## 4 Results
### Results for Research Objective One: Design of Open-Text Items for Assessing \"Selecting dLMs\"
#### 4.2.3 RQ 2.3: What Specific Reasoning Is Considered When \"Selecting dLMs\"?  
To address this research question, we examined the frequency of different reasoning (Table 1). Figure 3 illustrates the frequency of the reasoning (item 4) for dLM1 [65] in Study 2. The abbreviations TCK-x and TPK-x denote specific reasoning (Table 1). The surface areas represent the frequency of each type of reasoning. \"No\" (33.0%) and \"generic reasoning\" (17.7%) together accounted for slightly more than half of the total reasoning (50.7%). TCK reasoning (24.3%), including individual TCK-[1-6] reasoning, was used more frequently than TPK reasoning (18.7%), which included individual TPK-[1-6] reasoning. Responses with either two TCK or two TPK, along with TPACK reasoning that integrates both TCK and TPK reasoning, were the least frequent in the sample (6.3%).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type of Assessment**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sem. 1, 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sem. 3, 4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sem. 5, 6**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sem. \(\geq\) 7**} & \multirow{2}{*}{} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(_n = 57_)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(_n = 149_)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(_n = 71_)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(_n = 102_)**} & \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(M\) & \(SD\) & \(M\) & \(SD\) & \(M\) & \(SD\) & \(M\) & \(SD\) \\ \hline external 1  & 1.37 2 [FOOTNOTE:2]Footnote 2: \Comparing the reasoning used for dLM1 [72] in Study 1 (\(n=164\)) and Study 2 (\(n=379\)) descriptively reveals that the same top six reason codes are utilized, though in a different order. In both studies, \"no\" and \"generic reasoning\" proportions exceeded fifty percent (Study 1: 61.0% and Study 2: 50.7%). This is followed by TCK-1 (different representations), TCK-4 (decreasing extraneous cognitive load), TPK-2 (self-regulated learning), TPK-4 (differentiation, inclusion), and TPK-1 (motivation) reasoning, which together represent 28.7% in Study 1 and 37.7% in Study 2. Other reasoning accounts for the remainder. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 differed in structure regarding the number of semesters and the study stage.  
Furthermore, we examined the reasoning of participants by academic progression. The bar chart in Figure 4 illustrates the summarization of TCK-x and TPK-x reasoning by semester groups of participants in Study 2 (see Table 4).  
The bar chart in Figure 4 shows a lower proportion of \"no reasoning\" and \"generic reasoning\", accompanied by higher TCK-x and TPK-x single and multiple reasoning depending on the academic progression of participants. The trend in the TPACK reasoning proportion remains consistently low. The proportion of single TPK-x reasoning among participants in semesters 1-2 is greater than that of TCK-x reasoning. However, the difference reverses with academic progression in the sample, and the proportion of TCK-x in semesters 7 and higher is greater than that of TPK-x reasoning.  
Figure 3: Frequency of no, generic, single/multiple TCK-x, TPK-x, and TPACK reasoning used to justify the selection of dLM1 [65] in Study 2.