Methodological reflection in educational research: the functions and potential of academic commentary

Introduction. The crucial role of methodologically sound pedagogical texts in scientific communication emphasises the need to develop tools for their critical analysis by readers. One such tool is academic commentary, which specifically evaluates the validity of conclusions, supplements, and corrects the author’s content, logic, and intended meaning. Aim. The present study aimed to substantiate the structure of academic commentary on an educational text that fulfils the requirements of contemporary scientific methodology in the humanities. Methodology and research methods. The selection of materials was based on the following criteria: (a) representativeness, as reflected by the authors’ broad range of scientific standing; (b) diversity of the authors’ research interests; and (c) varying scales of scientific research. The analysis included publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals indexed in the Scopus, Web of Science, and RSCI databases, as well as leading peer-reviewed Russian journals from the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) list, and scientific monographs. Logical content analysis was employed to identify logical inconsistencies and to assess the substantive sufficiency of the texts. Results. Academic commentary on a scientific text within the field of education constitutes a form of methodological reflection, encompassing a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the research parameters presented. The proposed commentary model includes reflection on: (a) the substantive adequacy of the conclusions drawn; (b) logical validity; and (c) the portrayal of the author as perceived by the reader. The inclusion of academic commentary among the procedures of methodological reflection is justified by the following stages: stopping and fixation (highlighting fragments of the text subject to methodological commentary); distancing (shifting from the role of reader to that of scientific analyst); objectification (evaluation that excludes personal preferences and is based on recognised methodological criteria); and reversal (delayed comprehension of the accuracy of the commentary itself). The developed model permits the use of both rigorous (formalised) evaluation criteria – for example, in analysing logical validity – and more flexible (interpretative) approaches when assessing substantive adequacy and the author’s image in the reader’s mind. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the substantiation of the component composition of academic commentary, the development of methods for its integration into methodological reflection, and the establishment of a criteria-based typology of commentary according to its critical role in educational research. Practical significance. The practical significance of this research is realised through the development of a toolkit for evaluating pedagogical texts and creating educational content across all levels of higher pedagogical education, from bachelor’s degrees to doctoral studies.

1. Spector J.M., Ma S. Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learning Environments. 2019;6(1):8. doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0088-z

2. Ennis R.H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: a vision. Topoi. 2018;37:165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

3. Zenker F. Introduction: reasoning, argumentation, and critical thinking instruction. Topoi. 2018;37(1):91–92. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9416-x

4. Irawan N., Valentina T.F. The language of argumentation: a book review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021;7(2):274–276. doi:10.17323/jle.2021.12538

5. Boogaart R., Jansen H., van Leeuwen M. The Language of Argumentation. Cham: Springer; 2021. 323 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9

6. Leś T. The research potential of educational theory: on the specific characteristics of the issues of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017;49(14):1428–1440. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1313716

7. Nussbaum M.E., Dove I.J., Putney L.G. Bridging dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory through critical questions. Dialogic Pedagogy. An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3):A7–A25. doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.548

8. Rapanta C., Macagno F. The dimensions of argumentative texts and their assessment. Studia Paedagogica. 2020;24(4):11–44. doi:10.5817/SP2019-4-1

9. Alexander P.A. Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: challenges of conceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist. 2017;25(4):307–314. doi:10.1080/0046-1520.2017.1350181

10. Lommi S. Causal and epistemic relevance in appeals to authority. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Analitica. 2015;1(6). doi:10.13130/2037-4445/4673

11. Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018;7(2):94–122. doi:10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

12. Ghanizadeh A., Al-Hoorie A.H., Jahedizadeh S. Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Cham: Springer; 2021. 195 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8

13. Šeďová K., Šalamounová Z., Švaříček R., Sedláček M. Getting Dialogic Teaching into Classrooms. Springer Singapore; 2020. 184 p. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9243-0

14. Clinton J. Argument as Dialogue Across Difference: Engaging Youth in Public Literacies. New York/London: Routledge; 2017. 178 p. doi:10.4324/9781315619590

15. Schwarz B.B., Baker M.J. Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017. 294 р. doi:10.1017/9781316493960

16. Morrow R.A. Dialogue, critical thinking, and critical pedagogy. In: Peters M.A., ed. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer; 2022:459–464. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_320-17.

17. Ellerton P., Kelly R. Creativity and critical thinking. In: Berry A., Buntting C., Corrigan D., Gunstone R., Jones A., eds. Education in the 21st Century: STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking. Springer International Publishing; 2021:9–27. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_2

18. Marangio K., Carpendale J., Cooper R., et al. Supporting the development of science pre-service teachers’ creativity and critical thinking in secondary science initial teacher education. Research in Science Education. 2024;54:65–81. doi:10.1007/s11165-023-10104-x

19. Abrami P.C., Bernard R.M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D.I., Wade C.A., Persson T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015;85(2):275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063

20. Rapanta C. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue. Informal Logic. 2019;39(1). doi:10.22329/il.v39i1.5116

21. Gronostay D. To argue or not to argue? The role of personality traits, argumentativeness, epistemological beliefs and assigned positions for students’ participation in controversial political classroom discussions. Unterrichtswiss. 2019;47:117–135. doi:10.1007/s42010-018-00033-4

22. Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist. 2016;51(2):164–187. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458

23. Rapanta C., Macagno F. Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: a pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.546

24. Martínez J.P.С., Catasús M.G., Fontanillas T.R. Impact of using learning analytics in asynchronous online discussions in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020;17(39). doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00217-y

25. Koivuniemi M., Järvenoja H., Järvelä S. Teacher education students’ strategic activities in challenging collaborative learning situations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018;19:109–123. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002

26. Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I.A.G. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2019;21:70–86. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003

27. Snaza N. Aleatory entanglements: (post)humanism, hospitality and attunement – a response to Hugo Letiche. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2018;14:256–272. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1398700

28. Letiche H. Bewildering pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2017;14:236–255. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1335662

29. Borovskikh A.V. Deyatel’nostnaya pedagogika. Skhemy pedagogicheskogo myshleniya = Activity-Based Pedagogy. Schemes of Pedagogical Thinking. Moscow: Publishing House Max-Press; 2020. 352 p. (In Russ.) Accessed April 10, 2025. http://lib.mgppu.ru/opacunicode/index.php?url=/notices/index/Id-Notice:392405/Source:default

30. Novikov A.M. Osnovaniya pedagogiki = Foundations of Pedagogics. Moscow: Publishing House Egves; 2010. 208 p. (In Russ.) Accessed April 10, 2025. http://anovikov.ru/books/op.pdf

31. Kraevsky V.V., Berezhnova E.V. Metodologiya pedagogiki. Novyy etap = Methodology of Pedagogy. New Stage. Moscow: Publishing House Academy; 2006. 400 p. (In Russ.) Accessed April 10, 2025. https://knigogid.ru/books/910615-metodologiya-pedagogiki-novyy-etap