CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Reflective Practices in EducationTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesAdult and Continuing Education Topics

Reflection-In-Action and Reflection-On-Action

Open access
Munby, Hugh·1989·Current Issues in Education
DOI 10.1353/eac.1989.a592219
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Since the publication of Schon's (1983) book on the character and development of professional knowledge, our research has been directed at applying his theoretical position to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice that allows them to teach as they do. Briefly, we have attempted to understand what lies behind the apparently simple notion that teachers learn to teach by teaching, by examining how teachers interact with their experiences in order to learn from them. This paper does not dwell on the results of our qualitative case studies of 13 participating teachers; these are reported elsewhere (Russell, 1988; Russell, Munby, Spafford, & Johnston, 1988). Instead, this paper explores some of the work that has been occasioned by Schon's writing. As shown below, his books have been interpreted variously, as different people have found different points to focus upon. In some cases, these differences suggest that there are difficulties in Schon's position; in other cases, there are grounds for thinking that the differences emerge from incomplete understandings of Schon's position. We find that discussing the various interpretations helps to push our own thinking forward, and to identify the questions that we find worth pursuing. The paper has four sections. The first is a sketch of our interpretation of Schon's theoretical approach. The second examines selected appraisals of the more general features of Schon's work. The third section focuses on his two concepts of reflection which seem to have been misinterpreted by some who use his work. The fourth section focuses on the concept of "reframing," which we take to be central to Schon's account of the development of professional knowledge. Here, the discussion moves toward identifying theoretical and empirical questions that are raised by our own work and by the appraisals noted in the second section. The paper's response to these appraisals is the starting point for speculations about the directions that might be taken to further our understanding of the conditions that promote teachers' professional knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/eac.1989.a592219

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 7 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    We have found more examples of reframing among this group.

    “Because we have found more examples of reframing among this group, we have begun to consider the impact of having teachers verbalize their thinking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Schon's theoretical position is applicable to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice.
    • Rests on an assumption: Teachers learn to teach by teaching.
  • Findingown data

    Some teachers appear more receptive to their experiences than others.

    “As we have worked through our case studies of participating teachers, we have observed that some teachers appear more receptive to their experiences than others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Schon's theoretical position is applicable to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice.
    • Rests on an assumption: Teachers learn to teach by teaching.
  • Interpretationcitation

    Active rehearsal of one's thoughts is not a sufficient condition for reflection-in-action.

    “These data suggest that active rehearsal of one's thoughts is not a sufficient condition for reflection-in-action.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Borko, Lalik, and Tomchin (1987) source
    • Rests on an assumption: Schon's theoretical position is applicable to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • May combine two claims. 11

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    An intriguing characteristic of these teachers is their language: talking about their teaching is not only relatively simple, the language used is both fluid and versatile.

    “An intriguing characteristic of these teachers is their language: talking about their teaching is not only relatively simple, the language used is both fluid and versatile.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Schon's theoretical position is applicable to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice.
    • Rests on an assumption: Teachers learn to teach by teaching.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The appraisals are fair as far as they go, but they do not appear to have come to terms with the idea of reflection-in-action.

    “We venture to say that these appraisals are fair as far as they go, but that they do not appear to have come to terms with the idea of reflection-in-action.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Clandinin and Connelly are right to find Schon speaking of a sort of scientific method: working out explanations and strategies is the character of reflection-on-action; and the new frames suggested by reflection-in-action have to be tested in new actions.

    “Equally, Clandinin and Connelly are right to find Schon speaking of a sort of scientific method: working out explanations and strategies is the character of reflection-ew-action; and the new frames suggested by reflectionw-action have to be tested in new actions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Schon's two books (1983, 1987) advance the position that there is a fundamentally important aspect to professional knowledge that has been overlooked.

    “Schon's two books (1983,1987) advance the position that there is a fundamentally important aspect to the knowledge possessed by professionals that has been overlooked.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1983]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [1987]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The significant epistemological dichotomy is between routine monitoring and reflection-in-action, or between a response to feedback and a response to backtalk.

    “It seems to us that the significant epistemological dichotomy is between routine monitoring and reflection-in-action, or between a response to feedback and a response to backtalk.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Schon is not rejecting the place and importance of practical arguments and syllogistic reasoning.

    “Accordingly, we might reassure Fenstermacher that Schon is not rejecting the place and importance of practical arguments and syllogistic reasoning, even if we do not understand how the products of social science research are incorporated into professional practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Our response to backtalk is what Schon intends by reflection-in-action.

    “Actions can do the same, and our response to these phenomena is what Schon intends by reflection-in-action.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    One can experience reflection-in-action while reflecting-on-action, just so long as new frames suddenly put the data in a new light, and so offer paths towards solving puzzles of professional practice.

    “So, one can experience reflection-in-action while reflecting-on-action, just so long as new frames suddenly put the data in a new light, and so offer paths towards solving puzzles of professional practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Reflection-in-action does not refer to the contemporaneous monitoring of one's actions as one is attentive to feedback.

    “The next feature we have understood is that reflection-in-action does not refer to the contemporaneous monitoring of one's actions as one is attentive to feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Schon's account of the reflective practicum for teacher education is less than clear about the relationship between the practicum and reflection-in-action.

