Scaffolding Reflective and Critical Thinking through Writing Prompts: Evidence from Journalism Internships

Scaffolding Reflective and Critical Thinking through Writing Prompts: Evidence from Journalism Internships | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Scaffolding Reflective and Critical Thinking through Writing Prompts: Evidence from Journalism Internships BO LIU, Dipolog Genevieve Flores This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850000/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Reflective and critical thinking are essential cognitive competencies for journalism students navigating the complex and high-pressure demands of news reporting. Although reflective writing is widely recognized as a catalyst for cognitive development in experiential learning contexts, the influence of writing prompt structure on reflection quality and critical reasoning remains underexplored. This quasi-experimental study investigates the effects of three types of reflective writing prompts—unstructured, semi-structured, and fully structured—on journalism interns' reflective and critical thinking competencies. Eighty-eight senior journalism students from a Chinese university were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups and completed six reflective reports over a three-month internship. Reflective thinking was evaluated using the REFLECT rubric, while critical thinking was assessed based on Facione’s six-dimension framework. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed that writing prompt structure significantly influenced both cognitive outcomes: fully structured prompts produced the highest reflective thinking scores, whereas semi-structured prompts led to the highest critical thinking scores. Linear regression analysis confirmed that reflective thinking significantly predicted critical thinking performance (R² = .209, p < .001). Moderation analysis indicated no significant interaction effect of writing prompt structure on overall critical thinking; however, significant moderating effects were observed on the Interpretation and Self-Regulation subdimensions. These findings advance experiential learning and reflective practice theories by elucidating how varying levels of writing scaffolds influence cognitive development. The study underscores the value of semi-structured reflective tasks in fostering deep analytical reasoning while preserving learner autonomy and offers evidence-based guidance for designing cognitive scaffolds in journalism internship programs. Humanities/Cultural and media studies Social science/Education Social science/Psychology journalism education Experiential learning Quality education Skills development Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction In algorithm-driven, real-time news production environments, journalists are required to complete fact-checking, make ethical decisions, and construct narratives within a matter of hours—or even minutes.According to UNESCO’s guidelines on journalism education, critical and reflective thinking are regarded as essential competencies for journalism graduates.UNESCO ( 2022 ) emphasizes that higher education institutions should foster students’ ability to make responsible and timely judgments in complex and uncertain environments through experiential learning approaches.Faced with factual ambiguity, ethical dilemmas, and time constraints in real-world contexts, journalism education must train students in critical and reflective thinking to equip them with the skills needed to navigate these complex scenarios.Therefore, developing higher-order cognitive skills—such as reflective and critical thinking—has become an urgent priority in journalism education. Reflective writing has been widely acknowledged as a critical pedagogical tool in experiential learning, fostering the transformation of personal experiences into meaningful learning outcomes and cognitive growth (Moon, 2004 ; Schön, 1983 ).However, little is known about how varying levels of writing prompt structures influence cognitive development in high-risk, practice-oriented fields such as journalism.Notably, although reflective thinking and critical thinking are closely linked in cognitive development, they serve distinct functions in journalism practice.Reflective thinking emphasizes self-assessment and contextual understanding, encouraging journalism interns to analyze their reporting experiences, value orientations, and decision-making processes, thereby enhancing their professional identity and ethical awareness (Ripatti-Torniainen & Mikkola, 2023 ).Conversely, critical thinking is interested in analysis of information, scrutiny of evidence, and rational judgment that allows students to logically dissect complex information and make value judgments, thus developing their fact-checking and argumentation abilities (Paul & Elder, 2020 ).Whereas reflective thinking develops the students' understanding of real-world settings and knowledge of self, critical thinking allows them to move beyond experiential limitations and use objective and rational judgment.The simultaneous development of these competencies is especially vital in the time-limited and uncertain contexts of journalism practice. Reflective writing has been applied extensively in medical and teacher education for facilitating students' cognitive growth, raising metacognitive awareness, and fostering deeper learning (Radović et al., 2023 ; Gadsby, 2022 ; Alt et al., 2022 ).The practice guarantees deep thinking within experiential learning contexts, consequently enriching learning and critical thinking.Expanding the scope of applicability and utility of such interventions to journalism education has not been investigated extensively yet.Journalism internship constitutes a multifaceted and dynamic real-world learning context, in which students are required to interpret events under ambiguous conditions, analyze information while under pressure, and establish meaning amidst varied stories (Williams, Guglietti, & Haney, 2017 ; Minich et al., 2024 ).For this context, reflection is not just a means for facilitating learning but also an indispensable strategy for developing sound judgment and supporting professional identity development. While many theoretical frameworks presume that reflection and critical thinking are complementary cognitive processes and both play important roles in contributing to the outcomes of higher education learning (Khoshgoftar & Barkhordari-Sharifabad, 2023 ; Alt et al., 2022 ), empirical evidence is inconclusive.On one hand, highly structured writing prompts give novices clear cognitive scaffolding, which effectively inhibits emotional storytelling and facilitates more systematic deep reflection (Woldt & Nenad, 2021 ).On the other hand, overdependence on structured prompts can inhibit learners' autonomy and cognitive flexibility and consequently restrict the development of deep reasoning competence (Park et al., 2022 ).Especially in journalism internships that entail rapid decision-making and flexibility in response to environmental changes, researchers increasingly recommend the use of semi-structured prompts that provide indispensable guidance without compromising learners' cognitive flexibility (Minich et al., 2024 ).Therefore, striking a balance between structure and flexibility in journalism education has emerged as a critical research agenda. Although the educational value of reflective writing is widely acknowledged, several critical gaps persist in the literature.First, a contextual gap exists: previous studies have primarily focused on medical and teacher education, offering limited evidence on how reflective writing operates in high-risk, time-sensitive environments such as journalism internships.Second, a methodological gap remains: few controlled experimental studies have systematically compared the cognitive effects of different levels of writing prompt structures (unstructured, semi-structured, and structured) on learners’ reflective and critical thinking outcomes.Third, a measurement gap is evident: existing studies often report aggregate scores for reflection and critical thinking without disaggregating specific sub-dimensions (Interpretation, Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, Explanation, and Self-Regulation), which are particularly critical for journalistic reasoning. To address these gaps, this study employed a quasi-experimental design involving 88 senior undergraduate journalism students from a Chinese university.Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an unstructured writing prompt group, a semi-structured writing prompt group based on Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle, and a fully structured writing prompt group.Over a three-month internship period, students submitted six reflective writing reports.Students' reflective writing was evaluated using the Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT; Wald et al., 2012 ) and a six-dimension critical thinking framework developed by Facione ( 1990 ).The study explored the effects of writing prompt structures and examined whether these structures moderated the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking, with particular attention to critical sub-dimensions.Specifically, the study addressed the following research questions: Do different levels of writing prompt structures significantly influence journalism interns' reflective thinking and critical thinking? Does reflective thinking predict journalism interns' critical thinking performance? Do writing prompt structures moderate the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking? These questions offer insights into how educational frameworks in journalism programs can be optimized to develop critical reasoning and reflective judgment, thereby bridging classroom learning with field experience.By situating the study within the high-pressure context of journalism internships, this research provides a deeper understanding of how reflective writing interventions support cognitive development in experiential education. Theoretical background and hypothesis development Mechanisms of Reflective Writing in Fostering Critical Thinking within Experiential Learning Reflective writing is widely recognized as a powerful pedagogical strategy in experiential learning environments, facilitating the development of students' critical thinking skills (Yeh et al., 2022; Veine et al., 2019 ).The theoretical foundation of reflective practice can be traced back to Dewey ( 1910 ), who defined reflection as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1910 , p. 6).Building on Dewey's work, Schön ( 1983 , 1987) introduced the concepts of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, emphasizing that reflection is an integral process embedded within professional practice.Subsequently, Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985) suggested that reflection, particularly in authentic professional contexts, transforms experience into learning through emotional engagement and cognitive processing.Mezirow (1990) further argued that critical reflection involves reassessing previously held assumptions and serves as a catalyst for perspective transformation.Similarly, Boyd and Fales (1983) emphasized the personal and transformative nature of reflection, viewing it as a process of constructing and clarifying meaning from experience.Therefore, reflective writing functions not only as an externalization tool but also as a cognitive scaffold, enabling learners to articulate their thoughts, scrutinize assumptions, and gain ethical, procedural, and theoretical insights (Moon, 2004 ).Whereas, critical thinking emphasizes the logical analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of evidence-based information (Facione, 1990 ).Prior research indicates that reflective writing, by guiding learners to systematically review and analyze their experiences, activates cognitive processes associated with critical thinking, such as argument evaluation, reasoning, and decision-making (Wald et al., 2012 ).This impact is especially evident when structured or semi-structured writing prompts are utilized, indeed prompting students to challenge their meanings, synthesize diverse viewpoints, and establish judicious judgments (Alt & Raichel, 2020 ; Chan & Lee, 2021).Additionally, reflective writing augments the metacognitive awareness and self-regulatory competence of students, which are essential pillars of critical thinking (Ghanizadeh, 2016 ; Raterink, 2016).By promoting heightened reflection, enlightening critical analysis, and enabling contextual consideration, reflective writing shows excellent value in developing upper-level cognitive capacities. Among a range of reflective practice models, Gibbs's Reflective Cycle (Gibbs, 1988 ), as a six-step process of description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan, has seen extensive use in experiential learning settings.This model offers learners a systematic approach to critically analyze their experience and prompts deep learning through ongoing cognitive processing (Dutta, He, & Tsang, 2023 ).Evidence has proven structured reflective writing according to Gibbs's model to be an effective approach to improve cognitive processing, increase the depth of reflection, and enable translation of experience into professional practice knowledge (Ahmadpour, Shariati, & Moghadam, 2025 ; Ezezika & Johnston, 2023 ).This study, thus, adopts Gibbs's Reflective Cycle as the basis for developing structured and semi-structured reflective writing questions, researching systematically its effect on reflective and critical thinking development. The Interrelationship Between Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking Although conceptually distinct, reflective thinking and critical thinking are closely intertwined.Reflective thinking emphasizes purposeful introspection to derive meaning, whereas critical thinking focuses on evidence-based evaluation and logical reasoning (Khoshgoftar & Barkhordari-Sharifabad, 2023 ; Liu et al., 2023 ).Empirical studies suggest that reflective thinking may serve as an essential cognitive foundation for critical thinking, particularly when learners engage in deep analytical reflection (Ghanizadeh, 2016 ).However, the relationship between them is neither linear nor automatic.For example, a longitudinal study by Park et al. ( 2022 ) found that medical students' levels of reflective writing did not significantly improve with academic progression, indicating that enhanced reflection does not automatically lead to improved critical thinking performance.Similarly, Alt et al. ( 2022 ) noted that while reflective journaling enhances metacognitive awareness, it only contributes to the development of critical thinking when a sufficient depth of reflection is achieved.Such inconsistencies may be attributed to variations in the quality of reflection; superficial reflection often lacks the analytical depth required for fostering critical evaluation (Khoshgoftar & Barkhordari-Sharifabad, 2023 ; King & Kitchener, 2022).Thus, researchers contend that the secret to nurturing critical thinking is not in reflection per se but in the degree, structuring, and extent of mental engagement therein (Gadsby, 2022 ; Cattaneo & Motta, 2021 ).It is in this context that guided reflective writing prompts are viewed as an essential vehicle for transforming introspective learning into higher-order thinking competencies. Writing Prompt Structures as Pedagogical Interventions Reflective writing interventions differ in design structure, and various scaffolding strategies have varied cognitive effects.Structured prompts are effective in facilitating learners to structure experiences, link theory and practice, and direct toward learning outcomes (Alt, Raichel, & Naamati-Schneider, 2022 ).Highly structured guidance, however, could constrain learners' autonomy and lead to formulaic and superficial responses suppressing deep cognitive engagement (Bowman, 2021 ; Woldt & Nenad, 2021 ).Semi-structured prompts provide broad guiding questions without enforcing strict sequences and represent a balance between structure and openness.Studies found the strategy more effective in generating the depth of critical thinking and facilitating metacognitive activity among learners (Radović et al., 2023 ; Gadsby, 2022 ).Its effectiveness, however, greatly relies on learners' experience of prior reflection and tolerance to open-ended tasks.Unstructured reflection, such as free writing or journaling, tremendously facilitates