overview: experiential learning resources · elt, elt cycle, learning style, learning flexibility...

Overview: Experiential Learning ResourcesPrepared by Dean’s Fellow, Lian Hai Guang for Yale-NUS Centre for Teaching and Learning

0. Quick Notes A quick summary of useful tips and pointers extracted from the Focus Article.

1. Focus Articlea. “Using Experiential Learning Theory to Promote Student Learning and Development Programs of Education Abroad” by Angela M. Passrrelli & David A. Kolb

Key points.

p.2–8. Quick and concise introductions to Kolb’s quintessential set of theoretical instruments—the Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) and the ELT Cycle, Learning Style, Learning Flexibility and Learning Space.

p.9–14. These pages share an educational perspective with groundings from the ELT, with suggestions on how to improve teaching as well as facilitate learning. They include the sharing of principles and strategies for becoming an Experiential Educator; an exposition on shifting between the 4 different roles an educator can play for his class; and ways of promoting ownership of the learning process.

2. Supplementary MaterialsCarol Dweck’s theories about how learners’ beliefs about their abilities and self-worth affect their capacity to learn, have been monumental in driving education research and informing learner-centric pedagogies. Below are a set of materials offering the essential ideas of Dweck.

a. Chapter 1–3. Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

b. Key Point Summary from Dweck’s Self Theories by Bill Wolfs

David Kolb’s candid views on teaching and learning are crisp, insightful and digestible in a 6 page interview below; for those interested in evaluations and testing of the ELT, the item following that is a useful read.

c. Experiential Learning: From Discourse Model to Conversation: Intervew with David Kolb, Kolb, D. A. 1988, Lifelong Learning in Europe, 3, 148-153. PDF, 6 Pages.

d. Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility: Testing Experiential Learning Theory of Development, Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., & Kolb, D. A. 2002, Management Learning, 33 (1):5-33. PDF, 29 Pages.

3. Extra MaterialsA list of links to extra resources (articles and videos) if you are interested in learning more about Kolb’s work on Experiential Learning or Dweck’s work on self-theories.

Quick NotesHere is a quick overview of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT). All content this document (except the introduction on Kolb) is extracted and/ or adapted from the following Focus Article, with their corresponding page numbers listed in the subtitles:

Using Experiential Learning Theory to Promote Student Learning and Development in Programs of Education Abroad, Passarelli M. A., Kolb, D. A. 2012, In Michael Vande Berg, Michael Page, & Kris Lou (Eds.) Student Learning Abroad. Sterling, VA. PDF, 23 Pages http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/using-experiential-learning-theory-to-promote-student-learning-and-development-in-programs-of-education-abroad.pdf

Texts have been broken up, sentences cropped and lines shifted in order to render the text easier on the eyes, and to read more fluently for the purposes of this document. However, the original language and wording has been largely retained. No quotations marks have been used since the corresponding page numbers are provided.

David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory: An IntroductionKnown as the father of ELT, American educational theorist David A. Kolb’s groundbreaking work Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development (1984) moved educational research and practice into a new direction, focusing on the role that experience plays in the learning process. His work is influenced by giants in intelligence psychology and pedagogy like John Dewey, Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget; each of whom emphasise the importance of learning from concrete experience, the ability to develop that knowledge over time (the idea and possibility of growing one’s mind versus the view that intelligence is fixed), as well as the transformation of impulses, feelings and desires into goal-oriented, higher order learning action.

Kolb’s fundamental idea is that learning occurs in a cycle, and learner’s learn best when their learning experience touches on every part of this cycle. His theoretical oeuvre has developed extensively to include other tools such as the Learning Style Inventory (LSI), Adaptive Style Inventory (ASI), Learning Skills Profile (LSP), and the concept of Learning Space, most of which are attempts at creating typological tools for assessing learning preferences.

• For more context about how Kolb’s work emerged from the theories of Dewey Lewin and Piaget, refer to p.20—25 of Kolb’s Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/process-of-experiential-learning.pdf

• To learn about previous research and new directions in ELT, you can read the paper, ”Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions”. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/experiential-learning-theory.pdf

• p. 2—8 of the Focus Article offers concise introductions to the Kolb’s conceptualising of ELT, ELT Cycle, Learning Style, Learning Flexibility and Learning Space.

Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc is a company founded and chaired by Kolb in 1981 to “provide on going quality research and practice on experiential learning”. A large cache of materials on the topic can be found on the site http://learningfromexperience.com/about/.

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/using-experiential-learning-theory-to-promote-student-learning-and-development-in-programs-of-education-abroad.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/process-of-experiential-learning.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/experiential-learning-theory.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/about/

Experiential Learning Theory (p. 2—3)

1. Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes. Although punctuated by knowledge milestones, learning does not end at an outcome, nor is it always evidenced in performance. Rather, learning occurs through the course of connected experiences in which knowledge is modified and re-formed. As Dewey suggests, “...education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience: ... the process and goal of education are one and the same thing” (1897, p. 79).

2. All learning is re-learning. Learning is best facilitated by a process that draws out the learners’ beliefs and ideas about a topic so that they can be examined, tested and integrated with new, more refined ideas. Piaget called this proposition constructivism—individuals construct their knowledge of the world based on their experience.

3. Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of adaptation to the world. Conflict, differences, and disagreement are what drive the learning process. These tensions are resolved in iterations of movement back and forth between opposing modes of reflection and action and feeling and thinking.

4. Learning is a holistic process of adaptation. Learning is not just the result of cognition but involves the integrated functioning of the total person—thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving. It encompasses other specialized models of adaptation from the scientific method to problems solving, decision making and creativity.

5. Learning results from synergetic transactions between the person and the environment. In Piaget’s terms, learning occurs through equilibration of the dialectic processes of assimilating new experiences into existing concepts and accommodating existing concepts to new experience. Following Lewin’s famous formula that behavior is a function of the person and the environment, ELT holds that learning is influenced by characteristics of the learner and the learning space.

6. Learning is the process of creating knowledge. In ELT, knowledge is viewed as the transaction between two forms of knowledge: social knowledge, which is co-constructed in a socio-historical context, and personal knowledge, the subjective experience of the learner. This conceptualization of knowledge stands in contrast to that of the “transmission” model of education in which pre-existing, fixed ideas are transmitted to the learner.

The ELT Cycle (p.3—4)

ELT defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). Grasping experience refers to the process of taking in information, and transforming experience is how individuals interpret and act on that information.

The ELT model portrays

• two dialectically related modes of grasping experience— Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and

• two dialectically related modes of transforming experience—Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE).

Learning arises from the resolution of creative tension among these four learning modes. This process is portrayed as an idealized learning cycle or spiral where the learner “touches all the bases”—experiencing (CE), reflecting (RO), thinking (AC), and acting (AE)—in a recursive process that is sensitive to the learning situation and what is being learned. Immediate or concrete experiences are the basis for observations and reflections. These reflections are assimilated and distilled into abstract concepts from which new implications for action can be. drawn.

Becoming an Experiential Educator—Principles of ELT (p.9)To apply principles and practices of ELT is to become and experiential educator. For many this requires a reexamination of one’s teaching philosophy and teaching practices. Those who think of experiential learning as techniques and games miss the deeper message that the foundational scholars of experiential learning were trying to convey. The practices of experiential learning are most effective when they are expressions of this fundamental philosophy captured in the following four propositions.

Educating is a relationship. In the midst of the multitude of educational theories, learning technologies, and institutional procedures and constraints, it is easy to lose sight of the most important thing—teaching is above all a profound human relationship. We can all think of teachers who have had a major impact on our lives and in most cases this involved a special relationship where we felt recognized, valued, and empowered by the teacher. Parker Palmer (1997) described the courage necessary for a teacher to fully enter into learning relationships with students as a willingness to expose one’s inner world; to honor students as complex, relational beings; and to masterfully weave these worlds together with the course content.

Educating is holistic. It is about educating the whole person. Educating the whole person means that the goal of education is not solely cognitive knowledge of the facts, but also includes development of social and emotional maturity. In ELT terms it is about facilitating integrated development in affective, perceptual, cognitive and behavioral realms. Rather than acquiring generalized knowledge stripped of any context, learning is situated to the person’s life setting and life path (Lave & Wenger, 1991). John Dewey (1897) put it well “I believe that education which does not occur through forms of life that are worth living for their own sake is always a poor substitute for genuine reality and tends to cramp and to deaden.”

Educating is learning-oriented. The crisis in American education has led to an excessive emphasis on performance and learning outcomes often resulting in rote memorization and “teaching to the test” while ignoring broader developmental activities such as music and the arts. This is in strong contrast to the experiential learning view stated at the outset of this chapter that it is the process of learning that should be the primary focus. Education should focus on how students are arriving at answers by focusing on fundamental concepts, the process of inquiry, critical thinking and choiceful creation of values.

Educating is learner centered. ELT scholars put forward a constructivist view of knowledge and learning that emphasizes the importance of organizing the educational process around the experience of learners. This entails meeting them “where they are” in their understanding and building their confidence and competence to the point where they become independent, self directed learners.

The 4 Teaching Roles (p.10)

A teaching role is a patterned set of behaviours that emerge in response to the learning environment, including students and the learning task demands. Each teaching role engages students to learn in a unique manner, using one mode of grasping experience and one mode of transforming experience. These roles can also be organised by their relative focus on the student versus the subject and action versus knowledge as illustrated in figure above.

1. Facilitator. Draws on the modes of concrete experience and reflective observation to help learners get in touch with their own experience and reflect on it.

2. Expert. Using the modes of reflective observation and abstract conceptualisation, helps learners organise and connect their reflection to the knowledge base of the subject matter. Experts may provide models or theories for learners to use in subsequent analysis.

3. Standard setter and evaluator. Uses abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation to help students apply knowledge toward performance goals. In this role, educators closely monitor the quality of student performance toward the standards they set, and provide consistent feedback.

4. Coaching. Draws on concrete experience and active experimentation to help learners take action on personally meaningful goals.

Maximising & Moving between the 4 Roles (p. 11–12)As mentioned above, educators can gain flexibility in enacting the four teaching roles. Just as students can gain proficiency in integrating multiple learning modes, educators can gain flexibility in shifting fluidly among the four teaching roles. The four teaching roles provide a holistic framework for implementing experiential learning. Teaching role selection is influenced by desired student learning mode, student signals, one’s teaching identity, and demands of the learning space. Because teaching roles are fluid rather than fixed, mechanisms for shifting among the roles can be employed. Effectively shifting between roles offers a relational way to intervene in student learning.

1. Narrowly defined assumptions about teaching and learning tend to result in an imbalance in teaching role enactment. Challenging one’s current beliefs about the purpose and process of education could lead to an expanded philosophy that naturally encapsulates more teaching roles. This also applies to students who have their own beliefs about education. The extent to which students are encouraged to understand the learning process and their own learning styles and teaching role preferences will determine the possible range of effective teaching roles.

2. Empathy is important for responding appropriately to the role requirements of a learning situation (Mead, 1934). Empathy is the ability to sense others' feelings and perspectives, and take an active interest in their concerns (Boyatzis, 2009). In an educational context, this begins with understanding the class composition – age, gender and learning styles; selected major/minor or concentration; previous exposure to course content; students’ previous work experiences; future career goals; and any other variable that might affect academic performance. Empathic responses are even more likely when the teacher gets to know each student as an individual. Information available through these interpersonal relationships allows the teacher to adapt their teaching role to the developmental needs of the students, as well as monitor optimal levels of challenge and support (Sanford, 1968).

3. Educators can use mechanisms to facilitate smooth transitions between teaching roles. The first mechanism is to explain the experiential learning cycle and four teaching roles up front so students understand how to respond when they perceive changes in a teacher’s behavior toward them. Another mechanism is to establish predictable patterns of role shifting. This can be accomplished by displaying an agenda for each class so that students can follow along and anticipate role shifts. Class routines also assist with establishing predictability. For example, opening each class with a guided writing exercise or quiz helps students assume the appropriate learning mode. A final mechanism deals with utilizing changes in physical location. Physical movement between different spaces, such as large group instruction and small group breakouts or the classroom and the field, often cues a change in learning mode and facilitates smooth teaching role transitions.

4. Team teaching is a method to achieve enactment of all four teaching roles. Team teaching must go beyond simply taking turns leading class (such that each faculty member is present for one class per week rather than two). Teaching teammates should work closely together using complimentary strengths to perform all of the educator roles. This allows all roles to be present in the learning system. It also provides role modeling for teachers to learn from one another. In the instance that team teaching is not an option, teachers can engage students as teachers and ask them to play these roles in a peer capacity. \

Using ELT to Promote Ownership on Learning Process (p. 12–14)ELT calls for full engagement of students in the learning endeavour. Thus, in addition to the teaching role, consideration must be given to helping students take ownership of the learning process when designing study abroad programs and course activities. One way to do this is to educate students on the experiential learning cycle and their own learning style preferences.

1. Educating students on experiential learning and their learning style helps develop a learning identity. ‘Learning to learn’ interventions have led to increased classroom motivation and reversed a decline in grades (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007), as well as significant improvements in adolescents’ achievement test scores (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003) and higher grades among college students (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Hutt, 2007). It is our contention that an understanding of the experiential learning process will empower students to feel more capable and be more effective at maximizing learning opportunities abroad.

2. Empower involvement in the learning process is to create engaging learning environments using a variety of instructional methods. Curricula that emphasize active involvement, a variety of learning activities, and an element of choice tend to engender personal investment in learning. A word of clarification must be offered here. Popular practice suggests that curriculum should be designed to match the learning style of learners. While this idea is recommended by many learning style models other than ELT and is the basis for testing the validity of the learning style concept for some researchers (Pashler, et. al., 2008); it is not the recommended approach in ELT. The ELT approach is to build curriculum around the cycle of learning in such a way that all learning modes are used and all styles of learning are engaged. In this way, every program, course, or class session has something to engage and connect with learners of every style. Learners are also encouraged to develop learning style flexibility and to move freely around the learning cycle.

3. Students take ownership of learning by building diverse learning relationships. ELT defines learning relationships to be connections between one or more individuals that promote growth and movement through the learning spiral, ultimately inspiring future learning and relationship building. A connection is constituted by an interaction or series of interactions, which build toward a deeper relationship. Similar to Fletcher and Ragins’ (2007) description of the development of a mentoring relationship through a series of small ‘episodes,’ learning relationships evolve as learning interactions increase in quality and frequency. Each interaction carries with it a sentiment, or emotional charge, which sets the tone for learning. Interactions characterized by compassion, mutual respect and support build the trust and positive emotional resources necessary to create space for learning – even when learning is challenging. Such growth-fostering relationships have been found to cultivate an increased sense of vitality; ability to take action; clarity about self and the relationship; sense of self-worth; and desire to form more connections in both parties (Miller & Stiver, 1997).

Nevitt Sanford (1968) suggested that one of the environments where authentic student-faculty relationships are best fostered is on foreign campuses. “In those relatively small communities abroad, many [students] learned for the first time what intellectual fellowship is and how rewarding a teacher can be when he is encouraged to reveal himself as a person. Students have an opportunity to see him in a variety of roles – as husband, father, traveling companion, gourmet, connoisseur of the arts, and member of a complex human community” (Sanford, 1968, p. 172). Meaningful relationships abroad not only ease the adaptive challenge of living abroad, they also facilitate transformative learning and the development of cultural competence.

1

Using Experiential Learning Theory to Promote Student Learning and Development

in Programs of Education Abroad

Angela M. Passarelli & David A. Kolb Case Western Reserve University

To appear in Michael Vande Berg, Michael Page, & Kris Lou (Eds.) Student Learning Abroad Stylus Publishing

2

Study abroad programs are rich with possibilities for meaningful and transformative learning. By living, studying, and working in an unfamiliar culture, students are challenged to make sense of the novelty and ambiguity with which they are regularly confronted. As a result of this sense-making process, students adopt new ways of thinking, acting and relating in the world. For students who move mindfully through the study abroad experience, it has the potential to change their worldview, provide a new perspective on their course of study, and yield a network of mind-expanding relationships.

On the other hand, programs that do not adopt a holistic approach to student learning can

become little more than a glorified vacation. At best, the students report having fun or being “satisfied” with the experience, and return home unchanged. They engage in the experience at a surface level, maintaining distance from the physical, social or intellectual tensions of the learning endeavor. At worst, carelessness places students in harm because they have engaged in dangerous or high-risk behaviors.

The difference in these two scenarios is a programmatic emphasis on the student’s

learning and development, and a model of shared responsibility for learning. Attention must be paid to designing a learning experience that helps students fully absorb and integrate their experiences at increasing levels of complexity. Additionally, everyone involved in the study abroad experience – campus administrators, faculty, homestay families, and the students themselves – should understand the learning process and how they can skillfully intervene to maximize learning.

We suggest that experiential learning theory (ELT; Kolb, 1984) provides a model for

educational interventions in study abroad because of its holistic approach to human adaptation through the transformation of experience into knowledge. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on how students learn and the role of the educator in that process. The first part provides an overview of ELT and its key concepts--the cycle and spiral of learning from experience, learning styles, learning spaces, learning flexibility, and the experiential learning theory of development. Part two offers guidance to study abroad educators on the use of these concepts to maximize student learning and development.

Experiential Learning Theory

Experiential learning theory is a dynamic view of learning based on a learning cycle

driven by the resolution of the dual dialectics of action/reflection and experience/abstraction. ELT draws on the work of prominent 20th century scholars who gave experience a central role in their theories of human learning and development – notably William James, John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers and others - creating a dynamic, holistic model of the process of learning from experience and a multi-dimensional model of adult development. Integrating the work of these foundational scholars, Kolb (1984) proposed six characteristics of experiential learning: 1. Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes. Although punctuated by knowledge milestones, learning does not end at an outcome, nor is it always evidenced in performance. Rather, learning occurs through the course of connected experiences in which

3

knowledge is modified and re-formed. As Dewey suggests, “…education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience: … the process and goal of education are one and the same thing” (1897, p. 79). 2. All learning is re-learning. Learning is best facilitated by a process that draws out the learners’ beliefs and ideas about a topic so that they can be examined, tested and integrated with new, more refined ideas. Piaget called this proposition constructivism—individuals construct their knowledge of the world based on their experience. 3. Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of adaptation to the world. Conflict, differences, and disagreement are what drive the learning process. These tensions are resolved in iterations of movement back and forth between opposing modes of reflection and action and feeling and thinking. 4. Learning is a holistic process of adaptation. Learning is not just the result of cognition but involves the integrated functioning of the total person—thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving. It encompasses other specialized models of adaptation from the scientific method to problems solving, decision making and creativity. 5. Learning results from synergetic transactions between the person and the environment. In Piaget’s terms, learning occurs through equilibration of the dialectic processes of assimilating new experiences into existing concepts and accommodating existing concepts to new experience. Following Lewin’s famous formula that behavior is a function of the person and the environment, ELT holds that learning is influenced by characteristics of the learner and the learning space. 6. Learning is the process of creating knowledge. In ELT, knowledge is viewed as the transaction between two forms of knowledge: social knowledge, which is co-constructed in a socio-historical context, and personal knowledge, the subjective experience of the learner. This conceptualization of knowledge stands in contrast to that of the “transmission” model of education in which pre-existing, fixed ideas are transmitted to the learner. The Cycle of Experiential Learning

ELT defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the

transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). Grasping experience refers to the process of taking in information, and transforming experience is how individuals interpret and act on that information. The ELT model portrays two dialectically related modes of grasping experience—Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC) -- and two dialectically related modes of transforming experience—Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE). Learning arises from the resolution of creative tension among these four learning modes. This process is portrayed as an idealized learning cycle or spiral where the learner “touches all the bases”—experiencing (CE), reflecting (RO), thinking (AC), and acting (AE)—in a recursive process that is sensitive to the learning situation and what is being learned. Immediate or concrete experiences are the basis for observations and reflections. These reflections are

4

assimilated and distilled into abstract concepts from which new implications for action can be drawn. These implications can be actively tested and serve as guides in creating new experiences (Figure 1). Evidence from experiential learning research in international contexts supports the cross-cultural applicability of the model (Kolb & Kolb, 2011b&c; Joy & Kolb, 2009).

---------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here

---------------------------------------------- Learning Style

Learning style describes the unique ways individuals spiral through the learning cycle

based on their preference for the four different learning modes - CE, RO, AC, & AE. Because of one’s genetic makeup, particular life experiences, and the demands of the present environment, a preferred way of choosing among these four learning modes is developed. The conflict between being concrete or abstract and between being active or reflective is resolved in patterned, characteristic ways. Previous research has shown that learning styles are influenced by culture, personality type, educational specialization, career choice, and current job role and tasks (Kolb & Kolb, 2005b; Kolb, 1984).

Much of the research on ELT has focused on the concept of learning style using the Kolb

Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) to assess individual learning styles (Kolb, 2007). While individuals who took the KLSI show many different patterns of scores; nine consistent styles have been identified based on individuals’ relative preferences for the four learning modes (Eickmann, Kolb, & Kolb, 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005a&b; Boyatzis & Mainemelis, 2000). Four of these style types emphasize one of the four learning modes—Experiencing (CE), Reflecting (RO), Thinking (AC) and Acting (AE) (Abbey, Hunt & Weiser, 1985; Hunt, 1987). Four others represent style types that emphasize two learning modes, one from the grasping dimension and one from the transforming dimension of the ELT model—Imagining (CE & RO), Analyzing (AC & RO), Deciding (AC &AE) and Initiating (CE &AE). The final style type balances all four modes of the learning cycle—Balancing (CE, RO, AC &AE; Mainemelis, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 2002).

These learning style types can be systematically arranged on a two dimensional learning space defined by Abstract Conceptualization – Concrete Experience and Active Experimentation – Reflective Observation. This space, including a description of the distinguishing characteristics of each style, is depicted in Figure 2.


---------------------------------------------- ELT argues that learning style is not a fixed psychological trait but a dynamic state

resulting from synergistic transactions between the person and the environment. This dynamic state arises from an individual’s preferential resolution of the dual dialectics of experiencing/conceptualizing and acting/reflecting. “The stability and endurance of these states in individuals comes not solely from fixed genetic qualities or characteristics of human beings: nor, for that matter, does it come from the stable fixed demands of environmental circumstances. Rather, stable and enduring patterns of human individuality arise from consistent patterns of

5

transaction between the individual and his or her environment…The way we process the possibilities of each new emerging event determines the range of choices and decisions we see. The choices and decisions we make to some extent determine the events we live through, and these events influence our future choices. Thus, people create themselves through the choice of the actual occasions that they live through” (Kolb, 1984, p. 63-64). Learning Flexibility

Another important aspect of learning style is learning flexibility, the extent to which an individual adapts his or her learning style to the demands of the learning situation. As we have seen above, learning style is not a fixed personality trait but more like a habit of learning shaped by experience and choices—it can be an automatic, unconscious mode of adapting or it can be consciously modified and changed. The learning style types described above portray how one prefers to learn in general. Many individuals feel that their learning style type accurately describes how they learn most of the time. They are consistent in their approach to learning. Others, however, report that they tend to change their learning approach depending on what they are learning or the situation they are in. They may say, for example, that they use one style in the classroom and another at home with their friends and family. These are flexible learners.

Learning flexibility is the ability to use each of the four learning modes to move freely around the learning cycle and to modify one’s approach to learning based on the learning situation. Experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting each provide valuable perspectives on the learning task in a way that deepens and enriches knowledge. This can be seen as traveling through each of the regions of the learning space in the process of learning. Learning flexibility can help us move in and out of the learning space regions, capitalizing on the strengths of each learning style. Learning flexibility broadens the learning comfort zone and allows us to operate comfortably and effectively in more regions of the learning space, promoting deep learning and development.

The flexibility to move from one learning mode to another in the learning cycle is

important for effective learning. Research on flexibility using the Adaptive Style Inventory (ASI; Boyatzis & Kolb, 1993) found that individuals who balance the dialectics of action-reflection and concrete-abstract have greater adaptive flexibility in their learning (Mainemelis, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 2002). Individuals with high adaptive flexibility are more self-directed, have richer life structures, and experience less conflict in their lives (Kolb, 1984). Learning Space

If learning is to occur, it requires a space for it to take place. The great potential of study

abroad learning experiences is that they offer a rich variety and depth of learning spaces. While, for most, it first conjures up the image of the physical classroom environment; the concept of learning space is much broader and multi-dimensional. Dimensions of learning space include physical, cultural, institutional, social and psychological aspects. In ELT these dimensions of learning space all come together in the experience of the learner. This concept of learning space builds on Kurt Lewin’s field theory and his concept of life space (1951). For Lewin, person and environment are interdependent variables where behavior is a function of person and

6

environment and the life space is the total psychological environment, which the person experiences subjectively. To take time as an example, in many organizations today employees are so busy doing their work that they feel that there is no time to learn how to do things better. This feeling is shaped by the objective conditions of a hectic work schedule and also the expectation that time spent reflecting will not be rewarded. Teachers objectively create learning spaces by the information and activities they offer in their course; but this space is also interpreted in the students’ subjective experience through the lens of their learning style.

