Running head: REFLECTIVE INQUIRY A WAY OF KNOWING
Reflective Inquiry as a Way of Knowing
Jerusalem Merkebu
Ways of Knowing 800
May 08, 2012
Professor Stephen White
1
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
2
Key Terms: Reflection, Introspection, and Inquiry Intertwined
Due to the voluminous definitions of reflective inquiry the consensus among the
literature, the specific definition that it’s a conscious, systematic, and disciplined introspective
activity directed at enhancing professional practice, will be used for constructing it as a way of
knowing here. Inherent in reflection is an inquiry disposition, that is, openness to discovery and
exploration (Larrive & Cooper 2006). Introspection as defined by Merriam-Webster is “a
reflective looking inward, an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings.”
Historical Background
From Introspection to Reflection
The life of the human mind has been quite a fascination for decades. Great philosophers
from Immanuel Kant to William Wundt, to more recently John Dewey, are just a few among the
many who have sought to explicate what constitutes the elusive nature of mental life.
Accordingly, Swindle (1999) articulates, “Beginning with Kant, the function of reflection was to
determine how the mind conceives of itself as a subject related to itself and others” (p.19).
Though appreciating the nature of “inner experience,” philosophers like Kant and Leibniz failed
to see the significance of studying consciousness as a critical scientific activity (Danziger, 1980).
Conversely, Fichte contended the importance of self-consciousness leading in the 1850s to
Fortlage’s attempt to conduct empirical work in introspection. The history of introspection
burgeoned greatly as 180 experimental studies were published on this construct between 1883
and 1903 (Danziger, 1980). Although philosophical debates against “systematic introspection”
by other philosophers such as Lange and Comte sustained, still others were grappling between
the fine lines of empirical and logical reflection (Swindal, 1999). Transcending the theories of
consciousness to the next level, William Wundt distinguished “self-observation” and “internal
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
3
perception” as critical components of introspection that could be experimentally observed
(Danziger, 1980). The ramifications of “free inner experimenting” brought forth a period of
introspective analysis, from 1903 to 1913, by many philosophers like Lipps, Titchener and many
more, who disseminated it to areas of memory, affect, and thinking (Danziger, 1980). Thinking,
which is a consistent characteristic of reflection (Copeland et al., 1993), in particular will be of
interest in exploring reflective inquiry as a way of knowing.
Parallel to this line of inquiry, in 1910 John Dewey published How We Think, where he
explored the idea of the trained power of thought and reflective introspection. For him the notion
of thinking, which he viewed as anything occurring in the mind/head, was of not an incident of
“spontaneous combustion,” rather the “consecutive ordering” of thoughts yield reflection (p.12).
Dewey’s introduction to a disciplined mental habit that has the capacity to “turn things over,”
which he contended was typically stimulated by perplexity, laid the foundations of reflective
thinking (Dewey, 1933 p.66). He articulated this notion of a double movement in thinking, not
seeking to corroborate or refute, and the capacity to suspend judgment; essentially the aptitude to
go beyond mere de facto or the restrictions of the unconscious to conscious and deliberate effort
(Dewey, 1933).
Inspired by Dewey’s work and the desire to overcome the narrow model of technical
rationality, which proves insufficient, for solving divergent dilemmas that commonly arise
outside standard techniques or theories, Donald A. Schon, in The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action, proposed reflection-in-action: consciously reflecting while
working on a task and reflection-on-action: reflecting back on competed task (Schon,1983).
Thus, he popularized what it meant to become a reflective practitioner and penetrated the works
of some of the most influential thinkers of our time such as Argyris, Boud, Kolb, Gibbs, Senge
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
4
Mezirow, Hartman, Johns, Zeichner, Rolfe, Weick and countless more. Ultimately, this new
orientation to reflective thinking nullified operating in a mode of advocacy and instead heavily
promoted a stance of inquiry.
Reflective Inquiry definition and discourse.
The plethora of literature on reflective inquiry lucidly reveals there is not a single
operational definition for this construct. This discourse is evident as Larrive and Cooper (2006)
revealed that the terms reflective inquiry, reflective thinking, reflective teaching, reflection, and
reflective practice have been utilized synonymously. Due to this discrepancy Fat’hi and
Behzadpou (2011) stress that it’s paramount to define lucidly what one intends when utilizing the
term reflection. According to the pioneer Dewey (1933), “Active, persistent, and careful
consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that
support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends constitutes reflective thought” (p.6).
