You are on page 1of 10

Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 1

Kolbs Contributions to Constructivism

Meredith Mitchell

George Mason University


Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 2

In my initial reflections of my own ways of knowing at the start of my graduate program,

I realized the value of real, hands on experience in shaping my understanding of the world. If

asked to identify the moments in my life where I truly learned the most, I am reminded of times

where I played an active role in events that I had to apply my own meaning. As humans, we are

sensing and learning new things every day and I believe that it is these organic experiences that

shape a person; much more so than any contrived or passive learning situation. I am constantly

reminded of the value of experiential learning when I think about my penchant for cooking

shows. I can watch and listen to many celebrity chefs on television, yet when I try to recreate

their recipes, what I learned does not necessarily translate. It is through the process of

experimentation in my own kitchen, where I am thinking and acting in a real context, where my

culinary knowledge actually grows. I see this happening in many other educational contexts as

well, and find that I have used this as a model for how I instruct my own students in the

classroom. In order to create meaningful learning experiences for my sixth grade science

students, I want them to do science, not just read, or watch, or write about science. In learning

about the theory of constructivism, I found that my own personal beliefs about the way in which

we come to know deeply align with this theory. My hope in further exploring the topic is that I

can build upon my own understanding of a theory I see occurring in my everyday life all around

me and so that I may also learn of criticisms that may shape my application of this theory in the

future.

Constructivism has a rich history that dates back to the likes of John Dewey, Lev

Vygotsky, Jean Piaget and many other famed educational theorists (Fox, 2001). With such a

breadth of perspectives, in this paper I will outline the generally accepted tenets and foundations
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 3

of constructivist theory, but focus on how one theorist in particular, David Kolb, has reframed

the theory based upon his own research about experiential learning and learning styles.

The tenets of a constructivist theory of knowing are that learning is constructed through

active, contextual problem solving (Fox, 2001). Constructivists adhere to the idea that learning

is, as Piaget suggested, an additive process that occurs from experiences that are

developmentally appropriate for a child to build upon their prior knowledge (Oxford, 1997). In

his book The Construction of Reality in the Child, Piaget explains how a child actively

assimilates knowledge by testing theories and responding to their environment (Oxford, 1997). Commented [C1]: Try to use original source (Piaget) when
possible ...
In this way, a child is actively engaged in experiences and a seeker of knowledge, not a passive

recipient of information. Constructivist theory also is supported by extensive works of John

Dewey, who theorized the role of the social construction of knowledge (Oxford, 1997). His

emphasis on the role of environment, context and the multiple players that are involved in a

learning experience explain why constructivist teaching practice necessarily involves an

authentic, real world experience and often involves collaboration with others and facilitation by a

teacher (Oxford, 1997). Research conducted by Vygotsky has also contributed to tenets of the

constructivist theory. His work on the zone of proximal development focuses on the learner

growing when they experience situations they are cognitively ready to access (Oxford, 1997).

This allows for scaffolded experiences through which learners may build their knowledge base.

Constructivist theories are also the basis for Montessori schools, where children are deeply

immersed in hands on activity and self-guided instruction through learning experiences (Lillard,

1996). Constructivism as a whole is characterized by these underlying principles and as such, it

has served as a platform for additional thinking and theories about learning.
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 4

In the early 1970s, social psychologist and philosopher David Kolb introduced a new

theory of experiential learning based in the roots of constructivism (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). He

posited that learning is a cyclical endeavor with no endpoint and that reflection was a key

component of the process (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). This cyclical nature of learning

illustrated how learners access background knowledge and refine their understanding based upon

new experiences (Clark et al., 2010). Kolb describes how learning requires people to not only

think, but also engage a variety of cognitive processes and actions. This foundation for Kolbs

theory of learning is what inspired the Kolb and Fry Experiential Learning Cycle which Kolb

first developed in 1975 with researcher Ron Fry (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). This four step process Commented [C2]: Who is the other Kolb? In the sentence you
imply only one Kolb

includes Abstract Conceptualization, Active Experimentation, Concrete Experience, and

Reflective Observation (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Each step in this model involves several different

processes and ultimately results in the transition to the next step in the ongoing cycle (Kolb &

Kolb, 2005).

