What is reflective practice?

Reflective practice is the ability to reflect on one's actions with the purpose to engage
in a process of continuous learning.

Guide to models of reflection – when & why should you use different ones?

Many people worry that they will be unable to write reflectively but chances are that
you do it more than they think! Many courses will expect students to reflect on their
learning as they progress through a programme. Depending on the needs of the
course this may or may not be assessed but if you are using one it is important to
write reflectively. This can help you to look back and see how your thinking has
evolved over time. Writing reflectively involves critically analysing an experience,
recording how it has impacted you and what you plan to do with your new
knowledge. It can help you to reflect on a deeper level as the act of getting
something down on paper often helps people to think an experience through. The
key to reflective writing is to be analytical rather than descriptive. Always ask why
rather than just describing what happened during an experience.

Remember!

Reflective writing is... Reflective writing isn't...

Written in the first person Written in the third person

Analytical Descriptive

Free flowing What you think you should write

Subjective Objective

A tool to challenge assumptions A tool to ignore assumptions

A time investment A waste of time

Figure 1: Reflective practice guide (Bassot, 2015).

Models, sometimes known as frameworks for reflection, encourage a structured

process to guide the act of reflection. There is no right model. It is important to
choose the one that feels most comfortable for you and best assists you to learn
from your experience. Often it is appropriate to use one model of reflection as a
basis but use prompt questions from other models if they best fit your situation. To
begin with, reflecting on your actions is something that requires conscious effort after
the event but eventually, according to Johns (2000), it will become an automatic
thought process even when you’re in the middle of experiencing the event. When
deciding which model to use, it can be helpful to find out what learning style you are
according to Honey & Mumford. You can relate these to the knowledge types shown
in Johns’ reflective models.

Below is a rough guide to the different models of reflection out there, and which
situations they are best geared towards. They are ordered from the easier ones for
the beginner who is trying to break down and evaluate a situation, to the more
complex ones that build on the basics and hope to elicit a change in your personal
beliefs and challenge your assumptions.

Gibbs reflective cycle (1988)

Good for: Good old Gibbs. Basic, good starting point, six distinctive stages. Makes
you aware of all the stages you go through when experiencing an event.

Criticisms: superficial reflection- no referral to critical thinking/analysis/assumptions

or viewing it from a different perspective (Atkins & Murphy 1993). Does not have the
number or depth of probing questions as other models.

Kolb reflective cycle (1984)

Good for: Basic starter? The reflective cycle. Consists of doing, asking how/why,
making judgement and testing out.

Criticisms: superficial reflection- no referral to critical thinking/analysis/assumptions

or viewing it from a different perspective (Atkins & Murphy 1993). Does not have the
number or depth of probing questions as other models.

Schön model (1991)

Good for: Schön described reflection-in-action (in the moment surprise &
puzzlement) and reflection-on-action (a cognitive post-mortem after the fact).
Professional model: gaining professional artistry and increasing professional
confidence.

Criticisms: highlights the difference between the two types of reflection but does not
provide extensive guidance for carrying out either.

Driscoll model (1994)

Good for: Organisational model. Easy to follow cued questions. Easy to remember
when you’re out and about using the simple “What? So what? Now what?”

Criticisms: It does not lead to deeper reflection about yourself, only the situation.

Rolfe et al’s Framework for Reflexive Learning (2001)

Good for: based on the three “What? So what? Now what?” questions, but repeats
these questions at three levels, with increasingly deeper reflection at each level. The
levels are descriptive, theoretical and action orientated. This model is based on
Borton’s developmental model. Working through the same questions at different
levels can be used to develop from novice to expert.
Criticisms: May be too complicated for a beginner who is new to reflection.

Johns’ Model for Structured Reflection (2006)

Good for: Organisational model, examines situations in context of the environment.
Provides prompt questions that are easy to follow and can be used in any order
(although they follow a natural progression). Can be used by individuals or groups.
Based on Carper’s (1978) four types of knowing -empirical, personal, ethical, and
aesthetic- Johns adds a fifth one – reflexivity- to create his model.

Criticisms: The prompt questions are not rigidly structured which could be
confusing for someone inexperienced to know which ones could be omitted and
which are salient for their reflection. The number of questions means it could be time
consuming.

Atkins & Murphy model [1993]

Good for: Deeper reflections, building on your previous experience. It encourages
you to consider assumptions.

Criticisms: It may not be suitable for quick reflections on-the-go or for beginners.

Brookfield model (2005)

Good for: Personal development model. Analysing a situation from different

perspectives- looks at an event through four lenses- self, students (or patients),
colleagues, & research. Deeper reflection leading to personal development,
considers personal self-reflection, patient feedback, peer assessment, and
information gleaned from academic literature. Suitable when person is motivated for
self-directed learning.

Criticisms: covers four different viewpoints so not the most suitable if you want to
look at an area in depth from one angle.

Mezirow model of transformative learning [1981]

Good for: First developed in 1981 although has been revised with increasing
complexity up until 1997-ish. Personal development model. Involves critically
evaluating your assumptions and deep reflection. Frames of reference, from different
viewpoints. Reflection on content is shallow but progresses to reflection on
process and reflection on premise which leads to deeper reflection, leading to
personal development. Suitable when person is motivated for self-directed learning.
Mezirow states reflection is only helpful if it leads to a transformation in self or
learning from a dilemma.

Criticisms are: This model would only be suitable if someone had the self-
motivation and time to integrate the learnings from using this model into their own
behaviour and schemas, so is a long-term model in this sense. Focuses heavily on
rational and not emotional aspects.

These are just some of the reflective models that are available. You may find one
that works for you, or you may decide that none of them really suit. These models
provide a useful guide or place to start but reflection is a very personal process, and
everyone will work towards it in a different way. Take some time to try different
approaches until you find the one that works for you. You may find that as time goes
on and you develop as a reflective practitioner that you try different methods which
suit your current circumstances. The important part is that it works and if it doesn't
then you may need to move on and try something else.
Bibliography:

Atkins, S and Murphy, K (1993) Reflective practice. Nursing Standard 9 (45): 31–7.

Bolton G (2014) Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development. London:

Sage
Boyd E & Fales A (1983) Reflective Learning: Key to Learning from
Experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 23(2): 99-117

Brookfield, S. (2005) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.

Gibbs G (1988) Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods.

London: FEU

Johns, C. (2000). Becoming a Reflective Practitioner. Oxford; Blackwell

Johns C (1995) Framing learning through reflection within Carper’s fundamental

ways of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 22: 226-34

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning. New Jersey

Mezirow J (1981) A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education. Adult Education
Quarterly 32(1): 3-24

Mezirow J (2006) An overview of transformative learning. In P. Sutherland & J.

Crowther (Editors) Lifelong learning: Concepts and context. New York: Routledge

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., Jasper, M. (2001) Critical reflection in nursing and the
helping professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith