A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning

Theory and Practice

Jennifer A. Moon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134310906
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This handbook acts as an essential guide to understanding and using reflective and experiential learning - whether it be for personal or professional development, or as a tool for learning.
It takes a fresh look at experiential and reflective learning, locating them within an overall theoretical framework for learning and exploring the relationships between different approaches.
As well as the theory, the book provides practical ideas for applying the models of learning, with tools, activities and photocopiable resources which can be incorporated directly into classroom practice.
This book is essential reading to guide any teacher, lecturer or trainer wanting to improve teaching and learning.

Part I

A generic view of learning

Chapter I

The process of learning

The development of a generic view of learning

Introduction

In the Introduction, we indicated that Chapter 1 is the first of a set of four chapters that build a generic view of learning prior to considering how reflective and experiential learning relate to this. The first section looks at the issue of terminology that is used concerning the idea of learning and suggests that misuse and lack of vocabularymay skew our view of learning. New words and concepts are added to facilitate a clearer view of what learning might be. The second section of the chapter presents two ways of looking at learning – the ‘building bricks’ view and the ‘network’ view. The latter is pursued and developed throughout the remainder of the chapter particularly in relation to ‘meaning’ in learning, on which basis the two views particularly differ. The discussion also considers the social or individual connotations of ‘meaning’. The next section illustrates some of the points made about ‘meaning’ and we introduce and explore the idea that all learning is based on experience. In the course of this discussion the terms ‘external’ and ‘internal’ experience are introduced.

There is constant emphasis in the chapter on the manner in which learning is a process with many events influencing and modifying each other simultaneously. A process in constant flux is difficult to describe in a linear manner. That learning is a process of constant mutually occurring modifications is one general principle that underpins this book and another is the centralityof the process of identifying figure from ground. This is elucidated by Marton and Booth (1997) and it is the important description of learning in Marton and Booth that this chapter generally follows in its middle and later sections, though other ideas are introduced.

In this chapter, new words are used in specific ways. Such vocabulary is listed in the Glossary at the back of the book.

Some basic ideas about learning

To deal properly with a topic requires focus and boundaries or the discussion will be woolly. We look again at some boundaries of the topic of learning as well as boundaries that are imposed for the purposes of this book. Boundaries are sometimes about words to be used. There are many confusions in the terminology of learning and there is a lack of vocabulary that probably confuses us even more. It is not always easy to see ideas are missing if the words are not present. We rely on words and ideas as tools of investigation and if we do not have them, the investigation process is distorted.

The confusion between learning and teaching or instruction words

The action of helping another to learn (as in teaching or instructing) is different from the action taken by the learner in learning. This may seem very obvious but words for instruction and words for learning are frequently confused in the manner in which they are used. Often the meanings elide and this occurs particularly with the words ‘learn’ and ‘teach’. Young children tend to confuse the processes of teaching and learning. A child might say ‘I’ll learn you to climb that tree’ meaning ‘I’ll teach you’. Some languages do not distinguish between teaching and learning, having the same word for both (e.g., Russian). Adults, even those involved in teaching or instruction, are apt to use the words in a manner in which they overlap. In a recent document concerning quality assurance issues in education, a statement suggested that teachers should have particular ‘learning intentions’ for their students. A teacher can only hope that a student learns – she cannot do the learning for her. Learning and teaching are separate operations and while learning can be carried out in a separate place from teaching (distance learning), and learning can occur without teaching, teaching or instructing without a learner as object of the activity does not make sense. In this book, a variety of words will be used to describe the process of aiding or mediating learning in order to help the learner to learn more effectively. Words and phrases such as ‘teach’, ‘instruct’, ‘facilitate learning’ will be used according to the context.

The confusion between teaching and learning is illustrated in another way when words are applied to learning when they are more to do with the instruction process. For example, Harrison (1991) talks of ‘learning events’ which encompass ‘structured training . . . [and] . . . other approaches through which people can acquire knowledge’. Similarly, it is not unusual for activities on courses such as brainstorming, syndicate work, or games and simulations to be described as learning methods when they are really methods of facilitating learning. In academic education, a lecture or tutorial might often be called a method of learning when it is primarily a method by which a teacher instructs or manages the learning of others. The instructor does not know the effect of her instruction on the learner’s learning other than by direct questioning or observation. It is not possible to assume that, when confronted with any particular method of instruction, all learners react by learning in the same manner.

The literature is full of other examples in which there are assumptions that what is taught is learnt or that the subject matter of training is learnt without modification by the learner other than as erosion or distortion of memory. The teacher can only have intentions based on experience and laced (usually) with hope and faith, and a set of skills of presentation of ideas, of influence and means of facilitation of that learning. The significance of the confusion of teaching and learning is that it leads us to make unwarranted assumptions about the processes and intentions of the learner and therefore it misguides the teacher in her activities. This is an important issue that extends to all learning situations where another is involved in the influencing or management of the learning.

Even models of learning may also confuse learning and teaching. The Kolb cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) is widely used as a means of describing learning, particularly in training situations. In fact, it is more often used as a model of the management and facilitation of learning – a teaching rather than a learning model (Moon, 1999a). The model is based on the notion that the best learning is achieved though involvement of reflection and action and it puts action into a management of learning model. The implications of this are discussed later (Chapters 8, 9).

Setting up a vocabulary for learning and teaching

In a previous book, it was noted that that some of the difficulties with understanding the processes of learning and teaching maybe due to missing words in the language. Lack of vocabulary may explain some of the confusion as well. There is, for example, no word that describes the material that a learner is learning – what she might seem to be ‘taking in’ (in colloquial terms). Correspondingly, since there is also no word for what it is that a teacher conveys, we are not easily able to articulate that the material that is learned by the learner is not the same as the material that is produced by the teacher. This lack of vocabulary sometimes leads to the elision of words for teaching and learning as described above. For this book we use the words ‘material of learning’ for what is learnt by the learner and correspondingly ‘material of teaching’ for the subject matter of teaching (what the teacher teaches).

Some more terms that are useful in the description of learning and teaching processes are ‘learning challenge’ and ‘teaching challenge’. By these are meant the challenge that a learning task effects for the learner and correspondingly, the challenge for the teacher in conveying the material clearly and appropriately to a learner (Biggs, 1999, uses the latter term). The same material of teaching maypose more or less of a learning challenge to different learners, depending on a variety of factors such as prior knowledge and conceptions of the task, as well as how the learner is feeling that day.

Another gap in vocabulary is in the distinction between the act of learning something and the act of expressing that learning. For the moment, we continue with the simplistic view of learning being the ‘taking in’ of ideas – then the expression or representation of that learning is the manner in which the quality or quantity of the learning is evidenced (Moon, 1999a). Most assessment procedures assess both the ability to learn the material and the ability to express that learning in a written response, in action, in an examination, or in fulfilling whatever the task that is set. In many cases, the inclusion of both processes does not matter. However, it should be noted that unless learners can express their learning effectively, what they know will not be recognized. This is a particularly important matter for a dyslexic person who may have successfully learnt the material of learning, but is unable to represent it effectively in some modes.

Not only is it important to note the distinction between learning and the representation of learning but, for the process of reflection, it is important to recognize that the representation of learning is a further source of learning (Eisner, 1982, 1991). As a learner puts ideas down on paper, she is sorting out her understanding of those ideas and is learning more since the organization and clarification of ideas are a process of learning. Some forms of representation of learning are more orientated towards further learning than others. For example, a learner who is explaining to another some material that has been covered in a lecture, is likely to be learning considerably. The same learner writing a response on the same material in an examination may well be learning less. Another who draws a diagrammatic representation of the material maybe learning as much or less that the irst – but the learning will be of a different type. Different forms of the representation of learning give rise to more or less learning opportunity and to learning of differing qualities – depending on the type of representation. This may not matter in formal education since it is assumed that we have to assess learners anyway, though it calls for greater thought to be given to the purposes of setting tasks such as essays. It has been argued that, since that much of the representation of learning in higher education is in the form of assessment tasks, a broader range of tasks would have a secondary effect of enhancing learning in a broader manner (Eisner, 1982).

Setting another boundary: skills and pre-conscious thought

To learn something can mean to come to know or to have knowledge or it can mean that a person is able to do something. Sometimes this is clarified as ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’. Going back to the content of the previous sections, skill is a form of the representation of learning and it is the ability to do something that has been learnt. Few writers seem to address the apparent difference between skills and knowledge even when they have noted the distinction and the confusion continues (e.g., Carter, 1985). One reason for this is the broad use of the term ‘skill’. For example, all the following maybe called ‘skills’:

•the ability to analyse a piece of literature (‘cognitive’ skill);

•the ability to give a good presentation in terms of content and delivery (‘presentation’ skill);

•the ability to handle a saw and make a clean straight cut in a piece of wood (physical/practical skill);

•the ability to write an essay (‘study’ skills);

•the ability to use a computer keyboard to type (physical/practical skill);

•the ability to score a bull on a dartboard (physical/practical skill).

In those tasks listed above is a range from fairly pure physical activities to those that involve deep interaction with the meaning of the task, in other words, they involve some ‘knowing how’ and some ‘knowing that’. Most of the tasks involve several apparently quite different activities. It is likely that the blanket application of a theory of learning to this breadth of activity is not appropriate. It is difficult, for example, to equate the activity involved in learning to hit a target with a dart with the ability to learn how to work with meaning in order to analyse a piece of literature. The evident range of meaning of ‘skill’ does not facilitate clear thinking in the current ‘skills agenda’ in education. A new more focused vocabulary might help.

In terms of the boundaries of learning as it is described in this book, like Jarvis (1992), we would make it clear that we are not including the learning of pure physical skills such as typing or sawing wood or the physical acts of movement. Sometimes such physical skills are deployed in the process of learning knowledge – such as in the process of writing or in moving the eyes across a page in the process of reading. The book does not directly concern what has been called ‘incidental’ learning (Marsick and Watkins, 1990; Coffield, 1998; Eraut 1999) or everyday learning (Heller, 1984; Henze, 1992; Steiner, 1998), with pre- or unconscious thought such as in intuition (Claxton, 2000; Atkinson and Claxton, 2002). However, much that is written is relevant to these concepts.

The adoption of a general stance on learning: two views

In this section we begin to map the learning process. The introduction of the two views here serves to clarify the features of the model we adopt. In general terms, there is no obvious manner to consider the material that contributes to making sense of learning. It is complex and it seems that every concept relates to and modifies every other concept. This interactivity of the system is one of the several themes that will appear again and again.

We start with a situation in mind that involves instruction. It can be convenient to talk about learning being ‘taken in’, though we said that this use of terminology would be reviewed. In the first model of learning, the assumption is maintained that material of teaching is somehow ‘taken in’ or ‘absorbed’ by the learner, and retained in the same form as it is encountered (bar some modification because of memory). It is assumed that appropriate or effective learning would have happened if the learner has reasonably efficiently absorbed the material of teaching. The learner would then, at a later stage, be able to represent it reasonably closely to the form in which it was presented by the teacher. This accords with the ‘building a brick wall’ view of learning in which the teacher provides for the learner the ‘bricks of knowledge’. It is assumed that teacher knows how these will it the pattern of the wall. The wall – knowledge – is thus built up. Incorrect ‘bricks’ of knowledge are noticed in the representations of that learning, for example, in the way a learner speaks, in an essay or assessment task, or in the learner recognizing the incompatibility of some ideas. These incorrect ideas are then replaced by correct ones.

We have rejected the ‘brick wall’ view of learning elsewhere (Moon, 1999a). This model of learning makes it difficult to see learning apart from instruction, and does not deal helpfully with the vast majority of human learning situations – which is everyday learning with no act of active teaching involved. The constructivist view of learning, which we apply below, focuses on the activities of the learner in making sense of her world.

On a constructivist view of learning, a more useful metaphor for the development of learning than the brick wall is a vast but flexible network of ideas and feelings with groups of more tightly associated linked ideas/feelings. In the network some groups are far apart and some are near to each other and there are some relatively isolated ideas that have very few links to the network while others are well interconnected. Entwistle and Walker (2002) draw evidence from phenomenography(citing the work of Marton, e.g., 1994), neural science (citing Edelman, 1992), computer science and biology(citing Wilson, 1998) for this view of meaning where it is represented bya ‘linkage among neural networks’ (Wilson, 1998). Entwistle and Walker see understanding as being ‘activelyconstituted’ by the ‘assembling and ordering . . . of . . . recollected sense impressions and knowledge’ (2002, p. 20). They emphasize the involvement of emotion (see Chapter 3 of this book) but do not expand on the nature of its role. The term ‘cognitive structure’ has been used as a convenience to describe the network of knowledge and understanding and associated feeling or emotion – ‘what is known’ by the learner at a particular time (Ausubel and Robinson, 1969; West and Pines, 1985; McAlpine and Weston, 2002).

In this view of learning, new ideas are linked into the network, but in being linked, they maybe modified in the process. This is described as assimilation in learning (Piaget, 1971). The distinctive feature of this view of learning is the further process of accommodation (ibid.). Unlike the situation in the ‘brick wall’ metaphor, the material of learning does not just accumulate as knowledge, but the new material of learning itself can influence change in what is already known or understood – or it can change it self under the influence of what is already known. This is the more complex process of accommodation (Carey, 1988; Wilkes, 1997).

In the constructivist view of learning, there are two important developments beyond the ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I A generic view of learning
• Part II Exploring reflective and experiential learning
• Part III Working with reflective and experiential learning
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index