Despite persistent ambiguity, the general consensus among scholars appears that reflection is an
ongoing systematic, disciplined, back and forth mental activity of observing, questioning,
analyzing, and refining thoughts/actions for gaining clarity in understanding and achieving
productive outcomes (Dewey, 1933; Killion & Todnem, 1991; Bright, 1996; Cole & Knowles,
2000; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Fat’hi & Behzadpou, 2011). What’s more, this form of
inquiry has been deemed higher-level thinking (Lasley, 1992), cognitive risk-taking (Schon,
1987), and disciplined thinking balancing paucity and redundancy (Dewey, 1933). Interesting
enough, reflective inquiry as a way of knowing and learning does not claim to provide answers;
rather it’s a tool for professionals to pose thoughtful and significant questions to enhance the
quality of their practice (Robinson et al., 2001).
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
5
Assumptions of Reflective Inquiry as a Way of Knowing
Inquiry and Reflection Expose Blind Spots
Deviating from the natural inclination to promote or advocate one’s agenda, inquiry
through questioning, primarily, seeks to explore the assumptions or perspectives of others
(Marquardt & Waddil, 2004). Accordingly, Larrive & Cooper (2006) affirmed that inquiry aims
at exploring for the purpose of understanding; as a result, intrinsic orientation is transformed
from certainty to curiosity. One assumption of this way of thinking is that by operating in a mode
of protracted inquiry one will excavate blind and opaque spots (Dewey, 1933). Engaging in a
cycle of open discovery helps to bring to light the hidden structure of one’s thinking, lying
beneath the realm of consciousness. At a minimum, reflection serves as a tool for exposing
unconscious mental models and as Kim (1999) avows emancipates us from deception.
Correspondingly, Dewey (1933) declares, “All reflective inference presupposes some lack of
understanding, a partial absence of meaning” (p.119). Inherent in this assertion is the need to
acknowledge that perceptions are always somewhat distorted and impact professional practice.
Thus, the way to achieve adequate knowledge is through being open-minded, suspending hasty
conclusion, and mastering methods of inquiry (Dewey, 1933). Once hidden theories are
discovered (Shapiro & Reiff, 1993), it forms the basis for considering alternative perspectives.
Reflective Inquiry Challenges Established Beliefs
Cole and Knowles (2000) articulated one of the fundamental assumptions of reflective
inquiry is that ideologies behind all practice are subject to questioning, none exempt. Not only
does this mode of inquiry encourage bringing to light embedded assumptions, but it also requires
critically challenging any established beliefs or what Morgan (2006) refers to as psychic prisons
favored ways of thinking that become traps. Correspondingly, Dewey (1933) states, “Thought
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
6
can more easily traverse an unexplored region than it can undo what has been so thoroughly done
as to be ingrained in unconscious habit” (p.121). Thus, reflection becomes a platform for
confronting entrenched mental models and testing dogmas; consistently asking questions into
each phenomenon. Creating this mental discipline results in knowledge and experiences
becoming informed and formed by reflective practice; allowing the practitioner to perpetually
expand to a wide range of possibilities (Larrive & Cooper, 2006). Subsequently, as Schon (1987)
proposes, one can frame and reframe problems, and, as they yield new discoveries continue in a
spiral of reflection into those discoveries. Correspondingly, in this recursive process Copeland et
al. (1993) explicate beyond consciousness of framing problems, the reflective practitioner
generates and tests optimal solutions, and pursues action to deliberately incorporate new or
enhanced understanding into practice. The authors deem both problem-solving and learning as
critical constituents of reflection.
Reflective Inquiry Facilitates Learning
Reflective practice engenders that gaining a deeper understanding and insight will lead to
effective learning. Accordingly, Van (1997) affirms reflection functions as a fundamental
component and link in the learning process. The utility of reflecting back is to create future
learning or in Dewey’s (1933) view its purpose is prospective. Under the constructivist paradigm
learning is proactively generated by reflecting on past and current knowledge to create future
learning (Fat’hi, 2011). In light of this view, Race (2002) supported that the deliberate act of
reflecting significantly contributes to making sense of what was learned, why it was learned, and
how that particular increment of learning was facilitated. Dewey (1933) has proclaimed that
experience does not equal learning rather learning is derived from reflecting on experience.
