Reflective practice: some notes on the development of the notion

of professional reflection

Paul Warwick, Lecturer in Primary Science and Professional Studies

Faculty of Education University of Cambridge

Why have I written this for the Busy Guide?

I recently wrote a piece on reflective practice for ‘Into Teaching’ (2007) which is
aimed at PGCE trainees and NQTs. In it I tried to outline why reflective practice is
rather more than simply thinking about what you’re doing (though that, of course, is
a good idea) and to suggest that the notion of professional reflection has a strong
and diverse academic pedigree. It struck me that tutors in numerous institutions
may need access to a digest of some of the important ‘messages’ from the
literature that I hope I identified in the ‘Into Teaching’ article, so what is presented
here is an expanded version of that piece. It does not pretend to be
comprehensive, nor indeed to present new findings - rather, it specifically aims to
expand upon an established model of reflective practice proposed by Pollard
(2005) so that we can help beginning teachers in particular to understand the
theoretical bases of much of what is written about notions of professional
reflection. So, here goes…

Reflective practice – just thinking about what we do?

Many teachers and intending teachers will ask why there is such a fuss about
reflective practice. Don’t all professionals think about what they do and modify their
approach as a result of this thinking? Don’t teachers, in particular, have a ‘natural’
propensity for considering what they’re doing and for changing their approach on
the basis of the response of their pupils?
It is the intention of this guide to attempt to explain how reflection - in which
searching questions are asked about experience - might be conceptualised, why it
can be viewed as rather more than ‘thinking about teaching’ and why a
consideration of reflective practice itself might be helpful to both the beginning and
the experienced teacher. In doing this it is not the purpose to provide a
comprehensive overview of the traditions of reflective teaching (several authors
present admirable digests, amongst them Zeichner and Liston, 1996), though
some historical antecedents of contemporary ideas are considered. The primary
intention here is to make evident the links between notions of reflective practice
and the characteristics of such practice by professional educators. That said, it
seems useful to start with a look at two fundamental ‘schools of thought’ on the
nature of reflection, represented by the work of Dewey (1910, 1933, 1938) and
Schön (1983, 1987).

Dewey – routine action and reflective action

If we consider Dewey first, we find that he provides a useful distinction between

routine action – in which the grounds for action have not been actively considered
and where tradition, external authority and circumstance are guiding factors – and
reflective action. Reflective action derives, in Dewey’s view, from the need to solve
a problem and involves ‘the active, persistent and careful consideration of any
belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it’
(1910, p6). Teachers who are unreflective about their teaching tend to accept the
everyday reality in their schools and ‘concentrate their efforts on finding the most
effective and efficient means to solve problems that have largely been defined for
them by (some) collective code’ (Zeichner and Liston, 1996, p9). It’s not that
unreflective teachers aren’t thinking – rather, their thinking does not allow the
possibility of framing problems in more than one way.

Of course, some - and many would argue more than some - routine action based
on on-going assumptions is necessary if we are to be able to act or react in the
classroom, and Dewey acknowledged the arrogance of an approach that questions
everything all of the time. But equally he acknowledged the inadequacy of an
approach where a professional acts without questioning received truths. Thus the
separation of routine and reflective action has a strong appeal, as it provides a
basis for an analysis of teaching that sees beyond a ‘technicist’, competency-
based model (Calderhead and Gates, 1993), and suggests a strong basis upon
which teaching itself might be viewed as a profession. Reflection, then, is a ‘way
of being as a teacher’ (Zeichner and Liston, 1996, p9); in Dewey’s view, reflection
‘…enables us to direct our actions with foresight…It enables us to know what we
are about when we act’ (1933, p17).

