Reflective writing — Gibbs vs Driscoll, and when to use which

Reflective writing has become a standard assessment format across UAE programs — in nursing, education, CIPD vocational qualifications, MBA leadership modules, and increasingly in business strategy modules where personal-effectiveness reflection is examined. The framework expectations have hardened over the last few years. Markers now require reflection to be structured around a named model, with Gibbs and Driscoll being the two most commonly assigned.

The two models differ in important ways, and the choice between them affects how the reflection reads. This is the working summary.

Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle

Graham Gibbs proposed a six-stage cycle in 1988. The stages:

1. Description — what happened? Factual, no interpretation.
2. Feelings — what were you thinking and feeling at the time?
3. Evaluation — what was good and bad about the experience?
4. Analysis — what sense can you make of the situation? Connect to theory, prior experience, or external frameworks.
5. Conclusion — what else could you have done? What did you learn?
6. Action plan — if it arose again, what would you do?

The cycle is comprehensive, with explicit attention to emotional content (feelings) and forward action (action plan). It’s the most-assigned model in UAE nursing and education programs.

Driscoll’s What Model

John Driscoll’s model uses three questions:

1. What? — the description, the trigger, what occurred.
2. So what? — the analysis, what it meant, why it matters.
3. Now what? — the action, what changes, what next.

Simpler than Gibbs, three stages rather than six. The simplicity is its strength and its weakness.

When Gibbs is the better choice

Three indicators that Gibbs fits:

1. The assignment expects emotional reflection. Gibbs’s explicit Feelings stage gives you a place to write about the affective experience. If the assignment brief mentions emotions, reactions, or affect, Gibbs delivers cleanly.

2. The assignment expects evaluative reflection. Gibbs’s Evaluation stage gives you space to weigh what worked and what didn’t. Driscoll folds this into So what? and the evaluation can get squeezed.

3. The marker has assigned Gibbs by name. This is the most decisive indicator. Read the brief.

CIPD reflective accounts often default to Gibbs. UAE nursing programs that use reflective practice typically default to Gibbs. Education modules at Middlesex Dubai and Birmingham Dubai also lean Gibbs.

When Driscoll is the better choice

Three indicators that Driscoll fits:

1. The assignment expects compact reflection. A 500-word reflection is too short for Gibbs’s six stages. Driscoll’s three stages fit.

2. The assignment is professional-development-focused. Driscoll’s structure leans toward what changes next, which aligns with professional learning logs and CPD documentation.

3. The marker has assigned Driscoll by name. Again, the most decisive indicator.

CIPD Levels 3 and 5 sometimes accept Driscoll as an alternative to Gibbs. Some MBA leadership modules prefer Driscoll for compact reflections.

How to write a Gibbs reflection that scores well

The six stages, with the working pattern for each:

Description. Two or three sentences of factual context. Where, when, who, what. No interpretation; that comes later.

During my placement on the cardiac surgery ward at [Hospital] in [Month], I was assigned to assist with the post-operative care of a 67-year-old male patient who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting. On the second post-operative day, the patient experienced a sudden episode of atrial fibrillation while I was performing his routine observations.

Feelings. Honest emotional disclosure. The aim isn’t to perform emotion; it’s to acknowledge what the experience felt like.

I felt an immediate spike of fear when the cardiac monitor alarmed. My training had prepared me for this clinical scenario in the abstract, but the experience of facing it as the responsible nurse in the room was different. I was conscious of needing to act calmly while also recognising the limits of what I could safely manage independently.

Evaluation. What worked, what didn’t, in concrete terms.

The senior staff nurse arrived within 90 seconds of my call. The patient’s vital signs stabilised quickly with cardioversion. In retrospect, my initial assessment was clinically adequate — I correctly identified the rhythm change and called for help — but my documentation of the event was incomplete; I forgot to note the time the alarm sounded.

Analysis. The framework or theoretical lens applied to the experience.

Benner’s novice-to-expert continuum (1984) is useful here. As an early-career nurse, my decision-making was rule-based — I correctly applied the protocol I had been taught. A more experienced practitioner would have layered intuitive elements onto the protocol, anticipating the patient’s likely deterioration before the alarm. The gap reveals where my practice is currently in the continuum and where it needs to develop.

Conclusion. What you would have done differently and what you learned.

Two changes would have improved my performance. First, more attentive monitoring of the patient’s baseline rhythm during routine observations might have surfaced an earlier indication of the developing arrhythmia. Second, real-time documentation of the event would have improved the clinical record without significantly delaying the response.

Action plan. Specific commitments for future practice.

In subsequent placements, I will (a) include attention to baseline rhythm patterns as part of every routine observation, (b) document events in real-time using the bedside tablet rather than relying on later recall, and (c) request additional supervised exposure to arrhythmia management to advance from rule-based toward intuitive practice in this area.

How to write a Driscoll reflection that scores well

The three stages, more compactly.

What? Two to four sentences of description, including a brief mention of why this experience is the focus.

So what? Three to six sentences combining the evaluative and analytical work that Gibbs spreads across multiple stages. Apply a framework. Identify what the experience reveals about your practice, your assumptions, or your understanding.

Now what? Two to four sentences on specific changes you’ll make. Concrete commitments, not vague intentions.

The model’s compactness means each stage carries more weight. The So what? in particular has to do the work that Gibbs spreads across Evaluation, Analysis, and Conclusion.

Where reflective writing loses marks

Five common failure modes:

1. Description-heavy reflection. Too much what happened, too little what it means.

2. Performative emotion. Feelings that read as designed for the marker rather than honest.

3. Missing framework. Reflection that doesn’t reference a named theoretical lens (Benner, Schön, Mezirow, etc.).

4. Vague action plan. I will reflect more on my practice isn’t an action plan.

5. Single-stage dominance. A reflection that spends 70% of the word count on Description and rushes the analytical work.

When The Essay Atelier writes reflective accounts

Reflective writing is one of the briefs we approach carefully. The reflection should be yours — your experience, your reaction, your learning. We can structure your reflection using the chosen model, with the writer-editor pair working from your account of the experience rather than fabricating one. We don’t write reflective accounts of experiences the student didn’t have.

If you have a reflective writing brief and want to talk through how to structure your own reflection on the experience you’ve had, message the editors. The conversation usually saves you time and produces a stronger reflection than working alone.