We’ve all experienced the process of learning to ride a bike, right? You wobble, you fall, you adjust, you ride away. Same thing with cooking – you try out a new recipe, you taste it, you adjust and try again.
This is Kolb’s cycle, a model of learning from experience proposed by David Kolb. It posits that learning is a cycle, not an isolated event, and it’s still used today because it provides a framework for the trial and error of experiential learning. It’s widely used in classrooms, in workplace training, in nursing, and in management development.
So, what is Kolb’s cycle? Where did it come from, what are the four stages, what about learning styles and the doubts surrounding them, and how can you use it in practice? What’s the difference between Kolb’s cycle and Gibbs’ reflective cycle? Let’s dig in and learn how to turn the everyday process of trial and error into deliberate learning.
Where Did Kolb’s Learning Model Come From?
David A. Kolb is an American educational theorist born in 1939 and currently a professor emeritus of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve University.
His first model of experiential learning came from a 1975 paper he wrote with Fry. This was based on several theories, including John Dewey’s concept that learning stems from experience and reflection (in his 1938 book, Experience and Education), Kurt Lewin’s work in action research and T-groups (which focused on the cycle of experience and feedback), and Jean Piaget’s theories of learning through assimilation and accommodation, and developmental stages. Kolb synthesized these ideas into one cycle model.
Kolb published his model in his 1984 book, Experiential Learning – Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, published by Prentice Hall. The model caught on because it offered a stark contrast to the traditional model of schooling, where the teacher lectures and the students listen. It has been incorporated into many management training and adult education courses.
For a more detailed breakdown of the individual stages of the cycle, read on.
How the Four Stages Work in Order
First, let’s go through the four stages of Kolb’s cycle, in order. Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, Active Experimentation.
It’s also useful to think about these stages in terms of two dimensions. The first is the difference between grasping an experience and transforming an experience.
Grasping – Concrete Experience vs. Abstract Conceptualization
Transforming – Reflective Observation vs. Active Experimentation
Example: Running Your First Team Meeting
To help illustrate these stages, let’s use a simple example. Imagine you’re a manager of a team, and you’re going to be holding your first weekly meeting with the team. Let’s walk through how this meeting goes, according to the four stages of the cycle.
The first stage of the cycle is Concrete Experience. This is the hands-on, direct experience of an event or situation.
In common parlance, this stage is often referred to as “feeling”.
In our example, you hold the meeting. You have an agenda, you ask for status updates, you open the floor for discussion. Things don’t go entirely smoothly, though. The meeting runs long, two people dominate the discussion, and some of the more reserved members of the team don’t really speak up at all.
This experience alone is not a learning experience, though. It’s just an experience. You need to do more to learn from it.
The second stage of the cycle is Reflective Observation. This is the process of stepping back and looking at what happened.
In common parlance, this stage is often referred to as “watching”.
In our example, you reflect on the meeting. Why did it go the way it did? When did the energy drop? You can think about your own notes, you can ask the people who attended the meeting, and you can have one-on-one conversations with people to get their feedback. You might notice that the more reserved team members only spoke up when you directly asked them a question.
You can’t get to this stage without the first stage, of course. Without an experience, there’s nothing to reflect upon.
The third stage of the cycle is Abstract Conceptualization. This is the process of developing explanations, principles, and working theories about why things happened the way they did.
In common parlance, this stage is often referred to as “thinking”.
In our example, you come to the conclusion that the open-floor discussion format of the meeting is allowing the more extroverted and confident members of the team to dominate the discussion. You also read articles and talk to mentors, and learn about facilitation techniques. You come up with the idea that a round-robin format for the status updates will ensure everyone has a chance to speak.
You can’t get to this stage without the second stage, of course. Without reflection, you can’t really develop theories; you can only guess.
The fourth stage of the cycle is Active Experimentation. This is the process of testing out new ideas and theories in practice.
In common parlance, this stage is often referred to as “doing”.
In our example, the next time you hold the weekly meeting, you change up the format. You enforce time limits on the agenda, you use a round-robin format for the status updates, and you ask for questions ahead of time rather than leaving the floor open.
You can’t get to this stage without the third stage, of course. Without theories and ideas, you’re just randomly trying different things in a game of trial-and-error.
