Gibbs' Reflective Cycle: 6 Stages Explained with Examples
Gibbs' reflective cycle broken down stage by stage with worked examples for teachers and nurses. Use this guide to strengthen your reflective practice.


Gibbs' reflective cycle broken down stage by stage with worked examples for teachers and nurses. Use this guide to strengthen your reflective practice.
Main, P (2023, May 09). Gibbs' Reflective Cycle. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/gibbs-reflective-cycle
Gibbs' Reflective Cycle is a six-stage model that helps you learn from experience by breaking reflection into clear, practical steps. The six stages are description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan, which together help you understand what happened and decide what to do differently next time. Whether you are reflecting on a lesson, an assignment, or a challenging moment at work, this framework turns vague reflection into something focused and useful. Read on to see how each stage works and how to apply it with real examples.
Teachers should reflect on practise to improve. Hattie (2009) showed that teacher reflection boosts learner results. Gibbs' Reflective Cycle helps teachers analyse events fully.
Gibbs' (1988) reflective cycle helps professionals learn from experience. UK schools often use it for teacher monitoring. Hobson and Malderez (2014) found this required reflection creates judgement. It stops real growth and becomes a pointless task.
Gibbs' (1988) cycle helps, but institutions can hinder open reflection. Safe spaces let learners discuss failures honestly. Remove bureaucracy so teachers can reflect properly (Schön, 1983; Kolb, 1984; Dewey, 1933).
Use Gibbs' Cycle (1988) to reflect critically. It's now often a UK performance box-tick. Hobson et al. (2014) showed required reflection creates safe self-evaluations. This stops learners being vulnerable for professional growth.
Gibbs' model has become the default reflective framework in UK schools, nursing, social work, and teacher training. Its popularity stems from simplicity: six easy-to-remember stages that fit on a poster. But simplicity can become a trap. Teachers and students often race through the stages mechanically ("What happened? It was hard. What will I do? Try harder next time?") without genuine analysis. This is why many reflective cycles fail, the structure is there, but the depth is missing. Understanding the *purpose* of each stage, not just the names, is what turns a checklist into real learning.
Consider these prompts:
Consider these prompts:
Consider these prompts:
Consider these prompts:
Consider these prompts:
Review your responses below. Use Print/Save to keep a copy for your CPD portfolio.
Use this quick diagnostic to choose between the three core models. Ask yourself three questions:
Two consistent answers point you to one model; that is your fit. Three answers split across models means the experience is multi-faceted, so pick the model that matches your most pressing need first, then use a second model later for the other angles. Many experienced teachers use all three across different reflective tasks (Brookfield, 2017).
The same six stages appear in nursing and teaching, but the focus differs. Nurses typically use Gibbs to reflect on critical incidents with patient-safety implications: the structure helps isolate what went wrong and why. Speed matters, so a nurse may reflect in a ten-minute post-shift debrief. Teachers use Gibbs to reflect on pedagogy and learning impact, often as part of CPD cycles spanning weeks or terms. Both disciplines benefit from the same model (Gibbs, 1988), but teachers can borrow the speed and incident-focus from nursing practice when reflecting on classroom emergencies; nurses can borrow longitudinal tracking from teaching practice when reviewing recurring procedural concerns.
Gibbs, Kolb, and Schön are reflective models that differ in structure, emotional focus, and the timing of reflection. Comparing it with other models helps you select the best fit for your context. Each model offers different advantages depending on the situation.
