As someone who works in work-integrated learning or cooperative education, the theoretical framework I have gravitated toward is the Experiential Learning theory, first developed by David Kolb (1984). I will explore Kolb’s model as a framework for my applied research project this term since it relates to how artificial intelligence tools can aid in improving learning outcomes for learners in an experiential learning program (Co-op). Essentially, the theory is split into the experiential learning cycle and the four distinct learning styles students can take towards learning. The life cycle can be broken down into four components: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation, or as others have called it, feeling, watching, thinking and doing (Virtanen, 2021).
The active component of this learning cycle is how it identifies how learners have a preferential learning style(s) and how they move along the experiential process. These styles are again broken down into four components: Diverging, Assimilating, Converging and Accommodating (Kolb, 1984). Working in an engineering co-op program, I see snippets of how students learn in the classroom by experimentation, observation, or applying previous educational or work experiences to solve problems. For example, those who prefer a more hands-on approach, which is most commonly found within cooperative education (e.g. biomedical engineering students working within a prosthetics company), suggest that the learner is following the accommodating learning style.
Even though Experiential Learning theory has been around for many years, it has been studied and applied to various STEM-related fields (Harb et al., 1993; Konak et al., 2014; Muscat & Mollicone, 2012). One of the main questions I want to understand better with Kolb’s model is to determine which of the particular learning styles Kolb describes and how specifically I can apply one (or all) to my applied research project. I am also curious to explore the Kolb model’s limitations and whether more modern theoretical frameworks have been proposed.
References
Harb, J. N., Durrant, S. O., & Terry, R. E. (1993). Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb00079.x
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701029
Konak, A., Clark, T., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers & Education, 72, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.013
Muscat, M., & Mollicone, P. (2012). Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Enhance the Teaching and Learning of Mechanics of Materials. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 40(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.7227/IJMEE.40.1.10
Virtanen, A. (2021, November 2). What Is Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory? Growth Engineering. https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/kolb-experiential-learning-theory/
Ash, this is amazing! I’m looking into the SECI model (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization) developed as a model for the Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. It’s also an experiential/activity theory, like yours, but I’m focusing specifically on how organizations transmit intangible knowledge intergeneration-ally via technology (thank you, COVID). This is really similar to Coop learning that you’ve mentioned, but throughout a career, after higher learning graduation. I’m looking forward to checking out your references here.
Are there particular technologies you’re leaning towards researching for learner outcomes, or will you be using your ARP to investigating pros and cons of many of them?
Hi Corie,
Thank you for the comments. I did look at OKC and maybe should double back to it before the ARP is done. I have used various AI tools to review and assess student work, but up to this point, nothing comes even close to replicating the feedback a seasoned teacher would provide. I will say that software tools have improved over the years, and the last used (Vmock) was in the general vicinity of numerical marking. However, the feedback or written comments still cannot replicate what I would put on paper for the student. Ultimately, I would love to see a tool or AI take over my work’s “low-hanging fruit” aspect and improve learning outcomes/grades. This would afford more time spent on students’ real issues in experiential learning.
How fascinating, Ash! I really appreciated your description of this framework, as I was imagining something much more general when I first read “Experiential Learning”. The articulated components of this theory offer many potential applications to your research. I’m intrigued to learn more about how the learning styles relate or fit within the components of the cycle. Are they fluid and could be moved around to different stages of the cycle?
Hey Ash, that’s a really interesting comment – we came at OKC from two different ways! I love the thought of using it for teaching. I’m looking at which tools we can use to disseminate professional information at work, between colleagues. I hadn’t thought of the teacher:student relationship, but I love it!
Hi Ash
I have been curious about our topics as they seem to be overlapping in the Venn diagram of research projects in our program. I went farther back in terms of the theoretical framework relying on Dewey over Kolb but honestly I didn’t know why I did this for my own choice entirely. One reason is that I did not want to overlook the importance of the role of citizenship, I want that to be a fundamental understanding of how I approach my research. That the role of citizenship development in learning is a truth and I see that in Dewey’s work. I also wanted to be able to draw from models that derived from Dewey which included Kolb but also others. For you, what makes Kolb the fit? How did you know you wanted to focus on that specifically?
I ask this for my own understanding of where theories are embedded in other theories and how researchers delineate and choose our theoretical frameworks and where the boundary comes into play.