Question:
What is Schön’s reflective model? How do I use it?
Answer:
Schön splits reflection into two parts that work together:
- Reflection-in-action: Thinking while you’re doing the task and adjusting on the spot.
- Reflection-on-action: Analysing afterwards to understand what happened and how to improve.
Markers like the model because it shows real-time judgement and critical evaluation after the event.
When to use it
This approach is perfect for practice-based assignments (nursing, teaching, social work, business presentations, labs), but it is also useful in any task where you made decisions under pressure and then reviewed the outcome.
How to structure a Schön-style reflection
Use clear signposting. Think of it as two lenses on the same episode.
- Context (brief)
- Set the scene in 2–3 sentences: module, aim, audience, constraints.
- Protect confidentiality (use pseudonyms; remove identifying details).
- Reflection-in-action (during)
- Describe the moment of cue + response. What did you notice in real time? What options did you consider? What did you change?
- Name the micro-skills you used (for example, open questions, de-escalation, pacing, clarifying assumptions).
- Reflection-on-action (after)
- Analyse outcomes: What worked, what did not, and why?
- Link to theory/frameworks to interpret your choices (communication theory, clinical judgement models, leadership concepts). Cite sparingly but precisely.
- Learning & action plan
- State the insight in one line (“I learnt that…”).
- Convert it into a SMART action (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).
- Note how you’ll evaluate success next time.
Language, tone and evidence
- First person is fine (“I noticed… I decided…”) — it’s your judgement the marker wants.
- Be analytical, not confessional. Show reasoned choices, not just feelings.
- Balance description (minimal) with analysis (majority).
- Ground claims with evidence: module rubrics, policy or codes of practice, peer-reviewed sources, or credible guidance.
A quick example:
Context: During a teaching demo, I noticed students avoiding eye contact and giving one-word answers.
In-action: I paused the slides and switched to a think-pair-share prompt, then cold-called using names on cards to widen participation. I also slowed my speaking pace.
On-action: Participation rose (14/18 spoke within five minutes). This supports the value of active learning for engagement (Prince, 2004). My initial monologue created extraneous cognitive load; chunking content and adding retrieval practice improved processing (Sweller et al., 2011).
Learning: I will plan two interaction points every ten minutes and script at least three hinge questions.
SMART action: By week 4 I will pilot a 10-minute mid-lesson activity and measure participation using a simple tally; success = ≥75% of students contributing.
Marking hints (how to pick up easy points)
- Map to learning outcomes: Quote the exact outcome (“Demonstrate reflective practice…”) and show how your reflection meets it.
- Ethical note: Confirm consent/anonymisation where relevant; avoid identifiable details.
- Clarity: Use sub-headings (“In-action”, “On-action”) and transition phrases (“In the moment, I…”, “Afterwards, I…”).
- Evidence of change: Markers reward projected transfer: explain how you’ll apply the insight next time and how you’ll know it worked.
Common pitfalls (and quick fixes)
- Too much narrative → Compress the story; expand the analysis.
- No theory → Add one concise lens to interpret the episode.
- Vague takeaways → Write a SMART plan and an evaluation method.
- Breaching confidentiality → Use pseudonyms; remove locations/IDs; keep it professional.
Quick checklist before you submit
- Did I separate in-action from on-action clearly?
- Did I link to at least one relevant theory/framework?
- Is my action plan SMART and tied to module goals?
- Have I protected confidentiality?
