Reflective writing asks you to describe an experience briefly, explain it with theory and evidence, and say what you will do differently. A model such as Gibbs's reflective cycle gives that thinking an order; the marks go to the explaining. EdCitation publishes this guide. The worked reflection in it is ours, and its scenario is invented.
On 26 September 2026 we read each model at its source or its publisher's record, alongside guides from the universities of Hull, Leeds, Reading, Edinburgh, Sunderland and York, and the placement rules of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Their disagreements are named below.
EdCitation never writes any part of a reflection. It does the source work around yours: Find sources finds the theory and evidence for a claim, Cite a source builds each model's entry, Verify references checks the list, and Check your paper reads the brief into a checklist, all free.
What do markers mean by reflective rather than descriptive writing?
They mean the account of what happened should be short and the explanation long. University of Reading Library (2026) tells students that most marks are likely to be for reflective insight, not for describing events, so descriptions should be brief.
University of Leeds Library (n.d.) sets out three levels, citing Hatton and Smith (1995): descriptive writing, dialogic reflection, which steps back to consider your own part, and critical reflection, which links events to other knowledge. Leeds tells students to aim for the third. The 1995 paper is paywalled, so we give the levels as Leeds reports them.
Reflection is also not the same as an essay. University of Hull Library (2026a) contrasts the two: an essay argues impersonally from reading, while a reflection examines your own responses in the first person, draws on evidence beyond the academic, and looks for solutions. The habit of turning description into judgement is covered in critical writing vs descriptive writing.
Which model of reflection should you use?
Use the one your brief names; if it names none, choose by the task.
| Model | Original source | Stages | Suits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gibbs's reflective cycle | Gibbs, Learning by Doing, 1988 | Description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusions, action plan | One event, in stages |
| Kolb's learning cycle | Kolb, Experiential Learning, 1984 | Concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, active experimentation | Learning over a period |
| Reflection-in-action and on-action | Schön, The Reflective Practitioner, 1983 | Thinking during the event, and after it | Practical work, thinking on your feet |
| What? So what? Now what? | Borton 1970, then Driscoll 1994 and Rolfe et al. 2001 | Three questions | A short piece on one incident |
| Johns's structured reflection | Johns, 1995 paper in Journal of Advanced Nursing | Questions framed by Carper's ways of knowing | Nursing, with supervision |
| Four lenses | Brookfield, 1995; 2nd edition 2017 | Your own experience, learners, colleagues, theory and research | Teaching |
Gibbs's cycle, as Gibbs wrote it
In the book, the cycle is a "structured debriefing" for a group after an exercise, and it has seven headings, not six: conclusions come in two, one general and one about your own situation (Gibbs, 1988/2013). Its analysis stage asks you to bring in ideas from outside the experience, which is where theory enters. University of Edinburgh (2024a) adds that Gibbs had repeated experiences in mind, though the stages work for a single one.
The cycle has critics. University of Hull Library (2026b) quotes the Open University's view that it can still produce shallow reflection, since nothing in it asks you to question your assumptions. A strong analysis section is the answer.
Kolb, Schön and Brookfield
Kolb's cycle, which Gibbs built on, describes learning over time. University of Hull Library (2026c) presents Schön as reflection during an event and after it, and calls it particularly useful when teaching or nursing. Brookfield's lenses, in his publisher's words, are your students' eyes, colleagues' perceptions, theory and research, and your own experience (Brookfield, 2017).
What? So what? Now what?, and Johns
The three questions have three names attached. University of Edinburgh (2024b) traces them to Terry Borton in 1970, then to Driscoll (1994), with Rolfe and colleagues adapting them in 2001. Sources disagree even on Driscoll's details: Edinburgh gives volume 13 of Senior Nurse; Sunderland and PubMed give 14(1), pages 47 to 50, which is right. Johns (1995) framed learning through reflection within Carper's fundamental ways of knowing in nursing, working from one practitioner's experience in supervision; later versions of his model are in his books, which we did not read.