learners' autonomy and authenticity of voice but commonly leads to great variance in reflection quality.In lack of scaffolding support, learners resort to narrative descriptions instead of analytical reasoning (King & Kitchener, 2022; Alt et al., 2022 ).The cognitive gains of unstructured writing, thus, are contingent upon learners' cognitive readiness and the extent of instructional guidance by teachers. Hypothesis Development To fill the noted research gaps, this research examines the impact of different levels of structures of writing prompts on reflective and critical thinking of interns in journalism while on internship.Drawing on Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984 ) and Reflective Practice Theory (Schön, 1983 ; Moon, 2008), the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: The structure of writing prompts (semi-structured vs. structured) significantly influences interns’ reflective and critical thinking scores. H2: Reflective thinking positively predicts interns’ critical thinking performance. H3: The relationship between reflective and critical thinking is moderated by the structure of writing prompts, with semi-structured prompts enhancing this relationship more effectively than other structures. The theoretical rationale underpinning these hypotheses is that reflection serves as a bridge between experiential learning and cognitive development, and the design of reflective writing tasks determines the effectiveness of this bridge. Methodology Research Design This study adopted a quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of varying levels of writing prompt scaffolding on the development of reflective and critical thinking skills among journalism interns during their internships.Specifically, it examined whether structured, semi-structured, and unstructured reflective writing prompts differentially influenced students’ cognitive development.In addition, the study explored whether the structure of writing prompts moderated the relationship between reflective and critical thinking.The independent variable was the writing prompt structure (unstructured, semi-structured, and structured), while the dependent variables were the scores for reflective and critical thinking.Furthermore, writing prompt structure was tested as a moderator in subsequent analyses. Participants and Grouping Participants were 88 final-year undergraduate students majoring in journalism at a public university in Inner Mongolia, China.The sample comprised 12 males and 76 females, aged between 20 and 22 years.Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: Group 1 (n = 30): unstructured prompt condition; Group 2 (n = 29): semi-structured prompt condition; Group 3 (n = 29): fully structured prompt condition. As part of their course requirements, all students completed a three-month professional internship.Each participant submitted six reflective reports throughout the internship, with one report every two weeks.Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of the university. Intervention Procedure The intervention consisted of three types of reflective writing tasks adapted from Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) and validated by two journalism education experts with over five years of professional experience.The content validity index (CVI) was 100%, indicating strong agreement among experts on the structure and clarity of the prompts.Unstructured writing prompts (control group): Students completed traditional internship reflection reports without any guiding questions.Semi-structured writing prompts (experimental group 1): Students responded to six general reflection categories aligned with Gibbs' stages—description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan—without detailed sub-questions.Structured writing prompts (experimental group 2): Students responded to specific, detailed questions corresponding to each stage of Gibbs' Cycle (e.g., “What knowledge and skills could help you address this situation?”).Throughout the internship, each student completed six reflective writing reports according to the writing requirements assigned to their respective groups. Measures Reflective thinking was assessed using the Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT) developed by Wald et al. ( 2012 ).This tool evaluates five core dimensions of reflection: writing spectrum, presence, description of conflict or dilemma, emotional awareness, analysis, and meaning-making.Each dimension was rated on a four-point scale representing the depth of reflection: habitual action (1), thoughtful action (2), reflection (3), and critical reflection (4).Two trained raters independently scored all reflective writing reports.After a calibration process, inter-rater reliability reached 100% agreement. Critical thinking was evaluated using the six cognitive skills outlined in Facione’s ( 1990 ) Delphi framework: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation.Each skill was rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong).Two experienced journalism instructors, each with over 12 years of professional and teaching experience, independently served as raters.The evaluation rubric was validated by a panel of experts prior to data collection to ensure content validity.For each participant, the mean score from six reflective writing assignments was computed and used for subsequent analyses to enhance measurement reliability. Data Analysis Techniques All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the effect of writing prompt structure on the combined dependent variables, reflective thinking and critical thinking.Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with Bonferroni post hoc tests were conducted to investigate specific group differences.Simple linear regression analyses were performed to assess whether reflective thinking significantly predicted critical thinking.Additionally, moderation analysis was performed using the PROCESS macro (Model 1) developed by Hayes ( 2022 ) to examine whether the structure of writing prompts moderated the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking.Further moderation analyses were conducted to explore interactions within specific subdimensions of critical thinking. Results Demographic Characteristics A total of 88 senior undergraduate journalism students from a public university in Inner Mongolia, China, participated in this study.Among them, 12 were male (13.6%) and 76 were female (86.4%).The average age of participants was 21.3 years.All participants completed a three-month professional internship at various media organizations, including newspapers, television stations, and online media outlets.Participants were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups based on the type of writing prompts they received: unstructured (n = 30), semi-structured (n = 29), and structured (n = 29).No significant differences in gender or age were observed among the groups, ensuring baseline equivalence for subsequent analyses.As shown in Table 1, no significant differences in gender or age were observed among the groups, ensuring baseline equivalence for subsequent analyses. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Characteristic Category N Percentage (%) Gender Male 12 13.6 female 76 86.4 Writing Prompt Group Unstructured 30 34.1 Semi-structured 29 33.0 Structured 29 33.0 Effects of Writing Prompt Structure on Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking To test Hypothesis 1, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted, with the structure of writing prompts (three levels: unstructured, semi-structured, and structured) as the independent variable and reflective thinking and critical thinking as the dependent variables.The MANOVA results indicated a significant multivariate effect of writing prompt structure on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ Lambda = .701, F(4, 1048) = 51.003, p < .001, partial η² = .163.These results suggest that the structure of writing prompts significantly influenced the overall cognitive outcomes.Consequently, follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the individual effects of writing prompt structure on reflective thinking and critical thinking. The data are presented in Table 2. Table 2. MANOVA and Univariate ANOVA Results for Prompt Effects Dependent Variable F df p-value Partial η² Multivariate (Wilks) 51.003 4, 1048 < .001 .163 Reflective Thinking 82.954 2, 525 < .001 .240 Critical Thinking 4.759 2, 525 .009 .018 A significant main effect of writing prompt structure was found for reflective thinking, F(2, 525) = 82.954, p < .001, with a large effect size (partial η² = .240).Descriptive statistics revealed a consistent increase in reflective thinking scores across the three groups: unstructured (M = 2.06, SD = 0.47), semi-structured (M = 2.33, SD = 0.39), and structured (M = 2.68, SD = 0.48). As shown in Table 3, Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking Across Prompt Conditions Prompt Condition N Reflective Thinking (M ± SD) Critical Thinking (M ± SD) Unstructured 180 2.06 ± 0.47 3.64 ± 0.64 Semi-structured 174 2.33 ± 0.39 3.82 ± 0.44 Structured 174 2.68 ± 0.48 3.70 ± 0.55 Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons revealed that all pairwise differences between groups were statistically significant (p < .001), indicating that higher levels of prompt structure were associated with greater improvements in reflective thinking. As shown in Table 4, Table 4. Bonferroni Post Hoc Comparisons Comparison Mean Difference p-value RE: Semi vs Unstructured +0.27 < .001 RE: Structured vs Unstructured +0.62 < .001 RE: Structured vs Semi +0.34 < .001 CT: Semi vs Unstructured +0.18 .007 CT: Structured vs Unstructured +0.06 .536 CT: Structured vs Semi -0.12 .150 For critical thinking, ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of prompt structure, F(2, 525) = 4.759, p = .009, although the effect size was small (partial η² = .018).The mean scores for critical thinking were: unstructured (M = 3.64, SD = 0.64), semi-structured (M = 3.82, SD = 0.44), and structured (M = 3.70, SD = 0.55).Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons indicated that the semi-structured group scored significantly higher than the unstructured group (p = .007), whereas no significant differences were found between the structured group and the other two groups (p = .05).This pattern suggests that semi-structured prompts may provide an optimal balance between scaffolding and enhancing cognitive autonomy in critical thinking. These findings provide strong support for Hypothesis 1.Writing prompt structure had significant effects on both reflective thinking and critical thinking, although the magnitude and direction of the effects varied across outcomes.Specifically, structured prompts were most effective for enhancing reflective thinking, while semi-structured prompts were more effective for improving critical thinking. Predictive Relationship Between Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking To test Hypothesis 2, a simple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine whether reflective thinking (RE) significantly predicted critical thinking (CT) among journalism interns.The analysis included all participants (N = 88), combining scores across different experimental conditions.Results indicated a positive relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking, B = 0.492, SE = 0.042, t(526) = 11.798, p < .001.The model explained 20.9% of the variance in critical thinking scores (R² = .209), indicating a moderate effect size.The regression coefficient suggested that for each one-unit increase in reflective thinking, the critical thinking score increased by 0.49 points. The data are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Critical Thinking from Reflective Thinking Predictor B SE β t p R² Constant 2.563 0.100 — 25.503 < .001 Reflective Thinking 0.492 0.042 0.457 11.798 < .001 .209 These findings confirm that higher levels of reflective thinking are positively associated with stronger critical thinking performance, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.Consistent with theoretical frameworks, deeper reflection fosters both metacognitive awareness (Moon, 2004) and analytical reasoning, which are core components of critical thinking (Facione, 1990).Overall, the results indicate that reflective thinking is a significant and moderate predictor of critical thinking among journalism students, accounting for more than 20% of the observed variance.These findings support the theoretical proposition that reflective engagement enhances higher-order thinking skills in experiential learning environments. Moderating Role of Writing Prompt Structure To examine Hypothesis 3, moderation analyses were performed using the PROCESS Macro (Model 1) developed by Hayes (2022).The writing prompt structure, initially a three-level categorical variable, was dummy-coded into two binary variables (YZJ_2 and YZJ_3), representing comparisons of the semi-structured and structured prompt groups against the control group, respectively.Reflective thinking (RE) was designated as the predictor and critical thinking (CT) as the outcome variable.All continuous variables were mean-centered prior to analysis to improve interpretability and reduce multicollinearity.Separate moderation analyses were conducted for each dummy variable to investigate whether the prompt structure moderated the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking. For YZJ_2, the overall regression model was significant, F(3, 524) = 52.43, p < .001, accounting for 23.1% of the variance in critical thinking scores (R² = .2309).Reflective thinking emerged as a significant positive predictor of critical thinking (B = 0.4702, SE = 0.0458, t = 10.2676, p < .001). However, the main effect of writing prompt structure (YZJ_2) was not statistically significant (B = -0.1529, SE = 0.2495, t = -0.6126, p = .5404).The interaction between reflective thinking and writing prompt structure was also non-significant (B = 0.1351, SE = 0.1049, t = 1.29, p = .1982), suggesting no evidence of a moderation effect. For YZJ_3, the overall regression model was also significant, F(3, 524) = 64.88, p < .001, accounting for 27.1% of the variance in critical thinking scores (R² = .2708).Reflective thinking continued to demonstrate a strong positive association with critical thinking (B = 0.6263, SE = 0.0556, t = 11.2711, p < .001).However, neither the main effect of writing prompt structure (YZJ_3) (B = -0.2980, SE = 0.2392, t = -1.2458, p = .2134) nor the interaction term (B = -0.0110, SE = 0.0934, t = -1.1800, p = .9061) reached statistical significance. As shown in Table 6, Table 6: Moderation Analysis Results for Writing Prompt Structure Variable Coefficient (B) SE t p 95% CI (LLCI, ULCI) Model 1 (YZJ_2: Semi-structured vs. Unstructured) Constant 2.5598 0.1114 22.9769 .0000 [2.3410, 2.7787] Reflective Thinking (RE) 0.4702 0.0458 10.2676 .0000 [0.3802, 0.5601] Writing Prompt Structure (YZJ_2) -0.1529 0.2495 -0.6126 .5404 [-0.6431, 0.3374] RE × YZJ_2 (Interaction) 0.1351 0.1049 1.2882 .1982 [-0.0709, 0.3411] Model 2 (YZJ_3: Structured vs. Unstructured) Constant 2.3536 0.1246 18.8830 .0000 [2.1087, 2.5984] Reflective Thinking (RE) 0.6263 0.0556 11.2711 .0000 [0.5171, 0.7355] Writing Prompt Structure (YZJ_3) -0.2980 0.2392 -1.2458 .2134 [-0.7680, 0.1719] RE × YZJ_3 (Interaction) -0.0110 0.0934 -1.1800 .9061 [-0.1944, 0.1724] These findings indicate that although reflective thinking is a positive predictor of critical thinking, the structure of writing prompts did not significantly moderate this relationship, regardless of whether semi-structured or structured prompts were compared to unstructured prompts. Further analyses revealed significant interaction effects between reflective thinking and writing prompt structure in predicting specific subdimensions of critical thinking, including Interpretation and Self-Regulation (Table 7).Specifically, a significant interaction was observed for the Interpretation subdimension when comparing the semi-structured prompt group with the unstructured control group (B = 0.3033, SE = 0.1324, t = 2.29, p = 0.0224, 95% CI [0.0432, 0.5634], f² = 0.020), indicating a small effect size.Similarly, a significant interaction effect was found for the Self-Regulation subdimension (B = 0.2687, SE = 0.1126, t = 2.39, p = 0.0173, 95% CI [0.0476, 0.4898], f² = 0.021). As shown in Table 7, Table 7. Interaction Effects of Reflective Thinking and Writing Prompt Structure on Interpretation and