The Learning Adult

Building and Reflecting on the Work of Peter Jarvis

John Holford, Marcella Milana, Richard Waller, Sue Webb

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351002967
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Peter Jarvis is a towering figure in adult and lifelong education and a leading and original theorist of learning. This book explores the breadth and significance of his work. Sixteen chapters by leading international scholars explain and engage critically with his theorisation of learning, and with his extensive writings on the sociology, politics, ethics and history of adult education, and on professional education, lifelong learning and the learning society. The authors discuss his ideas, their influence and origins. They cover his contribution to learning theory, the recurring ethical themes in his writing, and the implications of his work for areas such as the education of migrants. They explore his global engagement as a scholar not only in different areas of lifelong education, but across the world: much-travelled, Peter Jarvis has supported the growth of adult education as a humane profession – as well as a field of study – in Africa, Asia, North and South America, and Australasia, as well as Europe. They also address the intense humanism of his work, which has been continually informed by theological and ethical concerns: though he taught for three decades at the University of Surrey, where he was Head of the Department of Educational Studies and is now Emeritus Professor, he has been a Minister of the Methodist Church for over half a century.

This book was originally published as a special issue of the International Journal of Lifelong Education.

PART I UNDERSTANDING LEARNING

Paradoxes of a Long Life Learning: an Exploration of Peter Jarvis’s Contribution to Experiential Learning Theory

Martin Dyke

ABSTRACT

The paper explores the work of Peter Jarvis related to learning with particular reference to his definitions of learning and his models of the learning process. This exploration will consider different approaches to experiential learning and demonstrate the contribution Jarvis has made, noting how his writing on the subject has changed over time. The relationship between the individual and society is a key sociological question that has informed his scholarship. The social context of learning and action will be considered with specific reference to Jarvis’s ideas in 1984 that were developed in 1992 and evolved in his later work. A constructive critique of his work is provided, one that aims to capture the way in which he has continuously adapted his thinking. Parallels are drawn between Jarvis’s work and more recent writing on reflexivity in social theory that open up opportunities for future research in the field.

Introduction

This contribution to the special issue on the scholarship of Peter Jarvis will focus on his contribution to experiential learning theory. It will demonstrate the connections between his work and other contributions to the field and explore how his thinking has developed as he has continuously engaged over a lifelong learning. His continuous an eclectic reading, reflection and writing has been the catalyst to change and adaptations in his scholarship. The sociological orientation to his work will be explored alongside his evolving conceptualisation of learning. I have long seen parallels between Jarvis’s work and Archer’s (2010) theorising on reflexivity and the morphogenetic approach; these themes will be considered and used to suggest further research.

In writing about Peter Jarvis’s work, I should declare a personal relationship. For me, Peter has been an inspirational teacher and scholar with enormous impact on my professional practice. I was a teacher who participated in workshops that contributed to the development his models of the learning process. Peter later became my PhD supervisor. Our supervision sessions positively fizzed with energy and ideas and left me with my head spinning and hungry to read more. When I have met Peter in more recent years the same energy and vibe has always been present; he has never failed to send me off discovering new books and ideas. I am very grateful to and fond of the man. Here, I will attempt to review and critically appraise his work and ideas on learning processes – which have shaped and informed the work of many scholars and educational practitioners across the world.

Modelling learning processes

A central theme of Jarvis’s work has been to explore sociological perspectives on learning where previous learning theories in adult education tended to draw on psychology. He has acknowledged the importance of psychological aspects of learning but sought to extend these to an appreciation of how human beings learn within a social context and how learners adapt to their surroundings. There is a Kantian theme in this conceptualisation, whereby learning is understood as being derived from experience. This experiential theme was developed during the twentieth century in the in the work of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget. These three writers in turn shaped Kolb’s (1984) classic text on experiential learning – Kolb’s reference to the Lewinian learning cycle continues to be represented as if Kolb’s own (Jarvis, 1987; Jarvis & Parker, 2005). Lewin’s learning cycle of concrete experience, observation and reflection, generalisation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984, p. 21) has had enormous impact on reflective practice across a range of professions such as teaching and nursing. It was also a starting point for Peter’s research into learning theory and the development of his own model of the learning process.

