Model Comparison

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Comparison of John and Gibbs reflection model
There many ways that teachers use to try and pass information to students. School system support a way of learning that student memorizes a piece of information which they later retrieved when required. This kind of learning has a lot of limitation especially when it comes to the application part. Reflective learning comes to solve such an issue as it teaches students on how to reflect their learning experiences. It follows a structure where students are required to develop critical thinking that can be used to solve real-life issues. This paper is going to look at two models of reflection model: Gibbs and John’s models.
In Johns’ model, reflection usually considers five questions to take try and break down experience and guides an individual in reflecting on an issue (Husebø 37). These questions are asked to prompt an individual to start reflective part, while in the Gibbs model the process of reflecting learning involves allowing describing, analyzing and evaluating the process. Gibbs insisted on action plan not depending only on the reflection part alone.
The two models also differ in their process of reflection. In John’s model, it involves describing an experience, reflecting, looking at factors that are influencing the experience. It is then followed by reflection and learning occurs at the end. In contrast with the Gibbs model, where this process will also include an action plan. He put a lot of emphasis on putting the model n practical not only having its concepts.

Though the two models differ, they have a striking similarity. Their process is quite similar in reflection and ends with learning. In this step, an individual will try and look at what were motives and consequences of their actions. Moreover, the two models will end up with the same results of reflective learning.
Works Cited
Husebø, Sissel Eikeland et al. “Reflective Practice and Its Role in Simulation”. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, vol 11, no. 8, 2015, pp. 368-375. Elsevier BV, doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2015.04.005