Since a learning space is in the end what the learner experiences it to be, it is the

psychological and social dimensions of learning spaces have the most influence on learning. From this perspective learning spaces can be viewed as aggregates of human characteristics. “Environments are transmitted through people and the dominant features of a particular environment are partially a function of the individuals who inhabit it” (Strange & Banning, 2001). Using the “human aggregate” approach, the experiential learning space is defined by the attracting and repelling forces (positive and negative valences) of the poles of the dual dialectics of action/reflection and experiencing/conceptualizing, creating a two dimensional map of the regions of the learning space like that shown in Figure 2. An individual’s learning style positions him/her in one of these regions depending on the equilibrium of forces among action, reflection, experiencing and conceptualizing. As with the concept of life space, this position is determined by a combination of individual disposition and characteristics of the learning environment.

The KLSI measures an individual’s preference for a particular region of the learning

space, their home region so to speak. The regions of the ELT learning space offer a typology of the different types of learning based on the extent to which they require action vs. reflection, experiencing vs. thinking thereby emphasizing some stages of the learning cycle over others. A number of studies of learning spaces in higher education have been conducted using the human aggregate approach by showing the percentage of students whose learning style places them in the different learning space regions (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a; Eickmann, Kolb & Kolb, 2004). Figure 3, for example, shows the ELT learning space of the MBA program in a major management school. In this particular case, students are predominately concentrated in the abstract and active regions of the learning space, as are the faculty. This creates a learning space that tends to emphasize the quantitative and technical aspects of management over the human and relationship factors.


----------------------------------------------

The ELT learning space concept emphasizes that learning is not one universal process but a map of learning territories, a frame of reference within which many different ways of learning can flourish and interrelate. It is a holistic framework that orients the many different ways of learning to one another. The process of experiential learning can be viewed as a process of locomotion through the learning regions that is influenced by a person’s position in the learning space. One’s position in the learning space defines their experience and thus defines their “reality”. In our recent research we have focused on the characteristics of learning spaces that maximize learning and development and have developed principles for creating them (Kolb &

7

Kolb, 2005a). For a learner to engage fully in the learning cycle, a space must be provided to engage in the four modes of the cycle—feeling, reflection, thinking, and action. It needs to be a hospitable, welcoming space that is characterized by respect for all. It needs to be safe and supportive, but also challenging. It must allow learners to be in charge of their own learning and allow time for the repetitive practice that develops expertise. The Spiral of Learning and Adult Development

In ELT, adult development occurs through learning from experience. This is based on

the idea that the experiential learning cycle is actually a learning spiral. When a concrete experience is enriched by reflection, given meaning by thinking and transformed by action, the new experience created becomes richer, broader and deeper. Further iterations of the cycle continue the exploration and transfer to experiences in other contexts. In this process learning is integrated with other knowledge and generalized to other contexts leading to higher levels of adult development.

Zull (2002) explained a link between ELT and neuroscience research, suggesting that the

spiraling process of experiential learning is related to the process of brain functioning: “…concrete experiences come through the sensory cortex, reflective observation involves the integrative cortex at the back, creating new abstract concepts occurs in the frontal integrative cortex, and active testing involves the motor brain. In other words, the learning cycle arises from the structure of the brain” (p. 18). Humberto Maturana (1970) also arrived at the concept of a spiral when he searched for the pattern of organization that characterizes all living systems. He concluded that all living systems are organized in a closed circular process that allows for evolutionary change in a way that circularity is maintained. He called this process autopoeisis, which means “self-making,” emphasizing the self-referential and self-organizing nature of life. Applying the autopoeisis to cognition, he argued that the process of knowing was identical to autopoeisis, the spiraling process of life (Maturana & Varela, 1980).

Progress toward development is seen as increases in the complexity and sophistication of

the dimensions associated with the four modes of the learning cycle—affective, perceptual, symbolic and behavioral complexity - and the integration of these modes in a flexible full cycle of learning. The concept of deep learning describes the developmental process of learning that fully integrates the four modes of the experiential learning cycle—experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting (Jensen & Kolb, 1994; Border, 2007). Deep learning refers to the kind of learning that leads to development in the ELT model. The ELT developmental model (Kolb, 1984) follows Jung's theory that adult development moves from a specialized way of adapting toward a holistic integrated stage that he calls individuation. The model defines three stages: (1) acquisition, from birth to adolescence where basic abilities and cognitive structures develop; (2) specialization, from formal schooling through the early work and personal experiences of adulthood where social, educational, and organizational socialization forces shape the development of a particular, specialized learning style; and (3) integration in mid-career and later life where non-dominant modes of learning are expressed in work and personal life.

Development through these stages is characterized by increased integration of the

dialectic conflicts between the four primary learning modes (AC-CE and AE-RO) and by

8

increasing complexity and relativism in adapting to the world. Each of the learning modes is associated with a form of complexity that is used in conscious experience to transform sensory data into knowledge such that development of CE increases affective complexity, of RO increases perceptual complexity, of AC increases symbolic complexity, and of AE increases behavioral complexity (Figure 4). These learning modes and complexities create a multi-dimensional developmental process that is guided by an individual’s particular learning style and life path.


---------------------------------------------- Students have the opportunity to build these complexities abroad, and may benefit from

an educator’s skilled guidance. Affective complexity arises from increasingly meaningful interactions with diverse people, especially when students are attuned to how they feel in the context of these relationships. Increases in openness to experience, sensitivity to beauty and aesthetics, bodily awareness, and the ability to be fully present in the moment also contribute the development of affective complexity. Students develop perceptual complexity as they learn to notice detail, attend to multiple stimuli, and to embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints. The ability to locate one’s self amongst an array of external data also contributes to perceptual complexity. The classic indication of advances in symbolic complexity is the mastery of a new language. However, symbolic complexity can also be developed as students organize their experience in to pre-existing knowledge structures and begin to engage in systems-thinking, understanding interconnections between stimuli, analysis, and model-building. Finally, development of behavioral complexity occurs as students experiment with new, culturally relevant practices. Greater behavioral complexity is associated with increased flexibility in executing actions that match demands of the environment.

Using Experiential Learning in the Design and Conduct

of Education Abroad Programs Since their emergence in the early 1970’s, the principles and concepts of experiential

learning outlined above have been used to create curricula and conduct educational courses and programs in K-12 education (McCarthy, 1987), undergraduate education (Mentkowski, 2000), and professional education (Reese, 1998; Boyatzis, Cowan, & Kolb, 1995). Experiential learning approaches have been implemented in virtually every discipline from accounting to zoology (Kolb & Kolb, 2006). Many of the non-traditional educational innovations that have flowered during this period have used experiential learning as their “educational platform”—college programs for adult learners, service learning, prior learning assessment, and outdoor adventure education. Similarly, experiential learning principles and concepts provide theoretical grounding to the practice of education abroad. In the following section, we offer some considerations for adopting experiential learning as an educational approach and crafting experiences that promote student ownership of the learning process abroad.

9

Becoming an Experiential Educator To apply principles and practices of ELT is to become and experiential educator. For many this requires a reexamination of one’s teaching philosophy and teaching practices. Those who think of experiential learning as techniques and games miss the deeper message that the foundational scholars of experiential learning were trying to convey. The practices of experiential learning are most effective when they are expressions of this fundamental philosophy captured in the following four propositions.

• Educating is a relationship. In the midst of the multitude of educational theories,

learning technologies, and institutional procedures and constraints, it is easy to lose sight of the most important thing—teaching is above all a profound human relationship. We can all think of teachers who have had a major impact on our lives and in most cases this involved a special relationship where we felt recognized, valued, and empowered by the teacher. Parker Palmer (1997) described the courage necessary for a teacher to fully enter into learning relationships with students as a willingness to expose one’s inner world; to honor students as complex, relational beings; and to masterfully weave these worlds together with the course content.

• Educating is holistic. It is about educating the whole person. Educating the whole person means that the goal of education is not solely cognitive knowledge of the facts, but also includes development of social and emotional maturity. In ELT terms it is about facilitating integrated development in affective, perceptual, cognitive and behavioral realms. Rather than acquiring generalized knowledge stripped of any context, learning is situated to the person’s life setting and life path (Lave & Wenger, 1991). John Dewey (1897) put it well “I believe that education which does not occur through forms of life that are worth living for their own sake is always a poor substitute for genuine reality and tends to cramp and to deaden.”

• Educating is learning-oriented. The crisis in American education has led to an excessive emphasis on performance and learning outcomes often resulting in rote memorization and “teaching to the test” while ignoring broader developmental activities such as music and the arts. This is in strong contrast to the experiential learning view stated at the outset of this chapter that it is the process of learning that should be the primary focus. Education should focus on how students are arriving at answers by focusing on fundamental concepts, the process of inquiry, critical thinking and choiceful creation of values.

• Educating is learner centered. ELT scholars put forward a constructivist view of knowledge and learning that emphasizes the importance of organizing the educational process around the experience of learners. This entails meeting them “where they are” in their understanding and building their confidence and competence to the point where they become independent, self directed learners.

The Teacher’s Role in Experiential Learning

10

Adopting an experiential approach to teaching at first can be challenging and a bit unsettling. About this, one teacher said, “Actually, teaching was easier before I learned about experiential learning. My main focus was to collect and organize my course material and present it clearly. I had never thought much about how the students were reacting and their thoughts about the material.” Another said, “In the beginning I had a lot of concerns about losing control. Using experiential exercises brings up surprising stuff and makes me have to think and react on my feet.” Ultimately, however, the experiential approach becomes far more enriching and rewarding. An experienced teacher reported, “I was beginning to get really bored presenting the same material year after year. Experiential learning has opened up conversations with the students about their experience and ideas and now I am actually learning new things along with them.”

Teaching around the learning cycle and to different learning styles introduces the need

for adjustments in the role one takes with learners. The Teaching Role Profile (Kolb & Kolb, 2011) was created to help educators understand their preferred teaching role and plan for how they can adapt to teaching around the learning cycle. The self-report instrument is based on the assumption that preferences for teaching roles emerge from a combination of beliefs about teaching and learning, goals for the educational process, preferred teaching style, and instructional practices (see Table 1). Although referred to as “teaching” roles, this model is not limited to individuals in a social position of teacher or professor. This framework can be extended to individuals in educational systems who have teaching roles as advisors, administrators, student affairs professionals, peers, tour guides, and or homestay parents.

-------------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------------------- A teaching role is a patterned set of behaviors that emerge in response to the learning

environment, including students and the learning task demands. Each teaching role engages students to learn in a unique manner, using one mode of grasping experience and one mode of transforming experience. In the facilitator role, educators draw on the modes of concrete experience and reflective observation to help learners get in touch with their own experience and reflect on it. Subject matter experts, using the modes of reflective observation and abstract conceptualization, help learners organize and connect their reflection to the knowledge base of the subject matter. They may provide models or theories for learners to use in subsequent analysis. The standard setting and evaluating role uses abstract conceptualization and active experimentation to help students apply knowledge toward performance goals. In this role, educators closely monitor the quality of student performance toward the standards they set, and provide consistent feedback. Finally, those in the coaching role draw on concrete experience and active experimentation to help learners take action on personally meaningful goals. These roles can also be organized by their relative focus on the student versus the subject and action versus knowledge as illustrated in Figure 5.


----------------------------------------------

11

Highly effective educators do not rely solely on one role. Rather, they organize their educational activities in such a manner that they address all four learning modes—experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. As they do this, they lead learners around the cycle; shifting the role they play depending on which stage of the cycle they are addressing. In effect, the role they adopt helps to create a learning space designed to facilitate the transition from one learning mode to the other as was shown in Figure 1. Often this is done in a recursive fashion, repeating the cycle many times in a learning program. The cycle then becomes a spiral with each passage through the cycle deepening and extending learners’ understanding of the subject.

