analytical rubric, in order to use the same assessment tool across both groups to measure the relationship between the type of reflective blog scaffold (descriptive prompt scaffold versus a critical incident reflection protocol) and the retrospective pedagogical reasoning processes (evaluation, reflection, and new comprehension) found in preservice teachers’ post-lesson reflections. The rubric provided insight into how each process was affected in different ways depending on the type of scaffolded prompt provided.

The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (Balcikanli, 2017) is based on self-regulated learning theory, and it is derived from the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Adults (MAI) (Schraw and Dennison, 1994). The questionnaire is an adapted version of the Brown (1985) two-component model of metacognition, Knowledge of Cognition and Regulation of Cognition, and modified to a 5-point Likert-Scale with a range from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” The 24-item questionnaire is based on six factors (with four statements each) including Declarative, Procedural, and Conditional Knowledge in Knowledge of Cognition, and activities such as Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation in Regulation of Cognition.

For the purposes of this study, we examined only the items that measured the planning, monitoring, and evaluating aspects of metacognitive regulation. The dimension of regulation of cognition, in particular, aligns with this research study because it focuses on how metacognition helps coordinate problem-solving processes related to decision-making on the use of resources, steps to be taken, and pacing (Balcikanli, 2017). Therefore, the following three dependent variable subfactors, or dimensions of metacognitive regulation, were examined and analyzed in this study: (1) planning, (2) monitoring, and (3) evaluating. The instrument was collected at baseline and at the end of the study.

This 30-item Likert survey was used to measure participants’ level of reflective thinking on a 4-point scale, where 1 = Seldom, and 4 = Almost always, on a variety of items that describe reflective thinking during problem solving in a teaching context, e.g., When confronted with a problem situation, I analyze a problem based upon the needs of the student (Taggart and Wilson, 2005). The instrument was designed to assess baseline levels of reflection so that growth may be determined and should be used as one of several tools for triangulation of data (Taggart and Wilson, 2005). The three levels of reflection include: (1) technical, which is where knowledge is derived from experience, pedagogy, content, and methodology; (2) contextual, which is characterized by a willingness to look at contextual factors and alternative approaches; and (3) dialectical, which is described as an autonomous state of open-mindedness, self-actualization, and disciplined inquiry (Taggart and Wilson, 2005). The instrument was scored by tallying how many times each indicator was chosen, multiplying by the indicator number, then adding the subtotals to reach an overall score. A score below 75 equaled the Technical level of reflection; 75 to 104 equaled the Contextual level of reflection; and 104 to 120 equaled the Dialectical level of reflection. Participants completed this measure at baseline and then at the end of the course.

Reflective blogging occurred as part of the natural educational setting of the courses, and blog reflections were coded and analyzed using Kember et al. (2008) Four Category Scheme, which is based on a questionnaire developed and tested by Kember et al. (2000). A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good fit to the four-factor structure, providing evidence that the most viable scheme for assessing reflective writing has four categories: habitual action/non-reflection, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection.

Given that research question four sought to explore the type of reflective blog scaffold affects preservice teachers’ reflection, it was appropriate to utilize a coding process that employs Kember’s reflection categories. Qualitative content analysis of participants’ post-lesson blog reflections was employed to identify the level of reflection (habitual action, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection) as identified by Kember et al. (2008) utilizing a deductive coding guideline, which includes category name, definition, and a summary of the categories. Deductive or directed coding involves a top-down analysis and tends to use existing codes or categories to guide analysis (Lapan et al., 2012). Specific language proficiency did not impact scoring mechanics. Grammar, mechanics, spelling, and language skills were not part of the measures.

Does type of reflective blog scaffold affect ill-structured problem solving and pedagogical reasoning processes for preservice teachers during post-lesson reflection? To test the difference between critical incident and reflective blog scaffold on ill-structured problem solving and pedagogical reasoning, we conducted a series of between groups comparisons where type of prompt was the independent variable, and scores from time two (T2) from each category (representing, analyzing, selecting, and justifying) of the ASR as the dependent variables. We expected that preservice teachers’ who received the critical incident prompt would demonstrate better reflective thinking attributes and level of reflective thinking than those participants who only received a descriptive prompt scaffold (Risko et al., 2009; Tripp, 1994; Lin and Lehman, 1999).

