CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,848Reflective Practices in EducationPragmatism in Philosophy and EducationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking

Rodgers, Carol·2002·Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
DOI 10.1177/016146810210400402
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Thinking, particularly reflective thinking or inquiry, is essential to both teachers’ and students’ learning. In the past 10 to 15 years numerous commissions, boards, and foundations as well as states and local school districts have identified reflection/inquiry as a standard toward which all teachers and students must strive. However, although the cry for accomplishment in systematic, reflective thinking is clear, it is more difficult to distinguish what systematic, reflective thinking is. There are four problems associated with this lack of definition that make achievement of such a standard difficult. First, it is unclear how systematic reflection is different from other types of thought. Second, it is difficult to assess a skill that is vaguely defined. Third, without a clear picture of what reflection looks like, it has lost its ability to be seen and therefore has begun to lose its value. And finally, without a clear definition, it is difficult to research the effects of reflective teacher education and professional development on teachers’ practice and students’ learning. It is the purpose of this article to restore some clarity to the concept of reflection and what it means to think, by going back to the roots of reflection in the work of John Dewey. I look at four distinct criteria that characterize Dewey's view and offer the criteria as a starting place for talking about reflection, so that it might be taught, learned, assessed, discussed, and researched, and thereb…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016146810210400402

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Himley M., 2000, From another angle: Children's strengths and school standards.
  2. Johnson W., 1997, TESOL Matters
  3. National Staff Development Council. (1995). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: Author.
  4. Thompson C. L., 1999, Teaching as the learning professional: Handbook of policy and practice, 341

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,848

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rodgers, C.
Affiliations
State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Rodgers, Carol
ORCID
Rodgers, Carol
Venue
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-04
Volume
104
Issue
4
Pages
842-866
ISSN
  • 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 0161-4681
  • 1467-9620
DOI
10.1177/016146810210400402
OpenAlex
W2108707473
Cited by
1,848
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 180 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 105 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 121 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 69
FWCI
60.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
reflective thinking, John Dewey, reflection, inquiry, reflective teacher education, professional development, assessment of reflection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review