Page 415 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

The Reflective Sandwich Method: A Cognitive-Dialogic Framework
for Enhancing Research Competence among Pre-service Teachers in

Negros Oriental State University (2023–2025)
Regidor T. Carale, Ed.D., Ph.D.

Associate Dean College of Teacher Education Negros Oriental State University

1College of Teacher Education, 2Negros Oriental State University, 3Kagawasan Avenue, Dumaguete
City, Negros Oriental, Philippines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000039

Received: 15 October 2025; Accepted: 22 October 2025; Published: 31 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This capstone critically examines the Reflective Sandwich Method, a pedagogical innovation conceptualized
by Dr. Regidor T. Carale, designed as a Cognitive-Dialogic framework to cultivate research competence,
reflective thinking, and scholarly autonomy among pre-service teachers at Negros Oriental State University.
Implemented from 2023 to 2025, the study systematically investigates the method’s conceptual underpinnings,
operational techniques, pedagogical strengths, and implementation challenges. Grounded in principles of
reflective practice and dialogic cognition, the Reflective Sandwich Method integrates structured stages of
research instruction with reflective discourse and feedback loops, allowing learners to critically engage with
both process and content. This iterative structure fosters deeper understanding, promotes intellectual resilience,
and enhances the learner’s capacity for independent scholarly inquiry. Findings reveal that the framework
bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical research skills, reinforcing metacognitive
awareness and collaborative reflection as vital components of teacher education. Moreover, the Cognitive-
Dialogic dimension underscores the importance of dialogical feedback—where teacher and student co-construct
meaning through guided reflection and evaluative dialogue. As a result, pre-service teachers demonstrate
improved competence in research design, analytical reasoning, and critical interpretation. Ultimately, the
Reflective Sandwich Method emerges as a dynamic and contextually responsive model for advancing research
pedagogy within teacher education programs, offering a replicable framework for cultivating reflective
scholarship and academic rigor in higher education.

Keywords: Reflective Sandwich Method, Cognitive-Dialogic Framework, Research Competence, Reflective
Practice, Pre-service Teacher Education, Negros Oriental State University

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The rapidly evolving landscape of higher education necessitates pedagogical innovations that bridge the gap
between structured academic instruction and reflective inquiry. In the field of research education, there is a
growing recognition that effective learning requires not only methodological competence but also the cultivation
of reflective and critical thinking skills. As educational paradigms shift toward inquiry-based and learner-
centered frameworks, the challenge for teacher educators is to develop instructional approaches that integrate
structure, cognition, and reflection into a cohesive model of learning.

One such pedagogical innovation is the Sandwich Method, conceptualized by Carale (2018). Rooted in principles
of reflective and dialogic pedagogy, this method provides a balanced approach to research instruction by
combining structured inquiry with reflective feedback and self-assessment. The method metaphorically
“sandwiches” empirical realities between ideals and reflective processes—allowing learners to navigate between

Page 416 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

what is known, what is experienced, and what is critically understood. It promotes a systematic yet flexible
learning environment in which feedback and reflection are not peripheral but integral to the research process.

Despite its growing application in undergraduate research settings, the Sandwich Method has received limited
scholarly examination regarding its epistemic, cognitive, and reflective foundations, particularly within teacher
education. Existing literature focuses primarily on its procedural functions rather than its theoretical implications
for developing metacognition, dialogic reasoning, and scholarly autonomy. This gap underscores the need to
investigate the method as a Cognitive-Dialogic framework—a model that situates learning within dialogical
interaction and reflective cognition, where understanding is co-constructed between teacher and student through
guided discourse and iterative feedback.

In teacher education, pre-service teachers represent a distinct group of learners who must master not only
research competencies but also the intellectual and reflective dispositions essential for professional practice.
Their role as future educators demands a higher level of analytical thinking, self-awareness, and responsiveness
to feedback. However, traditional modes of research instruction often emphasize technical procedures at the
expense of reflective engagement, leading to surface-level understanding rather than deep learning. The
Reflective Sandwich Method addresses this gap by embedding reflective dialogue at every stage of the research
process—from conceptualization and literature synthesis to analysis and interpretation. Through this recursive
and dialogic process, pre-service teachers learn to integrate theory with practice, critique their assumptions, and
develop a sustained reflective habit of mind.

Within the institutional context of Negros Oriental State University, this pedagogical approach gains particular
significance. As a higher education institution committed to advancing quality teacher preparation, the university
recognizes the importance of research as both a professional competency and a transformative practice. The
implementation of the Reflective Sandwich Method in research instruction seeks to strengthen the intellectual
and reflective capacities of pre-service teachers, enabling them to become critical thinkers, effective researchers,
and transformative educators.

Hence, this study examines the Reflective Sandwich Method as a Cognitive-Dialogic pedagogical model for
enhancing research competence among pre-service teachers at Negros Oriental State University. Conducted over
two academic years (2023–2025), the investigation explores the method’s features, pedagogical mechanisms,
strengths, and challenges. By situating the framework within a reflective and dialogic paradigm, the study aims
to contribute to the discourse on research-based teacher education and reflective pedagogy. Ultimately, it aspires
to establish the Reflective Sandwich Method as a transformative and sustainable model that not only enhances
research proficiency but also nurtures critical reflection, intellectual autonomy, and scholarly engagement among
future educators.

Statement of the Problem

While the Sandwich Method has been recognized for its strengths in balancing qualitative and quantitative
research approaches, providing constructive feedback, and structuring research outputs, limited studies have
examined its features, techniques, and strengths as experienced by BTE students in higher education. There is a
need to explore how this method influences students’ research practices, academic writing, feedback
mechanisms, and overall learning development. Specifically, it answers the following question:

1. What are the features of the Sandwich Method as experienced by the Pre-service Teachers students?
2. What techniques do Pre-service Teachers follow when using the Sandwich Method in the formulation and
identification of research problem?
3. What are the strengths and benefits of the Sandwich Method in the development of skills and techniques in
conducting research by Pre-service Teachers?
4. How does the Sandwich Method enhance feedback delivery and research formulation?
5. What challenges and limitations do Pre-service Teachers encounter in applying the Sandwich Method?

Page 417 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The Reflective Sandwich Method is grounded in the principles of Constructivist Learning Theory (Piaget,
1973; Vygotsky, 1978) and Reflective Practice Theory (Schön, 1983), both of which emphasize learning as an
active, dialogic, and meaning-making process. Constructivism posits that knowledge is not transmitted but
constructed through interaction between the learner and the environment. In this view, learning occurs as
individuals reconcile new experiences with existing cognitive schemas, resulting in deeper conceptual
understanding and transformation. Within research pedagogy, this means that pre-service teachers develop
competence not merely through procedural instruction but through engagement in authentic inquiry, reflection,
and feedback.

Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory further reinforces this foundation by situating learning within the Zone
of Proximal Development (ZPD), where cognitive growth is facilitated through social interaction and guided
dialogue. The dialogic nature of the Reflective Sandwich Method mirrors this process, as the teacher–researcher
relationship becomes a collaborative partnership in constructing meaning. Through structured feedback and
reflective exchange, learners progress from dependent engagement to independent scholarly inquiry.

Complementing this constructivist foundation, Schön’s (1983) Reflective Practice model highlights the cyclical
process of “reflection-in-action” and “reflection-on-action.” These reflective dimensions are integral to the
Sandwich Method’s design, enabling learners to continuously evaluate their research assumptions, methods, and
interpretations while receiving targeted guidance. Reflection thus becomes both a cognitive and affective process
that deepens understanding and promotes intellectual autonomy.

Building upon these theoretical underpinnings, the Enhanced Sandwich Framework conceptualizes research
learning as a triadic interaction among three interdependent dimensions:

Cognitive Structuring, Reflective Praxis, and Dialogic Engagement.

Cognitive Structuring refers to the systematic organization of ideas, processes, and concepts that scaffold
research development. It ensures that inquiry follows coherent, evidence-based logic while maintaining
intellectual rigor.

Reflective Praxis involves the integration of self-assessment and critical reflection into each stage of the
research process. It allows learners to internalize their learning experiences, interrogate biases, and construct
new meanings from empirical evidence.

Dialogic Engagement emphasizes the reciprocal exchange of insights between mentor and learner through
constructive feedback and collaborative dialogue. This interaction transforms feedback from evaluative
commentary into co-constructed knowledge.

Together, these dimensions form a Cognitive-Dialogic system in which reflection, structure, and dialogue
converge to enhance research competence. The framework thus positions the Reflective Sandwich Method not
only as a pedagogical tool but as a transformative epistemological model—one that cultivates reflective
scholarship, critical thinking, and autonomous inquiry among pre-service teachers. By integrating constructivist
and reflective theories into a cohesive pedagogical design, the model advances a more holistic understanding of
how research competence is developed within higher education contexts.

Building upon the foundations of Constructivist Learning Theory and Reflective Practice, the Enhanced
Sandwich Framework conceptualizes research learning as a triadic and interactive system composed of three
interdependent dimensions: Cognitive Structuring, Reflective Praxis, and Dialogic Engagement. Together,
these dimensions establish the Cognitive-Dialogic system at the heart of the Reflective Sandwich Method—
where knowledge is constructed through structured inquiry, reflective self-assessment, and collaborative
meaning-making.

Page 418 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Figure 1. The Sandwich Method Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Cognitive Structuring

Cognitive Structuring constitutes the foundational dimension of the framework, serving as the intellectual
architecture that supports systematic inquiry and disciplined thought. It involves the deliberate organization of
knowledge, the formulation of research questions, and the alignment of methodological choices with theoretical
foundations. Within this dimension, pre-service teachers are guided to think critically and logically, ensuring
that their research processes are grounded in coherent, evidence-based reasoning.

This structuring process promotes epistemic discipline—the learner’s ability to navigate between descriptive
and analytical levels of thought, to distinguish between observation and interpretation, and to synthesize
theoretical and empirical insights. It fosters intellectual rigor by situating inquiry within a systematic sequence
of conceptualization, investigation, and validation. As a cognitive scaffold, it provides the structure within which
reflection and dialogue can meaningfully occur.

