Reflective Practice Examples for Teachers: Gibbs and Kolb

Reflective practice examples for teachers are short, structured accounts of one lesson that move from what happened to what you will change next time. Gibbs' cycle and Kolb's cycle are the two models most UK teachers meet in training, and both exist to stop reflection stalling at description. In a Year 8 science lesson, a teacher whose density practical produced three groups with results that did not fit the pattern writes three lines on what happened, two lines on why, and one change for tomorrow: pre-weighing the blocks so that measurement error cannot hide the concept. Learners in the next lesson get the corrected data and are asked to explain the anomaly themselves.

That shift from narration to decision is where the evidence sits. Reflection logs kept as a formality stay at description, and the reflections that change practice are the ones that name a single, testable adjustment (Schön, 1983). This article works one lesson through Gibbs, Kolb and Brookfield, then gives a ten-minute routine you can run on Monday.

‍

What Is Reflective Practice?

Reflective practice is the disciplined habit of examining your teaching so that each lesson improves the next one. It goes beyond simply remembering how a lesson felt; it means looking at what learners did, what you noticed, and what specific change you will make as a result.

In the classroom, that can mean realising that one explanation left half the class dependent on prompts, then adjusting the model, examples, or questioning sequence for the next lesson. A teacher can review a short hinge question, spot a shared misconception, and tighten tomorrow's retrieval task to deal with it directly.

The value of reflective practice is that it turns experience into better judgement. Without that deliberate review, teachers can repeat routines for years without improving them.

‍

Why Reflective Practice Matters for Teachers

Schön (1983) gave us the ideas of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action as part of professional work. Brookfield (1995) and Dewey (1933) set out theories of reflective thought and critical reflection. Hatton and Smith (1995) looked at the different forms and levels of reflection in teacher training.

Hattie (2009) found that teachers who use evidence about their impact and adjust their practice accordingly have some of the highest effect sizes in educational research. The key phrase is "adjust their practice". That adjustment requires reflection.

Schön's (1983) work on reflection, along with Farrell (2018) and Moon (2013), backs up professional growth. Being observed, getting feedback and talking things through all matter if you want to improve. The ECF (DfE, 2019) asks teachers to look closely at what their learners understand.

Timperley et al. (2007) showed professional learning with data reflection is effective. They found it works better than training without this reflection. Evidence about the learner, not just feelings, should guide reflection.

‍

Schön's Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-Action

Schön (1983) named two kinds of reflection. The first is ‘reflection-in-action’, which means thinking while you teach. The second is ‘reflection-on-action’, which means thinking about the lesson later. Schön's (1983) model helps teachers make sense of reflective practice.

Reflection-in-action happens while you are teaching. A question falls flat, so you rephrase it without consciously deciding to. A learner looks confused, so you stop and explain again.

You notice three hands go up and change the seating for the next activity. This is expert practice in motion. It draws on tacit knowledge: the things you know how to do without being able to say exactly why.

Reflection-on-action happens after the lesson. Teachers look back over their notes, their memory of the lesson, or feedback from a colleague. Models like Gibbs (1988) and Brookfield (1995) give this a clear shape, which stops the thinking from drifting.

Schön (1983) separates reflection-in-action, which happens during a lesson, from reflection-on-action, which happens afterwards. Expert teachers reflect while they teach. So when you mentor early career teachers, help them notice what is happening in the lesson, rather than just giving them more tasks.

‍

Key Reflective Practice Models

Each model is set out briefly below, with its strengths and weaknesses. Gibbs' (1988) Reflective Cycle takes teachers through six stages. Kolb's (1984) Experiential Learning Cycle centres on experience and reflection.

Schön's (1983) Reflection-in-Action looks at thinking while you teach. Brookfield's (1998) Critical Reflection asks learners to question the assumptions they hold.

Model	Origin	Stages	Best used for
Gibbs' Reflective Cycle	Gibbs (1988)	6: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, action plan	Detailed post-lesson analysis; ITT portfolio evidence
Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle	Kolb (1984)	4: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, active experimentation	CPD and trying a new strategy over several lessons
Schön's reflection-in-action and on-action	Schön (1983)	2 modes: during the lesson, after the lesson	Building in-lesson awareness with a mentor
Brookfield's four lenses	Brookfield (1995)	4 lenses: autobiography, learners' eyes, peers, research	Checking assumptions once a term
Driscoll's What? model	Driscoll (1994)	3: What? So what? Now what?	Quick daily reflection; ECT journal prompts

Open the full-size image

‍

Gibbs' (1988) Reflective Cycle includes six steps. Teachers describe, feel, evaluate, analyse, conclude and then plan action. Use this cycle after lessons, or for ITT portfolio evidence.

Kolb (1984) described experiential learning cycles. Learners experience, then they reflect on what happened. They form ideas and actively try new things. Teachers can use this model for CPD or strategy planning.

Brookfield (1995) suggested four reflective lenses. Consider your own experiences and learners' feedback. Peers' observations and academic reading also help. Use these lenses to examine your teaching and question assumptions, says Brookfield.

Each model asks you to move beyond describing what happened towards explaining why it happened and what you will do differently. The choice of model should depend on purpose. Gibbs suits detailed post-lesson analysis. Driscoll suits a quick five-minute end-of-day journal entry.

‍

‍

Reflective practice examples: one lesson, three reflections

Researchers like Pollard (2008) and Schön (1983) champion reflective practice. Gibbs' Reflective Cycle (1988) offers six steps to guide teachers. This structured approach helps teachers move beyond simple descriptions.

You can read the full guide to applying the Gibbs Reflective Cycle in the classroom, but here is a practical overview of each stage with a worked example using a Year 8 science lesson on density.

Stage 1: Description. What happened? Keep this brief. "Learners struggled to calculate density from the formula. Most completed fewer than three of the six questions."

Stage 2: Feelings. What were you thinking and feeling? "I felt frustrated that I had explained the formula twice but they still didn't seem to understand it."

Stage 3: Evaluation. What was good and bad about the experience? "The demonstration with the oil and water was effective. The worked example on the board was too fast."

Stage 4: Analysis. What sense can you make of the situation? "Learners who could recall prior knowledge of fractions applied the formula correctly. Those without that knowledge were stuck at the calculation step, not the conceptual step."

Stage 5: Conclusion. What else could you have done? "I could have checked fraction fluency before the lesson. I could have modelled the calculation step by step, using a think-aloud."

Stage 6: Action Plan. If it arose again, what would you do? "Check prior knowledge of fractions in the lesson starter. Use a partially completed worked example for the first two questions."

Effective reflection needs a concrete action plan. Plans should be specific and observable, based on analysis (Schön, 1983). The plan links directly to findings, not just general goals (Brookfield, 2017; Moon, 2004).

‍

Brookfield's Four Lenses

Stephen Brookfield (1995) argued that all teachers operate with assumptions that are invisible to themselves. These assumptions shape every decision, from whom you call on in discussion, to which topics you linger on, to how you interpret learner silence.

This approach asks you to reflect from four linked points of view (Brookfield, 1995). Brookfield's lenses help teachers question the hidden assumptions behind their practice. You look at what learners experience, what colleagues see, and what the research says (Brookfield, 1995). Putting all four together gives a fuller picture (Brookfield, 1995).

Open the full-size image

‍

Lens 1: Autobiography. What is your own history as a learner? Which teachers shaped your practice, and why?

Teachers who found school easy may plan for learners who think the way they do. Those who struggled may plan for a different kind of learner. Your own story is always present in your classroom.

Lens 2: Learners' eyes. What would your learners say is happening in your lessons? Anonymous feedback, exit slips, or structured student voice conversations give you data you cannot generate yourself. Brookfield recommended asking learners specifically what helps their learning, what confuses them, and what they wish you would do differently.

Lens 3: Peers. What do colleagues see when they observe you? This lens requires genuine reciprocal observation, not a formal inspection. A colleague watching for a specific agreed focus, such as questioning patterns or wait time, will notice things that the teacher delivering the lesson cannot.

Reading research can boost your teaching. Link your lesson to studies like cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988) or retrieval practice (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008). This grounds observations in evidence and suggests new ideas for your learners.

Consider all four lenses (Brookfield, 2017) each term. This challenges assumptions that single perspectives often miss. Regular review sharpens a teacher's judgement.

‍

‍

The same lesson through Kolb

Kolb's cycle (Kolb, 1984) takes the same Year 8 density lesson in four moves. Concrete experience: three groups get densities that put wood below water. Reflective observation: the teacher notices all three used the balance nearest the sink, where the pan was wet.

Abstract conceptualisation: the fault is in the procedure, not the concept, so re-teaching density would waste the lesson. Active experimentation: next lesson the blocks are pre-weighed. Learners recalculate, and the odd result becomes a question for them to explain.

‍

The same lesson through Brookfield's lenses

Brookfield's four lenses ask who else can see the lesson. Autobiographical lens: the teacher remembers being marked down as a trainee for a similar practical, and wanting to hide the odd results. Learners' lens: the exit tickets show most of the class could define density. A third could not say why the wood result was wrong.

