Learning from Experience: Examination of Contributions and Limitations of Two Promising

8866

Learning from experience: examination of contributions and limitations of two promising theories

Boyd E. Rossing, University of Wisconsin - Madison

Abstract

The paper examines the contributions David Kolb’s experiential learning theory and Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s theory of action perspective can make to explaining learning from experiences in community action groups. The two theories complement each other and together raise important questions for study in this area.

Introduction : learning from community action experience

The focus of this paper is on learning from experience and especially on theory to explain such learning. While some[1] have argued that all learning is experience based, the special emphasis here is on the way adults interact with and learn from experiences in daily living and particularly in community groups. This paper explores ways two theories of learning and education can contribute to explaining learning from community action experiences. Adult learning in community action settings is an especially appropriate areas for deriving and applying experiential learning theory. As Brookfield[2] notes, ‘practically every community action initiative - from parents pressing for day care facilities or a safe street crossing... to tenant groups presenting schemes for rent reform... to campaigns for a nuclear freeze - exhibits a strong educative dimension...’. Furthermore, the principle means by which citizens acquire skills and knowledge for community action is through experience, not through formal training[3]. Despite the importance of this adult learning arena, however, there has been very little investigation or theory building, especially in the US, that directly seeks to explain learning from community action experiences. Attention instead has focused on experiential learning in educative or work settings.

A few findings from a small study I have conducted may help to show some of the interesting questions that await research in this area[4]. The purpose of the study was to explore (1) the content of beliefs about effective group functioning in community settings and (2) the processes by which people informally and naturally learn (e.g. change beliefs) from experiences in such groups. Personal interviews constituted the primary research method.

Among the findings of interest were the following. Nearly a third of the participants in community groups did not describe a single learning instance in the course of their interview. Participants typically described some beliefs that had not changed over the course of considerable community experience. Other beliefs had changed. Beliefs pertaining to the importance of strong leadership, structured meetings and commitment of time tended to be pretty stable. Learning was more common with respect to beliefs regarding member participation in the group and tailoring assignments to member interests and abilities.

In most cases learning instances occurred when some obstacle or setback countered a person’s expectations and they subsequently revised their beliefs. In other cases their learning followed an unexpected success. Rarely did individuals report consciously and directly testing a belief. Most learning occurred sometime after one's initial entry into community activities. Few instances occurred in recent situations.

Finally, it is interesting to note how participants commented on their learning processes. Almost without exception felt they had definitely learned from their community group experiences. Many, however, said their learning was not always a conscious process. They simply picked up ideas along the way without really knowing how they did so.

Learning from experience: theory in adult education

What accounts for these results one might ask? With that question one is led to investigate relevant learning theory. Phyllis Cunningham[5] has reviewed a set of approaches that focus on extracting meaning from experience. She identifies three groups of adult educators concerned with experiential learning: (1) those seeking to substitute experiential learning for traditional learning within educational institutions; (2) those wishing to assist adults to learn in collaborative and self-educational forms; and (3) educators working with socially oppressed adults from a critical sociological perspective. She discusses two general schools of theory informing these efforts. Those with a cognitive emphasis approach experiential learning developmentally and in terms of preferred style. They emphasise individual adaptation to the environment. She cites the work of Bruner[6] and Kolb[7] here. The second school concentrates on analysis of sociological and political structures in society and seeks to foster empowerment learning of members of non-dominant cultures. They begin with concrete experiences of the learner within the subordinate culture and emphasise a process of reflection and action whereby empowerment may occur. Here she cites Friere[8], Reed[9] and Mezirow[10].

Cunningham draws a sharp contrast between the two approaches. Cognitive educators tend to locate the educational challenge in deficiencies in the learner’s ability to engage in abstract symbolic learning based on their experiences. Empowerment educators on the other hand focus on structures of society that effectively prevent non-dominant members from learning meaningfully from their experience. An approach that provides some reconciliation between the individual development and social change orientations contrasted by Cunningham is the theory of Argyris and Schön[11], later amplified by Argyris[12]. They have developed and applied a theory for fostering learning from experience in managerial and professional contexts.

