Comparing Models
Lawley and Tompkins: a clean approach to RP
Aim: facilitate the practitioner to improve practice by:
- Enhancing the effectiveness of their reflection
- Deepening understanding of the reflection process and its application (self-modelling)
Two parallel processes
| Process | Two aspects |
|---|---|
| External behaviour (event) | Verbal and non-verbal |
| Internal behaviour (experience) | State and strategy |
Five components of the Lawley-Tompkins model
- Reflection
- Desired outcome
- Plan
- Practice
- Feedback
Disney Strategy: three roles
| Role | Function |
|---|---|
| Dreamer | Generates the vision |
| Realist | Builds the plan |
| Critic | Tests the plan |
Cross-model comparison
| Lawley & Tompkins | Kolb equivalent |
|---|---|
| What happened? (external) | Active experimentation, concrete experience |
| What was experienced? (internal) | Reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation |
Lawley-Tompkins meets Disney
| Lawley & Tompkins | Disney |
|---|---|
| What outcome is desired? | Dreamer |
| What evidence will show progress? | Realist |
| What might prevent the plan from working? | Critic |
By this point, the chapter has covered the major reflection models: Dewey’s foundations, Kolb’s cycle, Schon’s reflection-in and on-action, Gibbs’s six phases, Boud’s three stages, and Johns’s structured reflection. The literature also offers other approaches that compare interestingly with these. Two are worth a closer look: the Lawley-Tompkins “clean approach” and the Disney Strategy.
A clean approach to reflective practice
The Lawley-Tompkins model aims at a clean approach to reflective practice. The word “clean” here means deliberately precise: the model is designed to enhance the effectiveness of reflection without adding unnecessary baggage.
The model has two stated aims.
Enhancing the effectiveness of reflection. The practitioner reflects more sharply, with less wasted effort.
Deepening understanding of the reflection process and its application. This includes what the model calls self-modelling: the practitioner builds a clearer picture of how they themselves reflect, which helps them refine the practice.
The clean approach is reflexive in this second sense. It asks the practitioner not only to reflect on their practice but also to reflect on their reflection.
Two parallel processes
The Lawley-Tompkins model identifies two parallel processes that always run together in any teaching event.
External behaviour (the event)
External behaviour is what happens visibly. It has two aspects.
Verbal. What was said. By whom. In what tone. With what response.
Non-verbal. Body language, position, facial expression, the use of space.
A reflective practitioner observing the external layer is paying attention to what an outside observer could record.
Internal behaviour (the experience)
Internal behaviour is what happens inside the people involved. It also has two aspects.
State. The internal state of the practitioner: emotional, cognitive, physical. Anxious, focused, tired, energised.
Strategy. The internal approach the practitioner is using. The way they are framing the situation, the goals they are pursuing, the heuristics they are applying.
A reflective practitioner attending to the internal layer is paying attention to data only the practitioner has direct access to.
The two layers run in parallel. Any teaching event has external behaviour and internal experience happening at the same time. A reflection that only addresses the external layer misses half the picture. A reflection that only addresses the internal layer is disconnected from what actually happened.
Five components of the Lawley-Tompkins model
The model has five components.
- Reflection. Looking at what happened, externally and internally.
- Desired outcome. Naming what the practitioner wants for the next round.
- Plan. Designing the move toward the desired outcome.
- Practice. Carrying out the plan in the classroom.
- Feedback. Gathering data on what the practice produced.
The cycle then repeats. The feedback from one round becomes the reflection of the next.
The model is similar in shape to Kolb’s experiential learning cycle but is more explicit about the desired outcome stage. Kolb’s cycle moves from experience to reflection to abstract conceptualisation to active experimentation. Lawley-Tompkins inserts a clear “what do I want next?” stage between reflection and plan, which forces clarity about the goal before the planning starts.
The Disney Strategy
The Disney Strategy describes reflective practice in terms of roles the practitioner takes on. Three roles cover the work.
The Dreamer
The Dreamer generates the vision. What could be? What is the picture of the better state? The Dreamer is uncritical, generative, expansive. The Dreamer’s job is to produce possibilities without yet asking if they are realistic.
A reflective practitioner using the Dreamer role asks: if there were no constraints, what would this lesson look like? What would my teaching look like at its best?
The Realist
The Realist builds the plan. The Realist takes the Dreamer’s vision and asks how to get there in the actual conditions. The Realist is practical, sequencing-focused, resource-aware.
A reflective practitioner using the Realist role asks: given my time, my energy, my class size, my curriculum, what version of the Dreamer’s vision can I actually do?
The Critic
The Critic tests the plan. The Critic asks what could go wrong, what assumptions are weak, what might fail. The Critic is sceptical, careful, checking for blind spots.
A reflective practitioner using the Critic role asks: what would prevent this plan from working? What am I assuming that may not be true? What is the worst case?
The model’s strength is the explicit separation of the three roles. Most teachers do all three roles at once when planning, which produces a muddled output. Plans get killed in the cradle by the Critic before the Dreamer has finished generating. Or plans get adopted unchallenged because the Critic never showed up.
The Disney Strategy asks the practitioner to do each role in turn, not at the same time. Dream first. Then realise. Then critique. The discipline of separation produces stronger plans.
Comparing the models
Different models compare in different ways. Two comparisons are worth drawing.
Lawley-Tompkins and Kolb
The Lawley-Tompkins questions can be mapped to Kolb’s cycle.
What happened externally maps to Kolb’s active experimentation and concrete experience. The teacher acted; the students responded; the lesson unfolded.
What was experienced internally maps to Kolb’s reflective observation and abstract conceptualisation. The teacher noticed, thought, made sense.
Lawley-Tompkins adds questions Kolb does not pose explicitly: what meaning is given to what happened and what was experienced? How is that meaning arrived at? What is concluded or learned? How are external and internal evaluated together?
These additional questions sharpen the reflection. A practitioner who works with both models has access to Kolb’s cycle and to the additional precision Lawley-Tompkins introduces.
Lawley-Tompkins and the Disney Strategy
Several Lawley-Tompkins questions can be mapped to the Disney roles.
“What outcome is desired in the future?” is the Dreamer’s question.
“What evidence (feedback) will be used to monitor improvement?” is the Realist’s question.
“What is the plan? How and when will it happen?” is the Realist’s question.
“What might prevent the plan from working? What can be done about that in advance?” is the Critic’s question.
This mapping shows that the Disney roles are doing similar work to the Lawley-Tompkins planning sequence. The two models can be combined: use the Lawley-Tompkins five components for the structure, and use the three Disney roles to do the planning component well.
Why these models matter
The major models (Kolb, Schon, Gibbs, Boud, Johns) tend to dominate the literature. The Lawley-Tompkins and Disney approaches are less famous, but they offer specific contributions.
Lawley-Tompkins contributes the explicit pairing of external and internal layers, and the separation of “desired outcome” as its own stage. Disney contributes the discipline of separating dreaming, realising, and critiquing rather than mixing them.
A reflective practitioner who knows several models has more options. When one model fails to surface useful material on a given problem, switching to another can reveal what the first missed. The choice is not between models but among them.
Dreamer, Realist, Critic
The Dreamer generates the vision without constraints. The Realist plans how to get there in actual conditions. The Critic tests the plan for weaknesses and assumptions. The discipline is to play each role in turn rather than mixing them, because mixed roles produce muddled plans where critique kills dreams before they form.
Where the comparison leaves the practitioner
A reflective teacher reading the chapters of this guide has now seen ten or more models. The natural question is which one to use.
The honest answer is several. Different models reveal different things. A teacher who relies only on Gibbs misses what Johns offers. A teacher who only uses Johns misses what the Disney roles add.
The mature practice is to know enough models to pick the right one for the situation. A complex critical incident needs Johns’s depth. A quick post-lesson review benefits from Gibbs’s cycle. A planning conversation profits from the Disney roles. A self-assessment of one’s own reflection process needs Lawley-Tompkins.
The future of reflective practice for any individual teacher includes building this repertoire.