Reflective Praxis

Reflective Praxis represents the transformative core of the Enhanced Sandwich Framework. Drawing from
Schön’s (1983) reflective practice theory, this dimension emphasizes the integration of reflection-in-action
(real-time critical thinking during the research process) and reflection-on-action (post-analysis of learning
experiences and outcomes). Within research learning, this means that pre-service teachers are not passive
recipients of methods but active participants in reconstructing their own understanding.

Through reflective praxis, learners interrogate their assumptions, confront cognitive dissonance, and reconstruct
meaning from both success and error. Reflection becomes an act of metacognitive regulation—the ability to
think about one’s thinking and to strategically adjust one’s cognitive approaches to research challenges. This
continuous reflexivity deepens comprehension, nurtures self-directed learning, and cultivates a scholarly
disposition oriented toward critical inquiry.

Moreover, reflective praxis situates the learner’s personal and professional growth within the research process
itself. By engaging in systematic self-assessment, learners connect empirical observation with personal insight,
thereby developing a richer, more authentic engagement with knowledge construction.

Dialogic Engagement

Dialogic Engagement serves as the social and relational dimension of the framework, embodying Vygotsky’s
(1978) sociocultural principle that learning is mediated through dialogue and interaction. It involves the
reciprocal exchange of perspectives between teacher and learner, where feedback is not unidirectional but co-
constructed through reflective conversation.

Cognitive
Structuri

Dialogic
Engagemen

Sandwich
Method

(Carale,
2018)

Reflectiv
e Praxis

Page 419 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

In this dialogic space, mentors function as cognitive partners who guide learners through the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD)—the space between what learners can do independently and what they can achieve with
expert guidance. Feedback thus transcends evaluation; it becomes a collaborative process of joint meaning-
making, enabling the learner to articulate, defend, and refine ideas within a supportive intellectual community.

Dialogic engagement also nurtures affective and interpersonal dimensions of learning. It validates the learner’s
voice, fosters academic confidence, and models the ethical and communicative aspects of scholarly discourse.
By engaging in sustained dialogue, learners develop the discursive competence required to articulate arguments,
negotiate meanings, and engage critically with peers and mentors.

Integrative Dynamics of the Framework

When synthesized, Cognitive Structuring, Reflective Praxis, and Dialogic Engagement form a recursive and
self-reinforcing system that continuously refines both knowledge and cognition. Cognitive structuring provides
the intellectual framework for inquiry; reflective praxis deepens personal and epistemic insight; and dialogic
engagement ensures that these insights are tested, refined, and co-constructed through interaction.

This triadic system aligns with the Cognitive-Dialogic Model of Learning, where understanding emerges from
the dynamic interplay of internal reflection and external dialogue. It embodies the constructivist principle that
knowledge is actively built through contextualized experience and guided mediation. Within this system, the
Reflective Sandwich Method operates not simply as a teaching technique but as a transformative
epistemological model—one that redefines research learning as an integrative process of cognition, reflection,
and communication.

Ultimately, the Enhanced Sandwich Framework provides a holistic lens through which research competence
can be developed in teacher education. It cultivates pre-service teachers who are not only methodologically
skilled but also reflective, dialogic, and critically engaged scholars—capable of bridging theory and practice,
reason and reflection, and learning and teaching.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The evolving landscape of higher education increasingly demands pedagogical frameworks that integrate
structure, reflection, and interaction to enhance research competence among pre-service teachers. In the context
of teacher education, these competencies encompass not only methodological skills but also critical reasoning,
reflective judgment, and dialogic engagement. The Sandwich Method, conceptualized by Carale (2018), aligns
with the global movement toward reflective and scaffolded learning approaches. By bridging empirical
observation with reflective inquiry, it “sandwiches” realities and ideals through structured feedback cycles and
systematic research formulation.

Existing models—such as Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Cycle, Gibbs’ (1988) Reflective Cycle, and
Schön’s (1983) Reflective Practice Framework—share the same epistemic stance: that learners construct
knowledge through iterative cycles of experience, reflection, and re-application. However, few studies have
investigated how these cycles may be formalized into a structured yet dialogic research pedagogy in teacher
education contexts, particularly in the Philippines. Hence, this chapter reviews empirical and theoretical
literature surrounding three core dimensions of the Enhanced Sandwich Framework—Cognitive Structuring,
Reflective Praxis, and Dialogic Engagement—which collectively form a cognitive-dialogic model for
developing research competence.

Cognitive Structuring and Scaffolding in Research Learning Cognitive Structuring refers to the systematic
organization of ideas and processes that enable learners to build coherent, evidence-based research frameworks.
Foundational theorists such as Piaget (1973) and Bruner (1960) assert that learning occurs through the
progressive internalization of cognitive schemas, guided by active discovery and scaffolded instruction. In this
light, Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development provides a sociocognitive rationale for
scaffolding: learners perform more complex cognitive tasks through guided support until mastery is achieved.

Page 420 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) reinforced this idea through Cognitive Load Theory, demonstrating that
novices benefit from explicit instructional guidance rather than unguided discovery. Similarly, Hmelo-Silver
(2004) emphasized that structured inquiry, rather than open-ended problem solving, promotes higher-order
understanding in professional education. Biggs and Tang (2011) further established that constructive
alignment—linking learning objectives, activities, and assessments—optimizes the cognitive structure of
academic inquiry.

In research learning, cognitive structuring manifests through frameworks that help learners define research
problems, formulate hypotheses, and align theoretical and methodological perspectives. Renner and Muis (2014)
provided empirical evidence that cognitive scaffolds improve problem-solving skills and analytical rigor by
prompting students to make explicit their reasoning processes. Perkins (1992) and Ramsden (2003) likewise
argued that intellectual rigor emerges from structured opportunities to connect abstract theories with practical
contexts, an essential goal of the Sandwich Method.

Local studies echo these findings. Salazar-Clemeña (2019) and Santos and Gonzales (2016) observed that
Filipino pre-service teachers often struggle with conceptual framing and methodological consistency in research
writing. These difficulties point to the need for explicit cognitive scaffolds such as those embedded in Carale’s
(2018) Sandwich Method, which guides learners from topic formulation to argument synthesis through
structured feedback.

Reflective Praxis and the Development of Research Competence

Reflection lies at the heart of scholarly inquiry. Schön (1983) defined Reflective Praxis as the process by which
professionals think critically about their actions to improve future practice. Dewey (1916/1997) earlier described
reflection as the “active, persistent, and careful consideration” of beliefs in light of supporting evidence.
Extending this perspective, Brookfield (1995) and Mezirow (1991) emphasized reflection’s transformative
function, where learners interrogate assumptions, reframe experiences, and derive new meaning from empirical
observation.

Empirical studies in teacher education confirm that reflective practice enhances analytical and methodological
awareness. Loughran (2002) demonstrated that modelled reflection helps pre-service teachers internalize
research reasoning, while Korthagen (2010) proposed a realistic teacher education model that links reflective
thinking directly to classroom action. Similarly, Zeichner and Liston (2014) and Darling-Hammond and
Bransford (2005) identified reflective inquiry as a central competency of effective teacher education.

Reflection also functions as a metacognitive regulation process. Flavell (1979) introduced metacognition as
awareness and control of one’s thinking processes, and Zimmerman (2002) and Hadwin, Järvelä, and Miller
(2011) extended this into self-regulated and co-regulated learning frameworks. These studies show that
metacognitive reflection enables learners to monitor understanding, set goals, and self-correct—outcomes
essential for independent research competence.

Page 421 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

In the Sandwich Method, Reflective Praxis is intentionally embedded at each research phase: topic selection,
data analysis, and interpretation. Carale (2018) observed that structured reflection prompts allow learners to
question assumptions, validate findings, and transform feedback into actionable insights. This mirrors Kolb’s
(1984) experiential cycle, where reflective observation mediates between concrete experience and abstract
conceptualization.

Collectively, these studies suggest that embedding systematic reflection within a scaffolded research framework
enhances not only procedural competence but also epistemic awareness—an understanding of how knowledge
is produced and justified. This theoretical synergy forms the reflective backbone of the Enhanced Sandwich
Framework.

Dialogic Engagement and Feedback as Co-construction

Dialogic Engagement operationalizes Vygotskian and Bakhtinian principles of social learning. Bakhtin (1981)
introduced the concept of dialogism to describe how meaning emerges through interaction and exchange of
perspectives. Mercer (2000) and Alexander (2008) later extended this concept into education, demonstrating that
dialogic teaching fosters reasoning, collaboration, and shared knowledge construction.

In feedback research, dialogic engagement transforms assessment from a one-way transmission to a reciprocal
conversation. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) identified seven principles of good feedback practice that
enhance self-regulation, emphasizing dialogue and feedforward strategies. Carless (2015) and Nicol (2010)
further argued that feedback becomes meaningful only when learners actively interpret and negotiate it through
dialogue. Hattie and Timperley (2007) confirmed through meta-analysis that feedback is most powerful when it
addresses three questions—Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next?—which correspond to goal-
setting, monitoring, and improvement.

Empirical studies reinforce these findings. Winstone, Nash, Parker, and Rowntree (2017) revealed that students’
engagement with feedback depends on their beliefs about its value and the presence of structured opportunities
for discussion. Kaye and McEntee (2020) and Kogan and Shea (2007) explored variations of the “feedback
sandwich,” showing that when dialogic interaction accompanies the traditional praise–critique–praise sequence,
learner motivation and uptake increase significantly.

From a sociocultural perspective, Hadwin et al. (2011) and Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that learning occurs
through legitimate peripheral participation, where dialogue mediates the transition from novice to expert. In
research supervision contexts, McAlpine and Harris (2019) found that doctoral students who received dialogic
mentorship developed greater conceptual clarity and scholarly independence.

The Enhanced Sandwich Framework thus situates dialogic engagement as an interactive system that links
structure and reflection. By transforming feedback into dialogue, mentors and learners co-construct knowledge,
leading to more meaningful revisions and deeper cognitive investment.

Integrative Cognitive-Dialogic Perspective

Synthesizing the above strands, the Enhanced Sandwich Framework integrates Cognitive Structuring (logical
scaffolding of research inquiry), Reflective Praxis (critical self-assessment and meaning-making), and Dialogic
Engagement (interactive feedback and co-construction). This triadic system echoes Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick’s
(2006) feedback model, Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, and Kolb’s (1984) experiential cycle—each
emphasizing cyclical learning, reflection, and transformation.