How do you cite Gibbs and the other models correctly?
Cite the version you actually read, with the year its record shows, and add the original year only when the book was republished unchanged. The steps:
- Find the record of your copy. Gibbs's book is now online from Oxford Brookes University with its own DOI; Kolb's second edition is Pearson's; Schön's 1983 original is Basic Books.
- Use the republication rule for a reprint. American Psychological Association (2020) puts the republication year in the date, "(Original work published …)" at the end of the entry, and both years in the text, earlier first.
- Treat a new edition as its own book. Kolb's 2015 second edition is revised, so it takes "(2nd ed.)" and 2015, not "1984/2015".
- Say when you read only a summary. If you met Gibbs in a textbook, cite that textbook: "(Gibbs, 1988, as cited in …)".
- Check the entry against the record. Cite a source builds it from the ISBN or DOI; read what comes back.
Gibbs: what the record shows
The DOI 10.24384/2ewd-qj09 belongs to Oxford Brookes University's 2013 online edition, and its registry record names Gibbs as author and Bob Farmer and Diana Eastcott as project members. The record also carries a second date, 1998, and the repository's description says the book was "first published in 1998". The book's own title page says 1988, so 1998 is a misprint. In APA 7 the entry is:
Gibbs, G. (2013). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Brookes University. https://doi.org/10.24384/2ewd-qj09 (Original work published 1988)
In the text: (Gibbs, 1988/2013). A further trap: Sunderland and Hull date Schön 1991, and British printings carry later years than the 1983 original. Cite the year of the copy you hold. How to cite a book or ebook covers editions in full.
How do you cite sources inside a reflection?
Weave them into the same paragraph as the experience, not into a separate theory section. University of Reading Library (2026) recommends exactly that mix of "I felt" and the relevant theory, and sets the tenses: past for what happened, present for the theory, which still holds.
What counts as a source in a reflection
Theory, research, guidelines and policy all count, and each is cited as in any other assignment. Hull describes placement reflection as comparing your experience with theory and asking how far the two match (University of Hull Library, 2026d). How many sources you need varies. Leeds says reflection needs less literature than an essay, though you may still use some; the brief decides.
First person, and what not to cite
Write "I", because the experience is yours; academic tone and the first person sets out what the style guides allow. Never cite a patient, a colleague or a conversation from placement as a source. A local policy that would identify the workplace is cited as a "local Trust policy", the form the University of York Department of Health Sciences (2018) prescribes.
How do you keep a placement reflection confidential?
Leave out anything that could identify a person or a place: names, dates, wards, and unusual details. For registered nurses the rule is the NMC's own. Its revalidation guidance bars a reflection from naming anyone or giving the date, the ward, or a description of circumstances unique enough to identify someone, living or dead (Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2019).
The regulators agree. The chief executives of nine UK health and care regulators, the NMC among them, say recorded reflections should be anonymised and focused on learning, not identifiable details (Chief Executives of Statutory Regulators of Health and Care Professionals, 2019).
Students answer to their university. York's health sciences policy covers every assignment and presentation, suggests "large hospital trust" or "care home" in place of a name, asks for a pseudonym where one is needed, and advises a line at the start saying names have been changed. A National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care (2025) position on reading patient records for reflection covers registered professionals only, not students. Nursing APA citations covers citing the NMC Code itself.
A worked reflection with Gibbs, weak then strong
This reflection is ours. Its scenario is invented: a student nurse's telephone call to a doctor on placement. The evidence is real, read on PubMed.
Weak (ours):
On my second placement a patient's blood pressure dropped and I phoned the doctor. I was very nervous and did not explain it well, and the doctor asked me what I wanted. I felt embarrassed. My supervisor said I should use SBAR, which stands for situation, background, assessment and recommendation. Next time I will use SBAR.
