0
0
Reflective Practice: Comparing Models for Learning and Leadership
Credit to Dr Julie Luscombe/ People like me coaching and training consultancy (I learned this from her)
Reflective practice has become more than just a personal development tool—it’s a core discipline for effective leadership, decision-making, and continuous learning. Whether you’re in healthcare, education, coaching, or management, structured reflection helps professionals understand their actions, learn from experience, and adapt with insight.
Three models stand out for guiding reflective practice: Gibbs, Driscoll, and Stephenson & Holm. While they share a common goal—turning experience into learning—they each offer a different lens and depth.
1. Gibbs Reflective Cycle (1988)
Structure:
Description – What happened?
Feelings – What were you thinking and feeling?
Evaluation – What was good and bad?
Analysis – What sense can you make of it?
Conclusion – What else could you have done?
Action Plan – What will you do next time?
Strengths:
Encourages emotional processing as well as rational analysis.
Promotes a comprehensive and structured review of an event.
Popular in education and health settings.
Limitations:
Can feel repetitive or mechanical.
Focuses on specific incidents rather than wider patterns or values.
2. Driscoll’s ‘What?’ Model (1994)
Structure:
What? – Describing the experience.
So what? – Understanding the significance.
Now what? – Identifying future actions.
Strengths:
Simplicity and clarity make it highly accessible.
Encourages action and change, not just reflection.
Useful in fastpaced environments needing quick reviews.
Limitations:
May lack depth for complex emotional or ethical issues.
More reliant on the user’s initiative to expand the reflection.
3. Stephenson & Holm’s Reflective Practice Model (2001)
Structure:
Focuses on value-led reflection, integrating personal beliefs, ethics, and professional identity.
Emphasizes critical dialogue and narrative based reflection.
Encourages practitioners to explore not only “what happened” but also “who I am in this process.”
Strengths:
Promotes authenticity and congruence between personal and professional self.
Wellsuited for leadership, coaching, and valuesdriven fields.
Supports deeper transformation beyond just fixing mistakes.
Limitations:
Requires emotional honesty and time—may not suit all organizational cultures.
Less structured; can feel abstract without proper facilitation.
So, Which One?
Each model has its place:
Use Gibbs for structured incident reviews in training or professional development.
Choose Driscoll for quick, focused reflections in fast-moving contexts.
Opt for Stephenson & Holm when exploring personal values, leadership identity, or longterm transformation.
For reflective practice to be effective, it’s not just about the model—it’s about making time, asking honest questions, and being willing to learn and change.
See also Reflective Practice: Daily Habit Or Occasional Reflection? A Balanced Look
https://thinkingfeelingbeing.com/2025/05/23/reflective-practice-daily-habit-or-occasional-reflection-a-balanced-look/