Empirical and theoretical evidence collectively affirm that integrating structure, reflection, and dialogue
enhances learners’ research competence, critical thinking, and self-regulation (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;
Loughran, 2002; Nicol, 2010). However, current literature remains limited in examining how these dynamics
unfold in Philippine teacher education. Studies by Salazar-Clemeña (2019) and Santos and Gonzales (2016)
highlight ongoing challenges in feedback culture, research supervision, and reflective learning, thereby
underscoring the need for contextualized frameworks such as Carale’s Reflective Sandwich Method.

Page 422 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Ultimately, the reviewed literature supports the notion that the Cognitive-Dialogic Framework serves not only
as a pedagogical model but also as an epistemological stance—one that redefines research learning as a dynamic
interplay of structure, reflection, and dialogue. This synthesis provides the theoretical foundation for the present
study, which aims to empirically validate the Sandwich Method as a transformative tool for cultivating research
competence among pre-service teachers in the Philippine higher education context.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employs a Qualitative Phenomenological–Comparative Design across multiple academic cohorts
(2023–2026) at Negros Oriental State University. The choice of phenomenology is grounded in the intent to
explore the lived experiences and meaning-making processes of pre-service teachers as they engage with the
Reflective Sandwich Method in research instruction. Phenomenology allows the researcher to uncover how
participants interpret their cognitive, reflective, and dialogic encounters within the structured framework
developed by Carale (2018).

Simultaneously, the comparative component permits examination of evolving experiences across cohorts who
have undergone varying phases of the Sandwich Method’s implementation. This design makes it possible to
identify patterns, transformations, and persistent challenges in how reflective learning and feedback processes
are internalized.

The study is interpretive in nature and anchored in Constructivist–Interpretivist epistemology (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Creswell & Poth, 2018). It assumes that knowledge and meaning are co-constructed between researcher
and participants through dialogue and reflection—mirroring the Cognitive-Dialogic principles underpinning the
Enhanced Sandwich Framework. Therefore, qualitative inquiry becomes both method and metaphor: the
research process itself reflects the iterative cycles of structure, reflection, and dialogue that characterize the
pedagogical model under study.

Research Locale

The study is conducted at Negros Oriental State University (NORSU), College of Teacher Education,
Dumaguete City, Philippines. NORSU serves as an ideal research setting due to its strong commitment to
inquiry-based teacher education and its institutional integration of research pedagogy in undergraduate curricula.
The College of Teacher Education (CTE) has implemented Carale’s Sandwich Method as part of its research
instruction from 2023 onward, making it an authentic environment for observing the framework’s effects on
reflective learning and research competence.

Participants and Sampling

Participants will be purposively selected from pre-service teacher cohorts enrolled in Bachelor of Elementary
Education (BEED) and Bachelor of Technology Education (BTE) programs between academic years 2023–
2025. The selection criteria include:

1. Completion of at least one research course using the Sandwich Method framework.

2. Active engagement in the reflective and feedback components (journals, consultations, or peer
dialogues).

3. Willingness to participate in focus group discussions and reflective interviews.

Approximately 5-7 participants (per academic year) will be selected, ensuring representation across cohorts to
capture longitudinal insights. This sample size is consistent with phenomenological saturation standards
(Creswell & Poth, 2018), where depth of description rather than numerical breadth defines rigor.

Page 423 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Demographic data (e.g., major, year level, gender, prior research experience) will be documented to enable
comparative analysis between subgroups. Ethical considerations—such as informed consent, confidentiality, and
voluntary participation—will be strictly observed following CHED and university research ethics protocols.

Data Collection Instruments

1. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guide

The FGD guide is designed to elicit collective reflections on how participants experienced the Sandwich
Method’s structured feedback and reflective cycles. Open-ended prompts will explore:

 Perceptions of clarity, sequence, and intellectual challenge in the Sandwich steps.

 Experiences of reflection, feedback, and self-assessment.

 Dialogic interactions with mentors and peers.

 Perceived impact on research competence, confidence, and scholarly independence.

FGDs will be conducted per cohort to facilitate peer-supported reflection and shared meaning-making. Each
session (60–90 minutes) will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

2. Reflective Journals

Participants’ written journals—maintained throughout their research coursework—will serve as primary
introspective data sources. These journals document evolving thoughts, affective responses, and conceptual
shifts during research formulation, data analysis, and presentation.
Reflective prompts are based on Carale’s (2018) original Sandwich Steps, adapted to highlight Cognitive
Structuring (organization of research ideas), Reflective Praxis (insight and metacognition), and Dialogic
Engagement (response to feedback). The journals thus provide longitudinal evidence of how pre-service teachers
internalize research processes.

3. Semi-Structured Reflective Interview Protocol

To complement the FGDs, individual interviews (30–45 minutes each) will be conducted to deepen
understanding of participants’ personal narratives. The interview protocol will follow van Manen’s (1990)
phenomenological method—eliciting concrete stories rather than abstract opinions. Interview questions will
probe how participants constructed meaning from the Sandwich experience, integrated feedback, and
transformed their approach to research.

4. Thematic Coding Framework

The Thematic Coding Framework will be developed from Carale’s (2018) Comprehensive Sandwich Steps and
aligned with the Enhanced Sandwich Framework’s three interlocking dimensions:

 Cognitive Structuring: Identifying how learners organize research problems, literature, and methodology.

 Reflective Praxis: Recognizing expressions of insight, realization, and shifts in understanding.

 Dialogic Engagement: Tracing feedback interactions and the co-construction of knowledge.

This framework serves both as an analytic lens and as a validation mechanism, ensuring internal consistency
between theory, pedagogy, and data interpretation.

Comprehensive Steps in the Sandwich Method

(Adapted from Carale, 2018)

Page 424 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

The Sandwich Method by Regidor T. Carale, Ed.D., Ph.D.-CDDS provides a sequenced yet reflective structure
for research instruction. It is called “sandwich” because it interleaves three essential pedagogical phases—
positive reinforcement, constructive critique, and reflective synthesis—within every instructional encounter. The
comprehensive steps include:

Presentation of Research Idea (Base Layer): Learners articulate initial research concepts and identify real-
world educational issues. Mentors provide guiding questions to ensure alignment with curricular goals.

Reflective Framing (Filling 1): Students critically examine existing literature, connecting theoretical
frameworks to contextual realities. Reflection focuses on identifying “what is” versus “what should be,”
anchoring inquiry in authentic problems.

Constructive Feedback and Dialogic Review (Core Filling): Teachers and peers provide targeted feedback.
Dialogue replaces monologue, transforming critique into collaborative problem-solving. This aligns with
Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of socially mediated learning.

Revision and Synthesis (Upper Layer): Students integrate feedback and reframe their understanding, applying
reflective insights to improve their research designs. This phase embodies Kolb’s (1984) abstract
conceptualization stage.

Presentation and Reflection (Meta-Slice): Learners present their revised work, followed by guided reflection
sessions. Reflection journals and FGDs capture metacognitive awareness—how the learners’ thinking evolved
throughout the process.

These steps operationalize the Cognitive-Dialogic Model—each phase alternating between structure (cognitive
scaffold), reflection (self-assessment), and dialogue (interactive learning). As such, the Sandwich Method
functions simultaneously as a teaching model and data structure for analysis.

Data Collection Procedure

Data will be gathered in three iterative stages corresponding to the Sandwich Method’s pedagogical cycles:

Initial Reflection Phase: Baseline reflective journals and initial FGDs will document participants’
preconceptions about research learning and feedback practices.

Mid-Process Dialogue Phase: Midterm FGDs and reflective interviews will focus on the dialogic exchange
between students and mentors. This stage captures real-time negotiation of meaning during research revisions.

Post-Sandwich Integration Phase: End-of-course FGDs and final journals will assess participants’ overall
transformation—changes in research confidence, conceptual understanding, and reflective depth.

Throughout these stages, the researcher assumes a participant-observer role, maintaining reflexive field notes
and memos to triangulate findings and preserve contextual authenticity.

Data Analysis Procedure

Data will be analyzed using Thematic Phenomenological Analysis (TPA) following Moustakas (1994) and
Braun & Clarke (2006). Steps include:

1. Bracketing (Epoché): Setting aside researcher biases to focus on participants’ authentic meanings.

2. Horizontalization: Extracting significant statements from transcripts and journals.

3. Clustering of Meaning Units: Grouping statements into thematic categories corresponding to cognitive
structuring, reflective praxis, and dialogic engagement.

Page 425 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

4. Textural Description: Describing what participants experienced during the Sandwich Method.

5. Structural Description: Describing how these experiences occurred (interactions, reflections, processes).

6. Composite Essence: Synthesizing individual experiences into a unified narrative that defines the lived
meaning of the Sandwich Method in research learning.

The Thematic Coding Framework will guide interpretation, ensuring fidelity to Carale’s pedagogical sequence
and the theoretical constructs established in Chapter II.

Trustworthiness and Rigor

To ensure credibility and dependability, the study will employ Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria of
trustworthiness:

 Credibility: Member checking and peer debriefing will verify interpretive accuracy.

 Transferability: Rich, thick descriptions of context and participants will allow comparison across cohorts.

 Dependability: Audit trails will document decision-making processes during coding.

 Confirmability: Reflexive journaling will safeguard against researcher bias.

Triangulation among FGDs, interviews, and journals will enhance validity by cross-verifying themes emerging
from multiple sources.

Ethical Considerations

All research procedures will adhere to the ethical standards set by the Negros Oriental State University Research
Ethics Committee. Participants will be informed of the study’s objectives, voluntary nature, and confidentiality
protocols. Written consent will be obtained before data collection. Pseudonyms will be used to ensure anonymity,
and all data will be securely stored following institutional guidelines. The study will avoid any coercive academic
influence, ensuring that participation (or non-participation) does not affect students’ grades or standing.

SUMMARY

Chapter III operationalizes the Enhanced Sandwich Framework into a qualitative methodological structure that
mirrors its theoretical underpinnings. The Phenomenological–Comparative Design allows exploration of pre-
service teachers’ evolving cognitive, reflective, and dialogic experiences over time. By aligning the data
collection instruments with Carale’s Sandwich Steps, the research ensures that its method of inquiry is congruent
with its epistemological stance. This approach positions the study not only as an evaluation of a pedagogical
model but also as a lived demonstration of the Cognitive-Dialogic process that the Sandwich Method seeks to
cultivate.

Sandwich Method Matrix by Regidor T. Carale, Ed.D., Ph.D.-CDDS

Page 426 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Comprehensive Steps in the Sandwich Method for Identifying a Research Problem (Carale, 2018)

Step 1. Observe and Identify the Problem. Begin by examining your environment, field, or area of practice to
identify a specific, observable issue that needs to be addressed.

 Purpose: To recognize the existence of a research-worthy concern grounded in real-life context.

 Output: Observed Problem (e.g., declining student engagement in online learning).

Step 2. Determine the Reality of the Observed Problem. Analyze the current condition or factual situation
related to the observed problem. This involves collecting initial descriptive data, reviewing literature, or
conducting informal interviews to describe “what is actually happening.”

 Purpose: To establish the current reality—the factual and objective state of the phenomenon.

 Output: Reality of the Observed Problem (e.g., Students report lack of motivation and interaction in
virtual classes).

Step 3. Articulate the Ideals of the Observed Problem. Define the ideal or desired condition—what should
be happening if the situation were functioning effectively.

 Purpose: To create a contrast between reality and ideal, which frames the research gap.

 Output: Ideals of the Observed Problem (e.g., Students should demonstrate high engagement and
meaningful participation in online classes).

Step 4. Translate the Realities into Specific Research Questions. Formulate specific research questions that
address the existing realities or deficiencies.

 Purpose: To translate factual observations into actionable, research-oriented inquiries.

 Output: Translated Specific Questions with the Realities

Example: “What factors contribute to students’ low motivation in online learning?”

Step 5. Translate the Ideals into Specific Research Questions. Formulate another set of questions that reflect
the ideal state—the aspirational goal or desired condition.

 Purpose: To explore conditions or practices that could lead to improvement.

 Output: Translated Specific Questions with the Ideals

Example: “What strategies can enhance students’ engagement in online learning?”

Page 427 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Step 6. Identify Possible Independent Variables. Identify possible independent variables (IVs) that may
influence or affect the perceptions of respondents regarding both the realities and ideals.

 Purpose: To conceptualize the variables that shape the observed phenomenon.

 Output: List of Independent Variables

Example: Demographic, Psychographic, Behavioral, and Geographic profile of the prospect respondents, etc.

Step 7. Translate the Independent and Dependent Variables into Specific Questions. Formulate new
specific research questions that integrate both the independent variables (causes or predictors) and dependent
variables (effects or outcomes) drawn from the realities and ideals.

 Purpose: To connect the theoretical variables with measurable research questions.

 Output: Translated Specific Questions based on IVs and DVs

Example:

 What is the Profile of the respondents in terms of the following:

o age

o sex

o educational attainment, etc

How does the instructor’s feedback influence students’ motivation in online learning?

Step 8. Classify Each Specific Question as Quantitative or Qualitative. Determine the nature of each
formulated question—whether it requires quantitative analysis (measurement, correlation, comparison) or
qualitative analysis (exploration, understanding, interpretation).

 Purpose: To align the research questions with appropriate methodology.

 Output: Identification of Questions as Quantitative or Qualitative

Example:

 Quantitative: “What is the relationship between instructor feedback and student motivation?”

 Qualitative: “How do students describe the role of feedback in maintaining motivation?”

Step 9. Formulate the Statement of the Problem. Synthesize the specific questions into a coherent Statement
of the Problem (SOP). This section should include both the general problem and the specific sub-questions that
emerged from the previous steps.

 Purpose: To formally articulate the central focus of the study.

 Output: Statement of the Problem (e.g., “This study aims to determine the relationship between instructor
feedback and student motivation in online learning environments.”)

Step 10. Propose or Draft the Research Title

Derive a clear, concise, and descriptive research title based on the Statement of the Problem and the identified
specific questions.

Page 428 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

 Purpose: To summarize the research focus in a manner that reflects both the variables and context.

 Output: Proposed Title

Example: “Instructor Feedback and Student Motivation in Online Learning: A Correlational Study.”

Synthesis of the Process

The Sandwich Method in identifying a research problem functions as a structured yet reflective framework that
bridges empirical observation with conceptual abstraction. It begins with the concrete (the observed problem)
and progressively integrates theoretical constructs (ideals, variables, and methodologies), culminating in a
coherent research statement and title. The process mirrors a “sandwich” structure—anchoring between reality
and ideal, while integrating conceptual “fillings” of variable analysis, question formulation, and methodological
classification.

Data Analysis

Using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), data will be coded, categorized, and abstracted into emerging
themes per academic year (2023–2024, 2024–2025, and 2025–2026), followed by a longitudinal comparative
synthesis.

Presentation, Analysis, And Interpretation of Data

Presentation

This chapter presents the findings from the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with Pre-service Teachers regarding
their experiences with the Sandwich Method, focusing on its features, techniques, strengths, feedback
mechanisms, and challenges. The data were analyzed thematically through coding and categorization.

Summary Participants 1-5

S.Y. 2023-2024

Research
Question

Answers (Condensed per
Participant)

Primary Codes Secondary
Codes

Themes

1. What are the
features of the
Sandwich
Method as
experienced by
BEED students?

P1: A mixed-methods
technique (qual + quant),
holistic, iterative. P2: Step-
by-step tool, statement of
problem → ideals vs. reality
→ title. P3: Starts/ends with
positive feedback, fosters
trust. P4: Writing/paragraph
structuring, clarity, unity,
inclusivity. P5: Balanced
positive-negative-positive
feedback, supportive.

Mixed-methods;
step-by-step;
trust-building;
clarity; balanced
feedback

Research
structure;
supportive
framework

Comprehensive
and structured
method

2. What
techniques do
BEED students
follow when using
the Sandwich
Method in the
formulation and

P1: Qualitative exploration
→ quantitative validation;
triangulation. P2: Problem
statement → translate
reality/ideals → qualitative
data → title. P3: Praise →
critique → encouragement.

Triangulation;
title formulation;
feedback
layering;
inclusivity
testing;

Stepwise
formulation;
balanced
delivery

Systematic and
step-by-step
techniques

Page 429 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

identification of
the research
problem?

P4: Gathering sources,
testing title relevance,
inclusivity check. P5:
Positive start → specific
actionable critique →
encouragement.

actionable
critique

3. What are the
strengths and
benefits of the
Sandwich
Method in the
development of
skills and
techniques in
conducting
research by
BEED students?

P1: Validity, reliability,
deeper analysis, critical
thinking. P2: Easier title
creation, systematic process.
P3: Builds communication,
trust, collaboration. P4:
Enhances writing,
inclusivity, thoroughness.
P5: Improves
communication, confidence,
motivation.

Critical
thinking;
systematic ease;
collaboration;
inclusivity;
motivation

Research
competence;
communication
skills

Skill
development
and researcher
growth

4. How does the
Sandwich
Method enhance
feedback delivery
and research
formulation?

P1: Triangulation validates
findings, reliability, nuanced
analysis. P2: Step-by-step
makes study creation easier.
P3: Clear, respectful critique
fosters reflection and
growth. P4: Sandwiching
feedback softens criticism,
makes it constructive. P5:
Balanced actionable
feedback, trust, motivation.

Triangulation;
respectful
critique;
constructive
feedback;
actionable
suggestions

Feedback
receptivity;
improved
research
formulation

Enhanced
constructive
feedback and
formulation

5. What
challenges and
limitations do
BEED students
encounter in
applying the
Sandwich
Method?

P1: Complexity, time-
consuming, balancing depth
vs. generalizability. P2: Not
directly stated, but implied
reliance on independent
variables. P3: Risk of diluted
critique, insincere praise,
time-consuming. P4: Risk of
focusing on form vs. content,
time challenges. P5: Diluted
critique, balancing issues,
time demands.

Complexity;
diluted critique;
focus on form;
time-consuming

Methodological
and practical
constraints

Challenges of
balance, clarity,
and efficiency

Emerging Themes Across Participants

Comprehensive and Structured Method. The Sandwich Method was consistently described as a systematic
and supportive process. For example, Participant 1 emphasized its value as a mixed-methods design that
integrates qualitative depth and quantitative validation, while Participant 2 highlighted its structured step-by-
step approach from problem statement to title formulation.

Page 430 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

encouragement (Participants 3 and 5), and gathering sources to test title relevance and inclusivity (Participant
4).

Skill Development and Researcher Growth. The method was seen as an effective tool for improving academic
and professional competence. Participant 1 noted gains in validity, reliability, and critical thinking; Participant
3 and Participant 5 highlighted growth in communication, collaboration, and motivation; while Participant 4
emphasized inclusivity and equity in research writing.

Enhanced Feedback and Research Formulation. Across participants, the Sandwich Method enhanced
constructive feedback delivery. Participant 3 stressed how balanced phrasing fosters reflection and growth,
while Participant 5 valued specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. Participant 4 added that layering
feedback softens criticism, making it more palatable and effective.

Challenges of Balance and Efficiency. Limitations were also noted: Participant 1 described the method as
complex and time-consuming; Participant 2 emphasized reliance on independent variables to derive outcomes;
Participant 3 cautioned that excessive positivity may dilute the critique and leave gaps in learning; Participant
5 warned that vague or insincere praise can weaken the impact of feedback; and Participant 4 pointed out that
an overemphasis on structure may overshadow deeper content analysis.

Summary Participants 1-5

2024-2025 Participants

Specific Question Answers (Summary
from Participants)

Primary Codes Final Codes Themes

1. What are the
features of the
Sandwich
Method as
experienced by
BTE students?

Students describe the
Sandwich Method as a
structured and
reflective process that
continues from the
research analysis stage,
promotes deeper
understanding, and
provides clarity and
organization in
research formulation. It
acts as a guide that
simplifies complex
ideas, promotes critical
reflection, and
structures presentation
(introduction–core–
conclusion).

