The symposium dealt critically with the actual tendency to take for granted that reflection as an important dimension of pedagogy and pedagogical efforts produces a “consciousness” which implies that our experiences can be fully grasped on a cognitive level. Moreover, pedagogical theories and practices mostly argue in a normative way, often referring to empirical research based on the concept of quantifiable competences, a measurable output or the like. Especially, from the phenomenological perspective, this view is not completely acceptable. Reflection here is regarded as a “secondary experience”, ciphered out from a basic pre-reflexive multiplicity, e.g. of experiences. Thus, finding ourselves in a concrete situation, we tend to complete our actual experiences by reconstructing the invisible sides of the situation, realizing the unsaid as it is revealed by the explicit, by focusing on issues read between the lines. In doing so we often recur to a corporally conveyed experiential knowledge whenever we want to decide whether or how something makes sense to us. All this can be regarded as a tacit side in pedagogical practices and processes. Beside explicit decisions concerning pedagogical measures, social settings, subjects, schedules, didactical tasks a.s.o. the implicit meanings of spoken and written statements and the tacit expressions and contextualizations of body-communication and -interaction play a central role in pedagogical situations. This is also true for aesthetical frames, for the objects and for other un-verbalized resources and limitations of certain commodities, tools and architectural environments. These aspects constitute a sort of incidental scenery that might grant pedagogical interventions and support ways of teaching and learning or might also inhibit them.