| Model | Structure | Best For | Key Strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gibbs (1988) | 6 stages: Description, Feelings, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion, Action | Teacher-led structured reflection on classroom events | Clear, linear progression; widely recognised in UK education |
| Kolb (1984) | 4 stages: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation, Active Experimentation | Learning style theory; experiential learning in classrooms | Cyclical (continuous); emphasises concrete experience first |
| Schön (1983) | 2 types: Reflection-in-action (during) and reflection-on-action (after) | Spontaneous classroom decision-making; real-time problem-solving | Captures the thinking that happens during teaching, not just after |
| Driscoll (2000) | 3 questions: What? So what? Now what? | Quick, structured reflection after specific events | Simpler than Gibbs; works well for busy teachers; faster to complete |
| Brookfield (1998) | Critical reflection: examining assumptions and power dynamics | Social justice; anti-racism work; equity in classrooms | Raises awareness of hidden biases and systemic barriers |
Direction: Gibbs works backwards from what happened (Description first). Kolb starts with the concrete experience and moves forwards through learning stages. Neither is "better", Gibbs suits teachers analysing a specific lesson; Kolb suits learners building their learning profile over time.
Emotional focus: Gibbs explicitly asks "What were you feeling?" at Stage 2. Kolb does not isolate emotions in the same way, though they emerge during reflective observation. For emotionally-charged classroom moments (conflict, failure, success), Gibbs is more thorough.
Gibbs (1988) carefully guides learners to action plans via reflection. Kolb (1984) sees active learning as a continuous cycle. He suggests learners apply knowledge straight away after experimenting.
Gibbs' model is mandated in many teacher training programmes across the UK because it provides a scaffolded, linear process that:
Many practitioners now value Schön's (1983) reflection-in-action. Expert teachers make real-time lesson adjustments, (Schön, 1983). They do not wait until after teaching to reflect, (Schön, 1983).
Gibbs' Reflective Cycle is a useful reflective model with practical limitations, including time demands and a linear structure. Atkins & Murphy (1993) noted it can be slow and linear. Teachers' busy schedules may prevent the required detailed analysis.
Brookfield (2017) says solo reflection can hinder understanding. Get feedback from colleagues; they offer different ideas. Learners also give useful viewpoints. Research shows working together improves reflection.
Researchers say honest learners are key to effective cycles. Teachers resisting change lessen reflection quality (Schön, 1983). Build trust so learners assess their work honestly (Brookfield, 2017). Support growth with real openness (Gibbs, 1988).
Consider Gibbs' Cycle's limits in class. Teachers should change the model to fit their context. Ask colleagues for feedback and include different viewpoints in reflection (Gibbs, 1988).
Argyris and Schön (1978) distinguished between single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop reflection fixes the immediate problem ("I spoke too fast; next time I'll slow down"). Double-loop reflection questions the underlying assumptions ("Why do I believe pace is the main issue? Is my teaching model actually student-centred?"). Most Gibbs reflections stop at single-loop, missing the deeper learning. True professional growth requires both: fix the immediate problem AND examine why you made that choice in the first place.
Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985) identified three conditions for reflection to be authentic: experience, dialogue with others, and psychological safety. Many structured reflections fail because teachers skip one of these. Without safety, permission to admit mistakes without blame, the reflection becomes performative tick-box exercise. Without dialogue, reflection is solitary complaint rather than inquiry. Gibbs provides the structure; you provide the conditions for it to work.
Brookfield (2017) calls this "zombie reflection", going through the motions without genuine inquiry. Teachers write, "What worked well? Everything. What didn't? Nothing. What will I do next? Exactly what I'm already doing." This happens when reflection is compliance-only: a box ticked for appraisal, not a tool for growth. Finlay (2008) warns that reflection can become a compliance exercise, particularly in accountability-heavy systems.
Sweller's cognitive load theory (1988) suggests that intense reflection immediately after a high-stress incident may fail because working memory is depleted. A teacher who's just managed a classroom crisis has limited mental bandwidth for deep analysis. Equally, Gibbs assumes the experience is recent enough to recall details but past enough for emotional distance. For ongoing patterns (chronic classroom management issues, persistent student disengagement), a single Gibbs cycle is insufficient; you need longitudinal tracking across multiple cycles.
Reflective practice is an evidence-informed process that improves teaching quality and learner outcomes through structured analysis of experience. Research proves structured reflection improves teacher quality. Learner outcomes also benefit from this practice (Gibbs, Kolb, Schön).