Extensions to Dewey’s work

Dewey’s arguments have been extended in various influential accounts of

reflection. Whilst noting that ‘the attitude of everyday work’ is one that sees
teachers carrying out tasks ‘routinely and uncritically’ (p264), van Manen (1977)
identifies two levels of reflection. At the first level the focus is on ‘an interpretive
understanding both of the nature and quality of educational experience and of
making practical choices’ (p 226-7). At the second level ethical and moral
questions are addressed as the ‘worthwhileness’ of actions is considered (p227).
Zeichner and Liston (1987) and Carr and Kemmis (1986) also highlight a moral
dimension to reflective action, the former linking to van Manen’s notion of the two
levels of reflection by characterising the action of teachers as sometimes that of
the ‘technician’, sometimes that of the ‘craftsperson’ and sometimes that of the
‘moral craftsperson’ (Zeichner and Liston, 1987, p27). Carr and Kemmis (1986)
make a strong case for this higher level of reflection as central to ‘a critical
educational science’ that involves teachers as central actors in transforming
education (p156). Fullan (1993) makes a crucial point here in stating that ‘Teaching
at its core is a moral profession. Scratch a good teacher and you will find a moral
purpose… Moral purpose keeps teachers close to the needs of children and
youth.’ From this perspective, if it is the purpose of educators to make a positive
difference to the lives of the students that they find in their care, that purpose
would seems to connect strongly with higher levels of reflective practice outlined by
Carr and Kemmis, van Manen and others. It seems evident that this concern with
‘moral purpose’ can be strongly linked to the idea that ‘reflective teaching implies
an active concern with aims and consequences as well as means and technical
competence’ (Pollard, 2005, p15).

Dewey - the characteristics of reflective practice

Let us now return to Dewey and start to consider the characteristics of reflective
practice. In illuminating the difference between routine and reflective action, Dewey
(1910) outlines some of the skills and personal qualities of reflection. Certainly,
keen observation, reasoning and analysis are seen as skills central to reflective
practice. The linking of reflection to problem solving leads Dewey to the conclusion
that ‘search or enquiry to test the value of the suggestion before finally accepting it’
is essential (p30), and that this involves thinking that is wide-ranging and based
upon knowledge and experience, flexible and ‘fertile’, and well-structured and
coherent. This must, according to Dewey, be accompanied by personal
orientations such as ‘open-mindedness’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘whole-heartedness’
(1933). LaBoskey (1993) supports this through research showing that trainee
teachers identified as ‘Alert Novices’, whilst no more intelligent than another group
identified as ‘Common Sense Thinkers’, were better able to engage in reflective
thinking primarily because they displayed modes of thinking that mirrored Dewey’s
open-mindedness, responsibility and whole-heartedness. They seemed driven by a
will to know, were always on the look out for something better, and were
questioning of their premise in situations not only where they were tentative, but
where they were confident.

It seems that most of the writers in the Deweyan tradition argue that learning to
reflect in the ways that they identify is a central part of learning to teach. However,
McIntyre (1993) introduces a note of caution. If the higher levels of reflection where
the ‘moral craftsperson’ operates (Zeichner and Liston, 1987, p27) are only
possible where teachers have ‘a certain fund or store of experiences or facts from
which suggestions proceed’ (Dewey, 1910, p30), then the comparatively scant
experience that most teacher trainees have may limit their reflective practice. If this
is accepted, the role of the mentor must be regarded as central to moving the
trainee forward in their own practice.

Alternative conceptions of reflection – Schön

Furlong and Maynard (1995) go further. They see the distinction between routine
and reflective action as actually unhelpful, failing to capture ‘the multi-facetedness,
unpredictability and sheer complexity of teaching’ (p45). They also point to the
difficulty of linking reflective practice firmly with solving specific problems and
believe that whilst ‘moral and ethical questions are important…they are not
separable from questions about how children learn and the nature of pedagogy’
(p44). They point to the work of Schön (1983, 1987) as providing an alternative
conception of reflection. Schön emphasises that professionals find themselves
constantly facing situations that are unique, and he posits that in these situations
they tend to use their knowledge and past experiences as a ‘frame’ for action. This
framing is an active, experimental and ‘transactional’ process that defines what
Schön calls ‘professional artistry’– ‘the kinds of professional competence
practitioners display in unique, uncertain and conflicted situations of practice’(1987,
p22). The point here is that teachers rarely engage in bland routine action, but
rather in ‘knowing-in-action’, revealed in the sorts of knowledge that emerge in
their ‘intelligent action’ (1987, p25) and rather more than Dewey’s conception of
routine action.

Creating a reflective continuum, Schön develops the notions of ‘reflection-in-action’

and ‘reflection-on-action’. Reflection-in-action is about ‘questioning the
assumptional structure of knowing-in-action’, giving rise to an ‘on the spot
experiment’ (1987, p25). Reflection-on-action involves trying to articulate tacit and
spontaneous intelligence through language (Furlong and Maynard, 1995) and
Schön argues that moving teachers along the continuum from knowing-in-action to
reflection-on-action is the way that they gain control of their developing artistry.
The process is one of surfacing tacit understandings so that they can be examined,
critiqued, developed and re-framed (Elliot, 1991). It is the way in which better and
more general solutions are developed that can be applied in new circumstances –
the ‘frame for action’ develops and a more confident teacher evolves. Certainly, for
this author, it is this capacity to frame problems from different viewpoints – from a
developed frame for action if you like - that is a central, defining characteristic of
professional reflective practice. Importantly, part of re-framing involves setting as
well as solving problems, ‘a process in which interactively we name the things to
which we will attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them’ (Schön,
1983, p40).

Schön suggests that teachers engaged in reflection-in- and reflection-on-action

interpret and frame their experiences through ‘repertoires of values, knowledge,
theories and practice’ called appreciative systems (Zeichner and Liston, 1996,
p16). Others have named these systems differently – practical theories (Handal
and Lauvas, 1987) or teacher’s strategic knowledge (Schulman, 1986) for example
– but it is clear that one of the ideas fundamental to reflection is that in coming to
see a problem differently these appreciative systems are themselves challenged,
modified or strengthened – in other words, re-framed. It seems that this can be a
career-long process – as Zeichner and Liston have noted, ‘it is our sense that
teachers are capable of continually developing their practical theories, their images
and their conceptions of teaching as long as they continue to teach’ (1996, p37).
Griffiths and Tann (1992) present an interesting framework that builds on the work
of Schön to describe how reflection by teachers occurs in five temporal
dimensions. These are:

1. Rapid reflection (immediate and automatic reflection-in-action)

2. Repair (thoughtful reflection-in-action)
 3. Review (less formal reflection-on-action at a particular time)
4. Research (more systematic reflection-on-action over a period of time)
5. Re-theorizing and Research (Long-term reflection-on-action informed by
public academic theories.

Griffiths and Tann argue that teachers need to reflect in all of these dimensions at
one time or another, and that neglect of one dimension at the expense of another
can be problematic.

Schön – some critiques

Critics of Schön, as distinct from re-interpreters, highlight his lack of attention to the
discursive or dialogic dimension of teacher learning (Day, 1993). Solomon (1987)
in particular makes a powerful case for reflection as a social practice, in which the
articulation of ideas to others is central to the development of a critical perspective
and so to the development of appreciative systems. In short, we all need a mentor,
and social constructivists would point to the crucial role of language and interaction
in developing shared understandings (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991, Mercer,
2004). Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Lopez-Torres (2003) refer to the ‘situated learning
discourse community’, where situated activity, reflection as a social endeavour,
and reflection as a distributed process - in which dialogue is central - are core
features. Mirroring Solomon’s (1987) critique of Schön, they see teachers in such a
community interacting with colleagues ‘in goal-directed activities that require
communication and the exchange of ideas where reflection itself is not contained
wholly in the mind of the individual but is ‘distributed’’. It seems that the
development of such a community should be seen as one responsibility of
professional educators.