    “Schon's (1988) account of the reflective practicum for teacher education is less than clear itself about the relationship between the practicum and reflection-in-action.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schon (1988)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    There is no conceptual connection between reflection-in-action and the reflective practicum that Schon endorses.

    “In particular, we have been concerned that there is no conceptual connection between reflection-in-action and the reflective practicum that Schon endorses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Schon argues that reflection-in-action is a process outside of our control: it is not the sort of thing one can switch on or off.

    “But he does argue that it is a process outside of our control: it is not the sort of thing one can switch on or off.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The process of reframing is essentially nonlogical, and is one over which we have little control: it is not ordered, logical, or deliberate.

    “This process is essentially nonlogical, and is one over which we have little control: it is not ordered, logical, or deliberate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Schon is not claiming that reflection-in-action is the sole source of professional knowledge, although it represents the process by which one can learn from experience.

    “We do not read Schon to be claiming that reflection-in-action is the sole source of professional knowledge, although it represents the process by which one can learn from experience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    For Schon, professional knowledge is developed within action, just as it is articulated within action.

    “For Schon, professional knowledge is developed within action, just as it is articulated within action.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is difficult to interpret Schon without heeding the distinction between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.

    “It is difficult to interpret Schon without heeding the distinction between reflection-inaction and reflection-on-action.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    We are still far from understanding how reframing happens.

    “When all is said and done, we are still far from understanding how reframing happens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    It may be more fruitful to examine the function of beliefs as states that are relevant to particular instances of action, rather than to study them as traits that are relevant to all actions.

    “Nespor's work suggests that it may be more fruitful to examine the function of beliefs as states that are relevant to particular instances of action, rather than to study them as traits that are relevant to all actions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nespor (1987) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Belief systems can influence the definition of problems and the selection of information for solving problems.

    “As we understand Nespor's (1987) analysis, beliefs are not uniform and uncomplicated: belief systems can influence the definition of problems and the selection of information for solving problems (p.324).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nespor (1987) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Nespor's (1987) analysis of the structure and function of beliefs presents a promising approach to an initial modelling of reflection-in-action and reframing because the language he uses bears some resemblance to the language of Schon's epistemology of practice.

    “Nespor's (1987) analysis of the structure and function of beliefs presents a promising approach to an initial modelling of reflection-in-action and reframing because the language he uses bears some resemblance to the language of Schon's epistemology of practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nespor (1987) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    There is a difficulty in how one is to represent both reflection-in-action and reframing using the constructs of cognitive science.

    “The heart of the difficulty is in how one is to represent both reflection-in-action and reframing using the constructs of cognitive science.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The reflective practicum is an occasion for trying out new frames, but it does not seem to be responsible for the process of reframing itself.

    “The reflective practicum, then, is an occasion for trying out new frames, but it does not seem to be responsible for the process of reframing itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The reframing is not deliberate, and the work done with the new frame consists of the supervisor and teacher together planning ways to test the new frame.

    “Yet it needs to be said that the reframing is not deliberate, and that the work done with the new frame consists of the supervisor and teacher together planning ways to test the new frame.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Schon's theoretical position is applicable to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice.

    “our research has been directed at applying his theoretical position to the problem of how teachers acquire the knowledge of practice that allows them to teach as they do.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Teachers learn to teach by teaching.

    “we have attempted to understand what lies behind the apparently simple notion that teachers learn to teach by teaching, by examining how teachers interact with their experiences in order to learn from them.”
2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [10]10. Fenstermacher, G. (1988). The place of science and epistemology in Schon's concept of reflective practice. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 39-46). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  2. [11]11. Gilliss, G. (1988). Schon's reflective practitioner: A model for teachers? In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 47-53). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  3. [13]13. Hills, J., & Gibson, C. (1988). Reflections on Schon's The reflective practitioner. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 147-175). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  4. [15]15. MacKinnon, A., & Erickson, G. (1988). Taking Schon's ideas to a science teaching practicum. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 113-137). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  5. [26]26. Russell, T., Munby, H., Spafford, C., & Johnston, P., (1988). Learning the professional knowledge of teaching: Metaphors, puzzles, and the theory-practice relationship. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 67-90). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  6. [29]29. Schon, D. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19-29). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  7. [30]30. Selman, M. (1988). Schon's gate is square: But is it art? In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 177-192). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.
  8. [32]32. Shulman, L. (1988). The dangers of dichotomous thinking in education. In P. Grimmett & G. Erickson (Eds.). Reflection in teacher education (pp. 31-38). Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press & New York: Teachers College Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Munby, H.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Munby, Hugh
Venue
Current Issues in Education
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
1989-09
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
31-42
ISSN
  • 2472-5935 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4993
DOI
10.1353/eac.1989.a592219
OpenAlex
W176251939
Semantic Scholar
ad77ba57671f5d5e72b944d1fe4f0ea2d724622e
Cited by
85
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current issues in education (publishedVersion)
  • Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) (submittedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Adult and Continuing Education Topics
Keywords
reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, Donald Schön, professional knowledge, teacher learning, experiential learning, refocusing, teacher professional development

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

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