Instead of using scientific psychological and educational knowledge, pre- and in-service teachers often refer to everyday theories and evidence when faced with problematic pedagogical situations. This paper investigated to what extent such problems are caused by inadequate evidence-based reasoning scripts that guide teachers in the way they tackle pedagogical problems. We investigated the scripts of N = 103 beginning and N = 236 advanced pre-service teachers by asking them to analyze fictitious, but realistic problem cases in an open-answer format. Afterwards, they were asked to describe the cognitive activities they engaged in during problem analysis. Results showed that advanced students more often than beginners reported to engage in problem identification, while beginners more often reported to engage in goal-setting. Furthermore, students’ attitudes towards research on learning and instruction positively predicted their engagement in these cognitive activities. Thus, it appears that the evidence-based reasoning scripts of both beginning and advanced pre-service teachers might benefit from scaffolding, as well as supportive motivational-affective factors.
