This compelling research addresses a serious gap that is commonly found in instructional practice, particularly with student teachers. This well-written paper is supported by a wealth of relevant literature and a decent experimental methodology. That being said, this review also presents some of my concerns.

The title of the paper could include words that better reflect the work it reports, such as including “classroom” before “teaching practice.” Also, the experiment only involves eight participants, which is a rather low number for quantitative analysis.

The technology is quite comprehensive and addresses most of the requirements of self-reflection. However, Kong fails to comment on how much of an interruption it is for the student teachers to interact with the software on the teacher’s console. While I suspect it is quite negligible, it should still be addressed. Also, more information is needed on the privacy of the recorded videos. For example, is it possible for someone other than the student teacher to look at the videos? How secure is the Web database?

In Section 3.1, the author mentions three tasks completed by the student teachers. Although Kong states that “the third task was to refine their teaching plans,” it is unclear to readers whether the student teachers produced an initial teaching plan prior to the start of the experiment. Furthermore, is this teaching plan a part of the notes “the student teachers made before and after browsing videos of their teaching[?]”

I also have a few concerns regarding the quantity and depth of the reflective notes. Section 3.2 indicates that “every reflective note in each form was classified into its appropriate dimension and then the evaluation item to which it belonged for the subsequent scoring process.” Is the principal investigator of this research involved in the coding process? I suspect not. The author should have added a statement to this effect to alleviate concerns about this bias.

Although the results of the study are quite significant, it requires further confirmation, including additional studies that involve more participants. In spite of its weaknesses, Kong’s work should directly affect (and enhance) instructors’ teaching experiences. Therefore, I recommend this paper.