Self-Regulation. Outcome Variable Interaction Term (RE × YZJ_2) B SE t p 95% CI Interpretation Reflective Thinking × Prompt 0.3033 0.1324 2.29 .0224 [0.0432, 0.5634] Self-Regulation Reflective Thinking × Prompt 0.2687 0.1126 2.39 .0173 [0.0476, 0.4898] Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the moderating effects of writing prompt structure on the relationship between reflective thinking and two subdimensions of critical thinking: Interpretation and Self-Regulation.Under the semi-structured prompt condition, the positive associations between reflective thinking and the subdimensions of Interpretation and Self-Regulation were stronger than those observed under the unstructured condition,indicating that semi-structured prompts amplified the cognitive benefits of reflective thinking in enhancing specific higher-order reasoning skills. However, no significant moderating effects were observed when comparing the fully structured prompt group with the unstructured control group across any subdimensions of critical thinking.Semi-structured prompts, rather than fully structured prompts, effectively enhanced the influence of reflective thinking on specific cognitive skills, particularly in the domains of Interpretation and Self-Regulation.These results partially supported Hypothesis 3.The structure of writing prompts did not significantly moderate the relationship between reflective thinking and overall critical thinking scores,whereas semi-structured reflective prompts significantly moderated the relationships with two specific subdimensions of critical thinking.These findings suggest that semi-structured reflective prompts may selectively strengthen the impact of reflection on key components of critical reasoning, particularly in the areas of Interpretation and Self-Regulation. Discussion This study aims to investigate the effects of different writing prompt structures on the development of reflective thinking and critical thinking among journalism interns in an experiential learning environment.Grounded in Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984 ) and Reflective Practice Theory (Schön, 1983 ; Moon, 2008),the study further examines whether reflective thinking can predict the performance of critical thinking and whether the structure of reflective writing prompts moderates the relationship between these two constructs. The study yielded three primary findings: First, the structure of writing prompts showed statistically significant associations with both reflective thinking and critical thinking. In this study, participants in the structured prompt group obtained higher scores in reflective thinking, whereas those in the semi-structured prompt group tended to perform better in critical thinking. These results are broadly consistent with previous studies, which suggest—but do not definitively prove—the positive role of reflective writing in fostering higher-order cognitive skills(Yeh et al., 2021 ; Alt & Raichel, 2020 ; Bowman, 2021 ).Structured reflective scaffolding facilitates systematic organization of experiences and enhances depth of reflection and rigor of introspection (Mann et al., 2009 ),whereas semi-structured prompts, by offering necessary guidance while preserving individual meaning-making, promote deeper cognitive engagement and critical reasoning (Boud & Walker, 1998 ; Ripatti-Torniainen & Mikkola, 2023 ).In the context of journalism practice, journalism practice is different from conventional classroom learning. Interns need to conduct information screening, fact verification, viewpoint integration and logical expression in a dynamic and highly uncertain working environment. This practical characteristic requires students not only to have solid professional skills, but also to possess strong problem analysis and judgment abilities. The open design of semi-structured prompts enables students to flexibly apply critical thinking strategies to analyze and evaluate complex problems when facing diverse internship situations. Second, reflective thinking was found to be a statistically significant predictor of critical thinking in this sample, explaining about 21% of the variance in scores. This result is consistent with prior studies, suggesting that reflective thinking may enhance self-monitoring and cognitive regulation and potentially contribute to the development of higher-order thinking skills (Karnieli-Miller et al., 2021 ; Cattaneo & Motta, 2021 ; Akpur, 2020 ).These findings further substantiate the theoretical propositions of Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984 ) and Transformative Learning Theory (Mezirow, 1991 ) regarding the pivotal role of reflection in cognitive transformation. Third, although the overall moderating effect of writing prompt structure on the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking was not statistically significant,further analyses revealed significant moderating effects of prompt structure on two subdimensions of critical thinking—Interpretation and Self-Regulation—with semi-structured prompts showing particularly strong impacts on these higher-order cognitive skills.This finding corroborates previous research suggesting that critical thinking is not a unitary construct but comprises multiple cognitive components that vary in their sensitivity to instructional interventions (Facione, 1990 ; Szenes & Tilakaratna, 2021 ; Alt & Raichel, 2020 ).Semi-structured reflective activities could be more effective in fostering deep reasoning and critical evaluation, though replication in other contexts is required. Taken together, the findings suggest that the design of writing prompts may prioritize the cultivation of higher-order thinking skills rather than merely increasing surface-level writing output. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously given the contextual and methodological limitations of this study.In journalism education, implementing semi-structured reflective tasks can effectively enhance critical analytical skills,whereas structured reflective frameworks contribute to the development of sustained reflective practices and professional ethical awareness,thereby better supporting complex decision-making and professional development needs in journalism practice (Veine et al., 2019 ). Theoretical Implications This study offers several theoretical contributions across four key dimensions. First, at the conceptual level, it refines the understanding of scaffolding in educational psychology by categorizing writing prompts into three distinct structures: unstructured, semi-structured, and structured. Clear operational definitions were provided for each scaffolding level, delineating differences in the degree of instructional guidance. By establishing replicable criteria to differentiate deep reflection from superficial responses, this study provides an initial methodological basis for systematically designing and evaluating reflective writing tasks in experiential learning contexts. Second, at the mechanistic level, the study integrates experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984 ) and reflective practice theory (Schön, 1983 ; Moon, 2008) to propose a moderated mediation model, elucidating the pathway from writing prompt scaffolding to reflective depth and subsequently to subdimensions of critical thinking—Interpretation and Self-Regulation. This model was supported by empirical evidence in this context, contributing to the understanding of how structured educational interventions may cultivate higher-order cognitive skills. Third, at the contextual level, the model is applied to journalism internships—high-risk, time-pressured, and ethically ambiguous learning environments—thus tentatively extending the application of cognitive development models beyond traditional fields such as medical and teacher education to the context of journalism education. This extension aligns with situated cognition theory (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), emphasizing the importance of authentic tasks in fostering professional reasoning and ethical judgment within real-world contexts. Fourth, at the methodological level, the study integrates reflective text scoring with grouping variables within an experiential learning context, employing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), regression analysis, and moderation tests to systematically examine the effects of different writing prompt structures on the development of reflective and critical thinking. The research design aims to balance ecological validity with internal rigor. With real internship reflection reports as evidence, this research establishes an empirical methodological approach for investigating cognitive skill development in journalism education and offers a potential prototype for future quantitative studies in similar contexts. Practical Implications These results hold a number of practical implications for journalism education, particularly in designing and deploying reflection-toolkit interventions in internship contexts. Firstly, the findings suggest that the effectiveness of semi-structured writing prompts lies in their potential to guide reflection, indicating that journalism educators could consider integrating adaptive scaffolding approaches into reflective writing tasks. Semi-structured prompts, which provide guiding cues such as asking students to describe, analyze, and synthesize, may support both mental organization and learner autonomy, which could be particularly valuable for decision-making in rapid, morally complex environments like journalism. Second, the results highlight the potential importance of conceptualizing reflective writing as a learning activity aimed at higher-order thinking, rather than merely an assessment. Educators and internship coordinators could structure embedded reflection modules in core professional skills—such as source checking, ethical judgment, and editorial judgment—which may enhance the authenticity and professionalism of writing assignments. Embedded assignments within internship evaluation could promote more continuous and real-time learning, rather than restricting reflection to post-hoc portfolio submission. Third, since reflective thinking was associated with particular subdimensions of critical thinking—namely Interpretation and Self-Regulation—journalism education could benefit from incorporating more metacognitive instruction. Curricula might include stand-alone courses on models of reflection (e.g., Gibbs' Cycle), peer review workshops, and guided debriefings after field assignments. These learning exercises may help students break down their thinking, become more aware of biases, and gradually develop independent judgment—skills that are increasingly important in today’s misinformation economy and polarized media environment. Fourth, the role of writing prompt structure as a potential cognitive regulator suggests that journalism education could incorporate design-based pedagogies, in which instructional instruments are purposefully designed to scaffold levels of cognitive complexity. For example, semi-structured prompts might be utilized in initial field experiences to provoke critical questioning and open-ended analysis, whereas structured prompts could be applied to facilitate ethical consideration and policy adherence in newsroom simulations. Lastly, schools could try to incorporate reflective writing longitudinally throughout journalism curricula within a model of cognitive development. Instead of saving reflection for a single internship class, programs might scaffold reflective writing incrementally—from initial awareness and description in the first year to more sophisticated analysis and value-based argumentation in the final year. Such curricular integration may facilitate cumulative skill development and could also contribute to reinforcing students’ professional identity, enabling them to conceptualize their evolving vision of journalists’ role in society. In total, the research offers potential practical insights for developing reflective depth and critical engagement in journalism education. Through differentiated and purposeful prompt design, educators may help students more effectively combine experience with insight, ultimately supporting their development from student writers to reflective, ethical media practitioners. Limitations and Future Research Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the sample consisted of 89 journalism undergraduates from a single university in northern China. This relatively small and homogeneous group may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines, regions, or professional contexts. Replicating this design across larger and more diverse populations would help test the robustness of the results. Second, the study covered only one internship cycle (approximately three months) and employed a cross-sectional design. Such a design limits the ability to infer causal relationships or to capture long-term developmental trajectories. Longitudinal research would be required to provide more nuanced perspectives on how reflective and critical thinking evolve over time. Third, although expert-coded quantitative measures were applied to assess reflective writing, these metrics inevitably involve subjectivity and may not fully capture the richness of students’ reasoning processes. Future research could complement quantitative scoring with qualitative approaches such as thematic analysis of reflective texts, interviews, or focus groups to obtain a deeper understanding of learners’ thought patterns. Fourth, the study did not examine potentially influential variables such as prior knowledge, writing proficiency, media exposure, or individual differences in metacognitive ability. These factors may confound or moderate the observed relationships and should be included in future designs. Finally, because the measures relied on student self-reports through reflective writing, the possibility of social desirability bias cannot be excluded. Moreover, the findings are embedded within the cultural and institutional context of Chinese journalism education, which may limit their applicability to different educational or cultural environments. Conclusion This research provides insights into how reflective writing interventions, and more particularly prompt design, may influence cognitive growth in journalism education. By exploring the impact of unstructured, semi-structured, and structured prompts on the reflective and critical thinking of journalism interns in professional placements, the study suggests an important role of prompt design in shaping experiential learning outcomes. Structured questions appeared to be more effective in fostering reflective thinking, and cognitive scaffolding seemed to support greater introspection. Semi-structured questions tended to be more effective in fostering critical thinking, indicating that instructional formats balancing guidance and learner control may better facilitate analytical reasoning and metacognitive skills. Reflective thinking emerged as a predictor of critical thinking, providing support for experiential learning theory and underscoring the value of creating reflection activities that encourage deeper engagement beyond superficial storytelling. While the overall moderating effect of writing task format on the reflective–critical thinking dynamic was limited, interaction effects were found for two subdimensions of critical thinking—Interpretation and Self-Regulation—suggesting that instructional design may subtly influence certain aspects of cognitive development. Taken together, these findings provide potential theoretical insights and tentative practical implications for journalism educators. Incorporating semi-structured reflection activities in internship classes may help bridge the gap between classroom learning and practicum experience, promote more active learning, and encourage professional discernment. As journalism education increasingly emphasizes higher-order thinking capacities, this research highlights that how students are guided to think may be just as vital as what they are asked to think about. Declarations Ethical approval This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of UCSI University, Malaysia (Reference code: IEC-2024-FOSSLA-0189). The approval was granted via the expedited pathway during the IEC meeting on 3 December 2024 (Cycle 2024-06). The scope of the approval covered all procedures involving human participants, including recruitment, data collection, and data analysis. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the IEC and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. A copy of the approval letter is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Informed consent Written informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants, who were final-year journalism undergraduates enrolled at a public university in northern China. Consent was obtained on 14 January 2025, prior to the commencement of the internship period (February–April 2025), by the principal investigator. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, data usage, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. The scope of the consent covered participation in the study, the use of anonymized data for research purposes, and consent for publication of aggregated results. No identifying personal information was collected, and all data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contribution L.B. designed and conducted the study, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. G.F.D.-U. provided academic guidance throughout the research process and offered critical revisions. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data Availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality agreements with participants but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Ahmadpour, N., Shariati, A., & Moghadam, M. P. (2025). Effect of narrative writing based on Gibbs’ reflective model on the empathy and communication skills of nursing students. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 10. Akpur, U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683 Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2020). Reflective journaling and metacognitive awareness: Insights from a longitudinal study in higher education. Reflective Practice, 21(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1716708 Alt, D., Raichel, N., & Naamati-Schneider, L. (2022). Higher education students’ reflective journal writing and lifelong learning skills: Insights from an exploratory sequential study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 707168. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707168 Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–206. Bowman, M. (2021). A framework for scaffolding academic reflective writing in dentistry. European Journal of Dental Education, 25(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12575 Cattaneo, A. A. P., & Motta, E. (2021). I reflect, therefore I am… a good professional: On the relationship between reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action and professional performance in vocational education. Vocations and Learning, 14(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09259-9 Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co. Dutta, S., He, M., & Tsang, D. C. W. (2023). Reflection and peer assessment to promote self-directed learning in higher education. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 11(3), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.33495/jerr_v11i3.23.111 Ezezika, O., & Johnston, N. (2023). Development and implementation of a reflective writing assignment for undergraduate students in a large public health biology course. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 9(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211069993 Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). American Philosophical Association. Gadsby, H. (2022). Fostering reflective practice in PGCE students through the use of reflective journals: Developing a typology for reflection. Reflective Practice, 23(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2028612 Ghanizadeh, A. (2016). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 71(6), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Polytechnic. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press. Karnieli-Miller, O., et al. (2021). The associations between reflective ability and communication skills among medical students. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(1), 92–98. Khoshgoftar, Z., & Barkhordari-Sharifabad, M. (2023). Medical students’ reflective capacity and its role in their critical thinking disposition. BMC Medical Education, 23, 198. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04163-x Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Liu, C. C., Liu, S. J., Hwang, G. J., Tu, Y. F., & Wang, N. (2023). Engaging EFL students’ critical thinking tendency and in-depth reflection in technology-based writing contexts: A peer assessment-incorporated automatic evaluation approach. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 13027–13052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11697-6 Mann, K., Gordon, J., & MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595–621. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass. Minich, M., Loya, L., Culver, K. B., & Needle, J. P. (2024). A skills-driven approach to diversity, equity and inclusion in journalism curricula. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2311312 Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. RoutledgeFalmer. Park, K. H., Kam, B. S., & Yune, S. J. (2022). Changes in self-reflective thinking level in writing and educational needs of medical students: A longitudinal study. PLOS ONE, 17(1), e0262250. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262250 Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2020). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Radović, S., Firssova, O., Hummel, H. G. K., & Vermeulen, M. (2023). Improving academic performance: Strengthening the relation between theory and practice through prompted reflection. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211014411 Ripatti-Torniainen, L., & Mikkola, L. (2023). Journalism education as scientific education: Research university students’ engagement with knowledge. Journalism Studies, 24(2), 270–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2157317 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Szenes, E., & Tilakaratna, N. (2021). Deconstructing critical reflection in social work and business: Negotiating emotions and opinions in reflective writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100931. UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707 Veine, S., Andersen, M. K., Andersen, N. H., Espenes, T. C., Søyland, T. B., Wallin, P., & Reams, J. (2019). Reflection as a core student learning activity in higher education—Insights from nearly two decades of academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1659797 Wald, H. S., Borkan, J. M., Taylor, J. S., Anthony, D., & Reis, S. P. (2012). Fostering and evaluating reflective capacity in medical education: Developing the REFLECT rubric for assessing reflective writing. Academic Medicine, 87(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31823b55fa Williams, A., Guglietti, M. V., & Haney, S. (2017). Journalism students’ professional identity in the making: Implications for education and practice. Journalism, 18(6), 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917692344 Woldt, J. L., & Nenad, M. W. (2021). Reflective writing in dental education to improve critical thinking and learning: A systematic review. Journal of Dental Education, 85(7), 778–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12561 Yeh, H.-C., Yang, S.-H., & Chang, J. (2021). Developing college students’ critical thinking through reflective writing. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2043247 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files KeyStatements.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6850000","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":537440979,"identity":"0e8b7348-8b50-49cc-b330-f093b2280e33","order_by":0,"name":"BO LIU","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UCSI University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"BO","middleName":"","lastName":"LIU","suffix":""},{"id":537440980,"identity":"32e22484-4a38-47ec-be8d-36c1fe3319fb","order_by":1,"name":"Dipolog Genevieve Flores","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UCSI University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dipolog","middleName":"Genevieve","lastName":"Flores","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-09 02:38:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850000/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850000/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95369218,"identity":"207fcda2-7516-429b-be28-fdb034368151","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 09:14:33","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108927,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ScaffoldingReflectiveandCriticalThinkingthroughWritingPrompts5.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/4c07383c0dc96f8e4303934e.docx"},{"id":95525784,"identity":"38fc9b59-8d43-42eb-85ed-70de54a1ca5d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:05:41","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5008,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8fbf393a786942f6baf950afebac4396.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/4197e189fcd8ec0190654565.json"},{"id":95526630,"identity":"7b0611b2-2051-41e0-a73a-6a9dd996fe6f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:07:28","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10774,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"KeyStatements.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/94a311a480d770f94471e0c6.docx"},{"id":95369217,"identity":"e39ecddc-86a2-471c-bef4-d3cc25847bad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 09:14:33","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":122929,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8fbf393a786942f6baf950afebac43961enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/655363067d488daeb181a113.xml"},{"id":95369216,"identity":"7df50bb1-832b-4e83-8d80-72a9e52447ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 09:14:33","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/6a2ef7f56ff202ffb6e1c44b.png"},{"id":95525243,"identity":"16023fd3-bd28-42d8-860f-1af1fb8353aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:04:37","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":12309,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/7b66e23e3abbd0156e35a2d1.png"},{"id":95369219,"identity":"788ba23e-c001-4311-9534-508cf4a9ff5a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 09:14:33","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":120370,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"8fbf393a786942f6baf950afebac43961structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/408fb52da3424f9e86d30c1a.xml"},{"id":95524912,"identity":"b7ca541d-06b9-4975-97f7-4b2ea3a8b7a0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:03:47","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":128000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/e5f5578b66631fc6e8ae5a60.html"},{"id":95369212,"identity":"c1e7b63d-54d3-4f77-8f73-a509703d7cce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 09:14:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":24504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWriting prompt Structure moderates the relationship between reflective thinking and interpretation\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/53104dadea31420edf217528.png"},{"id":95525899,"identity":"c87c6e9d-6995-413b-aded-b568d01c7b24","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:05:49","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29594,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWriting prompt Structure moderates the relationship between reflective thinking and self-regulation\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/ff269d1c354e28866b34d45b.png"},{"id":108980102,"identity":"75f7fd79-c771-4ea1-ab8d-b59ce80a9dc7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-11 12:03:26","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":409400,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/4dc353d6-336d-4125-b049-15efeb74b168.pdf"},{"id":95369214,"identity":"a12038db-c6e7-402c-8461-f9c470f2758d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 09:14:33","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10774,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"KeyStatements.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6850000/v1/e2e9fb289b31858600ecfb67.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Scaffolding Reflective and Critical Thinking through Writing Prompts: Evidence from Journalism Internships","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn algorithm-driven, real-time news production environments, journalists are required to complete fact-checking, make ethical decisions, and construct narratives within a matter of hours\u0026mdash;or even minutes.According to UNESCO\u0026rsquo;s guidelines on journalism education, critical and reflective thinking are regarded as essential competencies for journalism graduates.UNESCO (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes that higher education institutions should foster students\u0026rsquo; ability to make responsible and timely judgments in complex and uncertain environments through experiential learning approaches.Faced with factual ambiguity, ethical dilemmas, and time constraints in real-world contexts, journalism education must train students in critical and reflective thinking to equip them with the skills needed to navigate these complex scenarios.Therefore, developing higher-order cognitive skills\u0026mdash;such as reflective and critical thinking\u0026mdash;has become an urgent priority in journalism education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflective writing has been widely acknowledged as a critical pedagogical tool in experiential learning, fostering the transformation of personal experiences into meaningful learning outcomes and cognitive growth (Moon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Sch\u0026ouml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e).However, little is known about how varying levels of writing prompt structures influence cognitive development in high-risk, practice-oriented fields such as journalism.Notably, although reflective thinking and critical thinking are closely linked in cognitive development, they serve distinct functions in journalism practice.Reflective thinking emphasizes self-assessment and contextual understanding, encouraging journalism interns to analyze their reporting experiences, value orientations, and decision-making processes, thereby enhancing their professional identity and ethical awareness (Ripatti-Torniainen \u0026amp; Mikkola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).Conversely, critical thinking is interested in analysis of information, scrutiny of evidence, and rational judgment that allows students to logically dissect complex information and make value judgments, thus developing their fact-checking and argumentation abilities (Paul \u0026amp; Elder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).Whereas reflective thinking develops the students' understanding of real-world settings and knowledge of self, critical thinking allows them to move beyond experiential limitations and use objective and rational judgment.The simultaneous development of these competencies is especially vital in the time-limited and uncertain contexts of journalism practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflective writing has been applied extensively in medical and teacher education for facilitating students' cognitive growth, raising metacognitive awareness, and fostering deeper learning (Radović et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Gadsby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Alt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).The practice guarantees deep thinking within experiential learning contexts, consequently enriching learning and critical thinking.Expanding the scope of applicability and utility of such interventions to journalism education has not been investigated extensively yet.Journalism internship constitutes a multifaceted and dynamic real-world learning context, in which students are required to interpret events under ambiguous conditions, analyze information while under pressure, and establish meaning amidst varied stories (Williams, Guglietti, \u0026amp; Haney, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Minich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).For this context, reflection is not just a means for facilitating learning but also an indispensable strategy for developing sound judgment and supporting professional identity development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile many theoretical frameworks presume that reflection and critical thinking are complementary cognitive processes and both play important roles in contributing to the outcomes of higher education learning (Khoshgoftar \u0026amp; Barkhordari-Sharifabad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Alt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), empirical evidence is inconclusive.On one hand, highly structured writing prompts give novices clear cognitive scaffolding, which effectively inhibits emotional storytelling and facilitates more systematic deep reflection (Woldt \u0026amp; Nenad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).On the other hand, overdependence on structured prompts can inhibit learners' autonomy and cognitive flexibility and consequently restrict the development of deep reasoning competence (Park et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).Especially in journalism internships that entail rapid decision-making and flexibility in response to environmental changes, researchers increasingly recommend the use of semi-structured prompts that provide indispensable guidance without compromising learners' cognitive flexibility (Minich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).Therefore, striking a balance between structure and flexibility in journalism education has emerged as a critical research agenda.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the educational value of reflective writing is widely acknowledged, several critical gaps persist in the literature.First, a contextual gap exists: previous studies have primarily focused on medical and teacher education, offering limited evidence on how reflective writing operates in high-risk, time-sensitive environments such as journalism internships.Second, a methodological gap remains: few controlled experimental studies have systematically compared the cognitive effects of different levels of writing prompt structures (unstructured, semi-structured, and structured) on learners\u0026rsquo; reflective and critical thinking outcomes.Third, a measurement gap is evident: existing studies often report aggregate scores for reflection and critical thinking without disaggregating specific sub-dimensions (Interpretation, Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, Explanation, and Self-Regulation), which are particularly critical for journalistic reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, this study employed a quasi-experimental design involving 88 senior undergraduate journalism students from a Chinese university.Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an unstructured writing prompt group, a semi-structured writing prompt group based on Gibbs\u0026rsquo; Reflective Cycle, and a fully structured writing prompt group.Over a three-month internship period, students submitted six reflective writing reports.Students' reflective writing was evaluated using the Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT; Wald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) and a six-dimension critical thinking framework developed by Facione (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e).The study explored the effects of writing prompt structures and examined whether these structures moderated the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking, with particular attention to critical sub-dimensions.Specifically, the study addressed the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDo different levels of writing prompt structures significantly influence journalism interns' reflective thinking and critical thinking?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoes reflective thinking predict journalism interns' critical thinking performance?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDo writing prompt structures moderate the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese questions offer insights into how educational frameworks in journalism programs can be optimized to develop critical reasoning and reflective judgment, thereby bridging classroom learning with field experience.By situating the study within the high-pressure context of journalism internships, this research provides a deeper understanding of how reflective writing interventions support cognitive development in experiential education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical background and hypothesis development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMechanisms of Reflective Writing in Fostering Critical Thinking within Experiential Learning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflective writing is widely recognized as a powerful pedagogical strategy in experiential learning environments, facilitating the development of students' critical thinking skills (Yeh et al., 2022; Veine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).The theoretical foundation of reflective practice can be traced back to Dewey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1910\u003c/span\u003e), who defined reflection as \u0026ldquo;active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends\u0026rdquo; (Dewey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1910\u003c/span\u003e, p. 6).Building on Dewey's work, Sch\u0026ouml;n (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e, 1987) introduced the concepts of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, emphasizing that reflection is an integral process embedded within professional practice.Subsequently, Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985) suggested that reflection, particularly in authentic professional contexts, transforms experience into learning through emotional engagement and cognitive processing.Mezirow (1990) further argued that critical reflection involves reassessing previously held assumptions and serves as a catalyst for perspective transformation.Similarly, Boyd and Fales (1983) emphasized the personal and transformative nature of reflection, viewing it as a process of constructing and clarifying meaning from experience.Therefore, reflective writing functions not only as an externalization tool but also as a cognitive scaffold, enabling learners to articulate their thoughts, scrutinize assumptions, and gain ethical, procedural, and theoretical insights (Moon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).Whereas, critical thinking emphasizes the logical analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of evidence-based information (Facione, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e).Prior research indicates that reflective writing, by guiding learners to systematically review and analyze their experiences, activates cognitive processes associated with critical thinking, such as argument evaluation, reasoning, and decision-making (Wald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).This impact is especially evident when structured or semi-structured writing prompts are utilized, indeed prompting students to challenge their meanings, synthesize diverse viewpoints, and establish judicious judgments (Alt \u0026amp; Raichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Chan \u0026amp; Lee, 2021).Additionally, reflective writing augments the metacognitive awareness and self-regulatory competence of students, which are essential pillars of critical thinking (Ghanizadeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Raterink, 2016).By promoting heightened reflection, enlightening critical analysis, and enabling contextual consideration, reflective writing shows excellent value in developing upper-level cognitive capacities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong a range of reflective practice models, Gibbs's Reflective Cycle (Gibbs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), as a six-step process of description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan, has seen extensive use in experiential learning settings.This model offers learners a systematic approach to critically analyze their experience and prompts deep learning through ongoing cognitive processing (Dutta, He, \u0026amp; Tsang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).Evidence has proven structured reflective writing according to Gibbs's model to be an effective approach to improve cognitive processing, increase the depth of reflection, and enable translation of experience into professional practice knowledge (Ahmadpour, Shariati, \u0026amp; Moghadam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ezezika \u0026amp; Johnston, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).This study, thus, adopts Gibbs's Reflective Cycle as the basis for developing structured and semi-structured reflective writing questions, researching systematically its effect on reflective and critical thinking development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Interrelationship Between Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough conceptually distinct, reflective thinking and critical thinking are closely intertwined.Reflective thinking emphasizes purposeful introspection to derive meaning, whereas critical thinking focuses on evidence-based evaluation and logical reasoning (Khoshgoftar \u0026amp; Barkhordari-Sharifabad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).Empirical studies suggest that reflective thinking may serve as an essential cognitive foundation for critical thinking, particularly when learners engage in deep analytical reflection (Ghanizadeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).However, the relationship between them is neither linear nor automatic.For example, a longitudinal study by Park et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found that medical students' levels of reflective writing did not significantly improve with academic progression, indicating that enhanced reflection does not automatically lead to improved critical thinking performance.Similarly, Alt et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) noted that while reflective journaling enhances metacognitive awareness, it only contributes to the development of critical thinking when a sufficient depth of reflection is achieved.Such inconsistencies may be attributed to variations in the quality of reflection; superficial reflection often lacks the analytical depth required for fostering critical evaluation (Khoshgoftar \u0026amp; Barkhordari-Sharifabad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; King \u0026amp; Kitchener, 2022).Thus, researchers contend that the secret to nurturing critical thinking is not in reflection per se but in the degree, structuring, and extent of mental engagement therein (Gadsby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Cattaneo \u0026amp; Motta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).It is in this context that guided reflective writing prompts are viewed as an essential vehicle for transforming introspective learning into higher-order thinking competencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWriting Prompt Structures as Pedagogical Interventions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflective writing interventions differ in design structure, and various scaffolding strategies have varied cognitive effects.Structured prompts are effective in facilitating learners to structure experiences, link theory and practice, and direct toward learning outcomes (Alt, Raichel, \u0026amp; Naamati-Schneider, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).Highly structured guidance, however, could constrain learners' autonomy and lead to formulaic and superficial responses suppressing deep cognitive engagement (Bowman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Woldt \u0026amp; Nenad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).Semi-structured prompts provide broad guiding questions without enforcing strict sequences and represent a balance between structure and openness.Studies found the strategy more effective in generating the depth of critical thinking and facilitating metacognitive activity among learners (Radović et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Gadsby, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).Its effectiveness, however, greatly relies on learners' experience of prior reflection and tolerance to open-ended tasks.Unstructured reflection, such as free writing or journaling, tremendously facilitates learners' autonomy and authenticity of voice but commonly leads to great variance in reflection quality.In lack of scaffolding support, learners resort to narrative descriptions instead of analytical reasoning (King \u0026amp; Kitchener, 2022; Alt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).The cognitive gains of unstructured writing, thus, are contingent upon learners' cognitive readiness and the extent of instructional guidance by teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHypothesis Development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo fill the noted research gaps, this research examines the impact of different levels of structures of writing prompts on reflective and critical thinking of interns in journalism while on internship.Drawing on Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) and Reflective Practice Theory (Sch\u0026ouml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Moon, 2008), the following hypotheses are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: The structure of writing prompts (semi-structured vs. structured) significantly influences interns\u0026rsquo; reflective and critical thinking scores.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: Reflective thinking positively predicts interns\u0026rsquo; critical thinking performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: The relationship between reflective and critical thinking is moderated by the structure of writing prompts, with semi-structured prompts enhancing this relationship more effectively than other structures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical rationale underpinning these hypotheses is that reflection serves as a bridge between experiential learning and cognitive development, and the design of reflective writing tasks determines the effectiveness of this bridge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of varying levels of writing prompt scaffolding on the development of reflective and critical thinking skills among journalism interns during their internships.Specifically, it examined whether structured, semi-structured, and unstructured reflective writing prompts differentially influenced students\u0026rsquo; cognitive development.In addition, the study explored whether the structure of writing prompts moderated the relationship between reflective and critical thinking.The independent variable was the writing prompt structure (unstructured, semi-structured, and structured), while the dependent variables were the scores for reflective and critical thinking.Furthermore, writing prompt structure was tested as a moderator in subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants and Grouping\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were 88 final-year undergraduate students majoring in journalism at a public university in Inner Mongolia, China.The sample comprised 12 males and 76 females, aged between 20 and 22 years.Participants were randomly assigned to three groups:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 1 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30): unstructured prompt condition;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 2 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29): semi-structured prompt condition;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 3 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29): fully structured prompt condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs part of their course requirements, all students completed a three-month professional internship.Each participant submitted six reflective reports throughout the internship, with one report every two weeks.Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of the university.