Hunt (1987) suggested that a learning spiral is shared between individuals in human

interaction. People relate to one another in a pattern of alternating ‘reading’ and ‘flexing’ that mirrors the experiential learning process. When one person is reading – receiving feedback (CE) and formulating perceptions (RO) – the other person is flexing – creating intentions based on those perceptions (AC) and acting on them (AE). As the exchange continues, both parties alternate between reading and flexing. Based on the actions they take, educators can activate different learning modes in students based on their patterns of reading and flexing (Abbey, Hunt, & Weiser, 1985).

Selecting the appropriate role to enact at the appropriate time is an art. Educators must

consider multiple factors in the moment-to-moment choices they make about how to respond to students. Educators must balance the learning mode they intend to elicit with signals students send about how they expect the educator to behave (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snock, 1964; Gaff & Gaff, 1981). Selection of a teaching role is also impacted by role-specific identity - one’s self-knowledge specific to certain educational settings - such that educators have a tendency to assume roles that align with their preferred teaching role and learning style (Nicoll-Senft & Seider, 2010). Finally, aspects of the learning space also influence teaching role selection, particularly physical configurations, temporal constraints, and instructional norms associated with various disciplines.

As mentioned above, educators can gain flexibility in enacting the four teaching roles.

Just as students can gain proficiency in integrating multiple learning modes, educators can gain flexibility in shifting fluidly among the four teaching roles. First, narrowly defined assumptions about teaching and learning tend to result in an imbalance in teaching role enactment. Challenging one’s current beliefs about the purpose and process of education could lead to an expanded philosophy that naturally encapsulates more teaching roles. This also applies to students who have their own beliefs about education. The extent to which students are encouraged to understand the learning process and their own learning styles and teaching role preferences will determine the possible range of effective teaching roles.

Second, empathy is important for responding appropriately to the role requirements of a

learning situation (Mead, 1934). Empathy is the ability to sense others' feelings and perspectives, and take an active interest in their concerns (Boyatzis, 2009). In an educational context, this begins with understanding the class composition – age, gender and learning styles; selected major/minor or concentration; previous exposure to course content; students’ previous work experiences; future career goals; and any other variable that might affect academic performance. Empathic responses are even more likely when the teacher gets to know each

12

student as an individual. Information available through these interpersonal relationships allows the teacher to adapt their teaching role to the developmental needs of the students, as well as monitor optimal levels of challenge and support (Sanford, 1968).

Third, educators can use mechanisms to facilitate smooth transitions between teaching

roles. The first mechanism is to explain the experiential learning cycle and four teaching roles up front so students understand how to respond when they perceive changes in a teacher’s behavior toward them. Another mechanism is to establish predictable patterns of role shifting. This can be accomplished by displaying an agenda for each class so that students can follow along and anticipate role shifts. Class routines also assist with establishing predictability. For example, opening each class with a guided writing exercise or quiz helps students assume the appropriate learning mode. A final mechanism deals with utilizing changes in physical location. Physical movement between different spaces, such as large group instruction and small group breakouts or the classroom and the field, often cues a change in learning mode and facilitates smooth teaching role transitions.

Fourth, team teaching is a method to achieve enactment of all four teaching roles. Team

teaching must go beyond simply taking turns leading class (such that each faculty member is present for one class per week rather than two). Teaching teammates should work closely together using complimentary strengths to perform all of the educator roles. This allows all roles to be present in the learning system. It also provides role modeling for teachers to learn from one another. In the instance that team teaching is not an option, teachers can engage students as teachers and ask them to play these roles in a peer capacity.

In summary, the four teaching roles – facilitator, expert, evaluator, and coach – provide a

holistic framework for implementing experiential learning. Teaching role selection is influenced by desired student learning mode, student signals, one’s teaching identity, and demands of the learning space. Because teaching roles are fluid rather than fixed, mechanisms for shifting among the roles can be employed. Effectively shifting between roles offers a relational way to intervene in student learning. Using ELT to Promote Ownership of the Learning Process

ELT calls for full engagement of students in the learning endeavor. Thus, in addition to the teaching role, consideration must be given to helping students take ownership of the learning process when designing study abroad programs and course activities. One way to do this is to educate students on the experiential learning cycle and their own learning style preferences. Surprisingly, many students have not thought about what learning is and do not understand their unique way of learning. Without explicit awareness, unconscious beliefs or “lay theories” govern the way individuals engage in the learning process (Molden & Dweck, 2006). In particular, Dweck and her colleagues have examined the differences between those who see their abilities and attributes as fixed and those who believe that they can incrementally learn and change themselves. Those individuals who believe that they can learn and develop have a learning identity. The learner faces a difficult challenge with a “mastery response” while the person with a fixed identity is more likely to withdraw or quit. Learners embrace challenge, persist in the face of obstacles, learn from criticism and are inspired by and learn from the success of others.

13

The fixed identity person avoids challenge, gives up easily, avoids criticism and feels threatened by the success of others. Not surprisingly, students with a learning identity, regardless of their tested intelligence, are more successful in school than those with a fixed identity (Kolb & Kolb, 2009b).

Educating students on experiential learning and their learning style helps develop a

learning identity. ‘Learning to learn’ interventions have led to increased classroom motivation and reversed a decline in grades (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007), as well as significant improvements in adolescents’ achievement test scores (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003) and higher grades among college students (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Hutt, 2007). It is our contention that an understanding of the experiential learning process will empower students to feel more capable and be more effective at maximizing learning opportunities abroad.

The second strategy for empowering involvement in the learning process is to create

engaging learning environments using a variety of instructional methods. Curricula that emphasize active involvement, a variety of learning activities, and an element of choice tend to engender personal investment in learning. A word of clarification must be offered here. Popular practice suggests that curriculum should be designed to match the learning style of learners. While this idea is recommended by many learning style models other than ELT and is the basis for testing the validity of the learning style concept for some researchers (Pashler, et. al., 2008); it is not the recommended approach in ELT. The ELT approach is to build curriculum around the cycle of learning in such a way that all learning modes are used and all styles of learning are engaged. In this way, every program, course, or class session has something to engage and connect with learners of every style. Learners are also encouraged to develop learning style flexibility and to move freely around the learning cycle.

Svinick and Dixon (1987) describe a comprehensive instructional model to deal with the

constraints and challenges instructors and students encounter as they adopt experiential learning as an instructional design framework. They offer an instructional design model that incorporates a broad range of learning activities that leads students through the full cycle of learning, thus giving teachers a rich array of instructional choices, as well as the benefit of offering students a more complete learning experience gained from multiple perspectives. The model is also useful in responding to the one of the key challenges of the experiential methods - the understanding of the role of the student in the learning process. As the model in Figure 6 suggests, teachers are able to design the learning activities based upon how much student involvement would be appropriate given the time constraint most instructors face. Activities at the outer rim of the learning cycle allows for a greater student involvement, while those close to the center involve limited student participation.


---------------------------------------------- Third, students take ownership of learning by building diverse learning relationships.

ELT defines learning relationships to be connections between one or more individuals that promote growth and movement through the learning spiral, ultimately inspiring future learning and relationship building. A connection is constituted by an interaction or series of interactions,

14

which build toward a deeper relationship. Similar to Fletcher and Ragins’ (2007) description of the development of a mentoring relationship through a series of small ‘episodes,’ learning relationships evolve as learning interactions increase in quality and frequency. Each interaction carries with it a sentiment, or emotional charge, which sets the tone for learning. Interactions characterized by compassion, mutual respect and support build the trust and positive emotional resources necessary to create space for learning – even when learning is challenging. Such growth-fostering relationships have been found to cultivate an increased sense of vitality; ability to take action; clarity about self and the relationship; sense of self-worth; and desire to form more connections in both parties (Miller & Stiver, 1997).

In the context of study abroad, possibilities for learning relationships are vast.

Professors, staff, peers, homestay families, roommates, internship supervisors and coworkers, tour guides, local citizens, and even tourists represent individuals who might comprise a student’s network of learning relationships abroad. Within this network, study abroad educators are uniquely positioned to intervene in student learning through holistic relationships with students that extend beyond the walls of the classroom. In fact, Nevitt Sanford (1968) suggested that one of the environments where authentic student-faculty relationships are best fostered is on foreign campuses. “In those relatively small communities abroad, many [students] learned for the first time what intellectual fellowship is and how rewarding a teacher can be when he is encouraged to reveal himself as a person. Students have an opportunity to see him in a variety of roles – as husband, father, traveling companion, gourmet, connoisseur of the arts, and member of a complex human community” (Sanford, 1968, p. 172). Meaningful relationships abroad not only ease the adaptive challenge of living abroad, they also facilitate transformative learning and the development of cultural competence. Conclusion

Study abroad programs are rich with opportunities for growth and development. These learning opportunities are best realized through an intentional process of transforming experience into knowledge. This chapter illuminated one such process by highlighting the fundamentals of experiential learning theory – the cycle of experiential learning, learning styles, learning flexibility, learning space, and the EL theory of development or learning spiral. In order to catalyze the application of theory to practice, the latter half of the chapter introduced key propositions for becoming an experiential educator, a discussion of teaching roles, and ideas for inspiring student ownership in the learning experience. It is our hope that these concepts will assist educators in intervening masterfully in the learning process in study abroad experiences, thereby maximizing student learning.

15

References Abbey, D. S., Hunt, D. E., & Weiser, J. C. (1985). Variations on a theme by Kolb: A new

perspective for understanding counseling and supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 13(3), 477-501.

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: the role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38,113-125

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H. & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development. 78(1), 246-263.

Border, L. L. B. (2007). Understanding learning styles: The key to unlocking deep learning and in-depth teaching. NEA Higher Education Advocate. 24(5), 5-8.

Boyatzis, R.E. (2009). Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 749-770.

Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1993). Adaptive Style Inventory: Self scored inventory and interpretation booklet . Boston: TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group. 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116,

Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). An empirical study of pluralism of learning and adaptive styles in an MBA program. Working paper 00-1. Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead of School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagodic creed. The School Journal. LIV(3), 77-80. Eickmann, P., Kolb, A. Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2004) Designing Learning. In Collopy, F. and

Boland, R. Managing as designing: Creating a new vocabulary for management education and research. Stanford University Press.

Fletcher, J.K. & Ragins, B.R. (2007). Stone Center relational cultural theory: A window on relational mentoring. In B.R. Ragins & K.E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 373-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gaff, J.G. & Gaff, S.S. (1981). Student-faculty relationships. In A. Chickering (Ed.). The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Good, C., Aronson, J. & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 24:645-662

Hunt, D.E. (1987). Beginning with ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Hutt, G. K. (2007). Experiential learning spaces: Hermetic transformational leadership for

psychological safety, consciousness development and math anxiety related inferiority complex depotentiation. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University

Jensen, P. & Kolb, D. (1994). Learning and development. In M. Keeton (ed.), Perspective in experiential learning. Chicago: Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL).

Joy, S. & Kolb, D. A. (2007). Are There Cultural Differences in Learning Style? Working paper. Department of Organizational Behavior Case Western Reserve University.

16

Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International

Journal of Intercultural Relations 33(1), 69-85. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., & Snoek, J.D. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in

Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley & Sons. Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2005a). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential

learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 4(2), 193-212.

Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A. (2005b). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory-Version 3.1: 2005 Technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct. www.learningfromexperience.com

Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2006a). Learning style and learning spaces: A review of the multidisciplinary application of experiential learning theory in higher education. In Sims, R., and Sims, S. (Eds.). Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the

accountability demands in education. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.* Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2009b). On becoming a learner : The concept of learning identity.

In Bamford-Rees et. al. (Eds.), Learning never ends: Essays on adult learning inspired

by the life and work of David O. Justice Chicago, IL: CAEL Forum and News* Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2009a). The learning way: Méta-cognitive aspects of experiential

learning. Simulation and Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 40(3), 297-327. Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2011a). The Teaching Role Profile. Boston, MA: Hay Resources

Direct. www.learningfromexperience.com Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2011b). Experiential Learning Theory Bibliography: Volume 1

1971-2005. Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. Cleveland, OH. www.learningfromexperience.com

Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2011c). Experiential Learning Theory Bibliography: Volume 2 2006-2011. Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. Cleveland, OH. www.learningfromexperience.com

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kolb, D. A. (2007). The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1: LSI workbook. Boston, MA: Hay Learning Transformations.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin

Cartwright.). Harpers. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1951-06769-000&site=ehost-live

Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., and Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive flexibility: Testing experiential learning theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5-33.

Maturana, H. (1970). The biology of cognition. In Maturana and Varela Autopoeisis and cognition. 1980

Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1980). Autopoeisis and cognition. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4-Mat System: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode

techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel, Inc. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mentkowski, M. & Associates. (2000). Learning That Lasts: Integrating Learning,

http://www.learningfromexperience.com/




17

Development, and Performance in College and Beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, J.B. & Stiver, I. (1997). The healing connection. Boston: Beacon Press. Molden, D. C. & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in Psychology: A lay theories

approach to self-regulation, social perception and social development. American Psychologist. 61(3):192-203

Nicoll-Senft, J.M. & Seider, S.N. (2010). Assessing the impact of the 4MAT teaching model across multiple disciplines in higher education. College Teaching, 58, 19-27.

Palmer, P. (1997). The heart of a teacher: identity and integrity in teaching. Retrieved March 6, 2011from: http://www.couragerenewal.org/parker/writings/heart-of-a-teacher.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 9(3): 106-119

Reese, J. H. (1998). Enhancing Law students' performance: Learning style interventions. Saratoga Springs, NY: The National Center on Adult Learning, Empire State College.

Sanford, N. (1968). Where colleges fail: A study of student as person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Svinick, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, 35(4), 141-146.

Zull, J. (2002), The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

18

Figure 1. Experiential Learning Cycle

CONCRETEEXPERIENCE

REFLECTIVEOBSERVATION

ABSTRACTCONCEPTUALIZATION

ACTIVEEXPERIMENTATION

TRANSFORM EXPERIENCE

GRASP

EXPERIEN

CE

The Experiential Learning Cycle

19

Figure 2. Distinguishing Characteristics of Learning Style Types

20

Figure 3. The ELT Learning Space of an MBA Program

Learning Styles of MBA Students (n = 1286)

Concrete Experience

Initiating

10.1%

Experiencing

6%

Imagining

5.1%

Active Experimentation

Acting 13.5%

Balancing

10.2%

Reflecting

9.3%

Reflective Observation

Deciding

12.7%

Thinking

17%

Analyzing

16%

Abstract

Conceptualization

Figure 4. ELT Theory of Development

21

Figure 5. Experiential Learning Cycle and Teaching Roles

22

Figure 6. Instructional Activities by Student Involvement Adapted from: Svinick, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, 35(4), 141-146.

23

Table 1. Examples of Beliefs, Goals, Styles, and Practices Associated with Teaching Roles. Educator Role

Beliefs: “Learning occurs best when…”

Goals: “My students develop…”

Style: “As a teacher, I prefer to be…”

Practices: “Instructional forms I often use include …”

Facilitator

it begins with the learners experience

Empathy & understanding of others

Creative; warm; affirming

Class discussion, journals, personal stories

Expert

new concepts are integrated into existing mental frameworks

Analytic & conceptual abilities

Logical; authoritative

Lectures, readings, written assignments

Evaluator

clear standards and feedback are provided

Problem solving skills

Structured; outcome-oriented; objective

Laboratories, graded homework assignments

Coach

it takes place in a real-life context

Ability to work productively with others

Applied; collaborative; risk-taking

Field projects, role plays, simulations

What Promotes AdaptiveMotivation? Four,Beliefs and FourTruths About Ability, Success,Praise, and Confidence

The hallmark of successful individuals is that they love learning, they seek chal-lenges, they value effort, and they persist in the face of obstacles (see Sorieh &Dweck, in press). In this book, I present research that explains why some studentsdisplay these "mastcry-oriented" qualities and others do not. This research chal·lenges several beliefs that are common in our society:

1. The belief that students with high ability are more likely to display mastery·oriented qualities. You might think that students who were highly skilledwould be the ones who relish a challenge and persevere in the face of setbacks.Instead, many of these students are the most worried about failure, and themost likely to question their ability and to wilt when they hit obstacles(Leggett, 1985; Licht &:: Dweck, 1984a,b; Licht &:: Shapiro, 1982; see also Stipek &::Hoffman, 1980).

2. The belief that success in school directly fosters mastery-oriented qualities.You might also think that when students succeed, they are emboldened andenergized to seek out more challenging tasks. The truth is that success in itselfdocs little to boost students' desire for challenge or their ability to cope withsetbacks. In fact, we will see that it can have quite the opposite effect (Diener &::Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck, 1975; Kamins &:: Dweck, in press; Leggett, 1985;Licht &:: Dweck, 19841'; Mueller &:: Dweck, 1998).

3. The belief that praise, particularly praising a students' intelligence, encour-ages mastery-oriented qualities. This is a most cherished belief in our society.One can hardly walk down the street without hearing parents telling their chil-

2 Sell-Theories What Promotes Ad,lptive Motivatioll? 3

dren how smart they are. The hope is that such praise will instill confidenceand thereby promote a host of desirable qualities. 1will show that far from pro-moting the hoped-for qualities, this type of praise can lead students to {eM fail-ure, avoid risks, doubt themselves when they fail, and cope poorly with sct-backs (Kamins & Dweck, in press; Mueller & Dweck, 1998).

4. The belief lhat students' confidence in their intelligence is the key to mas-tery-oriented qualities. In a woy, it seems only logical to assume that studentswho have confidence in their intelligence-who clearly believe they arcsmart-would have nothing to fear from challenge and would be somehow in-oculated against the ravages of failure. It may seem logical, but it is not thewhole story, or even most of it. Many of the most confident individuals do notwant their intelligence too stringently tested, and their high confidence is alltoo quickly shaken when they arc confronted with difficulty (Henderson &-Dweck, 1990; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, &- Lin, 1998; Zhao, Dweck, & Mueller, 1998;see Hong, Chiu, &- Dweck, 1995).

There is no question that our society's ideas about success, praise, and confi-dence are intuitively appealing. They grow out of the reasonable conviction thatif students believe in their abilities, they will thrive. How can that not be true?1am not suggesting that failure and criticism are more beneficial than success

and praise. Nor am I arguing that a feeling of confidence isn't a good thing tohave, but I will argue that it is not the heart of motivation or the key to achieve-ment.As I describe my program of research on these issues, you will understand why

each of the beliefs just presented is erroneous. You will understand why ability,success, intelligence praise, and confidence do not make students value effort, orseck challenges, or persist effectively in the face of obstacles. And why they mayoften have quite the opposite effect.What, then, arc the beliefs that foster the mastery-oriented qualities we wish

for?

o Two Frameworks for UnderstandingIntelligence and Achievement

Mastery-oriented qualities grow out of the way people understand intelligence,and there are two entirely different ways that people understand intelligence.Let's look first at the view that does /101 promote mastery-oriented qualitil..'S assuccessfully.

The Theory of Fixed IntelligenceSome people believe that their intelligence is a fixed trait They have a certainamount of it and that's thaI. We call this an "entity theory" of intelligence becauseintelligence is portrayed as an entity that dwells within us and that we can'tchange (Bandura &- Dweck, 1985; Dweck &. Leggett, 1988).

This \'iew has many repercussions for students. It can make students worryabout how much of this fixed intelligence they have, and it can make them inter-ested first and foremost in looking and feeling like they have enough. They mustlook smart and, at all costs, not look dumb (Bandura &- Dweck, 1985; DWI..'Ck &-Leggett, 1988; Sorich &- Dweck, in press).Wh.)t makes students with an entity theory feel smart? Easy, low-effort suc-

cesses, and outperforming other students. Effort, difficulty, setbacks, or higher-performing peers call their intelligence into question-even for those who havehigh confidence in their intelligence (see DWC1:k &- Bempechat, 1983).The entity theory, then, is a system that requires a diet of easy successes. Chal-

lenges are a threat to self-esteem. In fact, students with an entity theory will read-ily pass up valuable learning opportunities if these opportunities might reveal in-adequacies or entail errors-and tftey readily disengage from tasks that poseobstacles, evell if they were pursuing them successfully shortly before (l3andura&- Dweck, 1985; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, &. Lin, 1998; Leggett. 1985; Mueller &Dweck, 1998; Sarich &- Dweck, in press; Stone, 1998; d. Diener &- Dweck, 1978; El-liott & Dweck, 1988).[ will show how we encourage vulnerabilities in our students when we try to

boost their self-esteem within this system. The well-meant successes we hand outand the praise for intelligence we lavish on them does not encourage a hardy,can-do mentality. What it does is foster an entity theory, an overconcern withlooking smart, a distaste for challenge, and a decreased ability to cope with set-backs (Dweck, 1975; KamiIlS &. Dweck, in press; Mueller &- Dweck, 1998). What'sthe alternative?

The Theory of Malleable IntelligenceOther people have a very different definition of intelligence. For them intelli-gence is not a fixed trait that they simply possess, but something they can culti-vate through learning. We call this an "incremental theory" of intelligence be-cause intelligence is portrayed as something that can be increased through one'sefforts (Bandura &. Dweck, 1985; Dweck & Leggett, 1988),It's not that people holding this theory deny that there are differences among

people in how much they know or in how quickly they master certain things atpresent. It's just that they focus on the idea that e\'eryone, with effort and guid-ance, can increase their intellectual abilities (Mueller &. Dweck, 1997; sec Binet,1909/1973).This view, too, has many repercussions for students. It makes them wanl to

learn. After all, if your intelligence can be increased why not do that? Why wastetime worrying about looking smart or dumb, when you could be becomingsmarter? And in fact students with this view will readily sacrifice opportunitiesto look smart in favor of opportunities to learn something new (Bandura &.Dweck, 1985; Leggett, 1985; Mueller &- Dweck, 1998; Sorich &. Dweck, in press;Stone, 1998; d. Elliott &. Dweck, 1988). Even students with ,In incremental theoryand /uw confidence in their intelligence thrive on challenge, throwing themselveswholeheartedly into difficult tasks-and sticking with them (Hendl'rson &-Dweck, 1990; Stone, 1998; cE. Elliott &- Dweck, 1988).

4 Self-Theories

What makt$ students with an incremental view feel smart? Engaging fullywith new tasks, exerting effort to master something, stretching their skills, andputting their knowledge to good use, for exnmple to help other students learn(see Bempechat &: Dweck, 1983).These are the kinds of things-effort and learning-that make incremental stu-

dents feel good about their intelligence. Easy tasks waste their lime rather thanraise their self-esteem.

D A Different View of Self-EsteemSelf-esteem, we will see, is something completely different in the incremental sys-tem. It is not an internal quantity that is fed by easy successes and diminished byfailures. It is a positive way of eKperiencing yourself when you are fully engagedand are using your abilities to the utmost in pursuit of something you value.It is not something we give to people by telling them about their high intelli-

gence. It is something we equip them to get for themselves-by leaching them tovalue learning over the appearance of smartness, to relish challenge and effort,and to use errors as routes to mastery.In the following chapters I describe the consequences of the two theories of

intelligence for motivation and achievement. But to understand the impact ofthe theories better, let us first take a closer look at what the theories create: thepatterns of vulnerability and hardiness that students display as they confrontdifficulty.

When Failure Underminesand When Failure·Motivates:Helpless and Mastery-OrientedResponses

Of all the things that intrigued me when I began this work, none intrigued memore than this: Many of the most accomplished students shied away from chal-lenge and fell apart in the face of setbacks. M,llly of the less skilled studentsseized challenges with relish and were energized by setbacks. How could this be?But the story got even stranger. Many very skilled students questioned or con-

demned their intelligence when they failed at a t.1sk. Mnny of the less skilled stu-dents never even remotely entertained such thoughts.You'd think that vulnerability would be based on the "reality" of students'

skills. But it isn't. Vulnerability is not about the actual ability students bring to atask. If it's not about the reality of their skill, what is it about? What could causebright students to think of themselves as dumb and fall aparl just because theyare having some trouble with a task? These questions led us to search for theprocesses thai are at the heart of students' motivational problems.

o The Helpless and Mastery-Oriented PatternsWe started by identifying two distinct re.1ctions to failure, which we called thelIe/pless and mnslery-oriellted patterns (Diener &: Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck, 1975;Dweck &: Reppucci, 1973). Martin Seligman and Steven Maier (Seligman &: Maier,1967) first identified helpless responses in animals. In their research, some ani-mals failed to leave a painful situation because they believed, erroneously, thatthe circumstances were beyond their control.