While Kolb & Kolb (date) explained that there is no one starting point in the Experiential

Learning Cycle, one might begin to understand his theory by first considering Abstract

Conceptualization. Abstract Conceptualization is the cognitive process of simply thinking

(Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). To borrow from my earlier example of my own personal

learning experiences, this step involves thinking about and planning for making a culinary treat

in my kitchen. Abstract Conceptualization would require me to set my intention for making

something, and determine whether or not I have the tools and ingredients to successfully attempt

to cook a dish. Kolb theorizes that this conceptualization then leads to Active Experimentation.

Active Experimentation is the hands on, self-directed, participatory process of the learner (Clark,

Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). In my example, I am actually getting in the kitchen, pulling out the
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 5

ingredients, and attempting to concoct a culinary treat. Through this experimentation, Kolb

would argue that the learner then transitions to a Concrete Experience. This involves, in my

case, my own feelings and personal experience of the learning taking place while I cook. It is

during this time that I am not just thinking or doing, but an emotional response and meaning

making come in to play (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). Lastly, during Kolbs next step of

Reflective Observation, the learner is identifying and making a value analysis of the experience

to inform the future (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). It would be this step in the process in

which I reflect upon the success of the dish and make judgments as to whether or not I would

approach making this recipe in the same way the next time. It is clear to see why this cycle is

indeed ongoing as opposed to a linear path. After making a Reflective Observation, when it

comes time to think about the topic again (Abstract Conceptualization) there would be a better

understanding about the topic, and potentially different information upon which to build ones

thinking (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). For example, if in the initial process, I was thinking

I was well prepared with enough mixing bowls and utensils to adequately begin cooking my

dish, but throughout my experimentation, experience and reflection I realize that I was not

adequately prepared, the next time I go to think about making that same dish (Abstract

Conceptualization), I can draw upon the lesson of the past experience and would know to plan

for needing more mixing bowls and utensils. Commented [C3]: Nice linking with your personal experience.

While Kolbs theory clearly aligns with what I already know of constructivism and the

ideals in which I base my own teaching, his four step model explicitly delineates some processes

in the development of knowledge that I think are valuable for young learners to understand as

well. While this might seem like a rather intuitive process for mature students or adult learners, I

believe that teaching students to become metacognitive of their learning experiences could
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 6

inspire students to become even more self-directed in future learning situations. For example, if

young learners were explicitly taught Kolbs theory using an accessible, real life example, they

could then complete a problem based learning task using a scaffolded guide in learner friendly

language (ex. Think, Do, Feel, and Reflect). By scaffolding young learners with these

kinds of skills, they are then prepared to approach a novel task with a cycle of steps that can

simplify what they need to accomplish in order to learn independently. The early introduction of

such skills could form the basis of future research on the merits of Kolbs theories and its impact

on the development of learners.

David Kolb also realized that learners might not universally perform each of these skills

in his model as intuitively as each of the other skills and as a result, he looked at what this meant

in terms of a students individual learning style. His Learning Style Inventory (LSI) assesses

learners in their abilities in each mode of his cycle and pinpoints relative strengths for that

particular learner (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). These learning styles can be summarized in four

separate categories which were constructed by looking at two of the greatest strengths in the four

step Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Kolbs learning styles include one

strength in the area of grasping experiencing (the Concrete Experience and Abstract

Conceptualization steps) and one strength in the area of transforming experience (Active

Experimentation and Reflective Observation) (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010). The four

categories of learning styles generated by linking these concepts in this way are Converging,

Diverging, Assimilating, and Accommodating (Clark, Threeton, & Ewing, 2010).

The Converging learning style characterizes people who have relative strengths in the

area of Abstract Conceptualization and Abstract Experimentation (Clark et al., 2010). These are

analytical thinkers that can theorize a broad generalization when given a problem. Contrastingly,
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 7

the Diverging learning style includes learners with strengths in Concrete Experience and

Reflective Observation (Clark et al., 2010). Diverging learners are tangential thinkers that can

produce a myriad of possible solutions in a given problem solving setting. Assimilating learners

are those who excel in the areas of Abstract Conceptualization and Reflective Observation (Clark

et al., 2010). Assimilators are good at synthesizing information and developing conceptual

understanding. The last categorization of learning style is Accommodating which includes

learners that readily engage in Concrete Experimentation and Abstract Conceptualization (Clark

et al., 2010). These types of learners thrive under the challenge of solving novel tasks and

engaging in kinesthetic activities that have a real world application.

The Kolb Learning Style Inventory has been utilized in a lot of different learning,

training, and professional contexts in order to maximize the potential of different types of

learners and employees (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). These categorizations of learners could be used

to the benefit of teachers in a classroom setting, especially when it comes to grouping students

for collaborative, open ended problem solving tasks. If an age appropriate version of the

inventory could be used to assess strengths in the classroom, students could be grouped in

heterogeneous ways in order for each child to assume a role in the task process. Conversely,

students could be grouped homogenously for a problem solving task and then share their

approaches and experiences with other groups. Theoretically, they would have approached the

task differently and emphasized their respective strengths, which in turn would give other groups

the learning experience of considering their different perspectives once the different learning

experiences were shared out. Future research might be conducted to determine the value of

working with individuals with similar learning styles and with those of differing learning styles,

as well as how to develop instructional tasks more suited to individual styles of learning.
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 8

These four categorizations can generally explain learning preferences for different kinds

of learners, and Kolbs theories have also served as a springboard for further research, and

further analysis, on the topic of learning styles (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Researchers David Abbey,

David Hunt, and John Weiser have used the basis of Kolbs theory and the results of the

Learning Style Inventory to identify categories not only defined by learners strengths, but also

their weaknesses (Abbey, Hunt, & Weiser, 1985). These additional categories of Northerner

(learners characterized with the greatest strengths of feeling, acting and reflecting), Westerner

(characterized by strengths of acting, feeling, and thinking), Southerner (characterized by

strengths of thinking, acting, reflecting), and Easterners (characterized by reflecting, feeling,

thinking) might also serve the function of prompting further research on how to develop

particular skills in the learning cycle so that learners can achieve more equitable proficiency

along the entire cycle (Abbey, Hunt, & Weiser, 1985). Future researchers might be interested in

constructing rubrics specific to tasks in which students and teachers (or other facilitators) analyze

the learners strengths and weaknesses and how this might result in changes as the learner

approaches tasks in the future.

Critics have complained that Kolbs theory, while completely understandable at face

value, might not have any valid implications for learning or instruction and that Kolbs Learning

Styles Inventory is an invalid instrument designed for self-serving purposes (Freedman &

Stumpf, 1978; Freedman & Stumpf, 1980). These researchers claim that there is insufficient

empirical research to suggest such a theory of learning, however, I have found this to be contrary

to what I have experienced anecdotally. While I can see why this model cannot represent the Commented [C4]: Both could be true that it makes sense in
particular situations but also required more empirical research.

only way of knowing, genuine learning experiences that occur in my everyday life and in the

lives of my students would suggest that it is a valid theory of learning, and that there is merit in
Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 9

exploring the implications of this theory in a variety of learning contexts. The fascinating thing

about exploring all the ways of knowing is the undeniable conclusion that there is no one, all-

encompassing model for understanding the process of learning. Individuals that have explored

Descartes theories might similarly be able to think of examples of knowledge acquisition where

Descartes theory of learning through rational thinking did not apply. Even in considering

Kuhns way of knowing, there are examples of knowing that do not fit the paradigm.. While, Commented [C5]: APA put period inside quotes

similarly, Kolbs theories based on the tenets of constructivism might not completely encapsulate

how human learning occurs, the theory posits some interesting considerations that can help

educators think about the strengths and weaknesses of those they are educating. Kolbs

Experiential Learning Cycle and the resulting categorizations identified in the Learning Style

Inventory are important contributions to the theory of constructivism that certainly inspire some

valid educational research for the future.


Running Head: KOLBS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONSTRUCTIVISM 10

References

Clark, R. W., Threeton, M.D., & Ewing, J.C. (2010). The potential of experiential learning
models and practices in career and technical education & career and technical teacher
education. Journal of Career and Techinical Education, 25(2), 46-62.
Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 23-25.
Freedman, R.D. & Stumpf, S.A. (1978). What can one learn from the learning style inventory?
The Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 275-282.
Freedman, R.D. & Stumpf, S.A. (1980). Learning style theory: Less than meets the eye. The
Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 445-447.
Kolb, A.Y. & Kolb, D.A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential
learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-
212.
Lillard, P.P. (1996). Montessori today: A comprehensive approach to education from birth to
adulthood. New York: Schoken Books Inc.
Oxford, R.L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance, and teacher education
applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35-66.

You might also like