Experiential learning theory
Abstract and summary of Miriam Webb's definitive critique

A DEFINITIVE CRITIQUE OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY

Miriam W. Webb

ABSTRACT

1. What is learning?
2. Are the Experiential Learning Model modes separate and distinct in their functions so as to necessitate a four-stage cycle for learning to take place?
3. Is dialectic tension the mechanism that mediates the relationship between the modes and between the person and the environment?

1. First, the research addresses learning, and the definition derived by Experiential Learning Theory. This section concludes that Experiential Learning Theory’s definition is a dramatic distortion of the very epistemological fundaments it references. The author proposes a different definition more consistent with those fundaments.
2. Second, the research addresses Experiential Learning Model’s foundational propositions, experiential learning modes, their constitutive natures, and their place in relation to learning theory. It concludes that all four modes are not required for learning to take place, and demonstrates that this component of the theory is rife with inherent contradiction and inconsistency. The author suggests ways in which these contradictions could be resolved.
3. Finally, the research addresses the use of dialectic tension as the mediating function of learning, by tracing the meaning of dialectic from its inception with Socrates through Karl Marx and up to its place in Experiential Learning Theory. The research concludes that dialectic tension is not a viable mechanism for mediating modes of learning. The research further substantiates that the proposition that learning, by its very nature, is a tension and conflict-filled process is a misapplication of dialectic tension. The author recommends a complete re-examination of the mechanisms which mediate between learning modes.

The full critique is available in a 75 page PDF file at http://cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb [at archive.org]

A DEFINITIVE CRITIQUE OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY

Phase One: Experiential Learning Qua Learning

Miriam W. Webb

Conclusion to Phase One

Experiential Learning Theory defines learning as “as a process of conflict confrontation and resolution among four basic adaptive modes or ways of relating to the world.” (Kolb and Fry, 75:37) Learning is defined as a process of social adaptation 15 resulting in behavioral change. Kolb and Fry detour by adapting Lewin’s theory of experiential learning in groups to learning qua learning. By taking cognitive and socioemotional adaptation as the springboard for a definition, Kolb and Fry sabotage learning, and contradict the very science they hope to promote. In order to define learning, one must begin with how humans know, not how humans adapt in groups. How humans adapt in groups is a longitudinal socialization derivative of how the human mind comes to learn. Kolb and Fry’s interest in learning qua learning was an admitted afterthought.

Perhaps because of the practical face validity of the experiential learning model there has been relatively little serious scientific research directed towards understanding the dynamics of the learning process form this perspective. While the model has become a pivotal tool in training design and consulting practice, there has been little attention given to the exploration of how learning takes place and why experiential learning techniques and action-research methods work. For the past several years we have been engaged in a research programme aimed at answering these questions. Kolb and Fry, 75:34

The full critique is available in a 75 page PDF file at http://cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb [at archive.org]

A DEFINITIVE CRITIQUE OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY

Phase Two: Learning Modes and the Four Stage Cycle

Miriam W. Webb

Conclusion to Phase Two

Position Statements The following position statements can now be made as a result of the research and examination of the four modes of Experiential Learning Theory, and the Experiential Learning Model.