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntervention Procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe intervention consisted of three types of reflective writing tasks adapted from Gibbs\u0026rsquo; Reflective Cycle (1988) and validated by two journalism education experts with over five years of professional experience.The content validity index (CVI) was 100%, indicating strong agreement among experts on the structure and clarity of the prompts.Unstructured writing prompts (control group): Students completed traditional internship reflection reports without any guiding questions.Semi-structured writing prompts (experimental group 1): Students responded to six general reflection categories aligned with Gibbs' stages\u0026mdash;description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan\u0026mdash;without detailed sub-questions.Structured writing prompts (experimental group 2): Students responded to specific, detailed questions corresponding to each stage of Gibbs' Cycle (e.g., \u0026ldquo;What knowledge and skills could help you address this situation?\u0026rdquo;).Throughout the internship, each student completed six reflective writing reports according to the writing requirements assigned to their respective groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflective thinking was assessed using the Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT) developed by Wald et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).This tool evaluates five core dimensions of reflection: writing spectrum, presence, description of conflict or dilemma, emotional awareness, analysis, and meaning-making.Each dimension was rated on a four-point scale representing the depth of reflection: habitual action (1), thoughtful action (2), reflection (3), and critical reflection (4).Two trained raters independently scored all reflective writing reports.After a calibration process, inter-rater reliability reached 100% agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCritical thinking was evaluated using the six cognitive skills outlined in Facione\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) Delphi framework: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation.Each skill was rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong).Two experienced journalism instructors, each with over 12 years of professional and teaching experience, independently served as raters.The evaluation rubric was validated by a panel of experts prior to data collection to ensure content validity.For each participant, the mean score from six reflective writing assignments was computed and used for subsequent analyses to enhance measurement reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis Techniques\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the effect of writing prompt structure on the combined dependent variables, reflective thinking and critical thinking.Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with Bonferroni post hoc tests were conducted to investigate specific group differences.Simple linear regression analyses were performed to assess whether reflective thinking significantly predicted critical thinking.Additionally, moderation analysis was performed using the PROCESS macro (Model 1) developed by Hayes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) to examine whether the structure of writing prompts moderated the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking.Further moderation analyses were conducted to explore interactions within specific subdimensions of critical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographic Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 88 senior undergraduate journalism students from a public university in Inner Mongolia, China, participated in this study.Among them, 12 were male (13.6%) and 76 were female (86.4%).The average age of participants was 21.3 years.All participants completed a three-month professional internship at various media organizations, including newspapers, television stations, and online media outlets.Participants were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups based on the type of writing prompts they received: unstructured (n = 30), semi-structured (n = 29), and structured (n = 29).No significant differences in gender or age were observed among the groups, ensuring baseline equivalence for subsequent analyses.As shown in Table 1, no significant differences in gender or age were observed among the groups, ensuring baseline equivalence for subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 \u0026nbsp;Demographic Characteristics of Participants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWriting Prompt Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffects of Writing Prompt Structure on Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test Hypothesis 1, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted, with the structure of writing prompts (three levels: unstructured, semi-structured, and structured) as the independent variable and reflective thinking and critical thinking as the dependent variables.The MANOVA results indicated a significant multivariate effect of writing prompt structure on the combined dependent variables, Wilks\u0026rsquo; Lambda = .701, F(4, 1048) = 51.003, p \u0026lt; .001, partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = .163.These results suggest that the structure of writing prompts significantly influenced the overall cognitive outcomes.Consequently, follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the individual effects of writing prompt structure on reflective thinking and critical thinking. The data are presented in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. MANOVA and Univariate ANOVA Results for Prompt Effects\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDependent Variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edf\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMultivariate (Wilks)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4, 1048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective Thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82.954\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 525\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.240\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCritical Thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 525\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA significant main effect of writing prompt structure was found for reflective thinking, F(2, 525) = 82.954, p \u0026lt; .001, with a large effect size (partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = .240).Descriptive statistics revealed a consistent increase in reflective thinking scores across the three groups: unstructured (M = 2.06, SD = 0.47), semi-structured (M = 2.33, SD = 0.39), and structured (M = 2.68, SD = 0.48). As shown in Table 3,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Descriptive Statistics for Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking Across Prompt Conditions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrompt Condition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReflective Thinking (M \u0026plusmn; SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCritical Thinking (M \u0026plusmn; SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.06 \u0026plusmn; 0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.64 \u0026plusmn; 0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.33 \u0026plusmn; 0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.82 \u0026plusmn; 0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.68 \u0026plusmn; 0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.70 \u0026plusmn; 0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons revealed that all pairwise differences between groups were statistically significant (p \u0026lt; .001), indicating that higher levels of prompt structure were associated with greater improvements in reflective thinking. As shown in Table 4,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. Bonferroni Post Hoc Comparisons\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean Difference\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE: Semi vs Unstructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE: Structured vs Unstructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE: Structured vs Semi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCT: Semi vs Unstructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCT: Structured vs Unstructured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.536\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCT: Structured vs Semi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor critical thinking, ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of prompt structure, F(2, 525) = 4.759, p = .009, although the effect size was small (partial \u0026eta;\u0026sup2; = .018).The mean scores for critical thinking were: unstructured (M = 3.64, SD = 0.64), semi-structured (M = 3.82, SD = 0.44), and structured (M = 3.70, SD = 0.55).Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons indicated that the semi-structured group scored significantly higher than the unstructured group (p = .007), whereas no significant differences were found between the structured group and the other two groups (p = .05).This pattern suggests that semi-structured prompts may provide an optimal balance between scaffolding and enhancing cognitive autonomy in critical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings provide strong support for Hypothesis 1.Writing prompt structure had significant effects on both reflective thinking and critical thinking, although the magnitude and direction of the effects varied across outcomes.Specifically, structured prompts were most effective for enhancing reflective thinking, while semi-structured prompts were more effective for improving critical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePredictive Relationship Between Reflective Thinking and Critical Thinking\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test Hypothesis 2, a simple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine whether reflective thinking (RE) significantly predicted critical thinking (CT) among journalism interns.The analysis included all participants (N = 88), combining scores across different experimental conditions.Results indicated a positive relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking, B = 0.492, SE = 0.042, t(526) = 11.798, p \u0026lt; .001.The model explained 20.9% of the variance in critical thinking scores (R\u0026sup2; = .209), indicating a moderate effect size.The regression coefficient suggested that for each one-unit increase in reflective thinking, the critical thinking score increased by 0.49 points. The data are presented in Table 5.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Critical Thinking from Reflective Thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePredictor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.563\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.503\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective Thinking\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.492\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.457\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.798\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.209\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings confirm that higher levels of reflective thinking are positively associated with stronger critical thinking performance, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.Consistent with theoretical frameworks, deeper reflection fosters both metacognitive awareness (Moon, 2004) and analytical reasoning, which are core components of critical thinking (Facione, 1990).Overall, the results indicate that reflective thinking is a significant and moderate predictor of critical thinking among journalism students, accounting for more than 20% of the observed variance.These findings support the theoretical proposition that reflective engagement enhances higher-order thinking skills in experiential learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModerating Role of Writing Prompt Structure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine Hypothesis 3, moderation analyses were performed using the PROCESS Macro (Model 1) developed by Hayes (2022).The writing prompt structure, initially a three-level categorical variable, was dummy-coded into two binary variables (YZJ_2 and YZJ_3), representing comparisons of the semi-structured and structured prompt groups against the control group, respectively.Reflective thinking (RE) was designated as the predictor and critical thinking (CT) as the outcome variable.All continuous variables were mean-centered prior to analysis to improve interpretability and reduce multicollinearity.Separate moderation analyses were conducted for each dummy variable to investigate whether the prompt structure moderated the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor YZJ_2, the overall regression model was significant, F(3, 524) = 52.43, p \u0026lt; .001, accounting for 23.1% of the variance in critical thinking scores (R\u0026sup2; = .2309).Reflective thinking emerged as a significant positive predictor of critical thinking (B = 0.4702, SE = 0.0458, t = 10.2676, p \u0026lt; .001). However, the main effect of writing prompt structure (YZJ_2) was not statistically significant (B = -0.1529, SE = 0.2495, t = -0.6126, p = .5404).The interaction between reflective thinking and writing prompt structure was also non-significant (B = 0.1351, SE = 0.1049, t = 1.29, p = .1982), suggesting no evidence of a moderation effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor YZJ_3, the overall regression model was also significant, F(3, 524) = 64.88, p \u0026lt; .001, accounting for 27.1% of the variance in critical thinking scores (R\u0026sup2; = .2708).Reflective thinking continued to demonstrate a strong positive association with critical thinking (B = 0.6263, SE = 0.0556, t = 11.2711, p \u0026lt; .001).However, neither the main effect of writing prompt structure (YZJ_3) (B = -0.2980, SE = 0.2392, t = -1.2458, p = .2134) nor the interaction term (B = -0.0110, SE = 0.0934, t = -1.1800, p = .9061) reached statistical significance. As shown in Table 6,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6: Moderation Analysis Results for Writing Prompt Structure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCoefficient (B)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI (LLCI, ULCI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 1 (YZJ_2: Semi-structured vs. Unstructured)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5598\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.9769\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[2.3410, 2.7787]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective Thinking (RE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4702\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0458\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.2676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.3802, 0.5601]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWriting Prompt Structure (YZJ_2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.1529\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2495\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.6126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.5404\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.6431, 0.3374]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE \u0026times; YZJ_2 (Interaction)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2882\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.1982\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.0709, 0.3411]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 2 (YZJ_3: Structured vs. Unstructured)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3536\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.8830\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[2.1087, 2.5984]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective Thinking (RE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0556\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.2711\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.5171, 0.7355]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWriting Prompt Structure (YZJ_3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.2980\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2392\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.2458\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.2134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.7680, 0.1719]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRE \u0026times; YZJ_3 (Interaction)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.0110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0934\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.1800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.9061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.1944, 0.1724]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings indicate that although reflective thinking is a positive predictor of critical thinking, the structure of writing prompts did not significantly moderate this relationship, regardless of whether semi-structured or structured prompts were compared to unstructured prompts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther analyses revealed significant interaction effects between reflective thinking and writing prompt structure in predicting specific subdimensions of critical thinking, including Interpretation and Self-Regulation (Table 7).Specifically, a significant interaction was observed for the Interpretation subdimension when comparing the semi-structured prompt group with the unstructured control group (B = 0.3033, SE = 0.1324, t = 2.29, p = 0.0224, 95% CI [0.0432, 0.5634], f\u0026sup2; = 0.020), indicating a small effect size.Similarly, a significant interaction effect was found for the Self-Regulation subdimension (B = 0.2687, SE = 0.1126, t = 2.39, p = 0.0173, 95% CI [0.0476, 0.4898], f\u0026sup2; = 0.021). As shown in Table 7,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7. Interaction Effects of Reflective Thinking and Writing Prompt Structure on Interpretation and Self-Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOutcome Variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction Term (RE \u0026times; YZJ_2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective Thinking \u0026times; Prompt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0224\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.0432, 0.5634]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Regulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflective Thinking \u0026times; Prompt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2687\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.0173\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.0476, 0.4898]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigures 1 and 2 illustrate the moderating effects of writing prompt structure on the relationship between reflective thinking and two subdimensions of critical thinking: Interpretation and Self-Regulation.Under the semi-structured prompt condition, the positive associations between reflective thinking and the subdimensions of Interpretation and Self-Regulation were stronger than those observed under the unstructured condition,indicating that semi-structured prompts amplified the cognitive benefits of reflective thinking in enhancing specific higher-order reasoning skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, no significant moderating effects were observed when comparing the fully structured prompt group with the unstructured control group across any subdimensions of critical thinking.Semi-structured prompts, rather than fully structured prompts, effectively enhanced the influence of reflective thinking on specific cognitive skills, particularly in the domains of Interpretation and Self-Regulation.These results partially supported Hypothesis 3.The structure of writing prompts did not significantly moderate the relationship between reflective thinking and overall critical thinking scores,whereas semi-structured reflective prompts significantly moderated the relationships with two specific subdimensions of critical thinking.These findings suggest that semi-structured reflective prompts may selectively strengthen the impact of reflection on key components of critical reasoning, particularly in the areas of Interpretation and Self-Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to investigate the effects of different writing prompt structures on the development of reflective thinking and critical thinking among journalism interns in an experiential learning environment.Grounded in Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) and Reflective Practice Theory (Sch\u0026ouml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Moon, 2008),the study further examines whether reflective thinking can predict the performance of critical thinking and whether the structure of reflective writing prompts moderates the relationship between these two constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study yielded three primary findings:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, the structure of writing prompts showed statistically significant associations with both reflective thinking and critical thinking. In this study, participants in the structured prompt group obtained higher scores in reflective thinking, whereas those in the semi-structured prompt group tended to perform better in critical thinking. These results are broadly consistent with previous studies, which suggest\u0026mdash;but do not definitively prove\u0026mdash;the positive role of reflective writing in fostering higher-order cognitive skills(Yeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Alt \u0026amp; Raichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bowman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).Structured reflective scaffolding facilitates systematic organization of experiences and enhances depth of reflection and rigor of introspection (Mann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e),whereas semi-structured prompts, by offering necessary guidance while preserving individual meaning-making, promote deeper cognitive engagement and critical reasoning (Boud \u0026amp; Walker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Ripatti-Torniainen \u0026amp; Mikkola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).In the context of journalism practice, journalism practice is different from conventional classroom learning. Interns need to conduct information screening, fact verification, viewpoint integration and logical expression in a dynamic and highly uncertain working environment. This practical characteristic requires students not only to have solid professional skills, but also to possess strong problem analysis and judgment abilities. The open design of semi-structured prompts enables students to flexibly apply critical thinking strategies to analyze and evaluate complex problems when facing diverse internship situations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, reflective thinking was found to be a statistically significant predictor of critical thinking in this sample, explaining about 21% of the variance in scores. This result is consistent with prior studies, suggesting that reflective thinking may enhance self-monitoring and cognitive regulation and potentially contribute to the development of higher-order thinking skills (Karnieli-Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Cattaneo \u0026amp; Motta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Akpur, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).These findings further substantiate the theoretical propositions of Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) and Transformative Learning Theory (Mezirow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) regarding the pivotal role of reflection in cognitive transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, although the overall moderating effect of writing prompt structure on the relationship between reflective thinking and critical thinking was not statistically significant,further analyses revealed significant moderating effects of prompt structure on two subdimensions of critical thinking\u0026mdash;Interpretation and Self-Regulation\u0026mdash;with semi-structured prompts showing particularly strong impacts on these higher-order cognitive skills.This finding corroborates previous research suggesting that critical thinking is not a unitary construct but comprises multiple cognitive components that vary in their sensitivity to instructional interventions (Facione, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Szenes \u0026amp; Tilakaratna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Alt \u0026amp; Raichel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).Semi-structured reflective activities could be more effective in fostering deep reasoning and critical evaluation, though replication in other contexts is required.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings suggest that the design of writing prompts may prioritize the cultivation of higher-order thinking skills rather than merely increasing surface-level writing output. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously given the contextual and methodological limitations of this study.In journalism education, implementing semi-structured reflective tasks can effectively enhance critical analytical skills,whereas structured reflective frameworks contribute to the development of sustained reflective practices and professional ethical awareness,thereby better supporting complex decision-making and professional development needs in journalism practice (Veine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study offers several theoretical contributions across four key dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, at the conceptual level, it refines the understanding of scaffolding in educational psychology by categorizing writing prompts into three distinct structures: unstructured, semi-structured, and structured. Clear operational definitions were provided for each scaffolding level, delineating differences in the degree of instructional guidance. By establishing replicable criteria to differentiate deep reflection from superficial responses, this study provides an initial methodological basis for systematically designing and evaluating reflective writing tasks in experiential learning contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, at the mechanistic level, the study integrates experiential learning theory (Kolb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) and reflective practice theory (Sch\u0026ouml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Moon, 2008) to propose a moderated mediation model, elucidating the pathway from writing prompt scaffolding to reflective depth and subsequently to subdimensions of critical thinking\u0026mdash;Interpretation and Self-Regulation. This model was supported by empirical evidence in this context, contributing to the understanding of how structured educational interventions may cultivate higher-order cognitive skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, at the contextual level, the model is applied to journalism internships\u0026mdash;high-risk, time-pressured, and ethically ambiguous learning environments\u0026mdash;thus tentatively extending the application of cognitive development models beyond traditional fields such as medical and teacher education to the context of journalism education. This extension aligns with situated cognition theory (Brown, Collins, \u0026amp; Duguid, 1989), emphasizing the importance of authentic tasks in fostering professional reasoning and ethical judgment within real-world contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, at the methodological level, the study integrates reflective text scoring with grouping variables within an experiential learning context, employing multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), regression analysis, and moderation tests to systematically examine the effects of different writing prompt structures on the development of reflective and critical thinking. The research design aims to balance ecological validity with internal rigor. With real internship reflection reports as evidence, this research establishes an empirical methodological approach for investigating cognitive skill development in journalism education and offers a potential prototype for future quantitative studies in similar contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results hold a number of practical implications for journalism education, particularly in designing and deploying reflection-toolkit interventions in internship contexts. Firstly, the findings suggest that the effectiveness of semi-structured writing prompts lies in their potential to guide reflection, indicating that journalism educators could consider integrating adaptive scaffolding approaches into reflective writing tasks. Semi-structured prompts, which provide guiding cues such as asking students to describe, analyze, and synthesize, may support both mental organization and learner autonomy, which could be particularly valuable for decision-making in rapid, morally complex environments like journalism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the results highlight the potential importance of conceptualizing reflective writing as a learning activity aimed at higher-order thinking, rather than merely an assessment. Educators and internship coordinators could structure embedded reflection modules in core professional skills\u0026mdash;such as source checking, ethical judgment, and editorial judgment\u0026mdash;which may enhance the authenticity and professionalism of writing assignments. Embedded assignments within internship evaluation could promote more continuous and real-time learning, rather than restricting reflection to post-hoc portfolio submission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, since reflective thinking was associated with particular subdimensions of critical thinking\u0026mdash;namely Interpretation and Self-Regulation\u0026mdash;journalism education could benefit from incorporating more metacognitive instruction. Curricula might include stand-alone courses on models of reflection (e.g., Gibbs' Cycle), peer review workshops, and guided debriefings after field assignments. These learning exercises may help students break down their thinking, become more aware of biases, and gradually develop independent judgment\u0026mdash;skills that are increasingly important in today\u0026rsquo;s misinformation economy and polarized media environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, the role of writing prompt structure as a potential cognitive regulator suggests that journalism education could incorporate design-based pedagogies, in which instructional instruments are purposefully designed to scaffold levels of cognitive complexity. For example, semi-structured prompts might be utilized in initial field experiences to provoke critical questioning and open-ended analysis, whereas structured prompts could be applied to facilitate ethical consideration and policy adherence in newsroom simulations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLastly, schools could try to incorporate reflective writing longitudinally throughout journalism curricula within a model of cognitive development. Instead of saving reflection for a single internship class, programs might scaffold reflective writing incrementally\u0026mdash;from initial awareness and description in the first year to more sophisticated analysis and value-based argumentation in the final year. Such curricular integration may facilitate cumulative skill development and could also contribute to reinforcing students\u0026rsquo; professional identity, enabling them to conceptualize their evolving vision of journalists\u0026rsquo; role in society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn total, the research offers potential practical insights for developing reflective depth and critical engagement in journalism education. Through differentiated and purposeful prompt design, educators may help students more effectively combine experience with insight, ultimately supporting their development from student writers to reflective, ethical media practitioners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of this study should be acknowledged.