Schön asserted that reflection is a tool with which professionals deal with complex or ambiguous issues. He argued that, to avoid reliance on existing theories, they instead use more intuitive methods; denoting this as Reflection in Action (during an event), and Reflection on Action (retrospective review of an event). The concept of Reflection in Action has been exposed to critique; Eraut (1999) citing time constraints as a limiting factor preventing reflection. However, there is agreement that action is a crucial element of the reflective process; research highlighting that it is not sufficient to have an experience in order to learn (Gibbs, 1988; Loughran, 2002) but it is instead necessary to reflect on the experience to make generalisations and formulate or modify concepts which can then be applied to new situations (Kolb, 1984; Larrivee, 2000). Whilst theories surrounding the reflective process share a common focus, there are apparent differences in conceptions. The work of Schon, which rejected formal theory, has been criticised for its potential to promote isolated practitioners (Dyke, 2006). Subsequently, it has been argued that practitioners need to expose ideas to the critical reflection of others to avoid marginalisation (Ghaye, 2008; Kemmis, 2005). Strengthening this view are suggestions that reflection, when undertaken as part of a team, improves the quality of interpersonal relationships, increases trust and resilience and deepens meaning (Ghaye, 2011; Osterman and Kottkamp, 1993). .
With consideration given to the teaching profession, there is acknowledgement that effective reflective practice requires continual evaluation and revision (Trip, 2012; Pollard, 2014). In support of this idea Kolb (1984) and Gibbs (1988) introduced the concept of the learning cycle within their frameworks for reflection; the later including focus on the role of emotion in the process.