Central here, of course, is the idea that trust between teachers and between
teachers and other practitioners must be embedded – without trust the sharing of
ideas, concerns and challenges can be highly threatening. Interestingly, Kettle and
Sellars (1996), in looking at the developing reflective practice of trainee teachers,
found that the use of peer reflective groups encouraged them to challenge their
existing theories and pre-conceived views of teaching whilst modelling a
collaborative style of professional development.

A further criticism of Schön is that his focus is too narrowly on the individual,
without necessarily considering the interaction between the wider social setting,
including the purposes of schooling and the professional. We have already seen
that educationalists such as Carr and Kemmis (1986) regard reflection that
considers such interaction as ‘higher level’ and central to ‘a critical educational
science’ that involves teachers in transforming education (p156). Here, it seems
appropriate to argue that the Deweyan notion of reflection that includes a concern
for aims and consequences is part of this ‘higher level’ reflection that is likely to
lead to small-scale, and sometimes large-scale, transformations.

Drawing ideas together – Pollard’s ‘seven characteristics’

In attempting to draw together some of the strands and traditions that inform our
understanding of reflective practice, Pollard (2005) provides a framework
comprised of seven characteristics. Though it leans heavily on Dewey, it presents
one attempt to synthesise elements of understanding of the process of reflection
that have developed through the work of both Dewey and Schön, together with
studies that have extended and developed their work and those who have
contributed new understandings. In attempting such a synthesis, Pollard’s
framework undoubtedly falls short of providing the level of detail that proponents of
various schools of reflection would hope to include. Nevertheless, presenting the
framework diagrammatically (Figure 1) allows a clear connection to be made
between theoretical traditions and the characteristics of reflective practice in action.
 Soci al Soci al
efficiency r econsr uctivi st
tr adi tion tr adi tion

Academic Developmental ist

tr adi tion tr adi tion

Polla rd's
Dewey framew ork Schön
of reflectiv e
practice

Aims and
consequences Cr eati ve mediation of
exter nal ly developed
fr amewor ks

Cycle of
monitor ing,
evaluati ng
and revi si on Coll aborati on
and dial og ue
Open- Application of with
mindedness, judgement colleag ues
Evi dence-
r esponsibil ity based on
based
and whole- enq uir y and
classr oom
hear tedness r esear ch
enquir y

Figure 1: Pollard’s framework of reflective practice.

The seven characteristics of reflective teaching detailed by Pollard are therefore:

1. ‘Reflective teaching implies an active concern with aims and consequences,

as well as means and technical efficiency.’ This is not only a concern with
the immediate aims and consequences of classroom practice, but also
encompasses the responsibility for speaking out, on the basis of
professional experience and often through professional organisations, on
government aims and policies.
2. ‘Reflective teaching is applied in a cyclical or spiralling process, in which
teachers monitor, evaluate and revise their own practice continuously.’ This
highlights involvement in a dynamic, continuous reflexive process, an active
 researching of one’s own practice leading to self-monitoring, reflection and
change.
3. ‘Reflective teaching requires competence in methods of evidence-based
classroom enquiry, to support the progressive development of higher
standards of teaching.’ This involves reviewing relevant existing research,
gathering evidence, using objective and subjective data, analysis and
evaluation, and judgement-making that leads to decision taking.
4. ‘Reflective teaching requires attitudes of open-mindedness, responsibility
and wholeheartedness.’ Open-mindedness ‘is an active desire to listen to
more ideas than one, to give full attention to alternative possibilities, and to
recognise the possibility of error even in beliefs that are dearest to us’
(Zeichner and Liston, 1996, p10). Pollard and Tann (1994) note that
responsibility involves thinking about three central kinds of consequences of
teaching – personal, academic, and social and political (primarily the effects
of teaching on the life chances of pupils). In referring to wholeheartedness,
Dewey meant that open-mindedness and responsibility should be central to
the professional life of the reflective teacher.
5. ‘Reflective teaching is based on teacher judgement, informed by evidence-
based enquiry and insights from other research.’ Here Pollard highlights the
work of Schön in pointing to the use of judgement in reflection-in-action and
its use in reflection-on-action, the latter of which may be seen as being more
strongly linked to knowledge of research, systematic enquiry and an
understanding of the political framework of action.
6. ‘Reflective teaching, professional learning and personal fulfilment are
enhanced by dialogue with colleagues.’ This refers to dialogue with specific
individuals in school, to collaboration across staff groupings – an integral
aspect of the ‘intelligent school’ (MacGilchrist, Myers and Reed, 2004) – and
to communication and cooperation with individuals, organisations and
agencies beyond the school.
7. ‘Reflective teaching enables teachers to creatively mediate externally
developed frameworks for teaching and learning.’ Here, Pollard refers to the
 reflective teacher being able to justify protective mediation to defend
existing practices; engage in innovative mediation by working within the
spaces and boundaries provided by new requirements; contribute to
collaborative mediation whereby externally developed ideas are scrutinized
and adapted in a professional, mutually supportive environment; or even
engage in conspirational mediation, where teachers’ appreciative systems
form the basis of a judgement or judgements that resistance to
implementing external requirements through the use of subversive
strategies is desirable.

These characteristics mesh strongly with Zeichner and Liston’s (1996) five key
features of reflective teaching - ‘A reflective teacher:

o examines, frames, and attempts to solve the dilemmas of classroom

practice;
o is aware of and questions the assumptions and values he or she brings to
teaching
o is attentive to the institutional and cultural contexts in which he or she
teaches;
o takes part in curriculum development and a involved in school change
efforts; and
o takes responsibility for his or her own professional development.’ (p6)

Related perspectives – Handal and Lauvas: the practice triangle

Another related perspective is provided by Handal and Lauvas (1987), who present
a useful conceptualisation of reflective practice. In their ‘practice triangle’, teaching
that integrates teacher’s practical theories with their daily action involves three
levels of practice – at the zenith is the notion that the reflective teacher must have
a core concern with ethical and moral issues:
 Level 3
Ethical &
Moral
Considerations

Level 2
Planning and Reflection

Level 1
Action

Figure 2: The practice triangle [adapted from Handal and Lauvas, 1987]

These attempts to provide characteristics or features of reflective practice or of a

reflective practitioner will always fall short when viewed from any single theoretical
perspective, but they do enable those new to understanding teaching to appreciate
the possible elements contained within a reflective practice paradigm. However,
the real question is surely related to where reflective practice leads.

Reflective practice and the process of change

If we return to Schön for a moment, it seems that at the level of reflection-in-action

teachers are concerned with the immediate aims and consequences of classroom
practice, whilst at the level of reflection-on-action the importance of where a
teacher ‘places’ themselves with respect to the societal issues and influences on
education is fundamental to the way in which they may proceed, and to the ways in
which they might view developments within the school. Fullan’s (1993) notion of
‘moral purpose’ is most strongly linked to the second of these levels, as
fundamental to both is an underlying and developing set of beliefs and values that
inform action. As Bramell and White (2000) have stated, it is the value systems of
teachers that provide a ‘coherent, humane vision by which schools can be guided’.
And this vision is informed by action – by day to day classroom experiences, by
looking systematically for evidence and by calling into question established
practices.