Gibbs' model is one proven way to make that reflection systematic and generative.
Open a free account and bring structured metacognition into each and every lesson. Use our interactive planning tools to help learners plan, monitor, and evaluate their success.
Hattie (2009) analysed 800+ meta-analyses in *Visible Learning* and found that metacognitive strategies, which include structured reflection, rank in the top quartile of high-impact teaching strategies. Teachers who explicitly teach reflection help students become more independent, more resilient, and more able to diagnose their own learning gaps. Gibbs' cycle works because it forces this metacognitive conversation.
The EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit (2018) supports this, showing that evidence-informed reflection cycles improve learner outcomes. Teachers who use structured models like Gibbs report stronger classroom relationships and better behaviour management. The mechanism is simple: when you name what went wrong and plan differently, students see honesty and growth mindset in action.
Reflective practice isn't just about learning better, it's about sustaining teaching as a career. Teachers who reflect systematically report lower burnout and higher job satisfaction. The act of analysis transforms a crisis into a learning opportunity, which restores agency. Instead of "that lesson was a disaster," reflection yields "I need to chunk the instructions differently next time." This shift from victim to learner is psychologically protective.
Brookfield (2017) emphasises that critical reflection helps teachers recognise their own power. Many teachers blame themselves for systemic failures ("my students can't concentrate because I'm boring") when structural analysis would reveal the real issue ("students are arriving hungry, exhausted, and without the prerequisite knowledge"). Gibbs reflection, done well, develops this critical lens.
Many Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) find starting the reflection process daunting, especially when faced with a blank page or an open-ended prompt. This initial barrier, often called "blank page syndrome", can hinder genuine learning from experience. Providing structured tools and prompts can significantly reduce the cognitive load associated with initiating reflection (Sweller, 1988).
The most common failure of reflective journals is a blank page. Teachers sit down, open a document, and freeze. Without external scaffolding, prompts, sentence stems, graphic organisers, the cognitive load is too high. Your brain is trying to simultaneously recall the experience, analyse it, evaluate it, and compose sentences. By the time you finish composing the first sentence, you've forgotten the emotional detail that made the experience meaningful. Structured prompts reduce this load. They direct your attention: "What was your intention?" "What surprised you?" "What would you do differently?" When the questions are clear, the writing flows. This is why Gibbs provides the six stages as implicit prompts. Use them.
Graphic organisers offer a visual scaffold to break down the "Description" stage of Gibbs' cycle. Instead of writing a free-form narrative, teachers can use a simple diagram to map out key events, participants, and their own actions. This approach helps externalise thoughts and organise them logically before detailed writing begins.
For instance, after a challenging Year 4 maths lesson on fractions, an NQT could use a simple timeline graphic organiser. They would plot the lesson's progression, marking specific points where pupil engagement dropped or a particular explanation failed. This visual representation helps identify discrete moments for later analysis.
Moving beyond description, sentence stems provide explicit guidance for the "Feelings", "Evaluation", and "Analysis" stages. These prompts act as linguistic scaffolds, helping teachers articulate complex thoughts and connect observations to underlying reasons. This structured approach supports deeper metacognitive processing (Dunlosky et al., 2013).
Consider a Year 9 English teacher reflecting on a lesson where pupils struggled with essay structure. Instead of "What went wrong?", they could use stems like: "I felt frustrated when...", "A key factor contributing to this was...", or "This outcome suggests that my instruction on X needs to be...". Such specific prompts guide the teacher towards practical findings.
By integrating these simple, generic tools, teachers can transform the often overwhelming task of reflection into a manageable and productive learning experience. These scaffolds ensure that reflection moves beyond superficial recounting to meaningful professional growth.
These peer-reviewed sources underpin the evidence base for this article. Consensus.app links aggregate the paper with its journal DOI.
