Types of Reflection
Two types side by side (Hatton and Smith, 1995)
| Feature | Dialogic reflection | Critical reflection |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | A single event or incident | Broader historic, cultural, political framing |
| Method | Discourse with the self before and after teaching | Examining values and assumptions behind the event |
| Outcome | Awareness, possibly improvement | Transformational change in how you see yourself and the world |
| Example | “How well did I run today’s group activity?” | “Why does my school treat girls’ science learning differently from boys’?” |
Boyd and Fales (1983) on the difference
Critical reflection is what separates a teacher who repeats the same experience for ten years from one who lets experience change them.
What this means for a working teacher
- Reflective practice is non-judgmental and collaborative.
- Stay flexible and open-minded.
- Failure is on the same path as success. Both teach.
Reflection sits on a spectrum. At one end, a quick mental review of how today’s lesson went. At the other, a re-examination of the values and systems that shaped the lesson in the first place. Hatton and Smith (1995) drew the cleanest line through this spectrum and named the two main bands: dialogic reflection and critical reflection.
Dialogic reflection: the conversation with yourself
Dialogic reflection is the lighter form. It involves a kind of internal discourse, a conversation with yourself, about a specific event or incident. The teacher considers the decisions and judgments that were made, and the possible reasons for them.
A working example is the model proposed by Brockbank and McGill (2000). It runs in three steps.
- Before the lesson. Think about what you intend to teach: what content, which methods, what level of engagement you want.
- During the lesson. Notice what is happening. Adjust where needed.
- After the lesson. Consider how well you achieved your goals. Decide what needs further attention.
The same teacher might ask, “Have I been creative enough to keep students engaged?” That is dialogic reflection. It is internal, it is focused on a particular event, and it leans on what you already believe about teaching.
This kind of reflection sits inside constructivism. It assumes the teacher is constructing their own understanding of teaching, lesson by lesson. It is a useful first step. But Moon (2004) cautioned that awareness alone does not necessarily improve the situation. Knowing the lesson did not work and feeling the discomfort of that knowledge is not the same as fixing the underlying issue.
Critical reflection: the wider frame
Critical reflection looks past the event to the broader context that shaped it. Hatton and Smith (1995) describe it as accounting for the historic, cultural, and political values in framing practical problems and arriving at solutions.
The shift in scope matters. Dialogic reflection might ask, “Why did the group activity fall flat today?” Critical reflection might ask, “Why do my group activities consistently work better with boys than with girls, and what does that tell me about how the classroom is set up?”
Boyd and Fales (1983, p. 100) put the difference well: critical reflection is the core difference between a person who repeats the same experience several times and becomes highly proficient at one behaviour, and a person who learns from experience in a way that changes them cognitively or emotionally.
A teacher who does only dialogic reflection can become very skilled at running the same lesson the same way. A teacher who adds critical reflection can change the lesson, the assumptions behind it, and sometimes themselves.
Transformational learning
Critical reflection enables what the field calls transformational learning. Two routes are common.
- Gradual. Across many lessons, small reflective moves accumulate. The teacher slowly shifts how they see their students, their subject, or their own role.
- Critical incident. A single event, often hard or unexpected, forces the teacher to reframe what they thought they knew. A student’s response that a teacher cannot explain. A failure that does not fit any prior pattern.
Both routes change the way the teacher sees themselves and their world. Both are slower than gathering new techniques. The change is at a deeper level.
Where the two types overlap
The two are not strictly separate. Dialogic reflection on the same event, repeated over time, often surfaces patterns that pull the teacher into critical reflection. The teacher who notices the same disengagement in three lessons starts to ask why. The why opens the door.
In practice, most teachers move between the two types depending on what the situation calls for. After a one-off difficult lesson, dialogic reflection is often enough. When the same problem keeps coming back, critical reflection becomes necessary.
What this means for a reflective practitioner
Three working rules follow from the distinction between dialogic and critical reflection.
- Reflective practice is non-judgmental and collaborative. Reflection that turns into self-blame stops working. Reflection that includes other voices, like a critical friend’s, gets sharper.
- Stay flexible and open-minded. A reflective stance that has already decided the answer is not reflection. It is rationalisation.
- Make room for failure. Learning from what did not work is on the same path as learning from what did. Treat both as data.
A teacher who treats reflection as a school requirement will produce thin, defensive notes. A teacher who treats it as a long-running personal practice produces something usable.
Scope and outcome
Dialogic reflection is a focused conversation with yourself about a single event, leading to awareness or local improvement. Critical reflection looks at the historic, cultural, and political values behind the event and can produce transformational change in how you see your work and yourself.
The reason critical reflection is harder is not that the analysis is more complex. It is that the analysis runs against assumptions the teacher relies on to feel competent. Examining a method is different from examining the values the method was built on.