Reflection is widely recognized as a key component of teacher development and professional growth in higher education (Gast et al., 2022; Krapivnyk et al., 2021). Reflective teachers often critically evaluate both traditional disciplinary approaches and their personal teaching practices, aiming to enhance them through pedagogical theories (Nevgi & Löfström, 2015). In teacher education, reflection is typically integrated into teaching practicum, yet it frequently remains at a descriptive level, lacking theoretical depth or critical analysis (El-Dib, 2007; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005).

Despite the acknowledged importance of reflection, concrete and systematic methods for fostering deep pedagogical reflection remain scarce in university pedagogy. Research shows that reflective practice requires conscious effort and structured support, particularly in connecting reflection to one’s own teaching (Nguyen et al., 2014). Schön’s (1983) concepts of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action further highlight that reflection may occur both during and after pedagogical experiences.

To address this gap, we have developed the PAKER method (Pedagogisen Ajattelun KEhittymisen Reflektio), a structured model for supporting Reflection on the Development of Pedagogical Thinking during teaching practice (Lähdesmäki et al., 2025). This study investigates how university teachers describe the development of their pedagogical thinking as they engage in the guided phases of the PAKER method.

The theoretical foundation of PAKER combines perspectives from authentic learning (Lähdesmäki, 2021) and a four-level reflection model (Kostiainen et al., 2023). Authentic learning emphasizes real-life contexts, disciplinary relevance, social interaction, cognitive engagement, and pedagogical coherence. Within the practicum, the aim is to create a reflective space where the teacher’s own practice serves as the basis for learning, shifting the focus from task completion to learning as a process (Harris & Salinas, 2009; Herrington & Herrington, 2008).

Kostiainen et al. (2023) model outlines reflection as a process progressing through four phases: descriptive, relational, conceptual and meaningful, and critical reflection. PAKER integrates this model into a three-phase structure: orienting, active, and synthesising reflection (Lähdesmäki et al., 2025). These phases guide teacher students in deepening their reflective skills and awareness throughout the practicum experience.

Although teachers’ reflective attitudes often develop during pedagogical studies, prior research suggests that reflection tends to focus on external factors and remains surface-level (El-Dib, 2007; Korthagen, 2004). In contrast, deeper reflection supports the recognition of both strengths and developmental needs in teaching (Gast et al., 2022) and contributes to the growth of pedagogical thinking as a form of professional expertise (Segal, 2023; Postareff et al., 2008).

In the university context, pedagogical thinking becomes visible in various professional tasks, including course design, facilitation of learning, assessment, and curriculum-level development (Van Dijk et al., 2020). It also extends to pedagogical leadership and programme planning. Thus, supporting teachers in articulating and developing their pedagogical thinking is essential for enhancing their professional practice holistically.

This study investigates how university teachers articulate the development of their pedagogical thinking across the three reflective phases of the PAKER method: orienting, active, and synthesising. Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. How do teachers describe the development of their pedagogical thinking during each phase of the PAKER reflection process?
2. What levels of reflection:descriptive, relational, conceptual and meaningful, or critical (Kostiainen et al., 2023), are present in their written reflections, and how are these demonstrated in practicum documentation?

By addressing these questions, the study aims to provide deeper insight into the progression of pedagogical thinking and the diversity and depth of reflective skills among university teachers in authentic learning environments.

The data for this study were collected in spring 2025 during a university-level teacher training module (5 ECTS credits) forming part of pedagogical studies. The dataset consists of 15 reflective final essays (PAKER syntheses) written at the end of the practicum period. In these syntheses, students reflected on the development of their pedagogical thinking, their professional growth as teachers, the achievement of learning objectives, and their teaching experiences. Students also provided basic background information (name and faculty). The essays were submitted via the Moodle platform. On the cover page, students gave written consent to participate in the study and to allow the combination of their data with other research materials. Research information was made available on Moodle, and participation was explicitly stated to be voluntary. At the beginning of the course, students were informed about the research, and a formal research notice was provided. The study complies with the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK) guidelines. One of the researchers anonymised the data using coded identifiers. All personally identifying information, including references to specific academic disciplines, was removed. The research approach is phenomenological-hermeneutic. We investigate how students describe the development of their pedagogical thinking in the final essays, focusing on both the content of their reflections and the reflective depth. The analysis is theory-driven content analysis, guided by the phases of the PAKER method, the levels of reflection (Kostiainen et al., 2023), and the framework of teachers’ professional tasks (Van Dijk et al., 2020). Each researcher first read the data independently and made initial observations. After collaborative discussion, a shared analytical framework was developed, and the data were categorised according to the research questions The content analysis was conducted using an Excel spreadsheet, where excerpts from each teacher’s synthesis were organised to allow identification of both the levels of reflection and the content described in relation to each phase of the PAKER method. Based on the data, five main themes emerged concerning the components of pedagogical thinking. The level of reflection was assessed using a four-tiered framework: descriptive, relational, conceptual and meaningful, and critical reflection (Kostiainen et al., 2023). Each level was defined based on prior research to describe the nature of reflection and guide interpretation. These definitions helped identify how pedagogical thinking appeared in students’ texts and whether their reflections showed explanatory or critical depth.

The significance of the three phases of the PAKER method (orienting, active, and synthesizing) in promoting teachers’ pedagogical thinking and reflection was reinforced by this study. The orienting phase assists teachers in identifying and articulating their pedagogical competencies, as well as in setting personal goals for the practicum. The active phase emphasizes the importance of reflection in authentic teaching situations and highlights the role of peer feedback in supporting professional growth (see Lähdesmäki, 2021). The synthesizing phase guides students in assessing the achievement of their goals, recognizing areas for development, and strengthening pedagogical thinking and integrating theory with practice. During the reflection process, key themes of development emerged, including lesson planning skills, interaction, mastery of teaching methods, professional growth, peer group collaboration, and pedagogical reflection awareness. These areas are essential for teachers’ professional development and strengthen the foundation of teaching (Van Dijk et al., 2023; Nevgi & Löfström, 2015). According to the study, the PAKER method guides teachers to reflect on and develop their pedagogical thinking. The levels of reflection vary among teachers. Some students’ reflections remained at the descriptive and relational levels, while others reached the stage of critical reflection. Quite a few focused on conceptual reflection, articulating the insights and meanings they had gained throughout the reflective process (see Kostiainen et al., 2023). Reflection skills and the willingness to reflect influence how deeply teachers are able to recognize and articulate their development. Reflection requires commitment, readiness to identify one’s own shortcomings and areas for improvement, as well as a desire to learn new things. Integrating research-based knowledge into the method deepens reflection and supports teachers’ professional growth. Future development should emphasize this and encourage commitment to pedagogical thinking.

Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Opetus laadukkaan oppimisen puolesta yliopistossa (5. painos). McGraw-Hillin koulutus. El-Dib, M. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an assessment tool. Teaching and Teacher Education. 23. 24-35. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.002. Gast, I., Neelen, M., Delnoij, L., Menten, M., Mihai, A., & Grohnert, T. (2022). Supporting the well-being of new university teachers through teacher professional development. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 866000. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866000 Harris, C. J., & Salinas, I. (2009). Authentic science learning in primary and secondary classrooms. In I. M. Saleh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Fostering scientific habits of mind: Pedagogical knowledge and best practices in science education(pp. 125–144). Sense Publishers. Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2008). What is an authentic learning environment? In Authentic learning environments in higher education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252870294_What_is_an_Authentic_Learning_Environment Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000337093 Kostiainen, E., Aalto, E., Hiljanen, M., & Tallavaara, R. (2023). Opettajaopiskelijoiden reflektointiosaamisen kehittäminen. Yliopistopedagogiikka, 30(1). https://lehti.yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/2023/06/22/opettajaopiskelijoiden-reflektointiosaamisenkehittaminen/ Lähdesmäki, S. (2021). Ilmiölähtöisen oppimiskokonaisuuden suunnitteluun ohjaavan mallin kehittäminen ILO-suunnitteluprosessin malliksi opettajaopiskelijoiden opetusharjoittelussa [Doctoral dissertation, Jyväskylän yliopisto]. https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/82537 Lähdesmäki, S., Väisänen, S., & Hyytinen, H. (2025). Pedagogisen ajattelun kehittymisen reflektio – PAKER-menetelmän kehittäminen yliopistopedagogiikan opetusharjoitteluihin. Yliopistopedagogiikka, 32(2). https://lehti.yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/2025/12/18/pedagogisen-ajattelun-kehittymisen-reflektio-paker-menetelman-kehittaminen-yliopistopedagogiikan-opetusharjoitteluihin/ Nevgi, A., & Löfström, E. (2015). The development of academics’ teacher identity: Enhancing reflection and task perception through a university teacher development programme. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.003 Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9087-z Segal, A. (2023). Rethinking collective reflection in teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 75, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231188702 Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Kleemola, K., Hailikari, T., & Toom, A. (2023). Generic skills in higher education – Teachers’ conceptions, pedagogical practices and pedagogical training. (julkaisun tiedot puuttuvat — täydennä tarvittaessa) Tynjälä, P. (2004). Asiantuntijuus ja työkulttuurit opettajan ammatissa. Kasvatus, 35(2), 174–190. van Dijk, E. E., van Tartwijk, J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & Kluijtmans, M. (2020). What makes an expert university teacher? A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks for teacher expertise in higher education. Educational Research Review, 31, Article 100365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100365