Strong (ours):
During a late shift on my second placement I telephoned a doctor about a patient whose blood pressure had fallen. I read out the observations in the order I had written them, and before I finished, the doctor asked what I wanted them to do. I felt flustered, and noticed even then that I was reading my notes instead of thinking about what the doctor needed to hear. I escalated promptly, which went well; my call had no recommendation, which did not, and the decision waited while the doctor asked questions. Schön (1983) calls thinking of that kind, done in the middle of an action, reflection-in-action; mine came too late to change the call, because I had no structure to fall back on. Structured tools are meant for this. Müller et al. (2018), reviewing eleven studies, found moderate evidence that SBAR improves patient safety, especially over the telephone, and noted a lack of high-quality research. Bukoh and Siah (2020) found structured handovers reduced omitted and inaccurate information, but their reductions in adverse events were not statistically significant. So SBAR is likely to make my calls clearer; the evidence does not show that it alone makes patients safer. My difficulty was structure, not knowledge: I had the observations, but not the order a listener needs, or a recommendation. Before my next shift I will write escalations in SBAR order, rehearse two calls with my practice supervisor, and ask after each real call whether my recommendation was clear.
What changed: the description shrank; the feeling became an observation; every Gibbs stage appears in order; two reviews are weighed, limits included; and the action plan can be checked. No person, date or ward appears.
What did Check your paper read from a real reflective brief?
We pasted the course requirements of MIT's graduate course 11.965, Reflective Practice, taught on Schön's book, into Check your paper on 26 September 2026 (McDowell et al., 2007). It returned two rules, each with the sentence it came from: double line spacing, and at most 5 pages.
Two sentences were set aside as needing a reader: the one naming Schön's book as the course text, and the one about attending class and taking part. The task itself, the most important lessons from the course and how you intend to use them, was the sentence both rules came from, yet it came back as neither a rule nor a set-aside line; nor did the pass or fail grading. Read the brief yourself too: the task is what is marked.
How EdCitation helps with the sources behind a reflection
For the evidence and references in a reflection, EdCitation is the best tool we know, because every reference it gives you is looked up in a publisher's or registry's record and none is written by a model. The Gibbs record above shows why reading the result still matters. Runs made on 26 September 2026:
Find sources: the theory for your analysis
Find sources searches about 300 million published works by the claim you need to support. "A structured handover tool such as SBAR improves communication between nurses and doctors" returned 4,376,255 results, led by a 2026 systematic review of SBAR and ISBAR handover tools in Nursing Open. Bukoh and Siah's review came ninth; Müller and colleagues' was not in the first ten. The eighth was a veterinary congress paper, so check each result's field.
Cite a source and Verify references: the models' entries
Cite a source built the Kolb entry from ISBN 9780133892406 exactly: Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. From Gibbs's DOI it built the 2013 Oxford Brookes edition as a book; add "(Original work published 1988)" yourself, since the record's only earlier date is the misprinted 1998. Schön's paperback ISBN came back as Avebury, 1991, from a catalogue record that mismatches it, and Rolfe's title came in title case without its subtitle, so check every entry against the copy you hold. Verify references passed all eight of our entries, Gibbs's included.
Theoretics QA: the reflection against its brief
When the reflection is written, Theoretics QA (Max, $24 a month) judges it against the brief's own instructions, with quotations from your reflection, and rewrites nothing. On Pro ($8 a month), References from a file takes the uploaded reflection, looks up each reference and flags a citation with no entry in the list (pricing). A mark is the marker's alone to give.
Quick questions
Which reflective model is best?
None is best in general. Gibbs suits one event in stages, Kolb learning over time, What? So what? Now what? a short piece, and Brookfield teaching. Use the model your brief names.
How do I reference Gibbs's reflective cycle in APA 7?
Cite the Oxford Brookes edition you can read: Gibbs, G. (2013), with its DOI and "(Original work published 1988)" at the end, and (Gibbs, 1988/2013) in the text. If you read the cycle in a textbook, cite the textbook.
Can I use "I" in reflective writing?
Yes. Reflection is written in the first person because the experience is yours; the theory you bring in is still cited as usual.
Can I name the patient or the ward in a placement reflection?