There are strong echoes of Dewey in Jarvis’s work. He used Dewey as a departure point for introducing the adult-learning process. He referenced Experience and Education (Dewey, 1938) to demonstrate that learning takes place in a social context, where experience is fed by a spring of previous human experiences, sources external to the individual. This emphasis on social structures is evident throughout Dewey’s work and articulated in his early writing on the ‘Reflexive Arc’ (Dewey, 1899). Human activities and social settings shape how a person experiences the world, how they interact with it and adapt what is learnt in one situation to act in new situations that they meet throughout lifelong learning. The process of interaction between learners, their experiences and the external conditions outlined in Dewey’s work resonates with theories that articulate the relationship between structure, action and reflexivity in social theory (Archer, 2007, 2012) – ideas that Peter Jarvis has grappled with in his own thinking and to which I will return. Peter has always acknowledged the work of Dewey, particularly his emphasis on contextual continuity and learners interact with the world. However, the main departure point for Peter’s exploration of learning processes was Kolb’s study of experiential learning and definition of learning as: ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’ (Kolb, 1984, p. 7).

Peter’s approach to learning has changed and become more nuanced over time; he developed Kolb’s definition of learning as the transformation of experience through reflection or action. The idea of learning as transformative, as changing the learner, has endured in experiential learning theory. Kolb stressed that experience alone was not sufficient for learning to take place; something had to be done with that experience: it needed to be transformed into learning through reflection or action. Within Kolb (1984), it was also asserted these transformation activities were not sufficient for learning, there also needed to be a foundation of experience a set of conditions, situation, social context or knowledge foundation that could be transformed. An acknowledgement of a role for the structural conditions that exist before us, such as bodies of knowledge, is therefore evident in Kolb (1984) as well as Peter’s work, though it has not been emphasised in later scholarship in the field. Kolb, following Dewey, articulated a tension between what we learn and how we learn. I have suggested that there are parallels between the relationship between knowledge and learning and that between social structure and agency (Dyke, 2013). These founding authors, including Peter, always recognised the complex relationship between knowledge, reflection, experience and action.

As part of his appraisal of Kolb in Adult Learning in the Social Context (Jarvis, 1987) Jarvis provided an early warning about the use of learning styles inventories. He argued that individual learning styles were not fixed but could vary over time. Approaches to learning, he suggested, may be more varied than those suggested by Kolb (1984); the ideas behind learning style required further research. Coffield Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004) identified a range of learning style theories and instruments across the twentieth century with the majority, including Kolb’s, originating from the 1970s. Learning styles inventories flourished in post-16 education in the UK throughout the 1990s. Jarvis’s observations (1987) were perceptive and predated the later critique of the field developed by Coffield et al. (2004).

Despite Kolb’s strengths, Jarvis maintained that his rather neat and tidy presentation of Lewin’s model risked oversimplifying the learning process. Where the Kolb model suggested a specific linear sequence or cyclical pattern to learning, Jarvis argued that different sequences, non-linear routes to learning, are perfectly possible; learners are capable of moving freely between concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. He presented us with a more complex notion of reflection, in which reflection can occur simultaneously with action as ‘reflection in action’ – it need not occur simply after the event as ‘reflection upon action’ (Jarvis, 1987, p. 18). He acknowledged that the relationship between knowledge and learning was a strength of Kolb’s. It is interesting to see that knowledge was placed so centrally in these classic texts on experiential learning. More recently, the role of knowledge has faded from the field to such an extent that Young (2008) argued there was a need to ‘bring knowledge back in’ to the curriculum, criticising experiential learning for being emptied of knowledge. Jarvis, however, has always emphasised a role for knowledge, and for learning from others, through his distinction between primary and secondary experiences.

Many interpretations of reflective learning stress the importance of primary experience as concrete first-hand experience of practice. Schon (1983) in particular made a virtue of the practitioners’ primary experience. Experiential learning often refers to learning from the primary experience of the individual. Such experience could be gained at home, in work or education; it occurs through all aspects of everyday life, it can be gained through group interaction or individually. Primary experience may also be gained through structured educational activities such as practicals, visits, work placements, role-plays and simulations. Yet learning from the secondary experience of others is common in educational settings. Secondary experience is gained through language; through lectures, debates, discussion and the use of any audiovisual media including books, broadcasting, film, information technology and so forth. Jarvis’s distinction (1987, 2005) between primary and secondary experiences is a useful rejoinder to the emphasis on primary concrete experience, particularly in a digital age when so much information is mediated rather that experienced first-hand. However, if we examine how his definition of learning has developed and grown over time this simple binary distinction between primary and secondary experiences becomes more problematic. I will return to this later after further consideration of Jarvis’s critique of Kolb and the development of his own model of the adult learning process.