The results of this test then become the next Concrete Experience. You hold the meeting, and see how it goes. Maybe this time, everyone speaks up and has something to say, but the round-robin format feels rigid and restrictive.
And so the cycle continues, refining your approach.
What Happens If You Skip Reflection
What happens if you skip the Reflective Observation stage and just try to do it again? You might decide the meeting ran too long, so you shorten the next meeting. But you still don’t know what the problem is, so you might just have the same problem again, with the same people dominating and the same people staying quiet.
Often, people skip the Reflective Observation stage because it’s slow, it’s uncomfortable, and it feels like it takes too long. The best way to avoid this is to have a simple process in place.
Does It Matter Where You Start?
Yes.
One of the key points of Kolb’s learning cycle is that it’s a cycle, and thus has no starting point. A learner can enter the cycle at any point.
The learning cycle may be entered at any point, but must be completed to be effective. For example, the lecture method of learning may be viewed as a way of entering the learning cycle at the point of abstract conceptualization, where the learner is presented with ideas to be learned. In contrast, the hands-on laboratory method of learning may be viewed as a way of entering the learning cycle at the point of active experimentation, where the learner is given a task to be performed.
In a sense, then, the learner doesn’t necessarily get to choose where they start. It depends on the course design.
At the same time, Kolb presents the learning cycle as a spiral, not a closed circle. Each time through the loop returns the learner to the experience point, but at a deeper level. New experiences are tested against previous conclusions, and understanding compounds.
This raises an interesting question, though. What happens if the learner never completes the loop? If they start with a lecture and never get to practice, their theory is never tested. If they start with a hands-on lab and never get to reflect on the experience, they have the activity but not the transferable lesson.
In other words, while the learner can start anywhere, they can’t skip stages. All four are necessary for effective learning.
Meet the Four Types of Learners
We can also make an axis out of feeling/thinking and watching/doing.
Here’s a quick rundown of the four types of learners on the axis:
- Divergers like to feel and watch: the people who brainstorm ideas for their friend’s party.
- Assimilators like to think and watch: the people who read the whole furniture manual before getting started.
- Convergers like to think and do: the people who try to find the one solution that will work.
- Accommodators like to feel and do: the people who can assemble flat-pack furniture without instructions.
Kolb developed a Learning Style Inventory to measure these learning styles. It was first published in 1976, and is a set of 12 sentence endings, which you rank in order of preference. Which picture do you see yourself in? And, of course, how valid are these styles? We’ll get to that in the next section, talking about research.
What the Evidence Says About Your Learning Style
A more recent version of the Learning Style Inventory, the KLSI 4.0 from 2011, uses a nine-style model instead.
One of the biggest doubts surrounding learning styles is the assumption that people are locked into a given style. In fact, Kolb himself has described the learning styles as flexible and dependent on context. An individual might have different learning preferences for different tasks or even for different subjects.
Critics have also argued that the LSI does not have a high enough level of test-retest reliability to be useful. A 2004 review of 71 different learning styles models by Coffield et al. concluded that Kolb’s LSI had concerns with both reliability and validity.
Perhaps the most important study on learning styles was performed by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork in 2008. Published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, the study was titled “Learning Styles – Concepts and Evidence.”
In this study, the authors wanted to test the “meshing hypothesis,” which states that matching instruction to a student’s learning style will improve learning. To test this, they looked for studies that had a specific kind of experimental design, with a crossover interaction between learning style and teaching method.
Unfortunately, the study found that very few studies used this design, and the ones that did largely contradicted the meshing hypothesis. In sum, there is little or no evidence to justify the common practice of teaching in a style that is supposedly matched to the learning style of the learner. Another study, from Rogowsky, Calhoun, and Tallal in 2015, concluded that there was no benefit to matching auditory and visual learning preferences to teaching style.
It’s worth noting that these criticisms are leveled more at the learning styles than at the learning cycle itself. The learning cycle – the progression from concrete experience to reflective observation to abstract conceptualization to active experimentation – is beneficial for everyone. Reflection and practice at all of these stages can help any learner, regardless of how you try to sort them into types.
Why Learning Styles Feel So True
If the idea of learning styles doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny, why does it feel like it’s true?
The answer is that people do have preferences, but those preferences aren’t necessarily what actually helps them learn. A learning style quiz feels personal and flatters your intuition, so it seems like it must be true. A 2012 study by Dekker et al. found that 93% of UK teachers surveyed believed in the idea of learning styles.
Additionally, the content you’re learning often determines the most effective method to learn it. For example, studying geography? Maps are a good idea.
So, if you take a learning style quiz and it tells you that you’re a diverger or a converger, it’s not necessarily a box that you’re put into. It’s just a description of how you’re used to operating. You’re free to try out all four stages of the learning cycle and practice them deliberately.
How can you take Kolb’s learning cycle and put it to use in your classroom or office? Read on.
Try This in Your Classroom or Office
It’s also possible to run all four stages in a single learning session:
- Concrete experience: a brief activity
- Reflective observation: a debrief, asking questions like “what happened?” and “what surprised you?”
- Abstract conceptualization: a brief introduction to a model or principle that explains what happened
- Active experimentation: pick one change to make and try again
How do you think this works in your classroom or office? What do you think is most likely to be short-changed?
One thing to keep in mind is that the debrief should not turn into a blame game – otherwise people will stop reflecting honestly. Focus on events and decisions, not people.
How Do Gibbs’ and Kolb’s Cycles Differ?
Graham Gibbs developed his Reflective Cycle in 1988, in his book Learning by Doing – A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods, published by the Further Education Unit at Oxford Polytechnic. Gibbs developed his Reflective Cycle explicitly based on Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. The Reflective Cycle is a framework to help us learn from experiences we have had.
Description – what happened? Be factual.
Feelings – what were you thinking and feeling? Evaluation – what was good and bad about the experience? Analysis – what sense can you make of the situation?
Conclusion – what else could you have done? Action plan – if it arose again, what would you do?
You can see how Kolb’s experiential learning cycle relates to Gibbs’ reflective cycle. Description is concrete experience – analysis is abstract conceptualization. Gibbs added a stage for feelings and a specific action plan for future action.
Many nurses will be familiar with Gibbs’ reflective cycle, as reflective practice is a core part of nursing education in the UK. It’s even part of NMC revalidation to write five reflective accounts. Teachers are also familiar with Gibbs’ reflective cycle, as it’s often used for lesson debriefs, in placement journals, and in reflective writing for PGCEs.
When to Use Each Cycle
When should you use Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, and when should you use Gibbs’ reflective cycle?
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is useful for designing learning sequences and learning experiences. Gibbs’ reflective cycle is better for structured reflection on a specific incident.
One difference between Gibbs’ reflective cycle and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is the number of stages. Gibbs’ reflective cycle has six stages, whereas Kolb’s cycle has four. Gibbs also described his cycle as a structured sequence for debriefing.
One thing to watch out for with Gibbs’ reflective cycle is when people get stuck on the description stage.
Put the Learning Cycle to Work Today
Learning is a cycle, not a one-off event.
Start with a Concrete Experience (the “feeling” stage). Follow it up with Reflective Observation (the “watching” stage). Analyze it with Abstract Conceptualization (the “thinking” stage). And, of course, use Active Experimentation (the “doing” stage) to put your new knowledge into action.
You need all four to truly learn – otherwise, you’re just likely to repeat the same mistakes you made the first time around, without the benefit of reflection. Where you start doesn’t matter. Some people start with a lecture, some with a hands-on lab. What matters is completing the loop.
Also remember that learning styles are just a way to think about yourself, not a way to pigeonhole yourself. They’re controversial, after all.
Want to try it out this week? Pick a task you do repeatedly. Pick one thing to change, and see if it works the next time around. Each new experience is a new Concrete Experience, and you spiral around the learning cycle, gaining more understanding each time around.
If you want to take this learning cycle to your teams, you’ll need a shared experience to reflect on. That’s where Jungle Escape comes in. They can learn about planning, communication, problem-solving, and conflict resolution. They can see the difference between a cohesive team and a fragmented one, and they can build an action plan to improve their future work.
Check out Jungle Escape today!
Leave a Reply