Co-Constructed Developmental Teaching Theory
I attended an experiential learning seminar in August 2018 as part of my studies, and the information in this page comes from an article review as part of the seminar, along with my experiences in the course.
​
The tenets of experiential education include:
​
- Choosing the experience, determining what it will achieve, and knowing how learners will get from step 1 to step 5, and all the steps in between.
- Framing the experience, whether through overt goals or covert goals, and relating knowledge to real-world experiences, to make it easier for learners to comprehend.
- Facilitation, delivering information to the learners through the schemas and frames previously determined.
- Processing or reflection, an essential step to help learners make sense of what they experienced, the 'so what?' step of the equation.
- Learning transfer, the final step, which involves applying what was learned in the current event to the next event, and other events that come later.
In an article I read prior to the seminar, Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory (KELT) is discussed, specifically the cyclical nature of learning: concrete learning, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Schenk and Cruickshank (2015) assert that the Learning Styles Inventory suggested by Kolb "has not adapted" and "has failed to increase understanding of learning" (p. 73), and instead suggest that there are ways to look at cognitive neuroscience to understand how people learn, and thus, how best to design for them.
They look at the cyclical model of the theory through neuropsychology, cognitive neuroscience, and brain imaging, which suggest that Kolb’s model is misleading and leaves out several key factors of how the brain functions. Their proposed model, called Co-Constructed Developmental Teaching Theory (CDTT), uses neuroscience, constructivism, and Dynamic Systems Theory to suggest that there are other ways in which to develop learning programs which take the entire brain into account, though they do suggest that further study is necessary.
The CDTT image that they give in the article still sticks with me even after all this time. Rather than a flat cycle of experience, reflect, and apply, their model recognizes that each experience builds upon the one that came before it, so a three-dimensional graphic becomes better suited to describe experiential learning.
The neuroscience of learning is something that really intrigues me. One of the things I’ve found when taking Kolb’s LSI and the ERP is that I often find myself having to choose the best of several options that I don’t really agree with. One of things that I think Kolb’s theory lacks is dimensionality – the diagram in this article on page 84 (pictured above; figure 6 in the article) makes a great deal of sense to me. Even once we get back to the ‘initial’ step of concrete experience after we’ve learned something, we’re starting off in a different place, the other phases of that cycle have changed us. (I know that Kolb’s theory is cyclical in nature, but it has to start somewhere, right?) Perhaps it’s just my own perspective, but the idea of addressing growth is an important component in this type of theory.
​
I will say, though, that much like Kolb’s theory, Schenck and Cruickshank make it seem like it would be easy for a facilitator to deliver information using CDTT, but as with ELT, I think it takes practice and flexibility on the part of the facilitator, and a willingness to try new methods of learning on the part of the learner.
​
I've included this in my toolkit to remind myself of the cyclical nature of learning, particularly for adults, but also to remind myself that it's not a flat circle. Instead, experiences build upon one another in a neverending upward spiral, and that the things I've learned yesterday will influence and effect the way in which I (and my learners) will process, reflect, and learn today.
​
Reference:
Schenck, J. & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Experiential education in the age of neuroscience. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73-95. DOI: 10.1177/1053825914547153