Philosophy and Teacher Education

A Reinterpretation of Donald A.Schon's Epistemology of Reflective Practice

Stephen Newman

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138367159
• eBook ISBN: 9780429770388
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Published in 1999, this text sets out to give a reinterpretation of Schon's work. It breaks new ground by looking systematically at the entirety of his writings, by identifying critical difficulties with Schon's work, and by subjecting his work to reinterpretation.

1
Introduction

Writers who use the term ‘reflective’ at this time in the history of educational research risk the wrath of serious readers, if they do not relate their own conceptualization to that of Donald Schön as presented in The Reflective Practitioner (Roberts and Chastko 1990, p.199).¹

Introduction

In his Preface to the Philosophical Investigations (Wittgenstein 1953/1958), Wittgenstein suggests that his investigations can be likened to a journey criss-crossing over many routes, always approaching the same place but from different directions (Wittgenstein 1953/1958, p.vii). This analogy is useful in attempting to describe the structure of what follows in this book, which can be seen as a web composed of a number of interconnecting themes.

One of the major themes of this book is the contention that there are fundamental difficulties with Schöns work, at a variety of levels, which call into question the often uncritical use made of it by others (see, for example, Regan and Hannah 1993; Amos and Postlethwaite 1996, though there are many other examples). Some of these difficulties, I shall show, Schön himself identified but did not resolve; an example of one such difficulty being Schön’s proposals for a reflective practicum, which Schön himself recognized as vague and not properly worked out. Other difficulties can be found (I shall argue) at the epistemological level in Schön’s work (and, in particular, with his account of convergence of meaning), and also in the use which Schön makes of case studies in his attempt to support his epistemological account. The case studies, I shall argue, do not give the support to his thesis which Schön claims (and requires). Argument is made for the view that any epistemology presupposes a theory of meaning and an account of language; I shall argue that the philosophical reminders of Wittgenstein are helpful and important in reassessing the importance and significance of the work of Donald Schön. Schön’s claim to have identified a new epistemology is tested against this view and is shown to be inadequate as a description purporting to account for convergence of meaning. An alternative description of convergence of meaning is offered based on the later work of Wittgenstein. It is argued that, in spite of Schön’s claim to be extending the work of Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein’s later work anticipated that of Schön and showed that the account of meaning which Schön was later to propose was incoherent. Schön’s notion of reflection-in-action is rejected as redundant in accounting for convergence of meaning; the significance of context and of actions as well as words in convergence of meaning is highlighted and developed. The case studies with which Schön and, in places, his coauthors attempted to support their thesis are then reinterpreted and shown to be capable of being placed within the Wittgensteinian description of meaning and language which has been advanced.

Around this central theme concerning difficulties in Schön’s work, are interwoven others. Thus this book can itself be read as a defence of a particular interpretation of a philosophical perspective (that of the later Wittgenstein), of the nature of language and meaning, and also as an elaboration of some of the various social contexts in which language-games are taught and learnt. As such, it is suggested that what follows is itself a case study of one way in which convergence of meaning may be achieved, insofar as it seeks to bring about such convergence of meaning between the work of Schön and Wittgenstein. In offering an interpretation which dissolves the ‘theoretical’ difficulties of Schöns account, which is supported by the case studies, and which does offer positive proposals concerning teacher education and continuing professional development, it is also possible to read what follows as supporting the use of qualitative case studies as argued by Elliott (Elliott 1991, p.65) and is itself an example of one form that teacher continuing professional development can take.

Structurally, what follows opens with a narrow focus by giving detailed consideration to Schön and his corpus of work. The focus subsequently broadens to include argument relating to the political context of teacher education and professional development in England, and the perceived attractions of Schön’s work to many in that context. The relationship of Schön’s work to that of Wittgenstein is also explored, and the meta-problems with Schön’s work highlighted. Consideration is also given to Schön’s use of case studies and to the proposals Schön makes; in both cases, problems are identified within Schön’s work. It is consistent with the approach adopted to see Schön’s work as philosophical in nature or, at least, as containing meta-assumptions which require examination at a meta (that is to say, philosophical) level. In particular, I shall focus attention on the uses made of Schön’s work in an area where it has been especially influential, namely teacher education. In the light of this broader examination, attention then returns to re-evaluate the importance of Schöns work; one of the conclusions being that Schöns work, once reinterpreted, offers valuable insights into the possibilities afforded by teacher education and continuing professional development, and that initial teacher training needs to be regarded as merely one part of a wider notion of continuing professional development.