In testing the assumptions, we noted that the data for these variables were not normally distributed, but rather highly skewed. Therefore, rather than using a parametric test, we used the Mann–Whitney U test to compare across the groups. At the time one (baseline), when all groups engaged with the traditional prompt, there were no between group significant differences on representing problems (p = 0.55), analyzing problems (p = 0.13), selecting problem solutions (p = 0.54), or justifying (p = 0.49) problem solutions. In contrast, at time 2, we noted no significant differences between groups on representing problems (p = 0.56) or analyzing problems (p = 0.07), but there were significant differences by type of prompt on selecting (Mann–Whitney U = 156.5, z = −3.21, p = 0.001), and justifying (Mann–Whitney U = 206.00, z = −2.295, p = 0.022) problem solutions, where the treatment group that received the critical incident prompt outperformed the group that received the traditional prompt. These results suggest that students engaged with the critical incident prompt demonstrated higher performance on some aspects of ill-structured problem-solving.

Does type of reflective prompt affect metacognitive regulation of preservice teachers? To test the influence of reflective prompt on metacognitive regulation, three repeated measures ANOVAs with type of reflective prompt (critical incident vs. traditional) as a between-subject factor, and metacognitive regulation process as measured with the MAIT (planning, monitoring, evaluating) at time one and time two as the within-subjects factor for each respective analysis, were conducted. For each category of metacognitive regulation, the mean scores were calculated at time one and time two. We expect that those in the critical incident prompt would demonstrate the greatest improvement in each category of metacognitive regulation. For each analysis, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction accounted for the lack of sphericity. All other statistical assumptions were met. Results indicate significant time effects for all three dependent variables, planning, F(1, 47) = 37.62, p < 0.001; monitoring, F(1, 47) = 16.27, p < 0.001; evaluating F(1, 47) = 17.53, p < 0.001, with higher total means for each DV at time two, indicating that participants improved over time on each aspect of metacognitive regulation. However, there was no time by condition differences for planning F(1, 47) = 2.90, p = 0.095, and monitoring F(1, 47) = 1.26, p = 0.27, indicating that the participants performed similarly across the two conditions on these variables. There was, however, a marginally significant time by condition difference interaction on evaluating F(1, 47) = 4.02, p = 0.05, partial eta2 = 0.08. Examination of marginal means demonstrates that at time one, the traditional prompt group had higher evaluation ratings, but at time two, the critical incident prompt group performed higher on this variable, which suggests that the critical incident prompt engages students in deeper evaluation processes, as demonstrated by greater improvement across time (see Figure 1).

Does the type of reflective prompt affect the reflective thinking attributes of preservice teachers? To test the influence of reflective prompt on reflective thinking attributes, a repeated measures ANOVA with type of prompt (critical incident vs. traditional) as the between-subjects factor, and mean RTA scores at time 1 and time 2 as the within-subjects factor was conducted. The Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used to account for lack of sphericity. All other statistical assumptions were met. We expect those in the critical incident prompt to demonstrate the greatest improvement in reflective teaching attributes.

Results indicated a significant time effect, F(1, 47) = 80.19, p < 0.001, with all participants improving over time. There was also a significant time by-condition interaction, F(1, 47) = 10.51, p = 0.002, partial eta squared = 0.183. Examination of the marginal means demonstrated that at baseline, the traditional group had higher mean scores, but at time 2, the critical incident group demonstrated higher scores on reflective thinking attributes, indicating that this group demonstrated the greatest improvement over time (see Figure 2).

How does the type of reflective blog scaffold affect preservice teachers’ reflection? The qualitative data emerged from Kember et al. (2008) four-category scheme, used in deductive content analysis of the blogs and an interview with the course professor. Blog reflections were examined using the conceptual framework of Kember et al. (2008) four-category scheme, which categorized the reflections on a whole-paper level as either habitual action (H), understanding (U), reflection (R), or critical reflection (CR), to find the highest level of participant reflection. Intermediate cases were marked by a plus or a minus as suggested by Kember; therefore, each scale was assigned three levels, or subcategories, to categorize the reflection and reveal change within each category. Additionally, numerical codes ranging from 0 to 11 were assigned to each subcategory, visually representing each course section’s movement within categories.

Blog reflections suggested that in terms of Kember’s four-category scheme, the majority of the reflections clustered around the reflection (R) and reflection + (R+) categories for both types of prompts. However, the critical incident prompt group seemed to provoke more overall growth within subcategories or between categories from reflection one to reflection two, which was demonstrated as 62% compared to 48% in the traditional descriptive prompt group. Table 1 provides definitions and examples for each category.

After reviewing the deductive coding data analysis of the blog reflections, the researcher determined that it would help answer research question three (Q3) in more depth if the professor was interviewed to ascertain his practical experiences using both scaffolds (traditional prompt and critical incident prompt). The interview was semi-structured in that the researcher prepared some questions prior to the meeting, with the understanding that other questions might have emerged during the conversation. The interview was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by reading the transcription multiple times and then color-coding the professor’s responses for statements aligned with descriptors of each of the categories of Kember et al. (2008) four-category scheme. These categories were (1) habitual action, (2) understanding, (3) reflection, or (4) critical reflection, as well as concepts related to the existing literature on developing preservice teachers’ reflective practice.

Overall, the interview revealed that when the course professor reviewed students’ reflections, he noted that both the traditional descriptive and critical incident prompts encouraged the participants to focus on integrating technology into a lesson. The traditional descriptive prompt drew students’ attention to successes and challenges and elicited pedagogical shifts in using technology in various ways. The critical incident prompt allowed the students to pedagogically reason about technology integration more specifically and pragmatically. The process of reflection in both cases was further bolstered by the course professor’s scaffolding in the form of discussions. For example, in response to the interview question, “What kind of feedback in terms of reflective thinking do you give for the reflections?” the professor described “a change in understanding” or the triggering of “growth” as the central aim of the feedback he provided on students’ reflections. The professor focused on helping students to understand the need for flexibility and the ability to adapt teaching, although these skills can be especially challenging for preservice teachers. As discussed in the literature review, the ability to reason about classroom teaching practices to adapt to context-specific situations is an essential indicator of preparation (Shulman, 2004).

The data taken together revealed several implications for educators interested in effectively using prompts to scaffold reflection. The findings suggest that a thoughtfully constructed prompt considering standards and course outcomes can meaningfully scaffold preservice teachers’ reflections. When PSTs used the traditional descriptive prompt, pedagogical shifts were observed in both the reflection analysis and the course professor’s interview comments.

The course professor pointed out in the interview that the traditional descriptive prompt was “getting at something like critical incidents but not specifically enough.” Conversely, the reflection from participants given the critical incident prompt for their second iteration (T2) of simulated teaching was targeted and focused on a dilemma or a meaningful incident that occurred during their technology-infused lessons. The specificity inherent in the critical incident prompt encouraged the participants to not only examine a dilemma or an incident from a variety of perspectives but also to choose a plan of action and provide a rationale. Therefore, teacher educators should carefully align learning objectives and instructional outcomes with the design of the prompt. A prompt that encourages students to examine a critical incident may be especially supportive of problem-solving processes that involve analyzing, evaluating, and argument construction, as well as the evaluation phase of metacognitive regulation. Similarly, in a review of five studies on the design of computer-based scaffolds, Azevedo and Hadwin (2005) identified that scaffolds should be designed to fit the type of support needed.

Furthermore, the course professor provided additional types of scaffolds for the participants who used the critical incident prompt, such as examples and discussion. “It can be powerful to share our previous experiences that have surprised us, caught our attention, and generated reframing that led to the practices we are currently using” (Russell, 2022, p. 9). Notably, the process of direct instruction employed by the professor was vital in supporting PSTs’ ability to recognize and reflect on a critical incident. According to Tripp (1994), a critical incident is an ordinary event that is interpreted as significant and an event that attaches meaning to those events that challenge assumptions. The event does not need to be dramatic, but should be important to a broader context. Therefore, it is recommended that teacher educators provide guidance and support for identifying and working with critical incidents in their students’ reflective practice. Reflective activities must be well-planned and tailored to the learner’s needs, context, and goals and scaffolded so that practitioners are taught how to reflect for professional growth (see Table 2).

The study’s generalizability is limited by its sample of 49 preservice teachers from a single educational technology course at one university in the Southwest United States. Additionally, since the teaching was simulated with peers, critical incidents may not represent authentic classroom situations or allow for deep pedagogical reasoning practice.

Regarding limitations observed during data analysis, although the MAIT and RTA are validated tools, they depend on self-perception and may be susceptible to social desirability (McLeod, 2008) or the Hawthorne effect, which includes modifications to behavior due to the knowledge that one is being observed (Mummolo and Peterson, 2017). Complementing them with performance-based assessments (e.g., video analysis of teaching followed by reflection) could reinforce validity.

Furthermore, using directed (deductive) content analysis on blog reflections might have overemphasized theoretical frameworks and obscured important contextual factors such as the students’ comfort with reflective practices and their writing abilities (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). An interview with the professor, however, did provide valuable contextual insights, particularly regarding how the professor’s examples and discussions helped scaffold the reflective process.

Finally, because the participants who utilized the critical incident prompt for the second iteration (T2) of teaching also used the traditional descriptive prompt for their first iteration (T1), the critical incident prompt was never used in isolation. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as an indication of what happens when the use of a critical incident prompt follows a traditional descriptive prompt. This sequencing introduces a potential confound: the observed growth may be partly due to prior reflection experience rather than solely the nature of the critical incident prompt. Future designs could counterbalance, randomize the order of the prompts, or combine prompts, which may be an intentional method for scaffolding a wide range of pedagogical reasoning skills and metacognitive regulation processes (Chen, 2010).