Structured
approach;
Reflective
process;
Continuation of
research; Clarity
and
organization;
Step-by-step
guidance;
Simplifies
complexity

Structured
reflective
framework

Systematic and
reflective research
structuring

2. What
techniques do
BTE students
follow when
using the
Sandwich
Method in the
formulation and
identification of

Techniques include
brainstorming, mind
mapping, clustering
ideas, identifying
keywords, and
connecting concepts.
Students also follow a
step-by-step
organization method,
using the introduction–

Brainstorming;
Mind mapping;
Clustering; Idea
organization;
Keyword
identification;
Step-by-step
sequencing

Concept
integration and
idea refinement

Techniques for
idea generation
and problem
formulation

Page 431 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

the research
problem?

body–conclusion
format to refine
research questions and
focus.

3. What are the
strengths and
benefits of the
Sandwich
Method in the
development of
skills and
techniques in
conducting
research by BTE
students?

The method enhances
reflection, analytical
skills, and the ability to
synthesize ideas. It
builds confidence,
improves clarity in
writing and thinking,
and leads to more
meaningful and
impactful outcomes.
Students find it
valuable for deepening
understanding,
structuring thoughts,
and producing cohesive
research.

Deeper
reflection; Skill
enhancement;
Critical thinking;
Cohesion;
Clarity;
Meaningful
outcomes

Development
of reflective
and analytical
competence

Enhanced research
competence and
reflective learning

4. How does the
Sandwich
Method enhance
feedback delivery
and research
formulation?

The method improves
communication and
feedback by balancing
constructive criticism
with positive
reinforcement. It
fosters a growth-
oriented and
collaborative
environment where
feedback becomes
motivating and
productive. It also
clarifies how research
ideas are refined
through guided
feedback loops.

Constructive
feedback;
Positive
reinforcement;
Open
communication;
Guided
refinement;
Collaborative
improvement

Effective
feedback
integration and
communication

Constructive and
supportive
feedback process

5. What
challenges and
limitations do
BTE students
encounter in
applying the
Sandwich
Method?

Students report time
consumption, initial
confusion, and
difficulty in grasping
abstract concepts or
literature review. The
method can be
challenging at first due
to lack of exposure and
practice. Locating
relevant literature and
interpreting findings

Time-
consuming;
Lack of prior
knowledge;
Initial confusion;
Difficulty
finding
literature;
Abstract
comprehension

Learning curve
and resource
limitations

Cognitive and
procedural

challenges in
application

Page 432 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

were also noted as
stress-inducing.

Summary of Emergent Themes

1. Systematic and Reflective Research Structuring – The Sandwich Method provides a clear framework
that guides research development.

2. Techniques for Idea Generation and Problem Formulation – Students use visual and organizational
techniques to clarify research focus.

3. Enhanced Research Competence and Reflective Learning – The method develops deeper
understanding and research skills.

4. Constructive and Supportive Feedback Process – It strengthens feedback delivery and academic
communication.

5. Cognitive and Procedural Challenges in Application – Initial struggles stem from complexity, time
demands, and lack of familiarity.

Analysis

School Year 2023-2024

RQ1: What are the features of the Sandwich Method as experienced by Pre-service Teachers?

Participants described the Sandwich Method as a comprehensive and structured approach. For Participant 1, the
method was viewed as a powerful mixed-methods research design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative
strategies to provide a holistic and iterative analysis of phenomena. Participant 2 emphasized its step-by-step
structure, beginning with the statement of the problem, then identifying ideals and realities, and finally deriving
a research title. Meanwhile, Participants 3, 4, and 5 highlighted the feedback function of the method—starting
and ending with positive reinforcement while embedding constructive critique in between. Participant 4 also
stressed its utility in structuring paragraphs and organizing research papers.

Theme: The Sandwich Method is characterized by its comprehensive, structured, and supportive nature,
combining research rigor with feedback mechanisms and organizational clarity.

RQ2: What techniques do Pre-service Teachers follow when using the Sandwich Method in the
formulation and identification of the research problem?

Participants followed systematic and step-by-step techniques when applying the Sandwich Method. Participant
1 described using qualitative exploration followed by quantitative validation, emphasizing triangulation.
Participant 2 focused on the process of translating reality and ideals into questions, supported by qualitative data,
which ultimately leads to a formulated title. Participants 3 and 5 applied the feedback layering technique—
praise, critique, encouragement—to enhance research formulation. Participant 4 added that the method is also
used to gather sources, test the relevance of research titles, and check inclusivity in academic work.

Theme: Pre-service Teachers employ systematic sequencing, feedback layering, and inclusivity testing as central
techniques in research formulation under the Sandwich Method.

RQ3: What are the strengths and benefits of the Sandwich Method in the development of skills and
techniques in conducting research by Pre-service Teachers?

Across participants, the Sandwich Method was identified as an effective tool for developing research competence
and communication skills. Participant 1 emphasized its role in improving validity, reliability, and critical
thinking, while Participant 2 appreciated its ability to make title formulation easier and systematic. Participants

Page 433 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

3 and 5 highlighted its contribution to trust-building, collaboration, and motivation, while Participant 4 noted its
role in enhancing academic writing and promoting inclusivity.

Theme: The method strengthens research competence, communication, inclusivity, and motivation, thereby
contributing to overall researcher growth and development.

RQ4: How does the Sandwich Method enhance feedback delivery and research formulation?

Participants agreed that the method improves the delivery of constructive feedback and strengthens research
formulation. For Participant 1, triangulation ensures reliability and validity, while Participant 2 emphasized the
clarity brought by its stepwise approach. Participant 3 underlined that clear, respectful critique fosters reflection
and growth, whereas Participant 4 stressed how feedback softens criticism through balanced phrasing.
Participant 5 added that specific, actionable feedback boosts receptivity and motivation.

Theme: The Sandwich Method enhances feedback by promoting constructiveness, clarity, and receptivity, thus
supporting robust research formulation.

RQ5: What challenges and limitations do Pre-service Teachers encounter in applying the Sandwich
Method?

Despite its strengths, participants acknowledged methodological and practical constraints in applying the
Sandwich Method. Participant 1 pointed to its complexity and time-consuming nature, noting that the iterative
process of integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches can be overwhelming for beginners.
Participant 2 implied dependence on independent variables when deriving outcomes, which may limit flexibility
in certain research contexts.

Participant 3 emphasized the risk of diluted critique—explaining that “excessive positivity might water down
the core message of the feedback,” leaving the researcher uncertain about what exactly needs improvement.
Similarly, Participant 5 observed that vague or insincere praise could make feedback feel hollow, reducing its
value for actual growth. Participant 4 raised concerns about the overemphasis on form rather than content, where
researchers might focus too much on following the structure of the method rather than deeply analyzing the
substance of their research.

Theme: The challenges revolve around maintaining balance, clarity, and efficiency, with time constraints,
dependence on variables, diluted critique, and risks of prioritizing form over substance being recurring concerns.

Emerging Themes Across Participants

Systematic and Step-by-Step Techniques. Pre-service teachers applied sequential techniques such as
translating ideals and realities into questions (Participant 2), layering feedback as praise–critique–
encouragement (Participants 3 and 5), and gathering sources to test title relevance and inclusivity (Participant
4).

Page 434 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

while Participant 5 valued specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. Participant 4 added that layering
feedback softens criticism, making it more palatable and effective.

Emergent Framework

(Participants 2023-2024)

Figure: Emergent Framework on Sandwich Method

School Year 2024-2025

RQ1: What are the features of the Sandwich Method as experienced by BTE students?

The findings revealed that BTE students perceive the Sandwich Method as a structured, reflective, and
systematic framework that guides the research process. Participants described it as a continuation of the research
analysis, allowing for deeper reflection and understanding of findings (Participant 1). It offers a strategic and
layered approach to presenting information, emphasizing clarity and logical sequencing (Participant 2). Others
described it as a guiding framework that simplifies complex research components (Participant 4), while some
emphasized its feedback-oriented structure (Participant 5). Overall, students experienced the Sandwich Method
as a comprehensive and reflective process that enhances organization, clarity, and engagement throughout
research development. This indicates that the Sandwich Method’s core strength lies in its structured format and
its capacity to bridge understanding between analysis and synthesis. Consistent with reflective learning theories,
the method promotes critical engagement and systematic organization, helping students make sense of complex
ideas.

RQ 2: What techniques do BTE students follow when using the Sandwich Method in the formulation and
identification of the research problem?

Participants identified several techniques integrated into their use of the Sandwich Method, including
brainstorming, mind mapping, clustering of ideas, and step-by-step sequencing of content. Participant 1

Sandwich
Method

(Carale,2
018)

Comprehensi
ve and

Structured
Method

Systematic
and Step-
by-Step

Techniques

Skill
Development

and
Researcher
Growth

Skill
Development

and
Researcher
Growth

Challenges
of Balance

and
Efficiency

Page 435 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

mentioned linking it with “brainstorming or mind mapping,” while Participant 2 emphasized the “introduction–
body–conclusion” sequencing as a key procedural strategy. Participant 4 described the process as a step-by-step
journey that turns “confusing pieces into clearer questions,” highlighting its role in problem identification and
conceptual clarification. These findings suggest that the Sandwich Method not only provides a structure but also
incorporates creative and analytical techniques that promote higher-order thinking. The combination of
brainstorming and structured sequencing enhances students’ problem formulation skills, allowing them to
transition from vague ideas to precise research questions. It also reflects constructivist principles, where learners
actively organize and connect ideas to form coherent understanding.

RQ 3: What are the strengths and benefits of the Sandwich Method in the development of skills and
techniques in conducting research by BTE students?

Across all participants, the Sandwich Method was described as a valuable tool for skill development. Students
reported improvement in critical thinking, reflective analysis, synthesis, and communication. Participant 1
emphasized how it “clarifies and refines research questions,” while Participant 2 noted that it “enhances clarity
of communication” and fosters “comprehensive understanding.” Participant 3 recognized its role in providing a
“solid foundation” for research design, and Participant 5 highlighted its impact on “open communication and
fostering growth.”
The Sandwich Method strengthens both cognitive and metacognitive skills, encouraging reflection, logical
organization, and analytical reasoning. It supports skill development not only in research formulation but also in
self-evaluation and feedback handling, which are essential for academic growth. These benefits align with
existing pedagogical studies that emphasize structured reflection as a means of improving research competency.

RQ 4: How does the Sandwich Method enhance feedback delivery and research formulation?

Participants consistently observed that the method improves feedback dynamics and communication. According
to Participant 5, the Sandwich Method “preserves self-esteem” by layering constructive criticism between
positive remarks. Participant 1 described it as fostering a “nuanced and sophisticated interpretation” of findings,
while Participant 2 explained how the “concluding layer reinforces the significance of findings,” ensuring clear
and memorable communication. This reveals that the Sandwich Method not only aids in research organization
but also enhances feedback delivery through positive reinforcement and constructive critique. It aligns with
feedback theory, which emphasizes the balance between affirmation and improvement. As students apply it in
academic research, the method nurtures a more collaborative and supportive learning environment, encouraging
openness to revision and reflection.

R Q 5: What challenges and limitations do BTE students encounter in applying the Sandwich Method?

While students acknowledged the method’s benefits, they also reported several challenges. Common issues
include the time-consuming nature of the process (Participant 1 and 3), initial confusion and lack of prior
exposure (Participant 1 and 4), and difficulty locating and analyzing literature (Participant 3). Participant 5 also
noted that poorly structured feedback can “dilute the main point,” indicating challenges in maintaining clarity
and precision. These findings indicate that the Sandwich Method has a learning curve, requiring practice and
familiarity for effective implementation. The difficulties encountered are primarily procedural and cognitive,
rooted in limited exposure to structured methodologies. Nonetheless, once mastered, the method promotes long-
term academic benefits. Addressing these limitations through scaffolding and guided instruction could further
enhance its accessibility and application.

Emerging Themes Across Participants 2024-2025

Structured and Reflective Learning Process

Across participants, the Sandwich Method was consistently described as a structured and reflective framework
that promotes deeper understanding and systematic organization of research ideas. Participant 1 viewed it as a
“continuation of the research analysis” that allows for “deeper reflection on findings,” while Participant 2
characterized it as a “strategic and effective approach to presenting information.” Participant 4 emphasized its

Page 436 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

ability to “turn a confusing task into a well-organized adventure.” Collectively, these accounts show that
students perceive the Sandwich Method as more than a procedural tool—it functions as a cognitive framework
that supports reflective engagement with data. The structured nature of the method helps learners make sense of
complex concepts, build connections between stages of research, and strengthen the logical flow of their studies.
This theme reflects the principles of reflective learning and scaffolding, where structured processes enhance
comprehension and critical reflection. The Sandwich Method provides an ordered pathway from idea generation
to synthesis, aligning with experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) that emphasizes reflection as a foundation
for knowledge construction.

Techniques for Idea Generation and Problem Formulation

Participants identified a range of techniques embedded within the Sandwich Method—such as brainstorming,
mind mapping, idea clustering, and keyword identification—that facilitate the formation of research problems
and questions. Participant 1 related the method to “brainstorming or mind mapping,” while Participant 4 noted
that it “turned our research problem into clear questions and helped us plan how to get the info we needed.”
Participant 2 described the method’s structure as “introduction–filling–conclusion,” a technique that mirrors
analytical thinking and logical organization. The Sandwich Method encourages both divergent and convergent
thinking — helping students generate multiple ideas and later refine them into focused research questions. This
supports the notion that effective research formulation requires both creativity and structure. By combining
visual and sequential techniques, the Sandwich Method strengthens conceptual development and helps students
bridge the gap between abstract ideas and practical inquiry.

Enhanced Research Competence and Reflective Learning

A strong consensus emerged across participants that the Sandwich Method contributes to the development of
analytical, reflective, and communication skills. Participant 1 mentioned that it “clarifies and refines the
research question,” while Participant 3 highlighted that it “provided valuable insights and a solid foundation.”
Participant 2 emphasized that it “enhances the clarity of communication and fosters comprehensive
understanding.” Through its reflective and layered structure, students learn to think critically about their
findings, evaluate data with depth, and communicate their insights more coherently. This theme points to the
transformative potential of the Sandwich Method in cultivating research competencies. It aligns with the
constructivist view of learning, which posits that knowledge is actively built through reflection, synthesis, and
iterative understanding. The method scaffolds learning experiences that lead to increased confidence, analytical
precision, and academic rigor.

Constructive and Supportive Feedback Process

Participants—particularly Participant 5—highlighted how the Sandwich Method enhances feedback delivery
through a balance of positive reinforcement and constructive criticism. The method’s layered feedback structure
promotes emotional safety, making students more receptive to critique. Participant 5 observed that this approach
“preserves self-esteem and lessens the negative effects of feedback,” while Participant 1 and Participant 2
similarly indicated that the method encourages nuanced and meaningful communication in interpreting results.
This theme underscores the Sandwich Method’s application not only as a research framework but also as a
pedagogical feedback strategy. It builds an environment of trust and collaboration, which aligns with theories of
formative assessment and dialogic feedback (Carless, 2006). Such an approach supports the development of a
growth-oriented learning culture, where feedback becomes a shared, constructive process rather than a corrective
one.

Cognitive and Procedural Challenges in Application

Despite its benefits, participants acknowledged encountering several challenges in applying the Sandwich
Method. The most common difficulties included the time-consuming nature of the process, initial confusion
about how to apply it, and difficulty in sourcing and organizing literature. Participant 1 described the method as
“requiring a significant amount of time,” while Participant 3 found “locating and evaluating literature
challenging and time-consuming.” Participant 4 admitted that understanding concepts such as “research

Page 437 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

paradigm” was “a bit tough.” These experiences highlight a learning curve associated with mastering the
Sandwich Method. The challenges are both cognitive (related to comprehension) and procedural (related to
implementation). Such difficulties suggest the need for guided instruction, scaffolding, and practice-based
exposure to ensure that students fully internalize and effectively apply the method in future research endeavors.

Emergent Framework

School Year 2024-2025

Figure No. 2: Emergent Framework for S.Y. 2024-2025

Summary of Presentations and Discussions

Comparative Analysis for the Emergent Themes for

S.Y. 2023-2024 and S.Y. 2024-2025

Sandwich Method

Regidor T. Carale, Ed.D., Ph.D.-CDDS

Emergent Themes 2023-2024 Emergent Themes 2024-2025

 Comprehensive and Structured Method  Systematic and Reflective Research
Structuring

 Systematic and Step-by-Step Techniques  Techniques for Idea Generation and Problem
Formulation

Sandwich
Method

(Carale,
2018)

1.Structured
and Reflective

Learning
Process

1.Techniques
for Idea

Generation and
Problem

Formulation

1.Enhanced
Research

Competence and
Reflective
Learning

1.Constructive
and Supportive

Feedback
Process

1.Cognitive and
Procedural

Challenges in
Application

Page 438 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

 Skill Development and Researcher Growth  Enhanced Research Competence and
Reflective Learning

 Enhanced Feedback and Research Formulation  Constructive and Supportive Feedback
Process

 Challenges of Balance and Efficiency  Cognitive and Procedural Challenges in
Application

The comparative analysis of the emergent themes for academic years 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 reveals a
distinct evolution in the pedagogical and epistemological understanding of the Sandwich Method as applied by
Bachelor of Technology Education (BTE) students. Across both cohorts, the Sandwich Method has consistently
demonstrated its efficacy as a scaffolded framework for critical thinking, research structuring, and reflective
inquiry. However, nuanced variations between the two academic years suggest a deepening cognitive
engagement and methodological sophistication among learners.

In S.Y. 2023–2024, the emergent themes—Comprehensive and Structured Method, Systematic and Step-by-Step
Techniques, Skill Development and Researcher Growth, Enhanced Feedback and Research Formulation, and
Challenges of Balance and Efficiency—highlighted the method’s foundational role as a procedural guide.
Students predominantly perceived the Sandwich Method as a structured and systematic process that facilitated
the linear progression of research formulation. The emphasis was on mastering procedural fluency, adhering to
sequential stages, and developing initial research competence. Feedback was recognized as a component of the
process that contributed to conceptual refinement but was often seen through the lens of formality and
compliance rather than reflective transformation.

By contrast, the S.Y. 2024–2025 themes—Systematic and Reflective Research Structuring, Techniques for Idea
Generation and Problem Formulation, Enhanced Research Competence and Reflective Learning, Constructive
and Supportive Feedback Process, and Cognitive and Procedural Challenges in Application—illustrate a
transition from procedural mastery to reflective praxis. The 2024–2025 participants demonstrated an increased
metacognitive awareness of the method’s reflective dimension, perceiving it as a cognitive tool that fosters both
critical synthesis and self-regulated learning. Here, the Sandwich Method was no longer viewed merely as a
sequence of stages but as a dynamic and iterative framework for generating, connecting, and articulating ideas.

The shift from skill development to enhanced research competence indicates a deepened scholarly maturity
among participants, aligning with higher-order research capacities such as analytical reasoning, conceptual
abstraction, and methodological independence. Moreover, the evolution of the theme from enhanced feedback
and research formulation to constructive and supportive feedback process reflects a pedagogical
transformation—from feedback as evaluative correction to feedback as dialogic engagement. This suggests that
the Sandwich Method now functions as a relational pedagogical space where feedback becomes collaborative,
fostering mutual learning between mentors and students.

Notably, both cohorts reported challenges—initially characterized as balance and efficiency and later as
cognitive and procedural difficulties. This shift underscores that while procedural clarity has improved, the
complexity of reflective integration demands higher cognitive engagement. The 2024–2025 participants
confronted challenges associated with abstract reasoning, synthesis of data, and maintaining coherence amidst
iterative reflection. Such findings point to the Sandwich Method’s increasing cognitive rigor, which, while
beneficial for research depth, requires deliberate scaffolding and time management strategies.

Overall, the comparative data affirm that the Sandwich Method has evolved from being a structured
instructional strategy to a reflective and cognitive pedagogical model. It facilitates not only research
organization but also epistemic growth, transforming student researchers into reflective practitioners capable of
synthesizing knowledge, evaluating processes, and articulating nuanced interpretations.

Enhanced Sandwich Method Matrix (Reflective–Metacognitive Version)

Page 439 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Based on the Findings and Conclusions

Revised and Expanded from Carale (2018; 2025 CDDS Edition)

Step

Enhanced Description
(Integrating Cognitive,
Reflective, and Dialogic

Elements)

Purpose /
Theoretical Anchor

Outputs /
Evidence of

Learning

Analytical and
Reflective Focus
(Scaffolding &

Feedback
Integration)

1. Contextual
Observation and
Problem
Identification

Learners engage in
systematic observation of
authentic classroom,
institutional, or social
contexts to identify an
educational issue
grounded in lived
experience. Guided
reflection sessions and
peer sharing are used to
refine observations.

Constructivism
(Piaget, 1973;
Dewey, 1938):
Knowledge begins
with experience.
Cognitive
Structuring
Dimension.

Initial Problem
Log; Observation
Notes; Reflective
Journal Entry 1.

Cognitive scaffolding
through guided
prompts (“What do I
notice?” / “Why is
this significant?”).
Encourages critical
noticing and
contextual framing.

2. Validation of
the Reality of the
Problem

Students explore “what is
actually happening”
through informal
interviews, literature
scans, or classroom data,
contrasting perceived
issues with empirical
reality.

Experiential
Learning (Kolb,
1984): Active
exploration of lived
reality. Reflective
Praxis Dimension.

Descriptive
Profile of Reality;
FGD Summary;
Mentor Validation
Notes.

Reflective dialogue
with peers and
mentors validates
observed problems
and strengthens
empirical grounding.

3. Articulation of
the Ideal
Condition

Learners define “what
should be,” envisioning
optimal performance or
learning states. This
contrast clarifies the
research gap.

Transformative
Learning
(Mezirow, 1991):
Challenging
assumptions to
generate ideals.
Cognitive–
Reflective
Integration.

Reflective Matrix
(Reality vs.
Ideal); Journal
Entry 2.

Scaffolded
comparison of ideal
vs. real conditions
stimulates abstract
conceptualization and
critical reasoning.

4. Translation of
Realities into
Research
Questions

Concrete realities are
converted into problem-
driven research questions
focusing on deficiencies
and causes.

Cognitive
Structuring
(Bruner, 1996):
Organizing
experience into
conceptual form.

Set A Research
Questions
(Reality-based).

Feedback from
mentor used to refine
focus and ensure
conceptual clarity.

5. Translation of
Ideals into
Research
Questions

Ideals are reformulated
into aspirational
questions that explore

Metacognitive
Reflection (Schön,
1983): “Reflection-
on-action” to

Set B Research
Questions (Ideal-
based).

Guided journaling and
mentor dialogue
bridge empirical and
aspirational inquiry.

Page 440 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Step

Enhanced Description
(Integrating Cognitive,
Reflective, and Dialogic

Elements)

Purpose /
Theoretical Anchor

Outputs /
Evidence of

Learning

Analytical and
Reflective Focus
(Scaffolding &

Feedback
Integration)

improvement, best
practices, or innovation.

conceptualize
solutions.

6. Identification
of Variables (IVs
and DVs)

Learners determine
independent and
dependent variables
influencing both realities
and ideals.

Sociocultural
Theory (Vygotsky,
1978): Co-
construction of
meaning through
guided interaction.

Variable Map;
Causal Diagram;
Mentor Review
Notes.

Collaborative variable
mapping sessions
scaffold abstract
reasoning and
promote analytic
accuracy.

7. Integration of
Variables into
Specific
Questions

Variables are integrated
into measurable or
interpretive questions,
connecting cause and
effect relationships.

Cognitive-Dialogic
Alignment:
Transforming data
into interrelated
questions through
dialogue and
reflection.

Comprehensive
Set of Research
Questions.

Mentors provide
formative feedback
loops; students
engage in peer coding
of variables.

8.
Methodological
Classification
(Quantitative vs.
Qualitative)

Learners classify
questions by
methodological nature—
measurement or meaning.
This step develops
methodological literacy.

Methodological
Cognition (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985):
Choosing
approaches
consistent with
epistemic stance.

Method
Classification
Table; Journal
Entry 3.

Reflection prompts:
“How does my
method reveal what I
want to know?”
enhances
methodological
awareness.

9. Formulation
of the Statement
of the Problem
(SOP)

Synthesis of all preceding
steps into a structured and
reflective SOP integrating
cognitive rigor and
contextual insight.

Dialogic Synthesis
(Bakhtin, 1981):
Harmonizing
multiple
perspectives into a
coherent research
voice.

General Problem
Statement and
Sub-questions;
Mentor Feedback
Sheet.

Peer and mentor
validation ensures
coherence, logical
progression, and
reflective depth.

10. Development
of the Research
Title

Creation of a concise,
descriptive, and
conceptually rich title
summarizing the
variables, focus, and
intent of the study.

Academic
Communication
Competence:
Expressing
conceptual
relationships
succinctly.

Proposed
Research Title;
Title Justification
Log.

Feedback used to
refine clarity,
accuracy, and
scholarly tone.

11. Reflective
Integration and
Feedback Loop
(Expanded)

Continuous reflection and
feedback integration
across all stages. Learners
revisit previous steps,
refining

Reflective–Dialogic
Cycle: Knowledge
construction through

Final Reflective
Portfolio; Mentor-
Learner Dialogue
Transcript;

Triangulated
reflection integrating
cognitive progress,
feedback uptake, and
self-regulated

Page 441 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Step

Enhanced Description
(Integrating Cognitive,
Reflective, and Dialogic

Elements)

Purpose /
Theoretical Anchor

Outputs /
Evidence of

Learning

Analytical and
Reflective Focus
(Scaffolding &

Feedback
Integration)

conceptualizations and
self-assessing
metacognitive growth.

iteration, feedback,
and transformation.

Concept Map of
Learning Journey.

learning;
demonstrates
transformation from
compliance to
autonomy.

Analytical Enhancements Based on Recommendations

Recommendation Theme Matrix Integration Practical Application

1. Pedagogical
Integration and Training

Step 1–3 emphasize guided
workshops and explicit instruction on

reflective inquiry.

Faculty embed demonstration sessions
and exemplars for observing,

documenting, and reflecting on
problems.

2. Feedback as Dialogic
Engagement

Steps 6–11 include structured
feedback loops and mentor–student

dialogues.

Feedback sessions restructured as
reflective consultations rather than

evaluations.

3. Cognitive Scaffolding
for Reflective Thinking

Steps 2–7 utilize mind mapping,
concept charts, and reflective

journaling.

Students use scaffolds like thematic
matrices and cognitive maps to

visualize reasoning.

4. Research Competence
Development

The iterative design (Step 11)
institutionalizes continuity across

semesters.

Integration of Sandwich Method into
all research phases ensures
longitudinal competence.

5. Further Research
Pathways

The matrix can guide future mixed-
method or longitudinal studies

examining reflective transformation.

Universities may adopt the matrix as a
model for cross-disciplinary research

pedagogy.

Step-by-step Procedure in Performing the Sandwich Method Based on the Recommendations

Enhanced Sandwich Method in Identifying a Research Problem

(Revised and Expanded Based on Carale, 2018; Integrating Reflective, Cognitive, and Dialogic Dimensions)

Step 1. Observation and Contextual Reflection

Begin by engaging in reflective observation of real-world conditions within your academic or professional
context. Identify gaps, inefficiencies, or challenges that provoke inquiry.

 Purpose: To cultivate awareness of phenomena that warrant scholarly investigation.

Page 442 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

 Reflective Integration: Document not just what is observed, but why it matters and how it connects to
prior knowledge or theory.

 Output: A clearly articulated Observed Problem framed within a contextual reflection.

Step 2. Analysis of the Current Reality (Empirical Grounding)

Examine the current state or factual reality of the identified problem through initial data collection, literature
scanning, or field experience.

 Purpose: To empirically ground the observation by defining what currently exists and how it manifests.

 Reflective Integration: Engage in self-questioning—“What assumptions am I bringing to this
observation?”

 Output: Reality of the Observed Problem supported by preliminary evidence or factual data.

Step 3. Defining the Ideal State (Conceptual Visioning)

Construct the ideal or desired condition that represents effective practice or optimal functioning of the observed
context.

 Purpose: To establish the ideal benchmark or aspirational outcome for comparison.

 Reflective Integration: Integrate insights from theoretical models, best practices, or standards in the field.

 Output: Ideals of the Observed Problem that clarify the gap between “what is” and “what should be.”

Step 4. Formulation of Guiding Questions from Reality and Ideals

Translate the realities and ideals into specific guiding research questions.

 Purpose: To transform contextual insights into scholarly inquiries that reveal relationships or
discrepancies between the actual and ideal.

 Reflective Integration: Recognize cognitive biases and ensure each question aligns with the study’s
intended scope.

 Output:

o Questions from Reality: Explore existing conditions or deficiencies.

o Questions from Ideals: Explore aspirational possibilities or improvement strategies.

Step 5. Identification and Reflection on Key Variables

Determine the independent and dependent variables influencing or affected by the observed realities and ideals.

 Purpose: To conceptualize measurable elements of the research problem and to prepare for
methodological design.

 Reflective Integration: Link variables to theoretical constructs, frameworks, or prior studies.

 Output:

o Independent Variables (factors or causes)

Page 443 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

o Dependent Variables (outcomes or effects)

Step 6. Dialogic Refinement of Questions through Feedback

Engage mentors, peers, or advisors in dialogic feedback sessions to refine your questions and variable
relationships.

 Purpose: To enhance conceptual precision and ensure academic rigor.

 Reflective Integration: Treat feedback as collaborative meaning-making, not correction—iteratively
adjust questions to align with theoretical and methodological clarity.

 Output: Polished and conceptually grounded Research Questions integrating both IVs and DVs.

Step 7. Classification of Research Questions by Methodological Orientation

Differentiate questions as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods, depending on their purpose and data
requirements.

 Purpose: To align research questions with the most appropriate methodological approach.