No. NMC guidance and university policies such as York's rule out names, dates, wards and unusual details, and York advises saying at the start that details have been changed.
Can EdCitation write my reflection?
No. EdCitation never writes any part of a reflection. Find sources finds the evidence for your analysis and Cite a source builds the entries; Theoretics QA (Max) judges the finished piece against its brief.
References
- American Psychological Association. (2020). Book/ebook references. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/book-references
- Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Becoming+a+Critically+Reflective+Teacher,+2nd+Edition-p-9781119049708
- Bukoh, M. X., & Siah, C. R. (2020). A systematic review on the structured handover interventions between nurses in improving patient safety outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(3), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12936
- Chief Executives of Statutory Regulators of Health and Care Professionals. (2019). Benefits of becoming a reflective practitioner: A joint statement of support. Nursing and Midwifery Council. https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/other-publications/benefits-of-becoming-a-reflective-practitioner---joint-statement-2019.pdf
- Driscoll, J. (1994). Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse, 14(1), 47–50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8303152/
- Gibbs, G. (2013). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Brookes University. https://doi.org/10.24384/2ewd-qj09 (Original work published 1988)
- Johns, C. (1995). Framing learning through reflection within Carper's fundamental ways of knowing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(2), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.22020226.x
- Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/experiential-learning-experience-as-the-source-of-learning-and-development/P200000000384/9780133892505
- McDowell, C., Canepa, C., & Ferriera, S. (2007). Syllabus [Course syllabus]. 11.965 Reflective Practice: An Approach for Expanding Your Learning Frontiers, January IAP 2007. MIT OpenCourseWare. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/11-965-reflective-practice-an-approach-for-expanding-your-learning-frontiers-january-iap-2007/pages/syllabus/
- Müller, M., Jürgens, J., Redaèlli, M., Klingberg, K., Hautz, W. E., & Stock, S. (2018). Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 8(8), Article e022202. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202
- National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care. (2025). National Data Guardian position on the use of confidential patient information in reflective practice. GOV.UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69303efdcdec734f4dff4198/NDG_postion_on_confidential_patent_data_use_in_reflective_practice_03.12.25.pdf
- Nursing and Midwifery Council. (2019). How to revalidate with the NMC: Requirements for renewing your registration. https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/revalidation/how-to-revalidate-booklet.pdf
- Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection for nursing and the helping professions: A user's guide. Palgrave. https://philpapers.org/rec/ROLCRF
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/donald-a-schon/the-reflective-practitioner/9780465068784/
- University of Edinburgh. (2024a, October 15). Gibbs' reflective cycle. Reflection Toolkit. https://reflection.ed.ac.uk/reflectors-toolkit/reflecting-on-experience/gibbs-reflective-cycle
- University of Edinburgh. (2024b, October 15). What? So what? Now what? Reflection Toolkit. https://reflection.ed.ac.uk/reflectors-toolkit/reflecting-on-experience/what-so-what-now-what
- University of Hull Library. (2026a, August 28). Differences between discursive and reflective writing. Reflective writing. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/reflectivewriting/reflection5
- University of Hull Library. (2026b, August 28). Gibbs. Reflective writing. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/reflectivewriting/gibbs
- University of Hull Library. (2026c, August 28). Schön. Reflective writing. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/reflectivewriting/schon
- University of Hull Library. (2026d, August 28). Types of reflective assignments. Reflective writing. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/reflectivewriting/reflection4a2
- University of Leeds Library. (n.d.). Reflective writing. Academic skills. https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/14011/writing/113/reflective_writing
- University of Reading Library. (2026, September 4). Reflective writing. Reflection. https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/reflective/writing
- University of Sunderland Library. (2026, September 18). Models of reflection. Study skills: Reflective writing. https://libraryguides.sunderland.ac.uk/reflective-writing/models-of-reflection
- University of York Department of Health Sciences. (2018). Breach of confidentiality policy for assessments. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/healthsciences/documents/student-intranet/exams-assess/BreachofConfidentialityPolicy_Oct2018.pdf