Reflective models give you prompts for examining an experience rather than only retelling it. Gibbs separates the process into six stages; Kolb connects experience with testing a new idea; Schön distinguishes reflection during and after an event; Driscoll uses three broad questions; Johns uses cue questions for closer examination.
If your assignment names a model, use that version. If you can choose, start with what you need to examine—not with which model has the most headings. The University of Edinburgh’s Reflection Toolkit explains how frameworks can structure reflection without making one compulsory for every situation.
Which reflective model should you choose?
This is an editorial comparison to help you choose a starting point, not a ranking of which model produces better results. The source links below explain the frameworks.
| Model | Consider it when… | Watch out for… |
|---|---|---|
| Gibbs | You need to separate events, reactions, evaluation, explanation and next steps. | Repeating the story under six headings. |
| Kolb | You want to turn a lesson from experience into something you can test. | Claiming the next attempt succeeded before trying it. |
| Schön | You want to distinguish an adjustment made in the moment from a later interpretation. | Presenting hindsight as something you knew at the time. |
| Driscoll | You want a short set of questions to organise an initial reflection. | Giving “So what?” only a one-line answer. |
| Johns | Your course uses guided questions to examine a practice experience. | Mixing versions or treating a reflection as clinical instructions. |
1. Gibbs’ reflective cycle
The six stages are description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion and action plan. A useful distinction is between judging what worked and explaining why it may have worked. Our Gibbs explanation and worked example follows one experience through the stages.
Source: University of Portsmouth: writing reflective assignments. For citation formats, see referencing Gibbs.
2. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle
Kolb connects concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. The point is not just to look back: the learner develops an idea and tries it in practice. Sussex’s reflective-writing guide describes these four stages.
Illustrative use: after struggling to explain a chart, a student notices that unfamiliar axis labels caused hesitation. They develop the idea of defining the labels before discussing the trend, then test that approach in the next practice explanation. Whether it helps is a question for the next attempt, not an assumed result.
Continue to our Kolb overview.
3. Schön: reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action
Reflection-in-action concerns thinking and adjusting during an experience. Reflection-on-action examines it afterwards. The University of Hull’s Schön guide explains this timing distinction.
Illustrative use: a student presenting a chart notices that the labels are unreadable and enlarges them during the presentation. That adjustment belongs to the event. Later, the student reviews why the original layout was unsuitable and how to check it beforehand. Keep these two accounts separate: a later explanation should not be written as if it guided the earlier decision.
Read our Schön explanation or Schön referencing guide.
4. Driscoll: What? So what? Now what?
Driscoll’s approach builds on Terry Borton’s earlier three questions. “What?” establishes the experience; “So what?” examines its meaning; “Now what?” develops action. The Edinburgh guide also identifies related adaptations, including Rolfe and colleagues. The names are not interchangeable references: cite the version you actually used.
Illustrative use: “I could not explain the chart” supplies a starting point. The middle question needs more: what information was missing, what assumption did you make, and what supports that interpretation? Finish by identifying a change you can actually try.
For publication details, use our Driscoll referencing guide.
5. Johns’ model of reflection
Johns’ model is associated with Christopher Johns’ work on reflective practice. Queen Margaret University’s guidance describes it as a series of cue questions used mainly in health professions to examine aspects of an experience. Use the version supplied by your course or supervisor rather than assuming every diagram has the same questions.
Our Johns overview provides a starting point. Reflection does not replace clinical guidance, supervision or confidentiality rules.
Using a model without just filling boxes
- Choose a specific episode. “My whole placement” is difficult to examine; a particular decision or interaction gives you something concrete to analyse.
- Keep evidence and interpretation separate. “The file did not open” is an observation. “The software was incompatible” needs supporting evidence.
- Include your contribution. Examine what you did and could change, not only what others did wrong.
- Use theory to answer a question. Explain its connection to the event rather than attaching a reference to a generic statement.
- Return to the action plan. Record what you tried and what happened. Do not claim improvement merely because you wrote a plan.
The scenarios here are illustrative, not case studies or evidence of outcomes. For other writing and referencing tasks, browse our academic resources.