Introduction

Across Europe, education increasingly aims to prepare students for complex, uncertain, and socially relevant challenges (Barr et al., 2022). In the Netherlands, Research & Design (R&D) education addresses this aim by engaging secondary school students in open-ended, real-world STEM design projects. Students work collaboratively in small teams during project cycles of approximately ten weeks, concluding with the presentation of project outcomes to external clients. Each project incorporates reflection tasks, which teachers use for feedback conversations.

To bring learning within R&D to a higher level, students need to develop deeper reflection skills. Reflection supports students in making sense of feedback, connecting experiences to underlying concepts, and regulating their learning over time (Moon, 2013). Feedback and reflection are mutually reinforcing processes: feedback invites students to reconsider their actions, while structured reflection supports interpretation and planning of subsequent steps (Carless & Winstone, 2020; Moon, 2013).

Reflection skills do not develop automatically. Their effectiveness depends not only on students’ engagement but also on teachers’ ability to scaffold feedback through dialogue and to create structured opportunities for reflective thinking (Korthagen & Nuijten, 2022). When students learn to reflect, teachers play a key role by facilitating feedback dialogues that prompt students to articulate their thinking, evaluate progress, and plan next steps. Despite its recognised importance, many teachers struggle to enact feedback dialogues and embed reflection meaningfully in everyday R&D classroom practices (Görtzen et al., 2025). Feedback is often reduced to one-way information transmission, while reflective activities remain fragmented or superficial, limiting their educational impact (Korthagen & Nuijten, 2022; van der Kleij et al., 2019).

Strengthening teachers’ facilitation of feedback dialogues and student reflection requires targeted professional development (PD) that bridges knowing and acting by supporting practice-embedded, sustained enactment rather than mere knowledge transmission (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2013; Louws et al., 2017)

This study addresses these challenges through the design and evaluation of a two-year Collaborative Teacher Reflection (CTR) program aimed at strengthening R&D teachers’ integration of feedback dialogues and student reflection in secondary education. The overarching research question guiding the study was: What elements constitute a professional development program that supports teachers in integrating feedback dialogues with students’ reflection? This contribution examines both the effects and the feasibility of the PD program designed within the broader study.

The CTR intervention

An Educational Design Research (EDR) approach guided the design and evaluation of the CTR program through iterative cycles in authentic educational settings (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). The first stage focused on deriving eight design principles for the PD program grounded in both literature and practice: (1) a psychologically safe learning environment; (2) grounding in teacher practice; (3) experiential and iterative learning; (4) video-supported reflection; (5) collaborative teacher learning; (6) sustained duration; (7) explicit theory–practice integration; and (8) differentiated professional learning.

Based on these principles, the CTR program was developed with a phased structure. As teachers reported limited experience facilitating dialogic feedback, and in several schools reflection practices were largely absent, the first year focused on feedback dialogues as a foundational practice. The second year built on this foundation by adding guidance of structured student reflection tasks. In both years, the program consisted of five collaborative group meetings. It began with a kick-off meeting to establish a psychologically safe learning community and introduce relevant research. Teachers discussed literature, visualised current practices using mind maps, and formulated personal learning goals through laddering interviews. Subsequently, teachers participated in structured CTR meetings in small learning communities of 3–4 teachers, combining video-supported reflection, peer feedback dialogues, and iterative classroom experimentation. The program finished with  teachers’ reflections on their professional growth and how theory-informed insights were enacted in practice.

Design of the study This paper focuses on the second stage of the study, examining the effects of the CTR program on teachers’ learning and students’ reflection, as well as its feasibility for participating teachers. Insights from both strands informed the refinement of the final design principles, integrating scientific and practitioner knowledge to guide the CTR program. Participants Ten R&D teachers from nine Technasium schools responded to an open invitation distributed via a national newsletter from the Dutch Technasium Foundation. Ethical clearance was obtained prior to implementing the two-year CTR program. Each teacher selected one class in which feedback dialogues and, in the second year, guidance of students’ reflection were conducted during the program. Teachers varied in teaching experience and prior familiarity with feedback dialogues and reflective practices. Their students (N = 303) participated indirectly through classroom enactments of feedback dialogues and structured reflection tasks. Data Collection Multiple data sources were used to capture changes in teachers’ learning and students’ reflection over time. Teachers’ professional learning was documented through audio recordings of all CTR meetings, including collaborative discussions, video-supported reflection, and peer feedback dialogues. Students’ written reflection reports, collected at the beginning and end of the second CTR-year, provided insight into the development of reflective depth. To evaluate the feasibility of the CTR program, teachers first completed individual open-ended evaluative questions focusing on workload, relevance, and applicability. These responses were subsequently discussed in a plenary evaluation session involving both teachers and the facilitator, enabling shared reflection on the program’s design and implementation. Data Analysis Audio recordings of the CTR meetings were analysed and transformed into individual teacher vignettes capturing changes in five key aspects of feedback dialogues. For the second year, analyses were extended to include five categories of teacher actions supporting deeper student reflection. Students’ reflection reports were analysed to identify changes in reflective depth. Feasibility data were analysed using Ter Beek et al.’s (2022) framework, distinguishing professional development characteristics, teacher characteristics, and organisational conditions, allowing for a systematic interpretation of teachers’ experiences with the CTR program. Findings from both the effects and feasibility data were triangulated across sources to identify patterns in teacher learning, student reflection, and program implementation, supporting the refinement and confirmation of the CTR program’s design principles.

The effects of the program indicate that nearly all participating teachers, who initially did not employ feedback dialogues, had integrated them into their classroom practice by the program’s conclusion. Teachers’ understanding of feedback evolved, enabling them to interpret students’ responses more effectively and attend to the emotional dynamics occurring in dialogue. This combination of conceptual development and enactment strengthened teacher confidence and teacher–student relationships. Teachers reported increased confidence in facilitating student reflection and greater awareness of their role as facilitators. Student reflections showed increased depth over time. In evaluating the program’s implementation, teachers emphasised the program’s practical relevance, hands-on learning, and strong connection between theory and practice, noting that scientific insights became meaningful when actively translated into classroom activities. They valued collaborative reflection, video-supported exercises, structured personal goal-setting, and iterative enactment over the two-year duration, which allowed concepts and skills to consolidate. Teachers highlighted the essential role of the facilitator, whose guidance and reflective input reinforced constructive dialogue, supported learning, and maintained a psychologically safe, collaborative environment. Teacher and organisational characteristics emerged as key enabling conditions for sustainable implementation (Ter Beek et al., 2022). This study aimed to design for a PD program that supports teachers in facilitating feedback dialogues and guiding student reflection in contextually rich learning environments. The pilot of the CTR program enabled refinement of the design principles and demonstrated that sustained, practice-oriented professional development can foster meaningful changes in teachers’ pedagogical practices and professional understanding. The findings show how theory and practice can be deliberately connected through collaborative professional development, offering evidence-informed insights for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on developing feedback dialogues that support students’ reflection. Together, these findings highlight the potential of education research to support knowing and acting under changing educational conditions.

Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A Dynamic Integrated Approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001 Barr, N., Hartley, K., Lopata, J. A., McFarlane, B., & Mcnamara, M. J. (2022). Learning in an uncertain world: Transforming higher education for the anthropocene. In R. A. Beghetto & G. J. Jaeger (Eds.), Uncertainty: A catalyst for creativity, learning and development (pp. 337–357). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98729-9_18 Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372 Görtzen, J. J. H., Stollman, S. H. M., Schellings, G. L. M., Vermunt, J. D., & Nieveen, N. M. (2025). Promoting students’ reflection through process-oriented feedback: Teachers’ conceptions, practices and learning needs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 86, 101483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101483 Korthagen, F., & Nuijten, E. (2022). The power of reflection in teacher education and professional development: Strategies for in-depth teacher learning. Routlledge. Louws, M. L., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & van Driel, J. H. (2017). Teachers’ self-directed learning and teaching experience: What, how, and why teachers want to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.004 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge. Moon, J. A. (2013). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203416150 Ter Beek, M., Wopereis, I., & Schildkamp, K. (2022). Don’t Wait, Innovate! Preparing Students and Lecturers in Higher Education for the Future Labor Market. Education Sciences, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090620 van der Kleij, F., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. J. (2019). A meta-review of the student role in feedback. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005