This brief introduction to the broad topic of theories of learning from experience as they are applied in adult education reveals several problems. Differences in assumptions regarding the location of forces affecting learning divide the approaches. A second problem is that most of these theories begin with premises about how adults should learn from experience and focus on ways that educators can facilitate that process. Most give little attention to the prior question, how do adults naturally, in natural contexts, learn from experience. A third problem pertains to the contexts from which the theories are derived. Some are based on laboratory settings, others on educational settings, and others on specific adult roles, for example, professionals, managers, etc. It is important that the special attributes of such contexts not be overlooked in applying the theories in other settings.

The remainder of this paper will attempt to analyse and integrate two theories of learning from experience and to relate them to the context of adult learning in community action contexts. The two theories are first, David Kolb’s experiential learning theory and second Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s theory of action perspective. These two approaches were selected for three reasons. First they provide some representation of the individual development versus the social change perspective. Second, each has been cited frequently as a useful model for understanding and facilitating learning from action or experience in adult settings.

Finally, the features of each are somewhat complementary and therefore amenable to some useful integration.

Experiential learning theory

Kolb’s theory of experiential learning is grounded in social and cognitive psychology. He draws on the work of Lewin and Dewey to describe the process of learning and reformulates the theory of Piaget and other developmental psychologists in explaining the structure of learning. He presents a model or blueprint of the ideal functioning of the ‘learning machine’ rather than a description of actual functioning under varying circumstances of mood, culture and the like. In Kolb’s exposition learning is defined as ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’[13]. It is in the interplay of expectations and experience that learning occurs or fails to occur. Experiences that violate expectations yield learning if the person re-examines and transforms his or her grasp of the situation. Learning does not occur if one holds fast to the original understanding, rejecting the disconfirming experience, or if the new experiences occur so continuously that one becomes paralysed by doubt and uncertainty. In this view all learning is relearning. Kolb often illustrates the learning process by way of a cycle with four components or stages[14]. Unfortunately, this use of a linear cycle (following Lewin) tends to misrepresent his more fully developed views of the interactions of the four components.

According to Kolb, knowledge is created (that is, learning occurs) through a combination of grasping experience and then transforming it. The simple perception or grasp of experience is not sufficient for learning, something must be done with the experience. There are two different and opposed processes for grasping experience - either through comprehension or apprehension. Comprehension refers to conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation whereas apprehension refers to the continuous sensation of colours, textures, sounds and other felt qualities of immediate experience. These two processes are co-equal, representing two modes of knowing and supported most recently by research on the hemispheres of the brain.

There are also two basic and independent processes by which grasped experience is transformed, intention and extension. Intention refers to internal reflection on what one apprehends or comprehends and extension refers to active manipulation of the external world as it is comprehended or apprehended. Cultures vary in the emphasis given to action and reflection. For example, Western technological societies emphasise action and Eastern cultures have tended to emphasise reflection. This structural model is capable of producing a rich variety of learning processes. The learning process can be governed at any moment by one or all of these processes acting simultaneously.

Combinations of the grasping and transforming modes yield four forms of knowledge. When experience is grasped by apprehension, it yields divergent knowledge when transformed by reflection and accommodative knowledge when transformed by action. On the other hand when experience is grasped by comprehension it yields assimilative knowledge when transformed by reflection and convergent knowledge when transformed by action.

Kolb sees learning as an adaptation process. Individuals adapt to their social and physical environment. The learning experience is viewed as a transactional process in which the social and physical environment and one's internal characteristics shape behaviour and behaviour in turn shapes environment and personal characteristics. Kolb recognises that individual development may be in conflict with demands and structures of society. For example societal pressures toward specialisation stand in opposition to development and integration of diverse learning styles and can even retard overall development of the culture. To counter some of these tendencies Kolb’s learning/development model is presented as a ‘normative adaptive ideal’.

Kolb argues that relatively stable and individualised styles emphasising some of the learning modes over others arise from consistent patterns of transaction of individuals with their environments. These styles arise from genetic qualities in interaction with environmental circumstances and human choices. At a basic level some individuals prefer to learn divergently, others in an assimilative manner, and so forth. The situation is more complex than that however, because individuals also combine these strategies in various ways producing higher levels of learning. The combination of all four learning forms produces the highest level of learning and increases skills in the use of each learning mode. Most people, however, do not operate at the highest level. They tend to rely on one learning mode with occasional use of others. Ideally, over the course of a lifetime one’s learning processes exhibit higher levels of integration.

The role of the educator applying Kolb’s learning theory is to identify and manage those aspects of the educative environment that influence the learning process. The emphasis is on attending to individual learning styles and fostering development of learning sophistication. To achieve a good teaching/learning style match the educator is encouraged to individualise the learning process.

Kolb suggests that educators consider three types of objectives, those related to content, to learner’s learning styles and to growth and creativity. The subject may call for one learning mode, the learner’s style for a second and growth of the learner (that is, diversification of the styles), a third. These are not easy issues for educators. While Kolb espouses an emphasis on integration, that is, growth and development over the long run, he has little advice for the educator in any specific situation.

The theory of action perspective

Argyris and Schön’s theory begins with a conception of people as designers of action. Individuals make sense of their environment, design actions to achieve intended outcomes and monitor the effectiveness of their action and the suitability of their constructions of the environment. Rather than design action from scratch in each situation they develop a set of concepts and strategies and draw from this repertoire in unique situations. These design programmes are called theories of action. Theories of action are nested at different levels of abstraction. Argyris concentrates on the level of abstraction at which persons in everyday life reflect on their actions.

Argyris distinguishes between two theories of action. Espoused theories are strategies a person claims to follow. Theories-in-use are those that can be inferred from one’s actions. The two sets of theory may be consistent or inconsistent and the person may or may not be aware of the consistency.

Theories in use contain three basic elements. Governing variables are values the actor seeks to satisfy. Typically several governing variables apply to any action and the person must trade off achieving satisfactory ranges for them. Action strategies are sequences of behaviour the agent uses to satisfy governing variables. Finally, consequences are the outcomes created by action strategies.

It is through monitoring the consequences of action strategies that learning takes place in Argyris’ theory. Two forms of learning are identified. Single loop learning occurs when an action has undesirable consequences and the actor selects another strategy to satisfy the same governing variables. However, double loop learning occurs if the person decides to change their governing variables and then to select a new course of action. Double loop issues are signalled by situations that threaten individuals or where problems persist despite efforts to solve them. Argyris focuses on fostering double loop learning.

Argyris and Schön have developed models that describe features of theories-in-use. They contend that such models characterise individual theories in use and also the behavioural world of the organisation or culture in which individuals live. Behavioural worlds are created by individual actions but also serve to socialise individuals into particular theories-in-use. They present two contrasting models, the first of which, Model I, tends to inhibit double-loop learning and the second, Model II, enhances production of valid information and double loop learning. The principle difference between the two models is that public questioning of underlying norms (e.g. governing variables) is discouraged in Model I and encouraged in Model II. As a result, Model I theories in use create conditions of undiscussability, self-fulfilling prophecy, self-sealing beliefs, and escalating errors. At the same time individuals and organisations remain unaware of their responsibility for these conditions. Model II has the opposite effects. This model fosters both single and double loop learning. Based on experiences with dozens of client groups Argyris and Schön contend that Model I typifies theories in use of individuals, groups and organisations. Most individuals, however, espouse theories inconsistent with Model I and often closer to Model II.

The role of the educator in Argyris’ theory is to provide interventions that help persons reflect on the world they create by their theories-in-use and to learn to change it in ways more congruent with the values they espouse. They propose that educators adopt the normative perspective contained in Model II and invite learners to freely adopt and incorporate it. The educator performs this mission by guiding learners through unfreezing, and then new learning. In the unfreezing process learners are aided in becoming aware of and reflecting on their existing theories in use and particularly discrepancies between espoused and in-use theories. They also develop greater skills of reflection. The second stage occurs as learners acquire new theories in use and the competence to manage the learning process on their own.

Two theories compared and contrasted

At this point the theories of Kolb and of Argyris and Schön can be briefly compared and contrasted. Each includes action and reflection as central elements in learning. Kolb holds out the possibility that learning may occur through reflection or action alone or in combination. Argyris allows the same in suggesting that espoused theories and theories in use may develop and change independently of each other. Both contend that learning is better when the two processes are integrated. Kolb gives much more attention to individualised styles that characterise different modes of learning. A second point of difference is really a matter of focus. Kolb’s model encompasses all forms of learning from concrete sensation to abstract conceptualisations of everyday action strategies. Argyris and Schön focus on action strategies.