Johns Model of Reflection: A Structured Prompt Guide

Use Johns as a prompt set, not a form

Johns' model uses guided questions to examine the experience, internal and external factors, knowledge, values, alternative actions, and learning. Select prompts that serve the assignment rather than answering every question mechanically, and keep the student's own experience and rubric in control.

Copyable Johns prompt map

Choose prompts that serve the brief. The student does not need to answer every prompt, but every selected answer should contribute to the analytical chain.

Place the assignment criterion beside each selected prompt. If two prompts produce the same descriptive answer, combine them and use the recovered space for evidence or alternative perspectives. The map is complete when every prompt advances a criterion, not when every available question has text beneath it.

• Experience: What happened, what was I trying to achieve, and what was observed?
• Context: Which internal and external factors influenced the situation?
• Knowledge: What evidence, prior learning, or professional expectation informs analysis?
• Values and perspectives: What assumptions were present and what other interpretation is plausible?
• Learning: What could change, what action is feasible, and how will it be reviewed?

Communication-incident worked outline

A communication incident can be mapped from the student's intention and observed outcome to contextual factors, relevant literature, another plausible perspective, an alternative response, and one supervised action for future practice.

Select evidence, values, and perspectives

Begin from one bounded and anonymized experience, then select Johns prompts that match the assignment. Record the student's intention, important internal and external factors, what was observed, and what knowledge informed the response. Do not answer every prompt merely because it appears in a diagram; selection should serve analytical depth.

A useful prompt map shows movement, not coverage alone. The account starts with what the student intended and observed. Context and evidence then challenge the first reading. Values and another perspective widen the analysis. The final learning statement should identify what changed in the student's understanding and why the proposed action follows.

• Sheffield Hallam University: Johns structured reflection
• Oxford Brookes University: reflection guidance

Protect authorship and clinical boundaries

Examine values, assumptions, context, evidence, and alternative perspectives without claiming access to another person's thoughts. Literature and professional standards should sharpen the student's reasoning, not manufacture a clinical conclusion. Make uncertainty visible and distinguish what was known at the time from what became apparent during reflection.

Turn analysis into learning and action

Conclude with the learning produced by this analysis and a bounded future action. Reverse-map the draft to the marking criteria and protect confidentiality in every section. A formative reviewer may flag missing links or description-heavy passages, while the student's own words, experience, and authorized academic guidance remain the submission authority.

Academic and professional limits

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

• Prompts serve the brief
• Evidence is distinguished from assumption
• Values and context are examined
• The student remains the author

Sources and discussion

1. Sheffield Hallam University: Johns structured reflection
   official
2. Oxford Brookes University: reflection guidance
   official

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

Related guides and tools

• /
• /blog
• /guides