Contemporary educational research increasingly emphasises reflective thinking as a key mechanism for deep learning and learner autonomy. Reflection is commonly understood as a metacognitive process through which learners analyse their learning experiences, evaluate understanding, and regulate future actions. Recent studies show that structured reflection supports the development of self-regulated learning by enabling students to identify both strengths and gaps in their understanding . In lower secondary education, where learners gradually move toward greater academic independence, reflective practices play a crucial role in fostering awareness of learning processes rather than focusing solely on task completion. However, reflection does not occur spontaneously. Without pedagogical scaffolding, students’ reflective responses often remain descriptive and superficial. Learners may report what they did during a lesson without analysing what they understood or failed to understand. This limitation has led researchers to argue for the use of explicit reflective frameworks that guide learners through systematic stages of analysis and goal-setting. From this perspective, reflective thinking is not merely an individual cognitive act but a pedagogically mediated process shaped by instructional design and classroom practices. Formative feedback has long been recognised as a powerful influence on student learning. More recent scholarship, however, has shifted attention from the delivery of feedback to students’ ability to engage with it meaningfully. This shift is captured in the concept of feedback literacy, defined as learners’ capacity to understand, interpret, and use feedback to improve learning. Studies demonstrate that feedback is most effective when students are positioned as active participants rather than passive recipients. Gan, An, and Liu (2021) argue that dialogic feedback practices, which encourage questioning, reflection, and interaction, are more effective in enhancing engagement and learning outcomes than corrective or transmissive feedback. At the same time, Torrance (2020) cautions that overly procedural approaches to formative assessment may limit learning by reducing feedback to compliance-oriented tasks. These perspectives highlight the need for pedagogical models that balance structure with learner agency and reflective depth.

Within this theoretical context, the 3D (Discovery–Doubt–Direction) method is proposed as a structured reflective framework integrating reflection with formative feedback. The Discovery stage focuses on recognising learning achievements and constructing meaning from experience. The Doubt stage represents a key theoretical contribution of the model. In this study, doubt is reconceptualised not as emotional uncertainty, but as a metacognitive phase of identifying incomplete understanding, conceptual gaps, and learning difficulties. This interpretation aligns with contemporary research on self-assessment and metacognitive monitoring, which emphasises that recognising “what is not yet understood” is essential for effective learning regulation (Panadero et al., 2023). The Direction stage involves goal-setting and strategic planning, enabling learners to translate reflection into concrete learning actions. By explicitly linking reflection to action, the 3D method addresses critiques that reflective activities often fail to result in meaningful learning improvement. The effectiveness of reflective feedback practices is closely connected to learners’ diverse readiness levels, learning profiles, and interests. Differentiated instruction, as conceptualised by Carol Ann Tomlinson, provides a theoretical foundation for addressing learner diversity through flexible content, process, and product. Recent research highlights the role of differentiation in promoting equity and inclusion through adaptive learning processes and responsive feedback (Tomlinson & Murphy, 2022). Within the 3D method, differentiation is operationalised through varied reflective prompts, scaffolds, and modes of expression, allowing learners with different levels of confidence and achievement to engage meaningfully in reflection (Carless et al., 2020). By integrating reflective learning theory, feedback literacy, formative assessment, and differentiated instruction, this study conceptualises reflective thinking as a dialogic, metacognitive, and pedagogically structured process. The 3D method thus provides a coherent theoretical framework for developing reflective thinking in lower secondary education.

This study employed a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design to examine how the 3D (Discovery–Doubt–Direction) method supports the development of reflective thinking and formative feedback culture among lower secondary students. The research was conducted over one academic term in a mainstream school setting and involved 45 eighth-grade students taught by three subject teachers in Kazakh language, English, and Art. The interdisciplinary design enabled the examination of the method across both language-based and creative subjects. Prior to the intervention, the participating teachers engaged in collaborative planning to develop a shared understanding of the 3D framework and its pedagogical intentions. The method was then embedded into regular classroom practice, including lesson reflection, peer feedback activities, and formative assessment tasks. Reflection was structured through three interconnected stages. During the Discovery stage, students identified what they had learned, understood, or achieved, supporting awareness of learning outcomes. The Doubt stage was operationalised not as emotional uncertainty, but as a metacognitive process of identifying incomplete understanding, conceptual gaps, and learning difficulties related to the topic. Students were guided through prompts and reflective questions to articulate what remained unclear. The Direction stage focused on translating reflection into action through goal-setting and strategic planning. Differentiation was implemented in accordance with Tomlinson’s framework by adapting reflective tasks to students’ readiness levels and learning profiles. This included the use of sentence starters, visual organisers, guided prompts, or oral reflection formats, allowing students to engage in reflection at an appropriate cognitive level. Such differentiation supported learner agency and ensured that reflective feedback practices were inclusive and accessible. Data collection methods included classroom observations, structured student reflective journals, focus group interviews, and pre- and post-intervention reflective thinking questionnaires. Observations focused on feedback interactions and reflective dialogue, while journals captured students’ engagement with each stage of the 3D method. Focus group interviews explored students’ perceptions of feedback and reflection across subjects. Questionnaire data were used to identify shifts in metacognitive awareness and self-regulated learning. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using an iterative coding process, allowing patterns related to reflective depth, feedback engagement, and learner agency to be identified. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively to support qualitative findings. Ethical considerations included informed consent, voluntary participation, and anonymisation of all data.

The findings indicate that systematic implementation of the 3D method significantly enhanced students’ reflective thinking skills. Students demonstrated increased ability to articulate learning experiences, identify conceptual gaps, and formulate purposeful learning goals. Reflection shifted from surface-level descriptions toward deeper analytical and forward-oriented thinking. The study also revealed a qualitative transformation in classroom feedback culture. Teachers moved from predominantly evaluative feedback practices toward facilitative, dialogic interactions, while students became more active participants in self- and peer-feedback processes. Differences across students with varying readiness levels suggest that the 3D method effectively supports differentiated and inclusive learning environments. The interdisciplinary implementation across Kazakh language, English, and Art lessons demonstrated the adaptability of the model across subject areas. The study contributes to educational research by offering a transferable pedagogical model that integrates reflective thinking, formative assessment, and differentiated instruction. Practically, the findings have implications for teacher professional development, formative assessment practices, and curriculum design aimed at strengthening learner-centred and reflective pedagogy in lower secondary education.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 Carless, D., Winstone, N., & Jones, E. (2020). Developing learners’ feedback literacy: A realist synthesis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1761651 Gan, Z., An, Z., & Liu, F. (2021). Teacher feedback practices, student engagement, and feedback literacy: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 33, 100393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100393 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Panadero, E., Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 13–31. → (қалдыруға болады, себебі 2020+ зерттеулер осыған сүйенеді) Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2023). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09720-6 Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Torrance, H. (2020). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education, 27(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1707557 Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A., & Murphy, M. (2022). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Educational Leadership, 79(7), 26–33. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2020). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1695100