Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle: in Theory and in Practice

“We are…the learning species, and our survival depends on our ability to adapt not only in the reactive sense of fitting into the physical and social worlds, but in the proactive sense of creating and shaping those worlds.”

Quote: David Kolb, Experiential Learning (1984, p. 2).

David Kolb’s “Experiential Learning Cycle” (1984) is a model that is still widely applied today, particularly in the field of adult education and training. In a way, it resonates. Particularly once our formal education is over, we often – as adults – tend to feel that we learn best from experience. We develop theories about the world from that experience.

Image from Unsplashed.com by Orkun Azap

However, Kolb is not without his critics and I would argue that we should pay careful attention to what they have to say. Hence, this article will first outline Kolb’s model. Next, it will examine the critics’ arguments. Finally, I will draw conclusions from a trainer’s perspective.

Kolb’s model

In its original form, Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is a circle:

First comes the “concrete experiencing” of events or experiences. Reflecting on that brings us to the state of “abstract conceptualisation”. These abstract concepts in their turn guide a further stage of “active experimentation”, after which the cycle begins all over again. As the learner moves through the cycle, they change “from actor to observer” and from “specific involvement to general analytic detachment” (Kolb 1984).

Kolb also compares his experiential learning cycle to Piaget’s sequence of developmental stages (Piaget 1971, cited by Moon 1999:25). Both models are underpinned by processes of assimilation (intake of information from the environment) and accommodation (modification of what is already known by the learner in the light of new learning).

Kolb argues that the experiential learning cycle can be applied to a wide range of situations. In some cases, action and reflection may occur more or less at the same time, but experiential learning over a longer range or timeline is also possible, he suggests.

Criticisms of the model

For some, though, Kolb’s basic depiction of the experiential learning cycle is too neat.

Moon (1999) argues that “raw experience” (direct involvement in a situation) and conceptual material that has already been learnt are not processed the same way. Reprocessing of experience may be qualitatively different – and may even happen at the same time as we try to make sense of something new.

Moreover, Eisner (1991, cited by Moon 1999:32) argues that sensory perception of a situation involves us actively. In his view, “construal, not discovery, is critical”. The way we perceive an experience already contributes to the creation of meaning.

Boud and Walker (1990; 1993: cited by Moon 1999:32) meanwhile make a related point. Our interpretation of what we perceive may be culturally determined. They agree with Eisner that the act of perception may influence what happens later in the cycle.

Finally, Eisner makes another interesting point: putting one’s thoughts into writing may itself contribute to learning. Focused questioning from a more experienced person, although a great idea, is not the only way to prompt reflection. Writing down our ideas may also mean that emergent insights come to the fore (Eisner 1991, cited by Moon 1999:32).

So how useful is Kolb’s model?

Overall, Moon has made a valid point: “raw” experience and prior learning are likely to be two different things. The cycle may be an oversimplification of what actually happens in the brain (Moon 1999).

Moreover, we should not be naïve. Kolb is not suggesting quick fixes are available when all is not well at work. Longer-term issues such as motivation or engagement may instead be what needs addressing (Cartwright 2011).

However, Kolb’s theory still seems to have a lot to offer to trainers. Reflection on recent experience is likely to be timely. Moreover, feedback from trainers can draw the trainee’s attention to what matters most after an observation. Reflecting on that can help trainees reorganise the way they think about typical situations (Laurillard 2012).

Overall, I would argue that Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is still a useful model. Yes, it may be oversimplified in practice. But Kolb is still right to say that reflection on experience is the starting point for professional growth. Trainers and trainees can surely both relate to that.

REFERENCES:

Cartwright, L. (2011). How consciously reflective are you? In: McGregor, D. & L. Cartwright (eds.) (2011) Developing Reflective Practice: A Guide For Beginning Teachers. McGraw-Hill: Open University Press. Chapter 4.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Routledge.

Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis.

Author:

Philip Jeffrey Saxon

Article Writer & Content Contributor

June 1, 2020

Share this article:

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this article/publication are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of GiLE or its members.