It was Peter’s appreciation of Kolb that led him to conduct his own research with adult learners through a series of workshops. These workshops tended to be with teachers or those working in professions allied to education. Participants were encouraged to think about their own learning and share their experiences through a process that reflected nominal group technique (Ashcroft & Foremen-Peck, 1994): participants worked first independently, then in pairs and finally in larger groups that compared their individual learning experiences with models of learning. The workshops developed their own models of learning that were iteratively evaluated and tested. Jarvis refined the model in the light of the diverse learning experiences of workshop participants. There were approximately 200 participants in these workshops in 1985 and 1986; they were held in the UK and the United States. In the course of a postgraduate class taught by Peter in the early 1990s, I participated in such a workshop, where a strikingly similar model emerged in a grounded manner from the group of students. I have repeated the exercise many times with my own students and gained similar responses, including a positive endorsement of the Jarvis model in comparison to Kolb’s. Many of the practitioners in Peter’s workshops were, like myself, involved in teacher education. The impact of Peter’s work on practice is evident if one considers the number of adult educators he has taught directly and their exponential impact as teacher educators. His ideas cascaded across a wide range of formal and informal education settings with a variety professionals working in private, public and non-governmental services.

Jarvis’s, 1992 model (Figure 1) identified nine routes or pathways that may or may not produce learning but reflect the routes mapped out by workshop participants. These pathways included a hierarchy of non-learning responses, preconscious and non-reflective learning as well as the higher order reflective learning. Non-learning included: ‘presumption’, where people rely on un-reflected past socialisation to guide their actions in the present; ‘non-consideration’, where no thinking or engagement occurs; and situations where people simply ‘reject’ the learning opportunity. A second level includes preconscious learning that automatically occurs as a form of non-reflective learning: evident, for instance, in learning associated with behaviourism. The model is illustrated with reference to examples such as practice in skills learning and memorisation. Practice and skills learning are associated with both non-reflection and reflection in learning. The non-reflective elements include repetition and rehearsal of skills, as well as imitation and role modelling. The final triad of reflective learning includes contemplation as higher order thinking, reflective practice linked to Schon (1983) and Knowles (1984), problem-solving and finally experimental learning with its Deweyian genealogy. Jarvis (1987, p. 28) aligned his model to Habermas, or whom learning included practical, technical and emancipatory domains: ‘reflective learning is potentially an agent of change, or what Habermas refers to as “an emancipatory cognitive interest”’ (Jarvis, 1987, p. 28). This quotation does not suggest that reflective learning in itself is emancipatory, but that it has that potential or capability within it. Archer (2007) argued that reflexivity can be fallible; Peter is cautious about claiming any potential for emancipatory learning and positive social change, suggesting perhaps that learning can be emancipatory but may also be fallible.

Figure 1. Jarvis 1992 model of learning process.

Peter’s model of learning was constructed from the experience of practitioners, prompted by his critical reflection that Kolb (1984) had simply provided a synthesis of other theorists, rather than testing his approach in practice. In seeking to provide a more nuanced model, to counter Kolb’s simplicity, Jarvis’s more complex model(s) have evolved over time, recognising that learning can take a number of pathways. The Jarvis models’ complexity risks their having less traction with practitioners; they are not so readily reproduced and utilised as guides to practice. However, the approach was not developed with the intention of providing a prescription on how to learn – Dewey had similarly lamented formulaic interpretations of his work. However, Peter’s model does provide a useful stimulus to discussion of learning processes. In my own practice, it has proven a valuable tool for reflection of teaching and learning with educational practitioners working in a diverse range of lifelong and work-related learning contexts across the world.

Concepts and definitions

As he has reflected on his experiences over a lifetime of learning and refined his thinking, Peter’s model has developed. His reflective practice can be illustrated in how his definition of learning has been refined over time. Building on Kolb’s definition of learning as a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). Jarvis (1987, p. 7) argued that this focus on knowledge outcomes was too narrow; it did not account for skills learning or the development of attitudes. Peter used a similar construct to Kolb’s and defined learning as ‘the process of transforming experience into knowledge, skills, and attitudes’ (Jarvis, 1987, p. 16). Paradoxes of Learning (Jarvis, 1992) presents a more philosophical and theological approach to learning. The book explores a number of interesting paradoxes and dualisms, informed by an eclectic range of philosophical arguments. The distinction between primary and secondary experiences is maintained and the definition of learning retains a focus on the social, with more emphasis on the temporal nature of learning. The definition of learning is expanded beyond knowledge, skills, to include beliefs and values (Jarvis, 1992, p. 11). In Paradoxes of Learning (1992), we start to see a greater emphasis on the relationship between primary and secondary experiences – perhaps an awareness that they are more entwined than separate entities. Although the distinction between primary and secondary experiences is maintained in later work (Jarvis & Parker, 2005), a critique of such dualism also emerged. Peter developed his ideas on the role of biography (Jarvis, 1987) and prior learning in shaping how someone experien...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Local and global in the formation of a learning theorist: Peter Jarvis and adult education
• Part 1: Understanding learning
• Part 2: Learning & the meaning of life
• Part 3: Adult education, citizenship & democracy
• Part 4: Global & local
• Index