Schön reflective model: a description and evaluation

 Schön reflective model: a description and evaluation
The practice of reflection is known to enhance the work of practitioners in a variety of professions (Caldwell & Grobbel, 2013; LaPrade et al., 2014). However, it must be remembered that ‘reflective practice’ is a broad term that encompasses a variety of different reflective models; each with their own perspectives. To become skilled at reflection, the practitioner should choose a model (or models) that best reflect(s) their own needs and capabilities. Indeed, if we do not take a critical approach when selecting our reflective model, ‘the very spirit of reflective practice can be undermined’ (Herbert, 2015, p.361). Hence, to strengthen my understanding of Schon’s (1983/1991) theory of reflective practice, we will begin by providing a description of this theory. It will then proceed to critically evaluate Schon’s theory, considering both its strengths and weaknesses, and when/how it could best be used to facilitate reflective practice.

What is Donald Schön’s theory of reflective practice?
Schon’s theory of reflective practice was developed in his seminal book ‘The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action’, first published in 1983 and then republished in 1991. Unlike Kolb’s (1984) reflective theory, Schon’s theory is not a multi-stage or circular model of reflection. Rather, the key feature of Schon’s theory is the distinction he draws between reflection during the event and reflection after the event (Schon, 1983/1991). Moreover, it can be said that Schon places a heavy emphasis on the role of intuition in professional practice and therefore sees reflection as a practical way of synthesising tacit knowledge and ability (Kinsella, 2010). These key aspects of Schon’s theory are described in more detail below.

To provide a summary of Schon’s reflective model, it is important to define what he meant by (1) Knowing in action (2) Reflection in action, and (3) Reflection on action.

The ‘knowing in action’ concept is a less commonly cited aspect of Schon’s theory, though it seems important to acknowledge it here as it provides a basis for understanding Schon’s appreciation of the role of intuition (Kinsella, 2010).When Schon talked about ‘knowing in action’, he was referring to practitioner’s intuitive ability to know how to perform a task. For example, the ability of a teacher to obtain the attention of a classroom. As Schon put it, “Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action (1983, p. 49). It is helpful for practitioners to consider what they ‘know in action’ not only to build their confidence and recognise their strengths, but also to appreciate that the abilities they will gain in the future are likely to come through action and experience. Moreover, the reflections the practitioner engages in in the future may challenge the ‘knowledge’ the practitioner has now, and this may therefore reshape their ‘knowledge’ (Schon, 1983/1991).

Indeed, the two more commonly cited aspects of Schon’s theory are ‘reflection in action’ and ‘reflection on action’ (see Figure 1). As suggested by the names, reflection in action occurs during the event, whereas reflection on action occurs afterwards. Schon (1983/1991) believed that both types of reflection can be effective. Whereas reflection in action helps the practitioner to become more dynamic and responsive, reflection on action allows the practitioner to spend more time considering the situation, considering various interpretations, and thinking about how they could respond differently in the future (Hebert, 2015) Although it can be helpful to practice both types of reflection on the same event, practitioners do not necessarily have to carry out both types of reflection on the same event in order to gain insight from the reflective process (Eraut, 2006). Thus, Schon’s model is not necessarily a two-stage process model.

Schon Reflective Model

Figure 1: Schon’s reflective model (source: Cambridge Assessment, 2018)

Why use Schön’s reflective model
Schon’s model is commonly celebrated for its ease of use and its real-life applicability. To be more specific, Schon’s model can be used during the event (as well as afterwards) so it often appeals to practitioners who are time poor and who feel as if they do not have enough time to carry out reflections after the event (Cambridge Assessment, 2018). Moreover, for practitioners working in a career where they are expected to be quick thinking, Schon’s reflective model can encourage them to be dynamic by reflecting on the situation immediately and coming up with a creative solution. It has been suggested that practitioners who practice ‘reflection in action’ on a regular basis will become more adept at it and thus will develop their ‘knowing in action’ capabilities (Kinsella, 2010).

What fields use Schön’s ref