Rolfe, Freshwater, and Jasper's What Model

Three short questions can do the work of a more complex model if they are asked in the right order. Rolfe, Freshwater, and Jasper (2001) proposed exactly that. What. So what. Now what. The structure is small enough to remember in the staff room and rich enough to push past surface description into theory and action.

The three questions

The What model uses three questions, each at a different level of reflection.

What?

The descriptive level. The teacher reflects on the situation in order to describe it. Who was there. What happened. What action the teacher took. What the consequences were.

This level sounds easy. It is harder than it looks. Most teachers compress description into a sentence or two and move quickly to interpretation. The first level of the What model holds the teacher at the descriptive task long enough to produce something detailed.

So what?

The theory-building level. The teacher constructs a personal understanding of the event in order to learn from it.

The “so what” question turns description into meaning. It asks what the situation tells the teacher about her practice, what assumptions her actions rested on, what she should have done, and what new understanding the incident produces.

This level is where the model adds value over a simple journal. A teacher who only describes runs into the same problems repeatedly. A teacher who asks “so what” reaches a working theory.

Now what?

The action level. The teacher reflects on what can be done to improve the situation, what consequences any action might have, and how the learning might transfer to other contexts.

The now what stage is the link between reflection and practice. Without it, the cycle does not close. With it, the next round of “what” comes from a tested change rather than a repeat of the original problem.

Sample prompts at each level

The model becomes more useful when the three questions are unpacked into specific prompts.

At the “what” level

1. What is the problem, or the reason for being stuck?
2. What was my role in the situation?
3. What action did I take?
4. What were the consequences for me?
5. What were the consequences for the students?

These questions push description toward specifics. “I had a difficult class” is not a description. “The class started off-topic, I tried to redirect twice, the second redirect produced silence rather than focus, two students left for water and did not return for ten minutes” is.

At the “so what” level

1. So what does this tell me about my teaching?
2. So what did I base my action on?
3. So what should I have done?
4. So what is my new understanding of this incident?

The fourth prompt is the most demanding. A new understanding is not the same as a new judgement. The teacher is not deciding what was good or bad; she is articulating what the incident has changed in how she sees the situation.

At the “now what” level

1. Now what do I need to do to improve the situation or prevent recurrence?
2. Now what are the broader issues?
3. Now what are the consequences of the planned action?
4. Now what can I do to transfer this learning to other contexts?

The fourth prompt is the one that produces growth. A teacher who learns something from one incident and never asks how it transfers learns the same thing twenty separate times.

Strengths of the What model

The What model has stayed in use for more than two decades. Its strengths are practical.

Memorable

Three words. A teacher can hold the structure in mind without notes.

Each question does different work

The three levels are not just three ways of saying the same thing. Description, theory, and action are genuinely different. The model makes the differences visible.

Scales up and down

For a quick reflection on a five-minute incident, three short answers are enough. For a detailed reflection on a whole term, each level can fill a page or more. The structure stays the same.

Pairs with other models

The What model can sit on top of Kolb, Gibbs, or Johns. A teacher using Gibbs can run the What model on each stage of the Gibbs cycle. The combination produces deeper reflection than either alone.

Flashcard

Why does the What model put 'so what' between 'what' and 'now what' rather than going straight from description to action?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Without the so what step, action is a guess

The so what level is where the teacher builds an understanding of the situation. It surfaces the assumptions behind her actions and the meaning of the incident. Skipping this step takes the teacher from description straight to a fix that often misses the actual problem. The middle question is what makes the model produce learning rather than reaction.

When the model works less well

The What model is general-purpose. It does not push the teacher toward any particular kind of reflection. This is a strength when the teacher knows what they are looking for, and a limit when they do not.

For situations that need the ethics lens specifically, Johns’s model fits better. For situations that need feelings as a separate stage, Gibbs fits better. For situations that need the four lenses (self, student, peer, theory), Brookfield fits better.

The What model is best treated as a default tool. Reach for it first. Switch to a more specialised model when the default does not surface what is actually going on.