In the examination of Schöns work, the methodological approach adopted throughout is that of criticisms targeted directly on Schön’s work, rather than on interpretations or uses made of that work by others. Thus, as will become clear, attention is focussed throughout on work written, coauthored, or edited by Schön. As a consequence, much of the work which is examined in what follows was written in the United States or Canada. This methodology has been employed to avoid misrepresenting Schöns work; in addition, this methodology will also help to avoid the difficulties identified in relation to other writers by Barrow who observed that, though the influence of certain authors has been considerable, ‘the nature and direction of the influence is not necessarily that which the authors might have wished’ (Barrow 1984, p.24).

Reflection and teacher education

It is a platitude to suggest that the notion of ‘reflection’ has become increasingly widely used in teacher education; the notion of reflection, in one guise or another, has it seems become ‘one of a handful of approved party lines’ (Kagan 1992, p.43). Just as in North American teacher education, where the notion of the reflective practitioner has been called ‘the new Zeitgeist’ (Zeichner and Tabachnick 1991, p.1), and where it is used along with its associated impedimenta of terms such as ‘reflection-inaction’ and ‘reflective teaching’, so too in Britain, ‘reflective teaching’ has become an increasingly popular phrase, often used in association with a variety of other terms such as ‘reflective practice’, ‘inquiry-orientated teacher education’, ‘reflection-in-action,‘ teacher as researcher and so on. In both North America and Britain there seems to have been an increase in the importance of reflection in teacher education programmes (Richardson 1990, p. 13; Calderhead 1988) and the literature on the subject has grown quickly (Calderhead 1989, p.43). Indeed, so quick has this growth in the literature been that the then editor of one leading journal in the field of teacher education was minded to write (in 1991) that few articles arrived in his office ‘without “reflection” in their titles or sprinkled over the text’ (Stones 1991, p.235), and he subsequently bemoaned the fact that what he termed this ‘avalanche of articles about ‘‘reflection”’ (Stones 1992b, p.3) often used the term ‘reflection’ either simply to describe trivial activities, or as merely ‘an entry test to the club in many circles of teacher education’ (Stones 1996, p.247). As a consequence, he feared the term ‘reflection’ was in danger of becoming devalued (Stones 1991, p.235). In a similar vein, others have questioned the increasing popularity of the notion of ‘reflection’, and suggested that reflective practice is itself far less common than the use of the appropriate rhetoric (Hartley 1993, p.91), that reflective teaching has become a ‘slogan’ (Tabachnick and Zeichner 1991, p.ix; Calderhead 1989, p.46), the use of which hinders rather then helps rational argument and debate (Carr 1989, p.1). It thus seems timely to examine the notion of the reflective practitioner in the context of teacher education in England.

One of the most widely cited authors in the field of the reflective practitioner is Donald Schön. Though there are other authors in the field, it is Schön’s work (both alone and with others) on the reflective practitioner which is of ‘pre-eminent importance’ (Fish 1989, pp.27-8) and which has had the most influence on establishing the notion of reflective practice (McCulloch 1993, p.298). In relation to education, which Schön addressed specifically for the first time only as recently as 1987 (Grimmett 1988, p. 13), Schön’s work has been particularly influential. This is testified by very many writers in the field (for example, Court 1988, p.143; Grimmett 1988, pp.5-6; Grimmett 1989; Fenstermacher 1988, p.39; MacKinnon and Erickson 1992; Zeichner and Tabachnick 1991, p.l). It has been written of Schön’s work that it is initially attractive and looks persuasive for teachers and teacher educators (Fenstermacher 1988, p.39), and that it seems ‘to promise fresh understandings about the character of practicum’ (MacKinnon and Erickson 1988, p.113). It has also been noted that some even see ‘reflection’ as the way to decide what teacher education is (Gilroy and Smith 1993, p.23). Another author considers Schön’s book Educating the Reflective Practitioner to have made a ‘significant contribution … albeit indirectly … to … teacher education’ (McDonald 1989, p.252), and in 1985 The Reflective Practitioner (Schön 1983a) was named an ‘outstanding book in educational studies’ by the American Educational Studies Association (Schön 1994). Indeed, it has been written that ‘perhaps the most important change in the role of theory for professional practitioners has been called to our attention by Schön’ (Fish 1989, p.59). From these remarks it seems clear that, in the examination of the importance of the notion of the reflective practitioner, Schön’s work merits closer examination, as it would seem to promise much.

