This participatory action research study employed a two-step critical reflection process to investigate the connection between the learning process, pedagogies, student experiences, and their scholar-practitioner leader identity. As part of this investigation, we also explored how to guide generative AI to assist with analyzing reflection data while maintaining privacy, ownership of results, and transparency in the analysis steps. We found engagement in critical reflection on specific elements of active learning can shape the scholar-practitioner leader identity for both students and educators, and that human expertise in research ethics and methodology remains essential for maintaining appropriate ethical guardrails when using AI.
ActonK. S. (2021). School leaders as change agents: Do principals have the tools they need?Management in Education, 35(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620927415
2.
AshS.L.ClaytonP.H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25–48.
3.
BaileyS. (2014). Scholar-practitioner leadership: A conceptual foundation. International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(3), 47–59.
4.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
5.
BrockbankA.McGillI. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
6.
ChabonS. S.Lee-WilkersonD. (2006). Use of journal writing in the assessment of CSD students’ learning about diversity: A method worthy of reflection. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(3), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401060270030301
7.
ChoiY.Bouwma-GearhartJ.ErmisG. (2021). Doctoral students’ identity development as scholars in the education sciences: Literature review and implications. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16, 89–125. https://doi.org/10.28945/4687
8.
Cook-SatherA.MatthewsK. E. (2021). Pedagogical partnership. In HuntL.ChalmersD. (Eds.), University teaching in focus (2nd ed., pp. 243–259). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008330-14
9.
CrantonP. (2023). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
10.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
11.
CrowG. M.WhitemanR. S. (2016). Effective preparation program features: A literature review. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(1), 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116634694
12.
CunninghamK. M. W.VanGronigenB. A.TuckerP. D.YoungM. D. (2019). Using powerful learning experiences to prepare school leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 14(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118819672
13.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relationship of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath and Company.
FentonN. E.RossW. (Eds.). (2020). Critical reflection on research in teaching and learning. Brill Sense.
17.
GutiérrezR. (2008). Framing equity: Helping students “play the game” and “change the game”. Noticias de TODOS, 4(1), 1–3.
18.
HealeyM. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943600445637
19.
HillL. H.ConceiçãoS. C. O. (2020). Program and instructional strategies supportive of doctoral students’ degree completion. Adult Learning, 31(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519887529
20.
LashC. L.BurtonA. S.UsingerJ. (2024). Developing learning leaders: How modeling plc culture in principal preparation can shift the leadership views of aspiring administrators. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 19(2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751231170898
ListonD. D.RahimiR. (Eds.). (2017). Promoting social justice through the scholarship of teaching and learning. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2005zc2
23.
LockJ.JohnsonC.HillL.OstrowskiC.Da Rosa Dos SantosL. (2021). From assistants to partners: A framework for graduate students as partners in SOTL research. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.9.2.9
24.
MachostH.StainsM. (2023). Reflective practices in education: A primer for practitioners. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(2), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-07-0148
25.
MaharajanM. K.SivapalanS.RajiahK. (2025). Empowering students in curriculum design and pedagogy: Perceptions of pharmacy students as partners: A qualitative study. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 17(4), 102280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102280
MezirowJ. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.
29.
Mohr-SchroederM. J.BushS. B.MaiorcaC.NickelsM. (2020). Moving toward an equity-based approach for stem literacy. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 29–38). Routledge.
30.
Myllykoski-LaineS.ParpalaA.HailikariT.PostareffL. (2024). Using self-reflection to support higher education teaching. Reflective Practice, 25(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2376784
31.
NaeemM.SmithT.ThomasL. (2025). Thematic analysis and artificial intelligence: A step-by-step process for using ChatGPT in thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24, 16094069251333886. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251333886
National Commission on & Student-Centered, Equity-Focused Education. (2021, April8). An American imperative: A new vision of public schools. The School Superintendents Association. https://www.aasa.org/professional-learning/learning-2025
34.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Author.
35.
NguyenT. D.LamC. B.BrunoP. (2024). What do we know about the extent of teacher shortages nationwide? A systematic examination of reports of U.S. teacher shortages. AERA Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241276512
36.
Nguyen-TrungK. (2025). ChatGPT in thematic analysis: Can AI become a research assistant in qualitative research?Quality & Quantity, 59(6), 4945–4978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02165-z
37.
OrrM. T. (2020). Reflections on active learning in leadership development. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 15(3), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775120936305
RogersJ.WhiteR.ShandR.KahneJ. with SternS.CastroC.Yoshimoto-ToweryA. (2024). The costs of conflict: The fiscal impact of culturally divisive conflict on public schools in the United States. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. School of Education.
40.
RyanM.RyanM. (2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.661704
41.
SchönD. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
42.
SweetS. F. (2023). Using guided critical reflection to discover deepened and transformative learning in leadership education. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 18(4), 600–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751221118951
43.
SweetmanD.BadieeM.CreswellJ. W. (2010). Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 441–454.
44.
WangA. H.GroganM. (Eds.). (2024). Intersectionality and leading social change in education: Professional Learning to Transform Self, Others, and the Field. Routledge.
ZhangH.WuC.XieJ.LyuY.CaiJ.CarrollJ. M. (2025). Harnessing the power of AI in qualitative research: Exploring, using and redesigning ChatGPT. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 4, 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100144
