The Principle of Reflection

Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)


There is wide agreement in the literature that “reflection” is a critical component of turning experience into learning. Reflection lies at the heart of experience-based learning, and in the absence of reflection, experiences remain experiences, and the full potential for learning will not come to fruition. This chapter is developed from the seminal studies of Kolb and Schön grounded in antecedent work of Dewey, Lewin and Piaget. Despite consensus regarding its importance, there is little practical guidance for teachers and students on how to carry out the process of reflection. To address this situation, two strategies are proposed. First, the chapter provides a novel pedagogical suggestion on embedding the habit of reflection-in-action in teaching practice through regular use of agile development methodologies. Second, a checklist and questionnaire are developed to provide a structured mechanism to assist both the teacher and student to engage in reflection while learning the art of design and innovation. The instrument was developed from engagement with the psychology literature and the action research literature.


Reflection Experiential learning Action learning Action research Lewin Kolb 


  1. Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile software development methods: Review and analysis. Aailable on-line through Accessed October 2019. Espoo, Finland: VTT publication 478.
  2. agilemanifesto. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Available on line through Accessed July 2019.
  3. Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice—Foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Introduction: What is reflection in learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  6. Braa, K., & Vidgen, R. (2000). Research: From observation to intervention. In K. Braa, C. Sørensen, & B. Dahlbom (Eds.), Chapter 12. Planet internet. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden. Previously published as: Braa & Vidgen, (1999) Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, (9): 25–47. Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brook, C., Pedler, M., & Burgoyne, J. (2012). Some debates and challenges in the literature on action learning: The state of the art since. Revans Human Resource Development International, 15(3), 269–282. Scholar
  9. Cervone, H. F. (2011). Understanding agile project management methods using Scrum. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 27(1), 18–22. Scholar
  10. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. [Ph.D. thesis]. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, R. G. (2016). Agile–Stage-Gate Hybrids. Research-Technology Management, 59(1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costello, G. J., Conboy, K., & Donnellan, B. (2015). Reflections on “reflection:” In action research. Paper presented at the Uncertainty is a Great Opportunity.15th European Academy of Management Conference (EURAM) 17–20 June 2015,Warsaw.Google Scholar
  15. Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning, 33(1), 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick, B. (2019a). Questions for critical reflection. Available at Accessed December 2019.
  18. Dick, B. (2019b). You want to do an action research thesis? You want to do an action research thesis? Available at Accessed December 2019.
  19. Elveton, R. O. (1970). Introduction. In R. O. Elveton (Ed.), The phenomenology of Husserl: Selected critical readings/edited, translated, and with an intro. by R. O. Elveton. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
  20. Grossmann, R. (2005). Phenomenology. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (2nd ed., pp. 695–697). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Inwood, M. J. (2005). Husserl, Edmund. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (2nd ed., pp. 408–410). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kelliher, F. (2014). Just do it: Action learning as a catalyst for reflective practice on an MBA programme. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1275–1280. Scholar
  23. Knights, S. (Ed.). (1985). Reflection and learning: The importance of a listener. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  24. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning : Experience as the source of learning and development. London Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  25. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. E. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Lauer, Q. (1965). Phenomenology : Its genesis and prospect. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Lau, F. (1997). A review of the use of action research in information systems studies. In A. Lee, J. Liebenau & J. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research (pp. 31–68). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Mårtensson, P., & Lee, A. S. (2004). Dialogical Action Research at Omega Corporation. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 507–536.Google Scholar
  29. Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Optimising the power of action learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.Google Scholar
  30. McGill, I., & Brockbank, A. (2004). The action learning handbook: Powerful techniques for education, professional development and training. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. ODE. (2006). Reflection. In Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd ed., Revised). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pearson, M., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (1985). Debriefing in experience-based learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  34. Pedler, M., & Abbott, C. (2013). Facilitating action learning: A practitioner’s guide. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  35. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  36. Revans, R. W. (2011). ABC of action learning. Farnham, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Schön, D. A. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Scrum. (2019). Scrum alliance: Transforming the world of work. Available on-line through Accessed October 2019.
  40. Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids: The next-generation stage-gate process? Research-Technology Management, 58(1), 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker, D. (Ed.). (1985). Writing and reflection. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  43. Weinstein, K. (1999). Action learning: A practical guide. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Gower.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Galway-Mayo Institute of TechnologyGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations