Introduction
The development of reflective practice emerged from the requirement of making experiences in clinical practice as means to learning and improving the clinical practice of the health care practice. The basis of reflective practice however does not lie in learning by mere doing things, but the emphasis is on the outcomes of the actions taken (Driscoll, 2000). In essence, the reflective practice involves recalling past experiences and thinking and deliberating on the actions and the outcomes involved in these experiences (Quinn, 2000). Based on the essence of reflective practice several models or theoretical frameworks for reflective practice have evolved. Gibbs’ Model of Reflection 1988 and the Johns’ Model of Reflection 1994 are two such models. Models of reflection assisting healthcare professionals to think about what has occurred, what were their feelings in the situation, and how they could do things better the next time such a situation occurs thereby making for more satisfactory outcomes (Brooker & Nicol, 2003).
The Gibbs’ Model of Reflection
The Gibbs Model of Reflection is a cycle of reflective actions, wherein one leads to the other. This model starts with describing the event. This reflective action includes the cause of the event, the location of the event, the context of the event, the involvement ad action of the concerned individual, the involvement and actions of others present at the event, and the result of the event. This reflective action leads to the second reflective action in the model, which is recalling the thoughts and feelings of the concerned individual at the time of the event and the thoughts and feelings of the individual at present about the occurrences during the event. This leads to the third phase of the model, which is the evaluation of the occurrences of the event. This phase involves evaluating the happenings during the event that generated good feelings and the happenings during the event that generated bad feelings. The end of the evaluation leads to the next phase of the model which is the analysis phase. In this phase, the event is brought down to several constituent happenings and a detailed exploration of each of these happenings is undertaken. In each of these segments, an assessment is made to what was right and wrong in the segment and what were the actions of the concerned individual and the others involved contribute to what went right and what went wrong. The next phase of the model is the conclusion phase. The earlier phases have generated a lot of information and in the conclusion phase, this information is sifted through to arrive at the objective of learning from the reflective practice, which is finding out the actions during the event that could have led to a more satisfactory outcome. This judgment leads to the final phase of the event which is the development of the action plan. The action plan pertains to the working out of how a similar event in the future would be handled so that the outcome is better and is based on the judgment of the previous phase. This model of reflection creates the basis for future action and that also creates the basis for the emergence of another reflective cycle at the end of that action (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000).
The Johns’ Model of Reflection 1994
John’s Model of Reflection provides a pattern of activities that provide the means for reflective practice. In the first phase of the activity, there is a descriptive recalling of the event or experience and an understanding of the main issues that are relevant to the experience, which includes the context and the significant processes in the experience. The second phase involves reflecting on the actions and the outcomes of the actions concerning the concerned individual, the patient, and the other individuals involved in the action. The next phase of activity in this model of reflection is taking into consideration the internal and external factors and knowledge input that influenced the decisions and the actions taken. The next phase of activity is the consideration of an alternate plan of action for the given event. This involves considering other possible actions and the possible outcome of those actions to conclude how the experience could have been handled better. The final phase is the learning phase, wherein this experience sheds better clarity on future actions and how this experience has enriched the body of knowledge that the individual possesses (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
Similarities of the Two Models
Both the models are frameworks of reflective activity and hence share many similarities. There is the requirement for recalling the experience and dwelling on the personal experiences of the event, the experiences of the patient involved, and the others involved in the event. The reflective activity in both the models is sequential, wherein one activity leads on to the other to given the final learning experience of the reflective activity. Both models lead to making the concerned individual more efficient when faced with a similar experience in the future, which is the purpose of the reflective models (Blackie & Appleby, 1998).
Dissimilarities of the Two Models
The two models demonstrate dissimilarities in their approach to certain aspects of the reflective activity. Gibbs’ Model of Reflection lays greater focus on the individuals and the experiences or feelings of all the individuals involved in the experience (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000). On the other hand, the Johns’ Model of Reflection is more focused on the internal and external factors or the situational factors and the use of the knowledge component in the experience and is more individual-oriented (Richards & Edwards, 2008). This leads to the conclusion that the essential dissimilarities between the Gibbs’ Model of Reflection and the Johns’ model of reflection are that there is a greater emphasis on the emotions and feelings of the experience with the former, while there is a greater emphasis on the body of knowledge and the manner of its employment in the experience.
The Gibbs’ Model of reflection starts with the event that us being reflected on, which essentially is the description of the event as it occurred with all the details of the event with the focus being on the participants of the event from the individual to the others involved in the event (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000).
In contrast, the Johns’ Model of reflection also starts with recapping the event is not a mere description of the sequences of the event and the role of the participants. It requires a greater in-depth analysis of the reasons for the actions taken in terms of what was trying to be achieved and the reasons for the actions and the result of the actions in terms of all the participants including the person concerned, the patient, and the other participants and the how these deductions were arrived at (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
The second step in Gibbs’ Model of reflection involves the thoughts and feelings of the participants concerning the actions and the outcomes of the experience (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000).
There is the similarity between the second step of the Gibbs’ Model of reflection and the Johns’ Model of reflection for the second step in the Johns’ Model of reflection also involves reflecting on the thoughts and feelings of the participants, but is more related to the individual and the patient in the experience and does not relate to these aspects of the other participants in the experience (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
The third step in the Gibbs’ Model of reflection involves making judgments in terms of the experience that relate to the good aspects of the experience and the bad aspects of the experience in terms of the actions during the experience and the outcomes of the actions (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000).
In contrast, the third step of the Johns’ Model of reflection involves the internal factors as well as the external factors that played a role in the decisions that were made during the experience. It also involves an assessment of the sources of knowledge that were used in making the decisions at the time of the experience and the current realization if additional the use of other knowledge sources would have made for better decision making at the time of the experience. The Johns’ Model of reflection differs from the Gibbs’ Model of reflection here for it brings broader considerations into the reflection of the experience by the introduction of the internal and external factors and the knowledge element in the influencing of the decision making at the time of the experience (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
The fourth step of the Gibbs’ Model of reflection involves looking at the experience in greater detail by breaking it down into each of its components and analyzing each of these components to arrive at whether the outcomes at each of these component stages were good or bad and how of these component stages could have been managed better to provide for their better outcomes (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000).
The fourth stage in the Johns’ Model of reflection involves thinking about how the experience could have been managed better by considering the various available options and the outcomes should these options have been used to manage the experience. The fourth stage of the Gibbs’ Model of reflection and the Johns’ Model of reflection demonstrate several similarities (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
The fifth stage of Gibbs’ Model of reflection involves making judgments based on the analysis of all the information received through the other stages of the model. The judgment in essence deals with arriving at the actions that would have to be taken differently for better outcomes of the experience (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000).
The fifth stage of the Johns’ Model of reflection is the final phase of the model and is the learning phase of the model, wherein the feelings of the experience are looked at in the new light of all the information from the previous stages and come to the conclusion of changes in the body of knowledge that have occurred to the individual through the reflection of the experience. It can be seen that there are similarities between both the models in seeking to give a better understanding of managing such experiences in the future. The Johns’ Model of reflection does include attempting to understand the development of knowledge in the individual through the reflection process (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
The sixth stage of Gibbs’ Model of reflection involves the creation of an action plan to handle a similar experience in the future (Davies, Finlay & Bullman, 2000). The Johns’ Model of reflection does not have the sixth stage and differs from the Gibbs’ Model of reflection in this aspect for it ends with the realization of the increase in the knowledge that the individual possesses through the experience (Richards & Edwards, 2008).
Reflective Theories in the Development of a Professional Practitioner
The development of a professional practitioner is based on the blend of both practice and theory. Historical theories in education demonstrate that as the practice evolves so does the increased need for the blend of theory and practice. The best example of this is the evolving process of the nursing profession. The process of inquiry itself is based on a conceptual structure and in the activities of the nursing professional educational theories assist in preparing and guiding the nursing professional in the care of patients. This has even more relevance when there is the realization that the nursing profession is no longer a profession that is steeped in only practical aspects, but there is the increasing requirement for employing theoretical concepts in the practice of nursing. The profession of nursing may be viewed as using inductive knowledge and the empirical events that occur during the practice of nursing to reconstruct knowledge into a deductive system of propositions that can be tested by systematically analyzing the experiences (Greaves 1984).
This view of the development of a nursing professional is true in the development of professional practitioners, for in the case of professional practice there is the inherent factor of the blend of theory and practice. Reflective theories lay the framework for the use of inductive knowledge and empirical events that happen during the practice activities of any professional to reconstruct knowledge that reposes in the professional practitioner, to come out with a set of definite propositions that can be further tested in professional practice to lead to the development of the professional practitioner. Reflective theories thus assist in the development of the professional practitioner.
Literary References
- Brooker, C & Nicol, M. 2003, ‘Nursing Adults: The Practice of Caring’, Churchill Livingstone, Oxford, London
- Blackie, C. & Appleby, F. M. 1998, ‘Community Health Care Nursing’ Churchill Livingstone, Oxford, London.
- Davies, C., Finlay, L. & Bullman, A. 2000, ‘Changing Practice in Health and Social Care’, Sage Publications, California.
- Driscoll, J. 2000, ‘Practicing Clinical Supervision’, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.
- Greaves, F. 1984, ‘Nurse Education and the Curriculum: A Curricular Model, Routledge, Oxford, London
- Quinn, F. M. 2000, ‘The Principles and Practice of Nurse Education’, Fourth Edition, Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, U.K.
- Richards, A. & Edwards, S. L. 2008, ‘A Nurse’s Survival Guide to the Ward’, Churchill Livingstone, Oxford, London.