Colleagues' lens: the technician points out that the wet balance was a known fault. Theoretical lens: the research on misconceptions suggests that odd data, used on purpose, teaches more than clean data. So the wet balance becomes next year's planned provocation.

‍

How to start: a five-step routine that takes ten minutes

1. Pick one lesson, ideally the one that surprised you.
2. Write three lines of description: what you did, what learners did, what the work showed.
3. Answer "so what" in two lines: why it happened and what it tells you about their understanding.
4. Name one change for tomorrow, small enough to do without new resources.
5. Note it on the lesson plan, where you will see it, not in a separate log.

Do this with a colleague and the routine works better still. Timetabled, structured dialogue about a specific lesson, of the kind used in instructional coaching, has a stronger evidence base for changing classroom practice than solitary written logs, and it adds no marking-style workload (Sims et al., 2021). A ten-minute conversation with a head of department that ends in one agreed change beats a page nobody reads.

Putting theory into practice is what counts. These strategies are practical, low-burden and suit every career stage. Feedback and formative assessment are among the best-evidenced tools a teacher has (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Wiliam, 2011). So reflection should start there.

‍

Reflective Journals

A reflective journal is the most accessible tool. The risk is that it becomes a list of what happened rather than an analysis of why. Use a prompt framework to prevent this.

Driscoll's three questions (What? So what? Now what?) take under five minutes and produce far more usable analysis than a narrative account. Write the entry the same day, while the lesson is still clear in memory. Review a set of entries monthly to look for patterns: recurring learner misconceptions, activities that consistently engage or disengage, moments of genuine learning.

‍

Lesson Study

Lesson study involves teachers planning, observing, and analysing a lesson (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Groups focus on specific learners during the lesson (Dudley, 2011). The aim is to learn from learners, not judge the teacher (Lewis, 2002).

This approach shifts the frame from "how well did the teacher perform?" to "what did these three learners learn?" The distinction matters. Lesson study tends to produce more specific, transferable insights than individual observation and debrief because the analysis is grounded in observable learner responses.

‍

Peer Observation with an Agreed Focus

The most common weakness of peer observation is a lack of focus. A colleague watching an entire lesson and then offering general feedback produces broad, often unhelpful commentary. Agree a specific question before the observation: "How much thinking time am I giving before taking answers?" or "Which learners am I not calling on?" The observer collects evidence on that specific question. The debrief is then targeted.

Action research connects to classroom practice. This structured process uses lesson observations, learner work, and assessments as data sources (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). Teachers can use this cycle to inform practice (Elliott, 1991; Stenhouse, 1975).

‍

Reflective Practice in ITT and ECT Years

Initial teacher training and the early career years are when reflective habits are formed. The habits formed in the first three years of teaching tend to persist. Getting the structure right early matters.

ECTs should talk with mentors (DfE, 2019). They must assess learner work. Watch colleagues and check their practice against standards. This is a reflective practice system.

Open the full-size image

‍

For ECTs, the most common difficulty is finding time. Reflection gets crowded out by marking, planning, and administrative demands. The solution is not to find more time but to embed reflection into existing routines. A two-minute entry after last lesson, a brief note on a lesson plan about what to change next time, or a monthly conversation with a mentor specifically about patterns noticed across lessons are all low-cost and sustainable.

Schön's work helps mentors guide new teachers. Formal feedback prompts reflection on action (Schön, 1983). Ask: what happened, why, and what could change? Informal chats build reflection in action (Schön, 1983); what in-lesson shifts did learners cause?

‍

‍

Using AI for Teacher Reflection

This is an emerging use of teacher-facing generative AI rather than a settled research field. Current DfE guidance and UNESCO guidance both stress safe, human-centred use. Treat AI as a reflective prompt generator, not as evidence or judgement.

ChatGPT, Claude and similar tools can help you come up with questions, other ways to explain a topic, and summaries of themes that keep coming up. Use them to add to peer discussion, mentor input and your own professional judgement. They should never replace those things.

Here are four specific ways to use AI tools for reflection.

1. Generating reflection questions from a lesson description.

Paste a brief description of what happened in a lesson, including what you planned, what learners did, and any points of confusion or unexpected success. Ask the AI to generate ten reflection questions based on that description. The questions it produces will often be more searching than those you generate yourself, because it is not subject to the same blind spots.

Use this prompt. Put a short description of your lesson where the brackets are.

"Description of my lesson: [description]. Generate 10 reflective questions. Move me past describing, towards analysis and evaluation. At least two questions must challenge your assumptions about learner understanding."

2. Challenging your interpretation.

Write a brief account of a lesson event and your interpretation of why it happened. Ask the AI to offer three alternative explanations. This replicates one function of a skilled peer: the "have you considered that..." response that surfaces other explanations.

A useful prompt: "I think [this happened] because [my interpretation]. Give me three alternative explanations that I should consider before deciding what to do next."

3. Tracking patterns across entries.

Paste anonymised journal entries into the AI tool only if your school policy permits it and no learner-identifiable information is included. Ask it to find recurring themes, questions or patterns. This can help teachers review notes that are hard to analyse by hand.

4. Connecting to research.

Classroom challenges happen. Ask AI to suggest search terms or possible research angles, then verify them in reliable databases or original texts. Brookfield's (1995) fourth lens connects practice and theory, helping teachers analyse problems without treating the AI answer itself as evidence. Research from scholars like Vygotsky (1978) and Piaget (1936) can inform teaching once checked against source material.

AI tools can credit research to the wrong person, make up references, or miss safeguarding context. Treat any framework an AI gives you as a starting point for your own search, not as a trusted source. Before you put a suggested citation into a lesson plan, report or professional-development record, check it against the original work.

‍

Common Mistakes in Reflective Practice

Understanding what reflective practice is not, as well as what it is, prevents the most common errors.

Describing rather than analysing. The most frequent mistake is spending the bulk of a reflection on what happened rather than why. Description is a necessary starting point, not an end in itself. If your entry reads like a lesson narrative, you have not yet reflected.

Busy teachers often skip lesson reflection. Systematic reflection on every lesson is difficult. Instead, reflect on unexpected results (Brookfield, 2017). These moments, good or bad, teach the teacher the most (Schön, 1983; Kolb, 1984).

Teachers must use learner evidence for reflection. Ignoring learner work overlooks key data from lessons. Learner outputs are more reliable than teacher memory (Sadler, 1998; Hattie, 2009; Black & Wiliam, 2018).

Treating reflection as a performance task. Particularly in ITT, reflective journals and assignments can become documents written for an assessor rather than genuine tools for learning. If your reflection is crafted rather than honest, it will not produce change.

Reflection without action. Moon (1999) distinguishes between reflective writing that is exploratory and writing that connects to changed practice. Both have value, but only the latter closes the loop. Every period of substantive reflection should end with at least one specific intended change, however small.

‍

‍

Further authoritative guidance on metacognition: EEF guidance report on metacognition and self-regulation, EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit on metacognition and self-regulation.

‍

Frequently asked questions

‍

What is an example of reflective practice in teaching?

The Year 8 density lesson above is a complete example. The teacher describes the anomalous results, works out that a wet balance rather than a misconception caused them, and changes one thing for the next lesson. Worked through Gibbs, Kolb or Brookfield, the same lesson yields a different but equally usable action.

‍

Which reflective model should I use?

Use Driscoll's three questions (what, so what, now what) for a daily two-minute note. Use Gibbs when a lesson went badly enough, or well enough, to deserve a detailed review. Use Brookfield's lenses once a term to check whether your reading of the class matches what learners and colleagues actually see.

‍

How often should teachers reflect?

A two-minute note after most lessons and one structured reflection a week is enough. Anything more turns into a log written for a line manager, and reflection produced for an audience tends to say what the audience wants to read rather than what happened (Ball, 2003; Hobbs, 2007). Keep it short, keep it private unless you choose to share it, and keep it tied to a change you can make.

‍

Limitations and Critiques of Reflective Practice

Some critics doubt that reflective practice makes much difference. Loughran (2002) warns that it can easily become performative, a show of reflection rather than the real thing. Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999) found little evidence that it improves what learners achieve.

Schön (1983) thinks teachers know their practice well. Rozenblit and Keil (2002) found people often think they understand more than they do. Simple reflection could reinforce mistakes, not fix them.

Hobson and Ashby (2012) showed mentoring becomes advice when rushed. Reflection needs time and thought, hard. This impacts what learners get from these conversations.

Clarke and Wilding (2022) found trainee teachers reflect less deeply when it is a formality. Moon (1999) noted "descriptive reflection" recounts events. This fulfils requirements but doesn't yield professional learning.

Brookfield's (1995) questionnaire needs trust between teachers and those giving feedback. Hierarchical schools can make honest reflection feel risky for teachers. This could make the process insincere, as noted by Brookfield (1995).

Few studies prove structured reflection improves learner results. The evidence is mostly qualitative and self-reported. This questions the claims about its impact in initial teacher training (Hoban, 2002; Schön, 1983; Valli, 1997). More robust research is needed (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Zeichner, 2010).

‍

‍

‍