6 Self-Theories When Failure Undermines V5. Motivales 7

We used the term "helpless" to describe some students' view of failure-theview that once failure occurs, the situation is out of their control and nothing canbe done (Dweck. 1975; [hveck &: Reppucci. 1973).\ We later extended the helplessresponse to include all the reactions these students show when they meet failure:denigration of their intelligence, plunging expectations, negative emotions,lower persistence, and deteriorating performance (Diener &: Dweck, 1978).We used the term mnstery-oriellted to refer to the hardy response to failure be-

cause here students remain focused on achieving mastery in spite of their presentdifficullies (Diener &: Dweck, 1978.1980).Let us examine these pattems in action by taking a close look at the research

that revealed them. In this research, by Carol Diener and me (Diener & Dweck,1978,1980), we gave fifth- and sixth-grade students a series of conceptual prob-lems to solve. All children could solve the first eight problems, with hints ortraining if they needed it. But they could not solve the next four problems. Theseproblems were too difficult for children their age, and so we could see how theyreacted to this sudden obstacle. That is, we could see what happened to theirthoughts. feelings, and actions as they confronted difficulty.How did we do this? First, we could track changes in students' problem-solv-

ing strategies because the task we chose allowed us to pinpoint the exact strategythey used on each problem. So, we could look at the problem·solving strategiesthey used before the difficulty, compare them to the strategies they used after thedifficulty began, and sec if they showed improvement or impairment.Second, we trllcked changes in the thoughts and feelings they expressed while

they worked on the task. We did this by asking them to talk out loud as theyworked on the problems. We told them, "We're really interested in what studentsthink about when they work on the problems. Some students think about lunch,some think about recess, some think about what they're going to do after school,ilnd others think about how they're going to solve the problems." In other words,we gave them license to divulge any thoughts and feelings no matter how seem-ingly inappropriate. And they did. As with the strategies, we could see thechanges in what they talked about before and after the difficult problems began.We also asked students a number of questions after the difficult problems-for

example, how well they thought they would now do if they went back to theoriginal success problems, and how many problems they remembered gettingright and wrong.When we examined the students' strategies, along with the thoughts and feel-

ings they expressed, we could see two dramatically different reactions.But first I should explain a few things. One is that before the experiments we

divided the students into two groups: those who were likely to show the helplessresponse and those who were likely to show the mastery-oriented response. Wedid this by asking them to fill out a questionnaire (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Cran-dall, 1965); we knew from our past research that this questionnaire could predictwho would show persistence versus nonpersistence in the face of failure (Dweck,1975; Dweck & 1973; see also Weiner &: Kukla, 1970). But now wewanted to see whether it would predict a whole array of mastery-oriented andhelpless responses.

Second, in all of our studies that involve any difficulty, we take elaborate stepsto make sure that all students leave our experiment feeling proud of their perfor-mance. We have worked out detailed procedures for giving students feelings ofmastery on the difficult tasks. To begin with, we explain to them that the failureproblems were in fact too difficult for them because they were actually designedfor older children: Because they had done so well on the earlier problems, wewanted to sec how they would do on these. We then carefully take Ihem throughto mastery of the difficult problems, praising their effort and strategies-which,we will see, is what fosters responses. This procedure, of course,varies somewhat from study to study, but in all cases we go to great lengths to en·sure that students interpreltheir experience as one of mastery.Finally, you may be curious about what percentage of students tend to show

a helpless response and what tend to show a mastery-oriented re-sponse. The answer is lhat it's about half and half. There are some students inthe middle (maybe 15%) who dOll't really fit into either group, but aside fromthat the remaining students divide pretty equally between the helpless and mas-tery-oriented groups. This is true for all of the studies I discuss throllghoutthebook. I am never t.,lking about a few extreme students. ! am talking about almosteveryone.

o The Helpless PatternWhen we monitored students' problem-solving strategies and their statements asthey went from success to failure, two very distinct patterns emerged. Let's lookfirst at the group showing the helpless response and examine their thoughts,their feelings, and their performance.Maybe the most striking thing about this group was how quickly they began to

denigrate their abilities and blame their intelligence for the failures, saying thingslike "I guess I'm not very smart," "I never did have a good memory," and "I'm nogood at things like this." More than a third of the students in this group sponta-neously denigrated their intellectual ilbility; none of the students in the mastery-oriented group did so.What was so striking about this was that only moments before, these students

had had an unbroken string of successes. Their intelligence and their memorywere working just fine. What's more, during these successes their performancewas every bit as good as that of the group. Still, only a shortwhile after the difficult problems began, they lost faith in their intellect.And they did so to such a degree that over a third of the children in this group,

when asked whether they thought they could now solve the same problems theysolved before, did not think they could. The students in the mastery-orientedgroup all were certain Ihey could redo the original problems, and many of themthought the question itself was a ridiculous one.Not only did the children in the helpless group lose faith in their ability to suc-

ceed ilt the task in the future, but they also lost perspective on the successes they

8 Self-Theories When Failure Undermines vs. Motivates 9

had achieved in the past. We asked the students to try 10 remember how manyproblems they had solved successfully (there were eight) and how many prob-lems they had not (there were four). Thus the correct answer was that there weretwice as many solved problems as unsolved ones.But students showing the helpless response were so discouraged by the diffi·

cully that they actually thought they had more failures than successes. They re-membered only five successes, but Ihey remembered six failures. That is, theyshrank their successes and inflated their failures, maybe because the failures wereso meaningful to them. The mastery-oriented group recalled the numbers quiteaccurately.Thus, the students showing the helpless response quickly began to doubt their

intelligence in the face of failure and to lose faith in their ability to perform thetask. To make matters worse, even the successes they had achieved were, in theirminds, swamped by their failures.How did they feel about the whole situation? When we looked at the emotions

Ihey expressed during the task, we again saw a rapid change with the onset offailure. These students had been quite pleased with themselves, the task, and thesituation during the successful trials, but they began to express a variety of nega-tive feelings once they began having trouble with the task. Many claimed theywere now bored, even though they had been happily involved only moments be-fore. Two thirds of the students in the helpless group expressed notable negativeaffect; only one student in the mastery-oriented group did so.We also began to note some very interesting ways these students had of dealing

with their anxiety and self-doubt. For example, one child, in the middle of thefailure problems, stopped to inform us that she was soon to be an heiress, and an-other reported that she had been cast as Shirley Temple in the school play. Inother words, they tried to call attention to their successes in other realms.Other children in this group tried to distract attention from their failures in an

equally novel way: They tried to change the rules of the task. Since they did notseem to be succeeding on the task as we defined it, they would make it into a dif-ferent game and succeed on their own terms. One boy, for example, kept pickingthe same wrong answer (a brown object) because, he kept telling \IS, he likedchocolate cake.In other words, these students were no longer applying themselves to the prob-

lem at hand.Not surprisingly, we saw big drops in the performance of this group. On the

success problems, all of them had been using sophisticated and effective prob-lem-solving strategies for children thcir age. In fact, they were every bit as goodat the task as the mastery-oriented students. But during the difficult problems,two thirds of them showed a clear deterioration in their strategies, and more thanhalf of the children in the helpless group lapsed into completely ineffective strat-egics. For ex"mple, they would just keep making wild guesses at the answerinstead of using the inform"tion they were given. Or they might JUSI keep choos-ing the answer on the right hand side. Or, like the boy described above, they keptpicking answers for personal reasons that had nothing to do with the realtask. These are strategies that preschool children might lise, not fifth gr"ders.And they are not strategies that would have allowed them to solve even the eas-

ier problems they had solved earlier. In short, the majority of students in thisgroup abandoned or became incapable of deploying the effective strategies intheir repertoire.But wasn't this in some ways a realistic and even adaptive reaction 10 the fail-

ure problems? Weren't they in fact too difficult to be solved by these students?The trouble with this "helpless" response was, first, that these children gave uptrying far too quickly, before they had a real idea of what they were capable of do-ing. The second, even more important, thing was that they did not Simply decidein an objective manner that the task was too hard: They condemned their abilitiesand fell into a depressed or anxious mood. These ways of dealing with obstaclesmake the helpless response a clearly less adaptive one.What's more, in other studies we gave students readily solvable problems after

the difficult ones (e.g., Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). In fact, we gavethem problems that were almost identical to problems they had solved earlier inthe session. Yet, students in the helpless group were less likely to solve theseproblems than the students in the mastery-oriented group. This was true eventhough everyone was highly motivated to solve the problems. In some of thesestudies (Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) we made absolutely sure thatstudents were eager to solve the problems by having them work toward very at-tractive toys that they had personally selected.These findings show that the helpless response is not just an accurate nppraisal

of the situation. It is a reaction to failure that carries negative implications for theself and that impairs students' ability to use their minds effectively.

o The Mastery-Oriented PatternThe mastery-oriented response stands in stark contrast. Lei's begin by looking athow these students understood the difficult problems. We StlW that students inthe helpless group blamed their intelligence when they hit failure. What did thestudents in the mastery-oriented group blame? The answer, which surprised us,was that they did not blame anything. They didn't focus on reasons for the fail-urt's. In fact, they didn't even seem to consider themselves to be failing.Certainly, they had bumped up against difficulty, but nothing in their words or

actions indicated that Ihey thought this was anything more than a problem to betackled. So, while the students in the helpless group had quickly begun question-ing their ability (and had quickly lost hope of future success), students in themastery-oriented group began issuing instructions to themselves on how theycould improve their performance.Some of these were self-motivating instructions: "The harder it gets, the harder I

need to try," or "f should slow down and try to figure this out." Some of these weremore oriel\ted toward the cognitive aspects of the task, such as reminding them-selves of what they had learned so far about the problem they were working on.Almost all of the students in the mastery-oriented group engaged in some form

of self-instruction or self-monitoring designed to aid their performance; almostnone of the students in the helpless group did this. So, in response to obstaclesthe mastery-oriented group just dug in more vigorously.

10 Self·Theories When Failwc Undermines vs. Molivil1es 11

They also remained vcry confident that they would succeed, saying things like"I've almost got it now" or asking for a few more chances on a problem becauscthey felt sure they were on the verge of getting it. About two thirds of the stu-dents in the mastery-oriented group-but virtually none of the students in thehelpless group-issued some sort of optimistic prediction.How did they feel? This group tended to maintain the positive mood they had

displayed during the success problems, but some of them became even hnppierabout the task. We will never forget one young man, who, when the difficultproblems started, pulled up his chair. nlbbed his hands together, smack('C! hislips, and said, "I lOll(' a challenge." Or another, who as the difficulty began, told usin a matter-of-fact voice "You know, I was Iloping this would be informative." Oranother child who asserted cheerfully, "Mistakes are our friend."For us, it was as though a lightbulb went on. We had thought that you coped

with failure or you didn't cope with failure. We didn't think of failure as a thingto embrace with relish. These students were teaching us what tnle mastery-ori-poted reactions were.So. far from lamenting their predicament, the mastery-oriented students wel-

comed thc chance to confront and overcome obstacles.How did they perform? In line with their optimism and their efforts, most of

the students in this group (more than 80%) maintained or improved the quality oftheir strategies during the difficult problems. A full quarter of the group actuallyimproved. They taught themselves new and more sophisticated strategies for ad-dressing the new and more difficult problems. A few of them even solved theproblems that were supposedly beyond them.This response stilnds in clear opposition to tne helpless response, where stu-

dents took the difficulty as a sign of inadequacy, fell into a sort of despair, and re-mained mired in it. The mastery-oriented students, recognizing Inat more wouldbe required of them, simply summoned their resources and applied themselvesto the task at ha.,d. Thus, even though they were no better than the helpless chil-dren on the original success problems, they ended up showing a much higherlevel of performance.Were they fooling themselves by remaining optimistic on a task that was essen-

tially beyond them? As I mentioned, some of them actually mastered the taskthrough their efforts. But that aside, what did they have to lose by trying? Whatdid the effort cost them? Not much, because-and this is crucial-they were /lotseeing/ai/lire as all iudietment 0/ themselves, and so the risk for them was not great.For the students in the helpless group, however, Iheir whole intelligence, and

perhaps their self-worth, seemed to be on the line, with each unsuccessful effort un-dermining it further (sec Covington, 1992). There. the risk could hardly be greater.

o Helpless and Mastery-Oriented Responsesin the Classroom

ratory phenomenon, and so we devised a new unit of material for students tolearn in their classrooms: "Psychology, Why We Do the Things We Do."In this study by Barbara Licht and me (Licht & Dweck, 1984a), we identified

fifth-grade students who were likely 10 show the helpless response and thosewho were likely to show it mastery-oriented one, again by means of a question-naire. TI'cn, some time later, in their classes, we gave these students instructionalbooklets thaI guided them through the new m"terial.How did we check for a helpless response? Half of the booklets had confusing

pi1lchcs near Ihe beginning. The question was whether students who were proneto thc helpless response would be hampered in their learning after they experi-enced the confusion.We looked for a subject to teileh the students that would be different from any-

thing they had learned in school. y(\} didn't want them to come to the task withpreconceived notions about how good they were in that subject. We also w.lntedto teach th('m something that they could later use to solve problems we gavethem, so that we could test their mastery of the material.What we taught them were some of the principles of learning. They learned,

with amusing examples and illustrations, tbat if they did something (like goingdancing) and a good thing resulted (like having a good. time), then Ihey werelikely 10 do that Same thing again. Similarly. they learned that if they did some-thing (like eating some food) and a bad thing resulted (they got sick), then they'dbe less likely to repeat the behavior. Finally, they learned that <l big good thingoutweighed a small bad thing (and a big bad thing outweighed a small goodthing) in determining whether they were likely to repeat the behavior.At the end of the booklet was a seven-question mastery test. We considered stu-

dents to have mastered the material if they got all seven questions correct, sincethe questions were fairly direct ones that stuck close to the material we had pre-sented. If students did not demonstrate mastery on the firsl booklet, they weregiven a review booklet and another mastery test.We look sleps to prevent students from perceiving the review booklets as mean-

ing they had failed. When i't review booklet was necessary, the experimenter said tothe child in a friendly, nonevaluati\l'e tonc: "You didn't qllite get it all yet, so I'd likeyou to review this. I put an 'X' back here by the kind of question{s) that you missed.So pay special attention to that (those) question(s). But I'd like you 10 review it allagain." Altogether, students had four opportunities to master the material.To see how the helpless response would affectleaming we made two different

versions of the initial instruction booklet-one that contained difficulty and onethat did not. In both versions, near the beginning. we inserted a short section ofirrelevant material, namely, a passage on imitation. In one version, the passagewas written in a clear, straightforward way, but in the other it was writtcn in amuddy and tortuous style, a style that looked comprehensible on tile surfacc butwas quite confusing. Here is a sample of the confusing passage:

After spelling out the helpless and mastery-oriented patterns, we wanted tomake sure that these patterns actually affected students' learning in school. Wewanted to be completely sure that we were not just creating and studying a labo-

How can one best describe the nature of the people who will most of all be that waywhich willll1nke the imitating of others hilppen most often? Is it thilt these are thepeople we want to be like beco1USC th<,y are fine or is it that these are the people wewanllo be liked by?

12 Self-Theories When Failure Undermines liS. Motivates 13

Now, this passage had nothing to do with the real material the students had 10learn, and so the confusing passage did not rob them of any information theyneeded 10 solve the mastery problems later. But it allowed us to sec how confu-sion at the beginning of a new unit would affect learning for students who wereprone to a helpless response.The results were striking. When students received booklets that had no confu-

sion, those who wcre prone to a helpless response and those who were prone to amastery-oriented response looked pretty much the same. Over two-thirds of thestudents in both groups mastered the material during the session: 76.6% of thehelpless group and 68.4% of the mastery-oriented group got the sevcn masteryquestions correct-not a significant difference. This is right in line with our previ-ous findings that before failure occurs the two groups of students seem to haveequal ability at the tasks we give them. In this study we also had the IQ andachievement-test scores of the students, which again showed the two groups tobe equivalent in their C\lrrent academic skills.However, when students got the booklet with the confusing passage, the two

groups looked very different from each other. The mastery-oriented students stilllooked good, with 71.9% of them mastering the material. However, the studentsin the helpless group clearly suffered from their confrontation with confusion:Only 34.6% of them were able to master the task. This means that many studentswho had the necessary skills failed to learn the material because they couldn'tcope with the initial confusion, the same confusion that didn't disrupt themastery-oriented group one bit.One reason we chose a confusing passage as the way to present an obstacle was

that new units may pose just this kind of obstacle, especially as students go on inschool. For example, as students move on from arithmetic to algebra, geometry,or trigonometry, new concepts and new conceptual frameworks are being intro-duced. Students may have no idea how these new concepts relate to what theylearned before, and they may find themselves in the dark for a while.Students prone to the helpless pattern may easily react with self-doubt and dis-

ruption, deciding prematurely that they aren't any good in the subject. Thiswould put them at a real disadvantage as school progresses, especially in areaS ofmath and science that really ask the student to enter a new conceptual world.This study showed that a helpless response could hamper learning of new ma-

terial in a classroom setting.. and made it even more important for us to under-stand the underlying causes of the helpless and mastery-oriented responses.

o Some Thoughts About the Two PatternsI have been stressing the fact that the helpless and mastery-oriented groupsare equivalent in the cognitive skills they bring 10 a task. The reason they mayend up displaying such different levels of performance is that one group essen-tially retires its skills in the face of failure, while the other continues to use themvigorously.Why is it difficult for us-and often for teachers-to realize that very bright

students may display this pattern? Perhaps because much of the work bright

students receive is relatively easy for them and they are usually able to avoidreally confronting difficulty. Then why should we be concerned? The reasonis that sooner or later everyone confronts highly challenging work, if not ingrade school, then certainly at some point later on. Rather than meeting thesechallenges head on, helpless students may suffer unnecessary self-doubt andimpairment.Equally important, students are confronted with more and more choices as

they go on in school (Eccles, 1984). The choices that ensure ready success andavoidance of failure are likely to be limiting ones.It is also important to realize that the helpless response, if it is a habitual re-

sponse to challenge, will nol just limit students' achievement of tasks that othersgive them. It will limit their of their own goals. All valued, long-term goals involve obstacles. If obstacles are seen as posing a real threat and jfthey prompt grave self-doubts and withdrawal, then pursuit of these goals willsurely be compromised.If, on the other hand, difficulty is treated as a natural part of things and chal-

lenge is welcomed, how can this help but foster the achievement of goals?The effectiveness of a mastery-oriented approach was dramatically illustrated

in the following conversation I overheard between two undergraduates I'll callCharles and Bob. They were talking about a very challenging computer-sciencecourse, one that was meant to weed out the fainthearted. Charles had taken ittwice, receiving a 0 the first time and a B+ the second. Bob was currently taking itand was expecting at most a C but was thinking that he too might take it over.They then went on to discuss whether they would major in computer science.Never once did either of them consider whether he might not be good in this sub-ject. They simply S01W computer science as a subject in which you had to workreally hard and maybe retake somc of lhe most challenging courses. Their deci-sion about whether to major in it would rest, they decided, on how interestedthey were in it and how hard they were willing to work.I had little doubt that if these young men did decide to pursue computer sci-

ence they would succeed admirably. Yet r was amazed by this conversation. Itwas so different from how rwas in college. If I had received a grade that was lessthan 1had hoped for, I would never have dreamt of discussing it in public. More-over, if I had ever received a C or D in a course, I would never in a million yearshave considered majoring in that subject. I'm sure that my interests would haveimmediately shifted elsewhere. I admired Charles and Bob greatly for keepingtheir options open and for recognizing that with continued effort they could mas-ter skills they valued.Are we saying that dogged persistence is always the best strategy? Not really.

While recognizing the importance of confronting obstacles, wecan also recognizethe importance of knowing when to opt out of a task-say, when it is truly be-yond someone's current capabillties or when the cost of persisting is too great(see Janoff-Bulman & Brickman, 1981, for a cogent discussion of these issues).The mastery-oriented response is one that allows persistence, but it does nol

force anyone to persist when a rational analysis suggests doing otherwise. In fact,overpersistence can in some ways be more like the helpless response. Some mayrefuse to give up because an <ldmission of defeat is 100 great a blow to their ego.

14 Self-Theories

Richard Nixon, in the wake of the Watergate hearings, was facing almost certainimpeachment and conviction. Yet for a long time he refused to give up his presi-dency, saying. "You're never a f"'ilure until you give up." He was equaling givingup not simply with failure but with being a failure.In both cases-either getting out too quickly or staying in too long-the mal-

odaptive response is based on the concern that failure spells serious personal in-adequacy.

After we pinpointed the helpless and mastery-oriented potterns, a very impor-tont question remained: Wi,y do students of equ,,1 ability have such dramaticallydifferent reactions to failure? As we will see in the next chapter, the belief thatfailure measures you is a key factor.

o NoteI. See also He<:khausen &: O\ve<:k, 1998; He<:khausen 0$1; Schulz, 1995; Rothbaum. Wein, &:Snyder, 1982; Rotter, 1966; Skinner. 1995; Skinner &: Wellborn. 1994; Weiner 0$1; Kukla.1970; Weiner. Hcckhausen, 0$1; Meyer, 1972, for discussions of beliefs about control andtheir impliciltions (or coping.

Achievement Goals:Looking Smart Versus Learning

Why do some students react to an obstacle as though it's a painful condemnation,when others see the same obstacle as a welcome challenge? Maybe, we thought,achievement situations are about totally different things for different students.For some students, they are tests of their intelligence, and when they hit prob-lems they're failing the intelligence test. For the others, the same situations areopportunities to learn new things.So Elaine Elliott and I proposed that helpless and maslery-oriented students

have different goals in achievement situations, and that these goals help create thehelpless and master-oriented responses (Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Elliott & Dweck,1988; see also Dweck, 1986, 1990, 1991).We identified two different goals. The first is a "performance goaL" This goal is

about winning positive judgments of your competence and avoiding negativeones. In other words, when students pursue performance goals they're concernedwith their level of intelligence: They want to look smart (to themselves or others)and avoid looking dumb.Sometimes students do this by playing it safe and completely avoiding mis-

takes. Other times they do it by taking on a harder task, but one they think they'repretty sure to do well at. Actually, the best tasks for purposes of looking smart areones that are hard for others but not for you.The other goal is a "leanting goal:" the goal of increasing your competence. It

reflects a desire to learn new skills, master new tasks, or understand newthings-a desire to get smarter.1Both goals are entirely normal and pretty much universal, and both can fuel

achievement (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron,Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Stone, 1998). AU students want to be validated fortheir skills and their accomplishments. They also want to develop their skills andknowledge. So it's not that there is anything wrong with either kind of goal.

16 Self-Theories Achievement Goals 17

A performance goal is about measuring ability. It focuses students on measuringthemselves from their performance, and so when they do poorly they may con-demn their intelligence and fan into a helpless response.A learning goal is about mastering new things. The attention here is on finding

strategies for learning. When things don't go well, this has nothing to do with thestudent's intellect. It simply means that the right strategies have not yet beenfound. Keep looking.In a study by Elaine Elliott and me (Elliott & Dweck, 1988), we showed how

performance and learning goals can directly create helpless and mastery-orientedresponses.In this study, with fifth-grade shldcnts, we gave students a performance goal or

a learning goal. The students who were given a performance goal were told thattheir ability would be evaluated from their performance on the upcoming task. Incontrast, the students who were given a learning goal 'were told that the taskwould offer them an opportunity to learn some \'aluable things.This sort of thing happens all the time in classrooms. Some classrooms empha-

size evaluation and ability and foster performance goals in students. Others em-

In fact, in the best of all possible worlds, students could achieve both goals atthe same time. That is, they could pursue tasks with the aim of developing theirabilities, and these tasks could also earn them the positive appraisals they seek.And this is sometimes possible.Unfortunately, in the real world, learning and performance goals are often in

conflict, and the questiOll becomes: Which is more important? The tasks that arcbest for learning are often challenging ones that involve displaying ignorance andrisking periods of confusion ilnd errors. The tasks that are best for looking smartare often ones that students are already good at and won't really learn much fromdoing.What do students do when the two go.,ls are pitted against each other and they

must pursue one or the other? They must choose a task that would allow them tolook smart, but at the s.'crifice of learning something useful and important. Orthey must choose a task that would allow them to learn something new and usc-ful, but at the sacrifice of looking smart.Different students, when asked to choose, opt for different goals. About half of

them select performance goals as their preferred goal and half select learninggoals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Farrell, 1986; Mueller & Dweck, 1997; Sarich &Dweck, in press; Slone, 1998). Although [ have argued that both types of goals arenatural, we have found that an overemphasis on performance goals is a dangersignal.First an overemphasis on performance goals can drive out learning goals, lead-

ing students to pass up valuable learning opportunities if they involve any risk oferrors. Second, an overemphasis on performance goals can foster a helpless re-sponse. How would this happen?

