8/9/2019 10814357 Critique of Experiential Learning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/10814357-critique-of-experiential-learning 1/2

PR Log - Global Press Release Distribution

Critique of Experiential Learning

By Cynthia Joffrion Dated: Jul 23, 2010

This article will provide a critique of the theory of experiential learning. Overall, the theory is widelyaccepted and is one of the most utilized learning models in education.

This article will provide a critique of the theory of experiential learning. Overall, the theory is widelyaccepted and is one of the most utilized learning models in education. In fact, Kayes (2002) explains thatthe Experiential Learning Theory and model of Dialectic Inquiry provide two of the only models thatremain both comprehensive and fully generalized. Although a number of variants of the ExperientialLearning Theory have been proposed, the original theory continues to be one of the most influential (Vince,1998). Despite the wide acceptance of Kolb’s theory, there are salient issues concerning the structure andvalidity of its use. Kolb’s work has been criticized for logical inconsistencies in theory construction and for

the psychometric properties of the Learning Style Inventory. This critique will address Kolb’s theory andprovide criticisms related to the two areas. The first area that will be examined is the empirical limitationsof the theory. The second area will target the LSI and its limitations.In order to provide a critic of Kolb’s theory, it is necessary to understand its framework and history. The

framework includes two main constructs, the four-stage learning cycle and the assessment of the LSI. Inthe 1970s, critical analysis began to emerge regarding the theoretical limitations of Kolb’s theory. Criticsmainly called attention to the LSI and questioned the psychometric properties of the measure (Freed &Stumpf, 1980). In response to the criticism, Kolb redesigned the inventory in 1985. Research resultsindicated that the updated versions largely addressed earlier concerns related to measurement validity(Greer & Dunlap, 1997; Loo, 1999); however, critics still pointed out several issues concerning datavalidity and ipsative measurement of the revised model of the LSI.According to Greer & Dunlap ( 1997) the main issue with ipsative measure is its use of cross-subject

comparison. The LSI assesses the learning style of an individual; therefore, it is difficult to predict theperformance of others in relation to the scores of an individual. This is due to the fact that the measurementoffers little correlation or comparative strength between one person and another. For example, anindividual may have a high score in one area and a low score in another area. This type of preposition doesnot allow for predictability in terms of application to other learners.The LSI’s use of cross-subject comparison presents a problem with using factor analysis to determine

internal construct validity. The internal reliability is inflated. This is because the factor analysis providesan empirical basis for reducing variables to a few factors. This is done by combining variables that aremoderately or highly correlated with each other. According to Kayes (2002), this has a statistical limitation

in cases where the sum of the square for each variable is equal to zero. In addition, the normative andipsative correlation matrices are used to show that the factor pattern induced by ipsativety will overwhelmany factor structure seen with normative factor analysis, making it uninterpretable (William & Cornwell,1994). This makes it difficult to determine a person’s scalable scores related to the variables.

The LSI measure is an ipsative instrument; however, it can be argued that it does not take into accountthe social aspect of learning. Lewin (1948) described the social learning process as continuous andnon-linear. In addition, Vygotsky’s (1978) Social Learning Theory viewed individual learning as a processconnected to the social and historical position of the learner. Kolb’s cycle of action and the LSIemphasized the role of the individual and put the role of continuous non-linear learning into context.

Keeton-Morris (1998) states that the cognitive nature of Kolb’s theory overemphasizes the role of theindividual and “decontextualizes” the learning process.(p.18) In fact Kolb (1999) acknowledges Holman’scriticism, saying that the latter’s recent critique has been more focused on the theory than the instrumentexamining the intellectual origins and underlying assumptions of the Experiential Learning Theory;however, if the role of the learner is disproportionate to the process, results from the measure instrument

Page 1/2

8/9/2019 10814357 Critique of Experiential Learning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/10814357-critique-of-experiential-learning 2/2

PR Log - Global Press Release Distribution

would not have consistency and validity.There are notable concerns related to the stability of individual learning styles over time. Truluck and

Courtenay (1999) found that older individuals above the age of 65 demonstrated an age-related trend tobecome more reflective and observant in the learning environment. The LSI does not take this intoconsideration, which therefore contributes to the psychometric issues.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the LSI emphasize the central role of the experiences and theindividual. By analyzing Kolb’s conceptual constructs, several critical issues which focus on thepsychometric properties of the LSI are apparent. Despite the critical issues, Kolb’s work is highlyregarded, and the LSI is still widely used.

Category Education, ResearchTags cynthia joffrionEmail Click to email author

Page 2/2