A Reflective Cycle: Understanding Challenging Situations in a School Setting View study ↗
26 citations
al. et al. (2020), Educational Research
Qualitative study of 10 Finnish teachers using Gibbs' cycle to reflect on challenging classroom situations. Found the framework helped staff understand difficult interactions from the learner's perspective and treat them as professional learning opportunities. The most directly c
Reflective Practices of Secondary School Teachers for Effective Teaching and Learning: Using Gibbs' Reflective Model View study ↗
al. et al. (2024), Journal of Asian Development Studies
Qualitative study of 14 secondary teachers in Punjab applying Gibbs' six-stage cycle. Demonstrates how the model gives teachers a structured way to write reflections and devise concrete action plans for repeat situations.
Structured Approaches to Reflection: Models and Applications for Educators' Professional Development View study ↗
al. et al. (2026), European Journal of Dental Education
Recent (2026) commentary comparing Gibbs' cycle, Kolb's experiential cycle, Schön's reflection in/on action, and Rolfe's framework. Useful for teachers wanting to choose between models or combine them, with practical resources and worked examples.
Exploring the Use of Gibbs' Reflective Model in Enhancing In-Service ESL Teachers' Reflective Writing View study ↗
al. et al. (2023), SSRN Electronic Journal
Eight-week intervention study showing in-service teachers wrote demonstrably better reflections after being introduced to Gibbs' model. Specifically, the framework eased the evaluation and analysis stages where teachers had previously struggled.
Gibbs' Cycle Review: Emotions as a Part of the Cycle View study ↗
Carline New (2022), e-Motion: Revista de Educación, Motricidad e Investigación
Narrative review of 20 manuscripts arguing for a stronger emotional dimension to the standard six-stage cycle. Useful for teachers using reflection to support wellbeing alongside professional growth.
Gibbs' reflection resources are free posters and teaching materials that support metacognition, planning, monitoring and self-regulation in learners. Zimmerman (2000) found planning helps learners' work. Flavell (1979) noted monitoring keeps learners on task. Bandura (1991) linked self-regulation with learner success. Get free posters and resources now.
4 evidence-informed resources to develop planning, monitoring, and self-regulation skills in students and teachers.


Fill in your details below and we'll send the resource pack straight to your inbox.
We've also sent a copy to your email. Check your inbox.
The six stages are:
These stages form a cycle, so the action plan from one reflection often feeds into the description of the next experience.
Start with a specific classroom moment (not a whole lesson). Here's a real example:
Description: "In Year 4 maths, I introduced fractions using pizza diagrams. Three learners said they 'didn't get it' and stopped engaging. I moved on to the next group rather than pause."
Feelings: "I felt frustrated that the visual didn't work. I was worried about falling behind the timetable."
Evaluation: "Good: I used a concrete visual aid. Bad: I didn't check understanding before moving on. I didn't ask why they were confused."
Analysis: "Those three learners may have needed a different representation, circles divided into parts, not pizza slices. Or they may have missed the prerequisite (equal parts concept). I assumed the pizza analogy would bridge the gap, but I didn't check prior knowledge."
Conclusion: "I could have used a quick diagnostic question: 'What do you notice about these slices?' I could have offered a choice of manipulatives. I could have paired them with a peer who understood."
Fractions Action Plan: First, check learners' equal parts knowledge. Second, use circles, bars, and number lines for representation. Third, learners will talk with partners before progressing.
The main differences are:
In a UK school: use Gibbs to reflect on a difficult lesson; use Kolb to help learners understand how they learn best.
Gibbs' model is used because it:
In short, it turns experience into learning systematically.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learners can use Gibbs to reflect on their own learning:
For younger learners (primary), simplify it to three questions: "What happened? How did you feel? What will you do next?"
Researchers have explored this connection (e.g., Zimmerman, 2002; Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Learners who reflect plan better revision. They then adjust their study habits accordingly. This shows metacognition, as explored by Flavell (1979).
Gibbs (1988): Reflection-on-action. You stop after an event, sit down, and work through six structured stages. It is deliberate and scheduled.
Schön (1983) identified reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. He stated expert professionals, like teachers, think and adapt as they work. A teacher might spot a confused learner and adjust their explanation instantly.
Which is better? Both are essential. Gibbs is better for structured learning (training sessions, formal appraisal). Schön is better for real classroom life, where expert teachers are constantly micro-adjusting. Together, they describe the full picture of professional thinking.
Gibbs' model helps learners analyse lessons afterwards. Schön encourages quick thinking during lessons for tactical decisions. Both Gibbs (1988) and Schön (1983) can boost your teaching practice.
Double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978) means questioning your underlying assumptions, not just fixing the immediate problem. In Gibbs reflection, single-loop stops at "I'll do this differently next time." Double-loop goes deeper: "Why do I believe this approach is correct? What would challenge my core assumptions about teaching?" For example: single-loop reaction to a noisy class = speak louder; double-loop = examine why you assume silence equals learning. Double-loop reflection is harder but leads to genuine professional growth.
The Feelings stage asks teachers to dwell in emotional discomfort, frustration, embarrassment, confusion. Many skip this stage or rush through it because emotions feel unprofessional. But Boud (1985) shows that emotional data is crucial to deep learning. If you skip the feeling stage, the analysis that follows is shallow and detached. Genuine reflection requires you to sit with the feelings, explore them, and use that emotional awareness to inform your analysis. Create psychological safety so this stage can be authentic.
Both professions use the same six stages, but focus differs. Clinical nurses use Gibbs for critical-incident reflection: a patient safety event, a difficult interaction with a family member, a treatment decision. The stakes are life-and-death. Teachers use Gibbs for pedagogical reflection: a lesson that flopped, a student conflict, a classroom management moment. The stakes are learning design and relationships. The structure is identical; the domain knowledge is different. Both benefit from formal reflection.
AI can serve as a thinking partner during Gibbs reflection: feeding in prompts, asking clarifying questions, helping you articulate the Analysis stage. But AI cannot replace the practitioner's insight. The reflection has to come from you, your experience, your expertise, your judgment. Use ChatGPT as a scaffold (like a graphic organiser), not as a substitute for thinking. Ask it "What questions should I ask myself about the Evaluation stage?" rather than asking it to complete your reflection for you.
References are the research and sources cited throughout this article. The following scholars and educators have shaped the theory and practice of reflective cycles.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley. Introduces the distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning, which extends beyond Gibbs' framework to question underlying assumptions.
Atkins, S., & Murphy, K. (1993). Reflection: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(8), 1188-1192. A foundational synthesis of reflection literature that influenced how nursing and education adopted structured reflection models.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page. Establishes the three prerequisites for authentic reflection: experience, dialogue, and psychological safety. Essential reading for understanding when reflective cycles succeed or fail.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons. A practical guide to reflection in teaching, introducing the concept of "zombie reflection", going through the motions without genuine inquiry.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103-112. Demonstrates how reflection on classroom management directly improves teaching effectiveness.
Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on reflective practice. Practice-based professional learning paper 52. The Open University. Critiques the risks of reflection becoming a compliance exercise in accountability-heavy systems.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic. The original source of the six-stage model. Gibbs developed this framework specifically for professionals learning from experience, not as a prescriptive form but as a flexible guide.
Jasper, M. (2003). Beginning reflective practice. Nelson Thornes. A practical introduction to reflective practice in healthcare and education, grounding Gibbs' model in accessible, professional contexts.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Kolb's four-stage cycle (experience, reflection, conceptualisation, experimentation) offers an alternative to Gibbs, focusing on abstract conceptualisation as a distinct stage.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Schön's distinction between reflection-in-action (thinking on your feet) and reflection-on-action (deliberate afterwards) remains central to professional learning across disciplines.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. Explains why reflection immediately after high-stress situations may fail due to cognitive load limitations. Suggests timing of reflection is as important as the structure.

Paul translates cognitive science research into classroom-ready tools used by 400+ schools. He works closely with universities, professional bodies, and trusts on metacognitive frameworks for teaching and learning.
More from Paul →