It might be argued that it would be perfectly possible for a teacher to engage in a

‘monitoring-evaluating-revising’ cycle of action, incorporating data collection and
analysis procedures appropriate to action research, without recourse to wider aims
and values. Yet is this ultimately sustainable? The role of the teacher seems
imbued with moral purpose – why change anything, why engage in analysis,
debate and painful trial and error if this is not the case? On what basis are
judgements to be made, if not at least tangentially in relation to moral
considerations founded on values? Yet a ‘moral purpose’ is something of an empty
vessel without an understanding of the means by which change might be
implemented. Here there seems to be a link with three inter-related elements of
reflective practice - an understanding of the ‘cyclical or spiralling process’ of
monitoring, evaluating and revising practice continuously, ‘competence in methods
of classroom-based enquiry’ and the application of ‘teacher judgement, informed
by evidence-based enquiry’ and research (Pollard, 2005, p16-21). There thus
seem to be at least two broad and interrelated elements in the understanding of
change – the first is to do with understanding specific school and classroom
circumstances and the second is having a grasp on wider societal influences and
intentions.
At a time when teachers and other professionals within schools are constantly
struggling with new requirements, deciding on what to implement, what to put to
one side and what to emphasise in their schools, an understanding of the
importance of reflective activity has never been more important. The creative
mediation of externally developed frameworks for teaching and learning (Pollard,
2005, p23) is really only possible from the position of professional understanding,
evidence and reflection.
References

Bramall, S. and White, J. (2000) Will the New National Curriculum Live Up to its
Aims? (Impact policy discussion document No.6). Ringwood: Philosophy of
Education Society of Great Britain.

Calderhead, J. & Gates, P. (eds) (1993) Conceptualizing reflection in teacher

development. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action
research. Lewes: Falmer/Deakin University Press.

Day, C. (1993) Reflection: a necessary but not sufficient condition for professional
development, British Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 83-93

Dewey, J. (1910) How we think. London: D.C.Heath.

Dewey, J. (1933) How we think: a re-statement of the relation of reflective thinking

in the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.

Elliot, J (1991) Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Fullan, M. (1993) Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents, The Professional
Teacher, 50 (6)12-17,
(available @ http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/199303/fullan.html)

Furlong, J. & Maynard, T. (1995) Mentoring Student Teachers: the growth of

professional knowledge. London: Routledge.
Griffiths, M. & Tann, S. (1992) Using reflective practice to link personal and public
theories, in Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(1), 69-84

Handal, G. & Lauvas, P. (1987) Promoting Reflective Teaching. Milton Keynes:

Open University Press.

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003) Beyond Reflection: teacher

learning as praxis, Theory into Practice, 42 (3)

Kettle, B. & Sellars, N. (1996) The development of student teachers practical

theory of teaching, Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 1-24.

LaBoskey, V. (1993) A conceptual framework for reflection in pre-service teacher

education, in: J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds) Conceptualizing reflection in teacher
development. Lewes: Falmer Press.

MacGilchrist, B., Myers, K. and Reed, J. (2004) The Intelligent School (2nd Ed.). London:
Sage.

van Manen, M. (1977) Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical,
Curriculum Inquiry, 6, pp205-228

McIntyre, D. (1993) Theory, theorising and reflection in initial teacher education, in:
Calderhead, J. & Gates, P.(Eds) Conceptualizing reflection in teacher
development. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Mercer, N. (2004) Sociocultural discourse analysis: analyzing classroom talk as a

mode of social thinking, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 37-68
Pollard, A. and Tann, S. (1994) Reflective Teaching in the Primary School:
2nd. Edition. London: Cassell

Pollard, A., with Collins, J., Simco, N., Swaffield, s., Warin, J., and Warwick,
P. (2005) Reflective Teaching: 2nd. edition. London: Continuum.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Schulman, L. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching,

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14

Solomon, J. (1987) New thoughts on teacher education, Oxford Review of

Education, 13(3), 267-274.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warwick, P. (2007) A return to reflective practice, Into Teaching, Part 15

Wertsch, J.V. (1991) Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated

Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zeichner, K. & Liston, D. (1987) Teaching student teachers to reflect, Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), pp23-49

Zeichner, K. & Liston, D. (1996) Reflective Teaching: an introduction. Mahwah,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates