Experiential learning– a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model.
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is perhaps the most scholarly influential and cited model regarding experiential learning theory. However, a key issue in interpreting Kolb’s model concerns a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a concrete experience, exactly. A systematic literature review was conducted in order to examine: what constitutes a concrete experience and what is the nature of treatment of a concrete experience in experiential learning? The analysis revealed five themes: learners are involved, active, participants; knowledge is situated in place and time; learners are exposed to novel experiences, which involves risk; learning demands inquiry to specific real-world problems; and critical reflection acts as a mediator of meaningful learning. Accordingly, a revision to Kolb’s model is proposed: experiential learning consists of contextually rich concrete experience, critical reflective observation, contextual-specific abstract conceptualisation, and pragmatic active experimentation. Further empirical studies are required to test the model proposed.
Experiential learning theory takes a fundamentally different view of the learning process in com parison to behavioural learning theory. It places life experience as a central and necessary part of the learning process, where “knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (D. A. Kolb, 2015, p. 49; emphasis in original). However, relatively little empirical research has been conducted on experiential learning (Bergsteiner, Avery, & Neumann, 2010; Jarvis, 2012). Nonetheless, according to D. A. Kolb (2015), over the past 20 years research on experiential learn ing has more than quadrupled in many fields such as management, education, information science, psychology, medicine, nursing, accounting, and law. This includes a renewed interest in and attention to employing experiential learning in formal educational settings, especially in Higher Education. Thus, furthering our understanding of the concept of experiential learning and how to facilitate it is an important area for research, especially given the limitations of experiential learning theory high-lighted in the following section
D. A. Kolb’s(1984) experiential learning cycle remains the most widely influential and cited model, or “clearest expression”, of experiential learning theory (Seaman, Brown, & Quay, 2017, p. 3). Kolb (1984) theorised that:
Learners, if they are to be effective, need four different kinds of abilities—concrete experience abilities (CE), reflective observation abilities (RO), abstract conceptualisation abilities (AC), and active experimentation (AE) abilities. That is, they must be able to involve themselves fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences (CE). They must be able to reflect on and observe their experiences from many perspectives (RO). They must be able to create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound theories (AC), and they must be able to use these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE). (p. 30; emphasis in original).
Kolb acknowledged that he discovered or “noticed the dimensions” (D. A. Kolb, 2015, p. 56) of the theory in the works of prominent twentieth-century scholars Kurt Lewin, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget and attempted to “integrate the common themes in their work into a systematic framework that can address twenty-first century problems of learning and education” (p. xvii). Intertwined with experiential learning theory is the concept of learning styles (outside the scope of the present paper; refer to A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2013, for review; Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015, for critique). A damming critique of experiential learning theory is that it lacks sound theoretical and empirical foundations (cf. Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004; Miettinen, 2000). In particular, Miet tinen (2000) noted that D.A.Kolb’s interpretation of the key works, upon which his model was assembled, fundamentally “gives a unilateral and erroneous picture” (p. 65) of the original theories.