 Reflective Integration: Evaluate how each question contributes to understanding both the measurable
patterns and the lived meanings of the phenomenon.

 Output: Categorized list of Quantitative and Qualitative questions ready for design development.

Step 8. Integration and Formulation of the Statement of the Problem (SOP)

Synthesize the refined questions into a coherent Statement of the Problem that logically connects the observed
reality, the ideal state, and the identified variables.

 Purpose: To formalize the central research focus and guide the direction of inquiry.

 Reflective Integration: Ensure the SOP reflects both empirical clarity and theoretical depth.

 Output: Comprehensive Statement of the Problem framed within a reflective and evidence-based context.

Step 9. Development of a Reflective and Conceptually Grounded Research Title

Formulate a research title that encapsulates the core problem, key variables, and methodological orientation.

 Purpose: To produce a precise and scholarly title that communicates both focus and scope.

 Reflective Integration: Evaluate if the title communicates the study’s theoretical orientation, relevance,
and contribution.

 Output: Proposed Title (e.g., “Reflective Learning and Research Competence among BTE Students: An
Application of the Sandwich Method”).

Step 10. Continuous Reflective Feedback and Revision Cycle

Implement a cyclical feedback process throughout research planning, incorporating mentor and peer insights to
strengthen conceptual coherence.

 Purpose: To internalize feedback as an ongoing developmental process, not a terminal evaluation.

Page 444 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

 Reflective Integration: Maintain a reflective journal to track intellectual growth, conceptual shifts, and
methodological adjustments.

 Output: An evolved, rigorously refined research framework demonstrating both methodological
precision and reflective maturity.

Synthesis: The Reflective Sandwich Framework

This revised model transforms the Sandwich Method from a linear procedural tool into a reflective, dialogic,
and metacognitive research framework. It integrates three key dimensions:

1. Cognitive Structuring – grounding inquiry in logic, clarity, and variable analysis.

2. Reflective Praxis – cultivating awareness of assumptions, meaning, and learning through reflection.

3. Dialogic Engagement – embracing collaborative feedback to enhance conceptual and methodological
depth.

In this enhanced form, the Sandwich Method not only aids in identifying research problems but also serves as a
transformative learning process that nurtures autonomy, scholarly identity, and lifelong inquiry competence.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

The comparative analysis of the emergent themes for Academic Years 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 reveals a
progressive evolution in the understanding and application of the Sandwich Method among Bachelor of
Technology Education (BTE) and College of Teacher Education (CTE) pre-service teachers. Across both
cohorts, the Sandwich Method demonstrated its effectiveness as a scaffolded framework for fostering critical
thinking, research organization, and reflective inquiry.

In S.Y. 2023–2024, themes such as Comprehensive and Structured Method, Systematic and Step-by-Step
Techniques, Skill Development and Researcher Growth, Enhanced Feedback and Research Formulation, and
Challenges of Balance and Efficiency reflected the method’s procedural emphasis. Students primarily viewed it
as a sequential process that guided the step-by-step completion of research tasks, highlighting procedural mastery
and the early development of research competence.

By contrast, in S.Y. 2024–2025, emergent themes such as Systematic and Reflective Research Structuring,
Techniques for Idea Generation and Problem Formulation, Enhanced Research Competence and Reflective
Learning, Constructive and Supportive Feedback Process, and Cognitive and Procedural Challenges in
Application indicated a significant pedagogical shift. Participants began to perceive the Sandwich Method as a
reflective and iterative learning model that supports both cognitive development and metacognitive awareness.

This transition signifies a move from procedural compliance to reflective autonomy, where pre-service teachers
demonstrated higher levels of conceptual reasoning, methodological independence, and adaptive reflection. The
evolution from feedback as correction to feedback as dialogue also reveals a transformation toward collaborative
and supportive learning relationships.

Both cohorts acknowledged ongoing challenges—from maintaining balance and efficiency to addressing
cognitive and procedural difficulties—highlighting the growing complexity of reflective engagement as research
understanding deepens. Overall, the findings affirm that the Sandwich Method has evolved from a structured
instructional guide into a reflective pedagogical framework that strengthens both research competence and
professional growth among pre-service teachers.

Conclusion

Page 445 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

The results of this comparative study underscore the enduring value of the Sandwich Method as both a
methodological and metacognitive tool in research education. Initially serving as a procedural guide, it has
matured into a comprehensive framework that integrates critical reflection, conceptual synthesis, and scholarly
communication.

For pre-service teachers, this evolution reflects the shift from learning research as a set of steps toward engaging
in it as a reflective, inquiry-driven process. The Sandwich Method thus functions as a bridge between knowledge
construction and transformation—empowering students to internalize feedback, think critically, and apply
reflective reasoning not only in research but also in future classroom contexts.

Mastery of the Sandwich Method among the 2024–2025 cohort corresponds with greater analytical rigor,
conceptual clarity, and research independence—traits that align closely with the competencies required of 21st-
century educators and lifelong learners.

Recommendations

(Contextualized for the College of Teacher Education Pre-Service Teachers)

Pedagogical Integration and Reflective Training. Research instructors in the College of Teacher Education
should embed the Sandwich Method as both a research framework and a model for reflective pedagogy.
Structured workshops, simulations, and guided exercises can help pre-service teachers internalize reflection as
a habit of mind—translating research reflection into classroom reflective practice. Integrating reflection across
all research courses can cultivate metacognitive awareness essential for professional teaching.

Feedback as Collaborative Learning Dialogue. Faculty mentors are encouraged to adopt a dialogic and
formative feedback approach that mirrors effective classroom feedback strategies. This promotes a culture of
collaboration where feedback becomes a shared learning process rather than a corrective mechanism. For pre-
service teachers, this experience serves as a model for delivering constructive feedback to their future learners.

Cognitive Scaffolding for Research and Teaching Reflection. To address the cognitive and procedural
challenges observed, the curriculum should include structured scaffolding techniques—such as concept
mapping, reflective journaling, thematic clustering, and guided inquiry sessions. These strategies enhance
higher-order reasoning in research and simultaneously equip pre-service teachers with classroom techniques to
cultivate critical thinking and reflection in their pupils.

Progressive Development of Research Competence. The College of Teacher Education may consider
institutionalizing the Sandwich Method across multiple levels of research instruction—from introductory
courses to action research. This continuity ensures consistent reinforcement of analytical and interpretive skills,
enabling pre-service teachers to develop evidence-based reasoning that can be applied in teaching practice and
professional development.

Application to Practice Teaching and Action Research. Pre-service teachers should be encouraged to apply
the principles of the Sandwich Method in their practice teaching and classroom-based action research. Through
reflective lesson planning, structured observation, and post-lesson analysis, they can integrate the same
systematic-reflective approach used in research to enhance classroom practice, self-evaluation, and pedagogical
innovation.

Further Research and Longitudinal Study. Future research may investigate the long-term impact of the
Sandwich Method on teacher education students’ academic performance, teaching efficacy, and professional
growth. A longitudinal or mixed-methods study could reveal how sustained engagement with the method
influences reflective thinking, research productivity, and classroom competence over time.

Synthesis

Page 446 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

The comparative findings across the two academic years highlight the Sandwich Method’s evolution from a
procedural technique to a reflective, metacognitive, and pedagogically transformative framework. For pre-
service teachers, this development parallels their journey from learning to teach toward teaching to learn.

The method not only equips them with technical research competence but also nurtures dispositions of reflective
inquiry, adaptive cognition, and professional autonomy—key hallmarks of effective and transformative
educators. By embedding the Sandwich Method into both research and practice, the College of Teacher
Education can continue to cultivate teacher-researchers who embody critical reflection, collaborative learning,
and evidence-informed teaching practice.

REFERENCES:

1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Dialogos.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M.

Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.
5. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill

Education.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
7. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
8. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.
9. Carale, R. T. (2018). The Sandwich Method: Reflective instructional design for research learning (author

document). (Author archive / unpublished manuscript).
10. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice.

Routledge.
11. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What

teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.
12. Dewey, J. (1916/1997). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education (rev.

ed.). Free Press. (Original work published 1916)
13. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the

acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental

inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
15. Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation

of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning and
performance (pp. 65–84). Routledge.

16. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–
112.

17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational
Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

18. Katsioudi, G., et al. (2021). A sandwich-model experiment with personal response systems: effect on
learning. Bioscience Education. (Article available via PMC; retrieval details vary by publisher.)

19. Kaye, L., & McEntee, S. (2020). Reassessing the feedback sandwich: Evidence and practice. Teaching
in Higher Education, 25(6), 1–14.

20. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-
based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

21. Kogan, J. R., & Shea, J. A. (2007). The feedback sandwich revisited: A practical method for providing
constructive feedback. Medical Teacher, 29(4), 1–3.

22. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Prentice Hall.

Page 447 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025

23. Korthagen, F. (2010). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education.
Routledge.

24. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.
25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge

University Press.
26. Loughran, J. (2002). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through

modelling. RoutledgeFalmer.
27. McAlpine, L., & Harris, M. (2019). Doctoral students’ conceptualisation of research. Studies in Higher

Education, 44(11), 2106–2120.
28. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
29. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge.
30. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model

and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
31. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation

in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517.
32. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. Free Press.
33. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.
34. Renner, J., & Muis, K. (2014). Cognitive scaffolding and expert scaffolding: Supporting student inquiry.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 1–15. (If you wish, I can fetch full page range and DOI.)
35. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment

& Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550.
36. Salazar-Clemeña, R. (2019). Research preparedness of Filipino pre-service teachers. Philippine Journal

of Education, 98(2), 45–62. (Local journal; retrieval details may vary.)
37. Santos, M., & Gonzales, P. (2016). Mentoring in Philippine teacher education and research outputs. Asia

Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 289–302.
38. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
39. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,

15(2), 4–14.
40. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ engagement with

feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recasting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(1), 1–16.

41. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (2014). Reflective teaching: An introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
42. Zhang, W., et al. (2022). Application of sandwich teaching method based on network teaching mode in

rehabilitation nursing. International Journal of Nursing Education Studies. (PMC article; retrieval details
vary.)

43. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2),
64–70.