While I was considering my own ideas for a theory of learning I decided to look further into Kolb's 'learning' Cycle' and see what other researchers had presented as alternatives to something that could be viewed as somewhat simplistic. It is not that a 'Cycle of Learning' theory is 'wrong', by any means, however I believe a valid concern would be that such a model – using only four stages – may omit crucial elements of what it takes for an individual to develop and master a given skill.
Experiential Learning Cycles (or ELC's) are often given as the prime example of a Semi-structured learning environment, bridging the gap between the 'Progressive' or 'Free' learning experience and the traditional, teacher-driven, 'Structured' programs. I was surprised to discover, however, that instead of becoming more developed and complex, work of other researchers had actually limited – possibly 'simplified' – Kolb's cycle even further.
In reality, one of the biggest criticisms of a 'stages of learning' theory is simply: how many stages of learning are there? Applied simply to any art form: how many elements combine to make a technique perfect? I found the idea of a single-stage model, or even a two-stage theory (James, Bacon, 'Outward Bound and 'Outward Bound Plus') to be very hard to swallow, although the two-stage cycle was conceivable, if overly simplistic. Just to 'experience' and 'reflect in a constructive manner' is a nice, neat idea, it really doesn't lend itself to a constructive learning environment.
In contrast to my earlier statement concerning the criticism of a specific number of learning stages there appears to be some weight behind the concept that a three-stage cycle is actually one of the most practical approaches. Some argue that in practical application Kolb's four-stage cycle adds an unnecessary extra element so that, if taken literally, a practitioner of Kolb's design could easily become bogged doing in specifications of each stage. A classic example of a three-stage cycle looks like this:
It's a design commonly used in product improvement by managerial programs for product improvement and I actually believe it's simplicity is integral to it's effectiveness. It displays one of the limitations I find so disagreeable in Kolb's model: that it dismisses the idea of any learning by association – I mean, why shouldn't one experience influence another 'PLAN' phase, even slightly, without direct association? - at the same time however, for artists or anyone else without an objective facilitator, the accesibility of this scheme would appear to be more adaptable and therefore more useful in the diverse world we live and work in.
How many stages of learning are there?
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting question to me too. Is there an end to it? Can technique be completely mastered one day?
I see the learning cycle as a journey. First, we have an aim or some thing we want to archive, and we research, make a move, experience things.
In that process we experience and learn lots. However, when we get closer to the answer we are looking for, we start to forget the all the experience and thing we have learned.
To me, it is the only way to archive and get closer to what we really looking for. I think in the end we go back to where we started, to complete the cycle. Does it make any sense? If, it doesn`t sorry :( I am very philosophical.
This will help what I am trying to explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls
Thanks Rob.
muito legal esse seu blog!
ReplyDelete