Atkins and Murphy Model of Reflection: A Critical Analysis Guide

Reflection notes

By Solice editorial team · Published 2026-08-19 · Updated 2026-08-19

Direct answer: The Atkins and Murphy model begins with awareness of uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, then moves through a focused description, analysis of knowledge and assumptions, evaluation of what was learned, and identification of learning or action. Its value lies in challenging the first interpretation, not in producing a longer event narrative.

Community signal: Stage summaries can make the model look like another descriptive checklist. The useful task is showing how discomfort or uncertainty exposes an assumption, how evidence challenges it, and why a revised action follows.

Use discomfort as an analytical trigger

The Atkins and Murphy model begins with awareness of uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, then moves through a focused description, analysis of knowledge and assumptions, evaluation of what was learned, and identification of learning or action. Its value lies in challenging the first interpretation, not in producing a longer event narrative.

Copyable Atkins and Murphy worksheet

Keep the stages connected. The worksheet is useful only when the trigger leads to focused evidence, the evidence changes an interpretation, and the revised interpretation supports a feasible action.

Begin with a small, evidenced trigger rather than a complete event transcript. Ask which assumption made the moment uncomfortable, what the student knew at the time, and what source or perspective now challenges that reading. If the evidence does not change the analysis, record the unresolved question instead of manufacturing a lesson.

An uncertainty-based worked outline

A moment of uncertainty becomes the trigger; the student records only relevant context, separates observations from interpretation, tests assumptions against literature and another perspective, states the revised learning, and plans an action within supervision.

Challenge assumptions with evidence

Start by identifying the uncomfortable thought, feeling, or knowledge gap that made the experience worth examining. Describe only the facts needed to understand that trigger and preserve confidentiality. Separate the student's contemporaneous understanding from later interpretation so reflection does not rewrite the event with hindsight.

Audit the movement between stages. The selected description should explain the trigger, the analysis should expose and test an assumption, the evaluation should state what understanding changed, and the action should follow from that change. Repeated description or detached citations indicate that the model has been labelled but not actually used.

Preserve authorship and confidentiality

Analyse the knowledge and assumptions that shaped the response. Compare the initial interpretation with literature, professional expectations, context, and another plausible perspective while avoiding invented thoughts or clinical conclusions. State where evidence is limited and explain how the examination changes, confirms, or complicates the student's understanding.

Turn revised understanding into action

Evaluate the learning and define any action that follows, including supervision and a way to review its effect. Map the finished work to the assignment rubric rather than assuming the model itself satisfies assessment criteria. Preserve the student's voice; prompts and formative feedback should reveal reasoning gaps, not supply submission-ready content.

Academic and clinical limits

The student remains the author and must protect confidentiality and follow the actual assignment or revalidation rules.

Sources and discussion

  1. Open University: Atkins and Murphy model of reflection
    official
  2. Monash University: approaching reflective writing
    official

Community posts describe individual experiences and questions; they are not treated as universal proof.

Related guides and tools

Review your own draft without handing over authorship.

Use the model only if it fits the assignment and available evidence. Nurspective can review analytical structure but cannot supply a scenario, clinical conclusion, or submission text.

See how Nurspective works