AcadFundu

Gibbs’ reflective cycle is a six-stage framework for examining an experience and deciding what to change next time: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion and action plan. Graham Gibbs introduced it in Learning by Doing in 1988; Oxford Brookes University identifies the original publication.

The six stages of Gibbs’ reflective cycle

The stage meanings follow the University of Edinburgh’s Reflection Toolkit. Choose prompts relevant to your experience; an assignment may specify its own headings.

1. Description: record what happened, your role and the outcome.
2. Feelings: consider what you thought and felt, and how this affected your actions.
3. Evaluation: identify what worked and what did not, including your contribution.
4. Analysis: examine possible explanations, drawing on relevant knowledge or literature.
5. Conclusion: state what you learned and what you could have done differently.
6. Action plan: specify what you will do in a similar situation and how you will carry it out.

Worked example: a classroom demonstration

Original illustrative example: this is a fictional student’s reflection, not a real incident or evidence that the model improves grades. It shows one connected experience across all six stages.

Description

I was giving a five-minute demonstration of a chart to my class. The chart file would not open on the classroom computer. I spent the first two minutes trying to open it, then explained the figures verbally. I reached the end of the time slot without showing the chart or explaining its axes.

Feelings

I felt frustrated when the file failed and became anxious about the remaining time. I kept trying to open it because I wanted to use what I had prepared. I cannot say how the audience felt; I did not ask them.

Evaluation

I had prepared the figures and could describe the comparison aloud. However, I did not deliver the visual explanation I had planned. Continuing to troubleshoot used time that could have gone towards an alternative explanation.

Analysis

I had tested the file only on my own computer and had not prepared an offline alternative. I do not know the exact technical cause of the failure. What I can identify is a dependency in my plan: the explanation relied on one file opening successfully. My response also lacked a stopping point for troubleshooting. That helps explain the lost speaking time without assuming I lacked subject knowledge or that the audience understood nothing.

Conclusion

I need to prepare the delivery as well as the content. Next time, I would switch to a backup explanation after a brief attempt to resolve a file problem. I should also check whether the audience understood the comparison rather than judging that from silence.

Action plan

Two days before my next demonstration, I will export a PDF copy of the chart and prepare a printed backup. I will test the file on the classroom computer if access is available. During a timed rehearsal, I will practise switching to the backup after one unsuccessful opening attempt. After the demonstration, I will ask a classmate to summarise the comparison and use that feedback when reviewing the plan.

Evaluation and analysis are not the same

In the example, “I did not explain the axes” evaluates the delivery against its purpose. “My plan depended on one untested file” proposes an explanation. Repeating “the demonstration went badly” in both sections adds no analysis.

Keep the distinction between an observation and a hypothesis. The file failure was observed; its technical cause remains unknown. A reflective account can acknowledge that uncertainty and still identify a practical change.

Using the cycle in an assignment

Queen Margaret University’s reflection guidance treats analysis as a place to examine factors and relevant theory, and the action plan as a practical next step. If your course requires literature, explain how a source helps interpret the particular experience; do not insert a citation merely to decorate a paragraph.

Use your own experience for assessed work. The demonstration example is a scaffold, not a submission to copy. Do not invent another person’s feelings, feedback or words. For professional reflections, follow your course and workplace confidentiality requirements.

What the model cannot establish

Completing six headings does not prove that an explanation is correct or that performance will improve. Compare your interpretation with records or feedback where available, consider another explanation, and review what happened after trying the action plan. The structure supports reflection; it does not replace evidence, professional supervision or required procedures.

Referencing Gibbs’ reflective cycle

The original publication is Gibbs, G. (1988), Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods, Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic. Use the edition or webpage you actually consulted. Reading a summary is not the same as reading the book.

For Harvard and APA examples, use our separate Gibbs referencing guide. To compare this framework with alternatives, see reflective models.