Consequently, reflective inquiry is a framework built on the notion that reflection enables
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
7
learning. Moreover, some contend not only is reflection a key building block to human learning
but, it also supports and enhances deep learning (Moon, 1999). The ultimate purpose of
reflective thinking is to engage in continuous learning by intentionally challenging prior learning
(Van, 1997). In light of this view Argyris and Schon (1978) developed a model of reflection to
distinguish effective and ineffective learning. They describe single loop learning as one
dimensional and simplistic verses double loop learning which is multidimensional and
authentically reflective, going deeper to examine the root of a dilemma. In view of that, Argyris
and Schon (1978) would consider an educator, who discovers a blind spot or a dilemma and
applies a problem-solving or pedagogical technique to correct it, as employing single loop
learning. However, when teachers thoughtfully challenge their own entrenched mental models,
openly consider alternatives, and modify their thinking by seeking to understand both the
students and their perspectives, the authors would view them as effectively engaging in double
loop learning. Taking it to the next level Isaacs (1993) proposed triple loop learning, this form of
inquiry promotes the type of learning “that permits insight into the nature of paradigm itself, not
merely an assessment of which paradigm is superior.” Incorporating double loop learning,
where reflection is fundamental, he asserted the need to reflect on the process of learning itself
for the purpose of learning.
Fittingly, Mezirow, (1991) states that “reflective learning involves assessment or
reassessment of assumptions” and is appreciated as a process that promotes or leads to
transformative learning: a reflective process in which frames or reference or habits of the mind
are transformed to become open and inclusive generating new frames that inform practice
(Mezirow, 1991). Consistent with Mezirow’s perspective Cranton (1994) affirms that engaging
in a critical level of reflection, where frame of reference has been reconstructed and is
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
8
demonstrated in action, signifies transformative learning. Moreover, confirming this notion Van
(1997) declares “reflection and transformative learning are the tenets of reflective practice as
ways of knowing and the nature of learning are interconnected.” Accordingly, the literature
progresses to view teachers as self-reflective agents who can deepen their understanding of
themselves and their students and who can, on the basis of that insight, act to change the
conditions of their institutions (Carrington & Selva, 2010).
Research Implications of Reflective Inquiry
The ramifications of the research on reflection, since its peak in the 90’s, have had a
tremendous impact in the field of teacher education and development; effective teaching has
been positively correlated with inquiry and reflection (Harris, 1998), whereas unreflective
teaching has been associated with low effectiveness (Robinson et al., 2001). Ample literature in
the field reveals teacher’s beliefs have profound influences on their thoughts, decisions and
instructional judgments (Williams & Burden, 1997; Woods, 1996). Thus, the role of reflective
stance is to help educators become aware of their blind and opaque spots (Dewey, 1933) and
challenge traditional theories to heighten the quality of their teaching and self-assessment
(Robinson et al., 2001). What’s more, by being encouraged to challenge their preconceived
notions teachers gain insight into their implicit or deep-rooted theories, this forms the basis for
not only reinforcing them to identify their misconceptions, but also for transforming their
erroneous conceptions to improve pedagogical practice (Leloup, 1995; Woods, 1996). Engaging
in reflective practice allows teachers to examine how they interact with students i.e. if their
theories-in-use are consistent with their espoused theories (Schon, 1983). Examining such
philosophies creates an avenue for teachers to successfully bridge the gap between theory and
practice, leaving them both enlightened and emancipated to make the necessary changes
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
9
(Robinson et al., 2001). As teachers gain conscious awareness into their guiding principles,
values, and/or beliefs they respond to make their instructional practices fruitful. Similarly, Lyons
(2006) discovered patterns of reorientation and reconsideration applied into their activities of
teaching. Reflective teachers are empowered to amalgamate their critically examined theories
into their teaching and learning practices, as well as inspired to proactively engage in educational
decisions (Robinson et al., 2001). Furthermore, research reveals some benefits of reflective
practice include: increased teacher’s sense of self-efficacy, high level proficiency in novice
teachers, shift from single loop to double loop learning, teacher job satisfaction, enhanced
interpersonal relationship among colleagues and students (Irvin, 2009), expanded professional
development (Caceres & Chamoso, 2008) and enhanced potential to succeed and thrive
(Robinson et al., 2001).
Reflective Inquiry as My New Way of Knowing
One of my previous ways of knowing has been that what I am taught in school is to be
accepted as final authority. I had nonchalantly accepted the dogmas presented to me throughout
my educational endeavors. As an undergraduate major in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, I
was provided with formulas and methodologies and if I could replicate predictability and control,
then it was considered peak performance. Accordingly, the predetermined set of criteria, I had
been supplied with, had to be applied meticulously. The idea of deviating from technical
rationality would have disturbed me. I was conditioned to believe that there is always a rigorous
method to perform optimally. Consequently, I had a rigid mentality where most things were
deemed black or white. It had not occurred to me that I should bring various notions into
question. I, unconsciously, operated under this humble schema: Who am I to question what has
been masterfully comprised by scholars and researchers in the field? Consequently, I adhered to
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
10
established guidelines in order to carry tasks out right. Disparately, reflective inquiry challenges
me to ask if I’m I even doing the right things. It encourages me to explore dimensions that I had
not previously considered. I now grasp the fundamental component of learning is to operate in a
life-long stance of inquiry. Accordingly, adopting a reflective stance has compelled me to
distinguish, reality is complex and nothing, under the sun, lies in the realm of certainty. Festinger
states, “The theory of cognitive dissonance holds that when we experience dissonance we are
motivated to change one, or the other, of the cognitions so that they are more consistent” (p.3).