1. All four modes as presently depicted are not essential for learning to take place, though with substantive revision, they could represent actual learning activities more accurately.
2. The modes of concrete experiencing and abstract conceptualization are not appropriately placed on a continuum of knowing, as knowing emerges as a result of the full transformation of experience, involving all the faculties of consciousness.
3. The modes of reflective observation and active experimentation are not appropriately placed on a continuum of transformation, as it has been demonstrated that inherent in the constitutive nature of each of the four modes are constructive transformations and structuring activities.
4. The modes of reflective observation and active experimentation are not appropriately distinguished as “intension” and “extension” respectively, as it has been demonstrated that inherent in each of these modes are activities directed both inward toward the person and outward toward the environment. Intension and extension are directionalities constitutive of both modes.
5. Active experimentation is not inclusive of all forms of active expression which could serve to make forms of knowing resultant from learning apparent. Active experimentation represents only one form of externalized behavioral expression. In it current portrayal of active experimentation, Experiential Learning Theory sets up conditions for learning which are limited to functional adaptation. It is suggested that the activities of this mode are more akin to active expression, and that these sets of activities can take a variety of forms, both intensive and extensive in directionality.
6. It is apparent that the four separate modes depicted in Experiential Learning Theory are not separate and distinct. In fact, they are inextricably interconnected and interpenetrating. To suggest “learning requires abilities that are polar opposites and the learner, as a result, must continually choose which set of learning abilities he will bring to bear in any specific learning situation” (Kolb and Fry, 75:36) is to distort the findings and genius of Piaget, Kohler, Wertheimer, Jung, Dewey, and Lewin. The relationship between the four learning modes, at the least, must be described as reciprocal, interpenetrating, and functionally dependent. It has been demonstrated through Piaget that each mode constructs new transformation structures on the basis of what has gone before; that activities of perception and apprehension, perception and abstract conceptualization interpenetrate one another and cannot be sharply distinguished, even developmentally. Hence, a more appropriate portrayal of the relationships between the modes needs to be understood and presented if the Experiential Learning Theory and its Model are to possess construct validity and intellectual integrity.
7. Finally, it is fallacious to define learning as the result of adaptive choice. Adaptive choice results from learning. One may integrate new experience as a result of adaptive choice and learn from it, but the learning process that takes place should not to be equated with adaptive choice. Adaptive choice results in an object given in cognition or experience, from which structural transformations take shape. Adaptive choice may provide the fodder for learning. But that is all. Adaptive choice does not create knowledge, cognition, or intuition. It is not constitutive of learning in any of the foundational sources upon which Experiential Learning Theory bases its constructs.

It has been demonstrated here that the four Experiential Learning Theory modes of constitutive of operational constructivistic transformations which cannot be so sharply differentiated or demarcated as represented in the model. The transformation of sensation and experience through faculties of consciousness resulting in forms of knowing involve operations, transformations, and structuring activities of much greater complexity that the Theory currently explains or allows. Finally, Experiential Learning Theory attempts to integrate various philosophical, psychological, and epistemological schools of thought which have fundamentally different domain assumptions, in regard to the constitutive natures of knowledge, learning, knowing, experience, and ultimately consciousness. Hence, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the foundational propositions and constructs of Experiential Learning Theory call into the question the validity of its models, learning styles, adaptive styles, instruments, and measures.

The full critique is available in a 75 page PDF file at http://cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb [at archive.org]

A DEFINITIVE CRITIQUE OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY

Phase Three: Dialectics and the Cycle

Miriam W. Webb

Conclusion to Phase Three

Learning theories concern themselves with objects given in experience, relation, cognition, and intuition. Any theory of learning must be held to a certain standard of rigorous construct validity. This is especially true of theory which purports to classify individuals on the basis of empirical measures of learning. The following position statements can now be made as a result of the research and examination of dialectic tension as the mechanism that mediates the relationship between the four Experiential Learning Theory modes and between the person and the environment.

1. Dialectic “tension” is a fiction.
2. Dialectic tension does not arise from adaptive choice, nor is it the mechanism which mediates between modes of learning. Defining learning as “conflict-filled” is not grounded, and is a misapplication of dialectic as a starting premise.
3. The mechanism which mediates between learning modes needs to be reconsidered, as does the relationship of learning to adaptation, to group interaction, to the person, to forms of knowing, and to the nature of learning qua learning, as a thing-in-and-of-itself.
4. With the demise of dialectics as a basis for bifurcation of the Experiential Learning Cycle, the infrastructure of the model collapses and the operational evolution of styles as combinations of contiguous modes loses construct validity.

CONCLUSION

The full critique is available in a 75 page PDF file at http://cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb [at archive.org]