Such diversity requires educators to have the means to construct knowledge about differences among their learners that may not be available in standardised assessments, so it is imperative that the educator can reflect on their own classroom or school-wide context, and then act on that reflective thinking by implementing appropriate solutions (Hatton, et al., 1995). Reflective practice can move the educator from routine and technical responses to the status quo, to autonomy and decision making, “opening up a range of possible choices and responses” (Larrivee, 2008, p. 88), and so addressing the diverse needs of the class or school-wide context.

To implement such a move towards alternative responses, the educator must first test for the assumptions and biases that they currently hold and question these in terms of their own actions and the wider purpose of schooling (Larrivee, 2008; Grogan & Cleaver Simmons, 2012; Cambron-McCabe, 2000; Bullough, et al., 2016; Yost, et al., 2000). In Senge’s Schools That Learn (2000), Cambron-McCabe points out that educators can feel powerless in the face of their assumptions and beliefs about education and their particular organisation, where highly bureaucratic schooling systems can weaken participant voice. She believes it is the “critical moral purpose” (p. 283) of the educator to critique the systems within their organisation by asking, “who benefits in this structure, who is harmed, what values does it affirm?” (p. 283), and then to act on their “ethical responsibility” (p. 283) to do what is best for every child, even if this challenges the current policy or system. In a context where the pressure of league tables and test scores can lead to educators prioritising “efficiency and expediency at the expense of ongoing reflection” (Larrivee, 2008, p. 88), reflective practice is about taking control and being empowered as professionals.

As the educator becomes more experienced in reflection they may move through certain levels of reflective response as appropriate in certain situations (Yost, et al., 2000; Hatton & Smith, 1995, Larrivee, 2008). According to Larrivee (2008), for example, reflection might be at a surface level, focusing on the actions or skills required to deal with a specific teaching incident; or it might move to reflection on the rationale for a pedagogical approach to a current topic. Critical reflection, however, moves the educator towards considering the ethical consequences of their actions, where the individual is able to critically examine their personal and professional beliefs and therefore focus both inwardly on their own practice and outwardly on the social context of their work. Ultimately, levels of reflection build to critically examining one’s own viewpoint within the wider context of schooling, whereby “the end result of critical reflection is cognitive change” (Yost, et al., 2000, p. 41).
Educators can be resistant to reflection, given that they are often time poor and may not have the resources for effective reflective practice, tending instead to focus on the immediate problem that they must solve (Hatton & Smith, 1995), where reflection might be considered a “diversion from the real work” (p. 37). For the neophyte teacher the default approach can be to revert to “traditional notions about schools based on their own experiences” (Yost, et al., 2000, p. 42) leading to resistance to reflection on their prior experiences. The priority is often learning “teacher survival skills” (Hatton & Smith, 1995, p. 37) rather than giving any time to learning how to be reflective. Reflecting critically can be an uncomfortable process, leading to self-blame and vulnerability as a professional (Hatton & Smith, 1995), and a sense of discomfort and emotional response (Larrivee, 2008).