Donald Alan Schön

Donald Alan Schön was born in Boston, Massachusetts on 19 September 1930, the son of Marcus David Henry Schön and Ann Schön (née Mason). He married Nancy Quint on 20 December 1952; Schön and his wife had four children. He was raised in Brookline and Worcester, and graduated from Brookline High School in 1947. After a spell working at the Hotel Griswold when he was seventeen years old (Schön 1963/67, p.67), Schön spent 1949-1950 at the Sorbonne in Paris, and studied clarinet at the Conservatoire Nationale de Paris (Schön 1987a, p.xvii) where, in 1950, he won First Prize. In 1951 Schön graduated from Yale with his B.A. in philosophy where his ‘Scholar of the House’ thesis was concerned with metaphor and emotive meaning in the work of I.A. Richards. On graduating from Yale, Schön enrolled at Harvard where in 1952, as an automatic consequence of passing the General Examinations, he received his M.A. in philosophy; in 1952 he held the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship at Harvard.

In 1953 Schön became Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of California in Los Angeles. It was in December 1954 that Schön submitted his Ph.D. thesis in philosophy at Harvard, being awarded his doctorate in June 1955; the title of his doctoral thesis was Rationality in the Practical Decision-Process (Schön 1954) and it was based, in large part, on an analysis of John Dewey’s Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (Dewey 1938; Schön 1994). Upon receiving his doctorate, Schön was promptly drafted into the army where he spent what he later called ‘a rather blissful two years, free for the first time in 20 years of having to go to school’ (Schön 1994). During his time in the army Schön taught night classes in philosophy at the University of Kansas City in Missouri, where from 1955 to 1957 he was Assistant Professor of Philosophy.

Perhaps as a result of this ‘blissful’ period, upon leaving the Army in 1957, Schön shifted the direction of his attention away from academia to become a Staff member of the consulting and industrial research firm of Arthur D. Little, Inc. where he stayed until 1963. Whilst there, Schön formed the New Product Group in the Research and Development Division, whose aim was to conceive and develop new products for client companies. This was a ‘cross-disciplinary invention group’ (Hainer, Kingsbury and Gleicher 1967, p.225) whose tasks included generation of product ideas, determining technical feasibility, constructing first models, doing preliminary market work and making the transition to the client’s technical and marketing groups. Under Schön’s direction this group contributed to the development of, for example, a new type of collagen-based products, a new type of decorative paper, and a line of vinyl materials which subsequently became widely used (Hainer, Kingsbury and Gleicher 1967, p.225). In his six years at Arthur D. Little, Inc. Schön led projects for over 30 companies and participated in cases involving approximately one hundred others; clients included U.S. Steel, Canadian International Paper, and Westinghouse, as well as a number of small and middle-sized firms. In 1960 Schön conducted a study for the three military services and the National Inventors Council on the problems of technical innovation in the military services. Between 1962 and 1963 he conducted a study for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce on patterns and problems of technical innovation in American industry, and served as Chairman of the OECD Committee on invention and innovation.

During his time at Arthur D. Little, Inc. Schön became increasingly interested in the ability of companies to use their own technical resources effectively for products and process innovation, and worked on this issue over two and three year periods as a consultant for various companies in the fields of food appliances, plastics, and personal care products. After six years with Arthur D. Little, Inc., Schön went to Washington in 1963, during the Kennedy Administration, to work with Dr Herbert Holloman, then Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology in the Department of Commerce. Schön was, at first, Director of the Office of Technical Services (later the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information); the Office of Technical Services had responsibility for conveying federally funded generated research and development results to industry, and for providing policy guidance to the Department of Commerce on the promotion of invention and innovation (Schön 1967b, p.759, footnote 1; 1994). In January 1964 he became the first director of the Institute for Applied Technology in the National Bureau of Standards (also part of the Department of Commerce, and also reporting to Herbert Holloman). The Institute of Applied Technology consisted of the Office of Technical Services, the Civilian Industrial Technology Program of research assistance to the textile industry, and a number of activities and divisions concerned with technology previously located in the National Bureau of Standards, including work on computer and automatic data processing, building research, textiles, electronic instrumentation, test development, operations research and systems analysis, and analysis of the effect of Federal Policy on technical innovation. Schön was to write later of these three years in government that it was this period which led to his disillusionment with the understanding (or rather, the lack of understanding, as he then perceived it to be) of directed change in society, whether it be programmes to reduce crime, improve health care or improve poor housing (Schön 1971b, p.47). He detected a mismatch between intellectual or theoretical ideas and what was required or existing in practice (Schön 1971b, p.47).

