In the discourse on teacher education, there is a tendency to emphasize the ability to reflect with the aim to promote professionalization processes of preservice teachers. However, the understanding of what ‘reflection’ might be, differs. Going back to Schön (1983), two options exist: reflection-on-action as process when professionals look back in a distance mode at a situation and their actions (e.g. Häcker 2017 for Germany) and reflection-in-action as rethinking a concrete situation when decisions have to be made to go on in a process. In the last years, Bohnsack (2020) has developed the concept of practical or implicit reflection based on the sociology of knowledge of Karl Mannheim and the system theory of Niklas Luhmann. Such a practical reflection has to be distinguished from an explicit reflection which is embedded in theoretical knowledge that is used for argumentation but does not guide the habitual practices of social actors. However, both modes of reflection are able to broad perspectives by using comparative horizons whereas reflexivity is defined as using existing horizons. Against this background, the paper follows the question which forms of reflexivity and reflection can be found in discussions of preservice teachers and whether these forms can be the starting point for professionalization processes. Findings from a research project on inquiry-based learning courses in teacher education carried out at two German universities (see Hinzke et al. 2023; Paseka et al. 2023) will be presented. In such courses, the preservice teachers go through an entire research process in the context of teaching and schooling (Pedaste et al., 2015). In our research project ‘ReLieF’, funded by the German Research Association, 15 group discussions at the beginning (t1) and at the end (t2) of the Masters’ two-semester courses were carried out. The group discussions were analysed by using the documentary method, a qualitative-reconstructive method for data analysis (e.g. Bohnsack et al., 2010). In this presentation, we enquire for forms of reflexivity as well as implicit and explicit reflection. First results show that the preservice teachers at t1 mostly use quite established knowledge when talking about ‘research’ and their research experiences so far. This can be analysed as expression of reflexivity in the sense of reproduction. Nevertheless, in some groups, forms of theoretical as well as of practical reflection could be found. These results will be discussed in light of professionalization processes as well as of consequences for teacher education via inquiry-based learning courses.

Bohnsack, R. (2020). Professionalisierung in praxeologischer Perspektive. Budrich. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, V. (eds.) (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Budrich. Häcker, T. (2017). Grundlagen und Implikation der Forderung nach Förderung von Reflexivität in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. In C. Berndt, T. Häcker & T. Leonhard (eds.), Reflexive Lehrerbildung revisited. Traditionen – Zugänge – Perspektiven (S. 21-45). Klinkhardt. Hinzke, J.-H., Boldt, V.-P., Damm, A., & Paseka, A. (2023, accepted). Lehramtsstudierende reflektieren über Forschen. Praxeologisch-wissenssoziologische Analysen zu studentischen Wissensbeständen als Ausgangspunkt Forschenden Lernens. In M. Kowalski, D. Wittek, J. Korte, & J. Schröder (eds.), Dokumentarische Professionalisierungsforschung im Kontext des Lehramtsstudiums. Klinkhardt. Paseka, A., Hinzke, J.-H., & Boldt, V.-P. (2023, in preparation). Learning through Perplexities in Inquiry-based Learning Settings in Teacher Education. Teachers & Teaching. Pedaste, M. et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.