Indeed, it was difficult for me to let go of the narrow mechanical approach I had adopted. I had
to acknowledge my cognitive fallacies and surrender my entrenched mental frameworks. This
new way of knowing has helped me to deconstruct or peel the layers of my prior learning.
I’m learning how to nurture the ability to think critically and reciprocally between two
opposing points while suspending judgment (Dewey, 1933). I’m gaining new consciousness into
the deep structures and embedded assumptions that significantly shape my perspective and
inevitably inform my practice. As I’m being transformed into a reflective practitioner, I find, I’m
reconstructing how I think about my thinking. I’m astute and acknowledge that my biases have
the potential to influence both my research activities and instructional practices. Therefore, my
goal is to be conscientious about my practices. I discern the need to operate in a mode of active
inquiry. In light of this commitment, I’ll continually reevaluate my theories and distorted
perceptions, remaining open to that which I do and do not anticipate. As I engage in a self-study
of systematically slow down my thinking, turning things over, and suspending conclusion
(Dewey,1933), I noticed a cognitive shift beginning to take place within me, transforming my
learning experiences. On this path to achieving a PhD and thereafter, I have made a commitment
to further cultivate this keen mental discipline in my personal and professional life.
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
11
References
Argyris C., & Schön D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on “reflective practice.” Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(2),
162-184.
Caceres, M.J. and Chamoso, J. (in press) Analysis of the reflections of student teachers of
mathematics when working with learning portfolios in spanish university classrooms.
Teaching and Teacher Education (in press).
Carrington, S., & Selva, G. (2010). Critical social theory and transformative learning: Evidence
in pre-service teachers' service-learning reflection logs. Higher Education Research &
Development, 29(1), 45-57. doi:10.1080/07294360903421384.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching Teaching: Exploring teacher development
through reflective inquiry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., De La Cruz, E., & Lewin B. (1993). The reflective
practitioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9,
347-359.
Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-bass Publishers 3-21.
Danziger, K. (1980), The history of introspection reconsidered. Journal of History Behavior
Science.16: 241–262 doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(198007).
Dewey, John. (1997). How we think. New York: Dover Publications.
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
12
Fat’hi, J. & Behzadpou, F. (2011).Beyond method: The rise of reflective teaching. International
Journal of English Linguistics. Vol. 1, No. 2 doi:10.5539/ijel.v1n2p24
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature. School Leadership and
Management, 18(2), 169-183.
Irvin, L. (2009) What previous research reveals about rhetorical reflection.
http://www.lirvin.net/liresearch/What%20Previous%20Research%20Reveals.pdf.
Isaacs, W.N. (1993). Taking flight: dialogue, collective Thinking, and organizational Learning.
Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2).
Killion, J., & Todnem, G. (1991). A process of personal theory building. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 14-17.
Kim, H. S. (1999) Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice
Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1205-1212.
Lasley, T. J. (1992). Inquiry and reflection: Promoting teacher reflection. Journal of Staff
Development, 13(1), 24-29.
LeLoup, J. (1995). Pre-service foreign language teacher beliefs: Expectations of excellence:
preparing for our future. NYSAFLT Annual Meeting Series 12, 137-146.
Marquardt, M. & Waddil, D. (2004). The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual
analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the
practice of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice.1
(2) DOI:10.1080/1476733042000264146.
Mezirow, J, (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Moon, J. (1999) Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Kogan Page.
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
13
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Osterman, K. P., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Improving
schooling through professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robinson, E. T., Anderson-Harper, H. M., & Kochan, F. K. (2001). Strategies to improve
reflective teaching. Journal of Pharmacy Teaching, 8(4), 49.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
Shapiro S.B. & Reiff J. (1993) A framework for reflective inquiry on practice: Beyond intuition
and experience. Psychological Reports 73, 1379-1394
Swindal, J. (1999). Reflection revisited: Jurgen Habermas's discursive theory of truth. New
York: Fordham University Press.
Lyons, N., (2006). Reflective engagement as professional development in the lives of university
teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12 (2), 151–168
Van Halen-Faber, C. (1997). Encouraging critical reflection in pre-service teacher education: a
narrative of a personal. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, (74), 51.
Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. (1997) Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist
approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
Woods, D., (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and
classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14