In July 1966 Schön returned to Boston to become President of the Organization for Social and Technical Innovation (OSTI), a post he held until June 1973. This organization (later termed the Organization for Social and Technological Innovation) was a non-profit social research and consulting organization in which Schön played a major role founding and managing. Amongst its activities, it launched experimental programmes of social action and research in community and neighbourhood development, in low-cost housing, in service delivery systems, and in health, disability and education, and by 1969 OSTI had three offices (in San Francisco, Washington, and Cambridge, Massachusetts) and a staff of seventy (Schön 1969b, p.53). During his Presidency of OSTI, in 1970, Schön delivered the BBC Reith Lectures (being at that time the youngest person to do so); during this same period Schön was also, between July 1966 and July 1968, a Research Associate at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and, between January 1968 and July 1968, Visiting Lecturer at the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Schön’s work at the Organization for Social and Technological Innovation was the main focus of his attention until September 1972, when Schön began a return to academia by becoming Ford Professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; between 1972 and 1974 Schön moved from being a half-time to a full-time faculty member there. Schön remained Ford Professor of Urban Studies and Education until July 1990, whereupon he was appointed Chair of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Institute, a post he held until July 1992. From July 1992 until his death in Boston on 13 September 1997, Schön was Ford Professor Emeritus and Senior Lecturer at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Schön was also, at various times in his career, affiliated to other organisations. He was a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Science’s Commission on the Year 2000 (Schön 1970a, p.8), a Member of the National Research Council’s Commission on Sociotechnical Systems, and was also a Trustee of the Education Development Corporation, of the Institute for the Quality of Working Life, of Preterm, Inc., of AIA Research Corporation, of the Community Systems Foundation, of F.A. Rodet (Sweden) and of the Jerusalem Institute of Management. He was also a consultant to some church groups (Schön 1970a, p.8), including the Catholic Church in Boston (Schön 1976a, p.1).

Throughout his career, Schön received numerous honours and fellowships, including, in 1951, being elected to the honorary society for ‘distinguished scholars’ (Simpson and Weiner 1989, p.677) Phi Beta Kappa, winner of the ‘Philosophical Oration’, and also ‘Scholar of the House’ at Yale. In 1953 he won the Fulbright Award, though Schön refused it for personal reasons, not wishing at that particular time to leave the United States (Schön 1995). During his time at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Schön was Cecil Green Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of British Columbia (in 1979), elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects (in 1984), Queens Quest Lecturer at Queens University (in 1984) (Schön 1987a, p.xvii), elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (in Great Britain) in 1986, where, in the same year, he was Cubitt Lecturer. In 1986 Schön was Leatherbee Distinguished Research Lecturer at Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, and, in 1989, Distinguished Lecturer at the Engineering Education Association. In 1990 Schön was Dewey Lecturer of the American Association of Educational Research.

Schön was, then, a graduate in philosophy and it will be argued here that there is a philosophical dimension to his work throughout his career. That is not to say, however, that the philosophical aspects have always been explicit; on the contrary, during his career (as will be shown), Schön at times moved away from explicitly philosophical issues. As such, his writings have been taken as useful for a range of publications not usually thought of as ‘philosophical’. This can be seen by examining the content and publication details of articles written by Schön in t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Referencing
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Emergence of Novelty: The Work of Donald A. Schön
• 3. Schön and Wittgenstein: Themes in Schön’s Work
• 4. Theory and Practice: Schön and Teacher Education
• 5. Towards Convergence of Meaning (I): Schön’s Epistemological Proposals
• 6. Towards Convergence of Meaning (II): An Alternative Account
• 7. Towards Convergence of Meaning (III): Wittgenstein and Schön
• 8. Teacher Education and Professional Development
• 9. Teacher Education and Professional Development: Reflective Practice Reconsidered
• 10. Concluding Remarks
• 11. The Work of Donald Alan Schön
• Bibliography
• Index