The Differences Reflective Practice in Action and on Action Reflexive Practitioner and Reflection - Coursework Example

Part 1
Definitions:
1. Reflective practice in action
Mainly, this refers to acquiring know-how by doing and developing one’s abilities throughout his or her career life (Schon, 1996). However, one ought to be under constant surveillance of a tutor, master, or a coach whereby he or she receives instructions and directives concerning tackling varied tasks supposed to augment self expertise (Schon, 1996). The best illustration of this practice is evident mostly in architectural studios where due to varied creativity involved in coming up with excellent products the trainee engages in extremely challenging ventures. The core purpose, in this case, encompasses mastering varied aspects that will enable one to be an expert and deliver as necessitated (Schon, 1996). The leading coach or tutor in most cases when evaluating the acumen of the trainee normally exposes him or her to varying challenging scenarios. These encompass tests and tasks that will not only appear complex to him or her but also compel the trainee to seek more information in terms of posing questions as well as being creative (Schon, 1996). Hence, learn via a job at hand experience without “saving” the trainee to act when he or she has completely acquired the necessary skills. This comprises prolonged conversations between the trainee and the person initiating the entire training with the intention of ensuring effective transfer of skills.

2. Reflective practice on action
In this kind of practice, trainees or those involved in the acquisition of certain expertise usually learn by drawing upon processes, experiences as well as understandings comprising the entire know-how transfer (Schon, 1996). Mainly, people learning through this method usually “fall” on past thoughts and other experiences they underwent in the quest to augment their expertise, which is contrary to in-action training as outlined by Schon in his book. Hence, implying space left between training and time of consulting with peers normally leads to varied questions whose answers are only in the future when after encountering certain challenges one will be able to ascertain well what the entire task encompassed (Schon, 1996). Somehow, this expounding by Schon is unclear compared to in-action practice as cited by varied scholars.

Differences:
• In the first reflective practice, the trainee undergoes rigorous training under the surveillance of a coach or a master, which is contrary to an in-action practice whereby the involved person acquires know-how through experiences.

Part 2
Definitions:
1. Reflective practitioner
This is an individual known to take time at predetermined intervals in order to evaluate and review what he or she has already done (Dewey, 1933). This is to improve as well as devise new methodologies he or she deems are effective based on the situation at hand. The person of this caliber never proceeds without satisfactorily having rectified all areas that may have proved his or her work ineffective to the extent of not attaining the already set targets (Dewey, 1933). Based on the characteristics exhibited by this kind of practitioner, scholars cite this as the most appropriate character, which each person ought to embrace towards personal development (Williams, 2011, p. e25). This is because the practitioner in this case usually rectifies what may have messed up with his or her initial plan based on evidence with the intention of learning from practice as well as choices he or she had made earlier (Williams, 2011, p. e25).

2. Reflexive practitioner
This a practitioner whose basis of evaluation assumes critical perspective through subjective understanding with the intention of ascertaining the impact of former values, assumptions and actions on the current result so far attained. Mostly, this practitioner usually utilizes cause and effect approach in analyzing what could have gone wrong with the intention of making appropriate improvements (Crouch, 2012, p. 49). This is a critical approach whereby the person pioneering the move ought to be impartial and relay facts the way they ought to be as depicted by results.

Differences:
Hence, implying in the latter’s case a person ought to observe certain trends from starting to final stages where he or she would come up with a clear plan on how to implement certain values or strategies.