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, the sample consisted of 89 journalism undergraduates from a single university in northern China. This relatively small and homogeneous group may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines, regions, or professional contexts. Replicating this design across larger and more diverse populations would help test the robustness of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the study covered only one internship cycle (approximately three months) and employed a cross-sectional design. Such a design limits the ability to infer causal relationships or to capture long-term developmental trajectories. Longitudinal research would be required to provide more nuanced perspectives on how reflective and critical thinking evolve over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, although expert-coded quantitative measures were applied to assess reflective writing, these metrics inevitably involve subjectivity and may not fully capture the richness of students\u0026rsquo; reasoning processes. Future research could complement quantitative scoring with qualitative approaches such as thematic analysis of reflective texts, interviews, or focus groups to obtain a deeper understanding of learners\u0026rsquo; thought patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, the study did not examine potentially influential variables such as prior knowledge, writing proficiency, media exposure, or individual differences in metacognitive ability. These factors may confound or moderate the observed relationships and should be included in future designs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, because the measures relied on student self-reports through reflective writing, the possibility of social desirability bias cannot be excluded. Moreover, the findings are embedded within the cultural and institutional context of Chinese journalism education, which may limit their applicability to different educational or cultural environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research provides insights into how reflective writing interventions, and more particularly prompt design, may influence cognitive growth in journalism education. By exploring the impact of unstructured, semi-structured, and structured prompts on the reflective and critical thinking of journalism interns in professional placements, the study suggests an important role of prompt design in shaping experiential learning outcomes. Structured questions appeared to be more effective in fostering reflective thinking, and cognitive scaffolding seemed to support greater introspection. Semi-structured questions tended to be more effective in fostering critical thinking, indicating that instructional formats balancing guidance and learner control may better facilitate analytical reasoning and metacognitive skills. Reflective thinking emerged as a predictor of critical thinking, providing support for experiential learning theory and underscoring the value of creating reflection activities that encourage deeper engagement beyond superficial storytelling. While the overall moderating effect of writing task format on the reflective\u0026ndash;critical thinking dynamic was limited, interaction effects were found for two subdimensions of critical thinking\u0026mdash;Interpretation and Self-Regulation\u0026mdash;suggesting that instructional design may subtly influence certain aspects of cognitive development. Taken together, these findings provide potential theoretical insights and tentative practical implications for journalism educators. Incorporating semi-structured reflection activities in internship classes may help bridge the gap between classroom learning and practicum experience, promote more active learning, and encourage professional discernment. As journalism education increasingly emphasizes higher-order thinking capacities, this research highlights that how students are guided to think may be just as vital as what they are asked to think about.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of UCSI University, Malaysia (Reference code: IEC-2024-FOSSLA-0189). The approval was granted via the expedited pathway during the IEC meeting on 3 December 2024 (Cycle 2024-06). The scope of the approval covered all procedures involving human participants, including recruitment, data collection, and data analysis. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the IEC and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. A copy of the approval letter is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants, who were final-year journalism undergraduates enrolled at a public university in northern China. Consent was obtained on 14 January 2025, prior to the commencement of the internship period (February\u0026ndash;April 2025), by the principal investigator. Participants were informed about the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, procedures, potential risks, data usage, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. The scope of the consent covered participation in the study, the use of anonymized data for research purposes, and consent for publication of aggregated results. No identifying personal information was collected, and all data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eL.B. designed and conducted the study, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. G.F.D.-U. provided academic guidance throughout the research process and offered critical revisions. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality agreements with participants but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmadpour, N., Shariati, A., \u0026amp; Moghadam, M. P. (2025). Effect of narrative writing based on Gibbs\u0026rsquo; reflective model on the empathy and communication skills of nursing students. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkpur, U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100683\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlt, D., \u0026amp; Raichel, N. (2020). Reflective journaling and metacognitive awareness: Insights from a longitudinal study in higher education. Reflective Practice, 21(3), 289\u0026ndash;304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1716708\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlt, D., Raichel, N., \u0026amp; Naamati-Schneider, L. (2022). Higher education students\u0026rsquo; reflective journal writing and lifelong learning skills: Insights from an exploratory sequential study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 707168. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707168\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoud, D., \u0026amp; Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191\u0026ndash;206.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowman, M. (2021). A framework for scaffolding academic reflective writing in dentistry. European Journal of Dental Education, 25(1), 35\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12575\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCattaneo, A. A. P., \u0026amp; Motta, E. (2021). I reflect, therefore I am\u0026hellip; a good professional: On the relationship between reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action and professional performance in vocational education. Vocations and Learning, 14(2), 185\u0026ndash;204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09259-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath \u0026amp; Co.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDutta, S., He, M., \u0026amp; Tsang, D. C. W. (2023). Reflection and peer assessment to promote self-directed learning in higher education. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 11(3), 35\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.33495/jerr_v11i3.23.111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEzezika, O., \u0026amp; Johnston, N. (2023). Development and implementation of a reflective writing assignment for undergraduate students in a large public health biology course. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 9(2), 101\u0026ndash;115. https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211069993\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFacione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). American Philosophical Association.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGadsby, H. (2022). Fostering reflective practice in PGCE students through the use of reflective journals: Developing a typology for reflection. Reflective Practice, 23(3), 357\u0026ndash;368. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2028612\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGhanizadeh, A. (2016). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 71(6), 721\u0026ndash;737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Polytechnic.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarnieli-Miller, O., et al. (2021). The associations between reflective ability and communication skills among medical students. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(1), 92\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhoshgoftar, Z., \u0026amp; Barkhordari-Sharifabad, M. (2023). Medical students\u0026rsquo; reflective capacity and its role in their critical thinking disposition. BMC Medical Education, 23, 198. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04163-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C. C., Liu, S. J., Hwang, G. J., Tu, Y. F., \u0026amp; Wang, N. (2023). Engaging EFL students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking tendency and in-depth reflection in technology-based writing contexts: A peer assessment-incorporated automatic evaluation approach. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 13027\u0026ndash;13052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11697-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMann, K., Gordon, J., \u0026amp; MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595\u0026ndash;621.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinich, M., Loya, L., Culver, K. B., \u0026amp; Needle, J. P. (2024). A skills-driven approach to diversity, equity and inclusion in journalism curricula. Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2311312\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. RoutledgeFalmer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, K. H., Kam, B. S., \u0026amp; Yune, S. J. (2022). Changes in self-reflective thinking level in writing and educational needs of medical students: A longitudinal study. PLOS ONE, 17(1), e0262250. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262250\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaul, R., \u0026amp; Elder, L. (2020). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life (3rd ed.). Rowman \u0026amp; Littlefield.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRadović, S., Firssova, O., Hummel, H. G. K., \u0026amp; Vermeulen, M. (2023). Improving academic performance: Strengthening the relation between theory and practice through prompted reflection. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 139\u0026ndash;154. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211014411\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRipatti-Torniainen, L., \u0026amp; Mikkola, L. (2023). Journalism education as scientific education: Research university students\u0026rsquo; engagement with knowledge. Journalism Studies, 24(2), 270\u0026ndash;287. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2157317\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSch\u0026ouml;n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSzenes, E., \u0026amp; Tilakaratna, N. (2021). Deconstructing critical reflection in social work and business: Negotiating emotions and opinions in reflective writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100931.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVeine, S., Andersen, M. K., Andersen, N. H., Espenes, T. C., S\u0026oslash;yland, T. B., Wallin, P., \u0026amp; Reams, J. (2019). Reflection as a core student learning activity in higher education\u0026mdash;Insights from nearly two decades of academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(2), 147\u0026ndash;161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1659797\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWald, H. S., Borkan, J. M., Taylor, J. S., Anthony, D., \u0026amp; Reis, S. P. (2012). Fostering and evaluating reflective capacity in medical education: Developing the REFLECT rubric for assessing reflective writing. Academic Medicine, 87(1), 41\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31823b55fa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, A., Guglietti, M. V., \u0026amp; Haney, S. (2017). Journalism students\u0026rsquo; professional identity in the making: Implications for education and practice. Journalism, 18(6), 725\u0026ndash;741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917692344\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoldt, J. L., \u0026amp; Nenad, M. W. (2021). Reflective writing in dental education to improve critical thinking and learning: A systematic review. Journal of Dental Education, 85(7), 778\u0026ndash;785. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12561\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYeh, H.-C., Yang, S.-H., \u0026amp; Chang, J. (2021). Developing college students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking through reflective writing. Higher Education Research \u0026amp; Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2043247\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"journalism education, Experiential learning, Quality education, Skills development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850000/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850000/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eReflective and critical thinking are essential cognitive competencies for journalism students navigating the complex and high-pressure demands of news reporting. Although reflective writing is widely recognized as a catalyst for cognitive development in experiential learning contexts, the influence of writing prompt structure on reflection quality and critical reasoning remains underexplored. This quasi-experimental study investigates the effects of three types of reflective writing prompts\u0026mdash;unstructured, semi-structured, and fully structured\u0026mdash;on journalism interns' reflective and critical thinking competencies. Eighty-eight senior journalism students from a Chinese university were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups and completed six reflective reports over a three-month internship. Reflective thinking was evaluated using the REFLECT rubric, while critical thinking was assessed based on Facione\u0026rsquo;s six-dimension framework. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed that writing prompt structure significantly influenced both cognitive outcomes: fully structured prompts produced the highest reflective thinking scores, whereas semi-structured prompts led to the highest critical thinking scores. Linear regression analysis confirmed that reflective thinking significantly predicted critical thinking performance (R\u0026sup2; = .209, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Moderation analysis indicated no significant interaction effect of writing prompt structure on overall critical thinking; however, significant moderating effects were observed on the Interpretation and Self-Regulation subdimensions. These findings advance experiential learning and reflective practice theories by elucidating how varying levels of writing scaffolds influence cognitive development. The study underscores the value of semi-structured reflective tasks in fostering deep analytical reasoning while preserving learner autonomy and offers evidence-based guidance for designing cognitive scaffolds in journalism internship programs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Scaffolding Reflective and Critical Thinking through Writing Prompts: Evidence from Journalism Internships","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-07 09:14:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6850000/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dd923102-0401-4586-97b3-cbe7e7470267","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":57155742,"name":"Humanities/Cultural and media studies"},{"id":57155743,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":57155744,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-11T10:57:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-07 09:14:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6850000","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6850000","identity":"rs-6850000","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}