o Goals Create Helpless VersusMastery-Oriented Responses

phasizc progress and mastery on valued tasks and foster learning goals (Ames,1992; Maehr &. Midgley, 1996; Midgley, Anderman, &. Hicks, 1995; Stipek, 1996).In fact, in our study, all students got the same task to work on. Bul some ap-

proached it with performance goals and some with learning goals.The task began with a series of successes, and the two goal groups performed

equally well on them. These were followed by several difficult problems. As inearlier studies, we charted what happened to students' thoughts, feelings, andperformance as they went from success to difficulty.Who! happened was very interesting. Many of the students with performance

goals showed it clear helpless pattern in response to difficulty. A number of themcondemned their ability, and their problem-solving deteriorated.In sharp contrast, most of the students with learning showt.'d a clear mas-

tery-oriented pattern. In the face of1ailure, they did not worry about their intel-leel, they remained focused on the task, and they maintained their effectivc prob-lem-solving strategies (see Ames, 1984; Ames & Archer, 1988; Stipek & Kowalski.1989; cf. Butler, 1992).This study showed the power of goals. We did not start out by identifying chil-

dren who were prone to a hclpless or mastery-oriented pattern. We simply gavechildren different goals and showed how thesc goals could produce the helplessand mastery-oriented responses. When children arc focused on measuring them-selves from their performance, failure is more likely to provoke a helpless re-sponse. When children are instead focused on learning, failure is likely to pro-voke continued effort.This study also had another facet. Some children were told at the start of the

study that they had the ability to do really well at the task. Others were told (tem-porarily) that their level of ability at the task was not so high. For students withperformance goals, this message made a real difference: Students who were cer-tain of their high ability were more likely to hold on in the face of failure and re-main mastery-oriented. But students who thought their ability WaS lower fellright into a helpless response.For students with learning goals, this message made no difference: Students

who thought they had lower ability were jllst as mastery-oriented as those whothought their ability was high. They were just as challenge-st.'Cking and just as ef-fective in the face of difficulty. This means that with a learning goal, students don'thave to feel that they're already good at something in order to hang in and keeptrying. After all, their goal is to learn, not to provc they're smart. 1think this is oneof our most interesting findings, and I will return to it throughout the book.2What ilbout students who naturally favor performance versus learning goals?

Arc they more prone to a helpless pattern, and would this show up in a classroomsetting?

o Goals and Classroom learningThe next study, by Edwin Farrell and me (Farrell & DWL'Ck, 1985), was designedto see how students with different goals would do in a real-world sctting thatpresented them with a clear challenge.

18 Self-Theories Achievement Goals 19

When are students with performance goals most vulnerable? Recent researchsuggests that it is when they are focused on the negative-when they are focusedon the possibility of failure and their need to avoid it (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot& Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). In the next chapter, we ex-plore why some students, even very successful ones, might focus on the negative:Why failure looms large in their thoughts and why the possibility of failure is soundermining.In summary, overconcern with ability and worrying about its adequacy leaves

students vulnerable. But another important question remained: Why arc somestudents, many of them very bright, so worried about their level of ability?

1. Researchers now use a variety of tenns for the two types of goals. Performance gOo,I, aresometimes called ability 8001s, rgo-inoolved 8001s, or Ilo"nlllivt goals (because the studentwants to compare favorably to others). Learning go,lls Ilre also called mastery goals or taskgoals.

2. Learning goals also seem to foster and sustain greater instrinic motivation-personal in-terest in a task (Butler, 1987, 1988; Mueller &: Dweck, 1998; see also Csikszcntmihalyi.1988; Oed &: Ryan, 1985; Heyman &: Dweck, 1992).

3. It is also important to mention that researchers have successfully applied this goal analy-sis to other areas, el<amining, for example. the goal orientations of athletes (Duda, 1992)or workers in organizations (Button &: Mathieu, 1996). In Chapter 10. I show how wehave applied the goal analysis to social interactions.

In this study, we g,we junior high school students new ffiClterial to learn as aweek.long unit in their science classrooms. Over the week, students received in-structional booklets that taught them how to solve new kinds of problems. Theylearned, for example, how to balance weights on a balance beam that had arms ofdifferent length. The booklets contained many illustrative examples and gavestudents many opportunities to solve problems using what they had learned.After the learning phase, students were given a test th..1 asked them to usc

what they had learned to solve new kinds of problems. These new problems hadnot directly been taught but were based on the very same principle that they hadjust learned. Would the students use their existing knowledge to figure out thenew problems that they now confronted?Atthe very begilUling of the study, we assessed students' goals for this upcom-

ing science unit. We classified the students into those who had performance goals(those who wanted a task that they could be sure to do well on or look smart on)and thoSE." who had learning goals (those who hoped to learn something neweven if they didn't perform well).Everyone, of course, wanted to learn the material, but only students who were

willing to undergo difficulty for the sake of learning were classified as having pre-dominantly learning goals. Those who cared most about looking smart or notlooking dumb were considered to have predominantly performance goals.We also gave all the students pretests to make sure that one group was not higher

in mathematical skills or numerical reasoning. The two groups (those with perfor-mance goals and those with learning goals) were entirely equivalent in these areas.What's more, they were entirely equivalent in how weHlhey learned the unit theyhad been taught. Yet, when we looked at how the students with the different goalsfared on the test with the novel problems, there were very clear differences.First, the students who had learning goals for thc unit scored significantly

higher on the novel problems than the students with performance goals.Second, when we looked at the amount of work students produced as they at-

tempted to solve the novel problems, the students with learning goals produced50% more written work. This means that the students with learning goals wereworking much harder in their attempt to confront the challenge.And third, from their written work on the test we saw that the students with

learning goals far more often tried to apply the rule they had learned as theyworked on test problems. This was true even for learning-goal students who didnot end up solving the h:.'St problems.In fact, several other researchers have found that students who take a

goal stance toward a task or toward their schoolwork tend to use deeper, more cf·fective learning strategies and to apply what they've learned more effectively(Ames & Archer, 1988; Graham & Golon, 1991; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991).3In short, the students with learning goals were much more mastery-oriented in

their approach to the challenging new problems. The students with performancegoals, although just as able, were thrown off by the novelty qf the test problems.They probably spent too much time worrying about their ability to solve theproblems and not enough time solving them (see Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan,1996),

o Notes '.'

of 4 Bill Wolfson

Self_theories_orginal

Self-Theories … by Carol Dweck Their Role in Motivation, Personality, Self-esteem, and Development

Goal of the book To ask: what is the most useful way of thinking about

intelligence and what are the consequences of adopting one view or another?

Meaning Systems How people create different meaning systems about themselves (their self-theories) that create different psychological worlds, leading them to think, feel, and act differently in identical situations.

Hall Mark of Success

1. Love learning 2. Seek challenges 3. Value effort 4. Persist in the face of obstacles

Two self-theories 1. The theory of fixed intelligence … Some people

believe that their intelligence is a fixed trait. They have a certain amount of it and that’s it. She calls it the entity theory. This view has many repercussions for students. It can make students worry about how much of this fixed intelligence they have, and it can make them interested first and foremost in looking and felling like they have enough. The entity theory, then, is a system that requires a diet of easy successes. Challenges are a threat to self-esteem.

2. The theory of malleable intelligence… Some people

their intelligence is not a fixed trait that they simple possess, but something they can cultivate through learning. She calls this incremental theory People who hold this theory do not deny that there are differences among people in how much they know or in how quickly they master certain things at present. They focus on the idea that everyone, with effort and guidance can increase their intellectual abilities.

Self-esteem is completely different in the incremental system. It is not something we are going to give people by telling them about their high intelligence. It is something we equip them to get for themselves- by teaching them to value learning over the appearance of smartness, to relish challenges and effort, and to

of 4 Bill Wolfson


use errors as routes to mastery.

Her research challenges several beliefs

She calls these “master-oriented” Her research challenges several beliefs that are common in society:

1. Students with high ability are more likely to display master-oriented qualities.

2. Success in school directly fosters master-oriented qualities.

3. Praise, particularly praising a student’ intelligence encourages master-oriented qualities.

4. Students’ confidence in their intelligence is the key to master-oriented qualities.

When failure undermines and when failure motivates

Many of the most accomplished students shied away for challenges and fell apart in the face of setbacks. Many less skilled students seize challenges with relish and were energized by setbacks. .. How can this be? Two distinct reactions to failure, which we call helpless and master-oriented patterns When monitoring students’ problem-solving strategies and their statements as they went from success to failure, two patterns emerge. The helpless group quickly began to denigrate their abilities and blame their intelligence for the failure, saying things like “ I guess I’m not very smart”, “ I never did have a very good memory”, and “I’m no good at things like this”. Not only do the children loss faith in their ability to succeed at this task in the future, but they also lost perspective on the successes they had achieved in the past. The master-oriented group did not blame anything. They began issuing instructions to themselves on how they could improve their performance. They were not seeing failure as an indictment of themselves.

Coming relatively easy

Bight students in the early grades can achieve success easily and when faced with challenges in mid-grades can begin to fail if they are part of the “helpless group” It is important to understand that the “helpless response, if it is a habitual response to challenge, will not just limit students achievement, but also achievements of their own goals.

of 4 Bill Wolfson


Goals Both goals are normal & fuel achievement.

There are two goals: x Performance goals … is about winning positive

judgments of your competence and avoiding negative ones.

x Learning goals is about increasing your competence … a desire to get smarter.

Goals create helpless versus master-oriented responses

When children are focused on measuring themselves for their performance, failure is more likely to provoke a helpless response. When children are instead focused on learning, failure is likely to provoke continued effort.

Is intelligence fixed or changeable?

Research found that the more students held an entity theories of intelligence the more likely they were to choose a performance goal, where the more they held an incremental theory, the more likely they were to choose the learning goal.

Effort Students who embrace the entity theory believe that if you have to work hard at something, it means you’re not good at it. If your good at something, you shouldn’t need effort. What doe this mean for students confronting a difficult task? This exactly when high effort is needed. Yet what a conflict this poses for students with an entity theory pursuing a performance goal and eager to show high ability. High effort may be necessary for success on the task, but high effort will automatically spell low ability.

When do I feel Smart?

Entity Theory: x When I don’t do mistakes. x When I turn in my paper first. x When I get easy work.

Incremental theory:

x When I don’t know how to do it and its pretty hard and I figure it out without anybody telling me.

x When I’m doing schoolwork because I want to learn how to get smart.

x When I’m reading a hard book. It is becoming common practice in much of our society to praise students for their performance on easy tasks, to tell them they are smart when they do something quickly and perfectly.

of 4 Bill Wolfson


When we do this we are not teaching them to welcome challenge and learn from errors. We are teaching them that easy success means they are intelligent and, by implication, that errors and effort mean they are not. What should we do if students have had an easy success and come to us expecting praise? We can apologize for wasting their time and direct them to something more challenging. In this way, we may begin to teach them that a meaningful success requires effort.

When Confidence and Success are not enough. … when they are not facing difficulties.

Within an entity theory framework, no matter what your confidence is, failure and difficulty still imply low intelligence. The whole framework with its emphasis on measurement and judgment gives meaning to negative outcomes ( and to effort ) that in undermining to students --- even if they enter the situation feeling fine about their intelligence. What appears to be important here is not the confidence you bring to a situation, as the ability to maintain a confident and nondefensive stance in the face of obstacles. This is much more difficult to do in an entity-theory framework. Training that gave students just success experiences did not help them to cope with failure, even though they showed confidence and enthusiasm while that success lasted. They still interpreted failure as an indictment of their ability and showed a clear helpless response. In contact, training that gave students a new meaning for failure succeeded in helping them cope with failure far more effectively that they had before. Many of them, in fact, began to look quite mastery-oriented.

Charalampos Mainemelis,Richard E. Boyatzis andDavid A. KolbLondon Business School, UK, Case Western ReserveUniversity, USA and Case Western Reserve University,USA

Learning Styles and Adaptive FlexibilityTesting Experiential Learning Theory

Abstract This research used three instruments derived from experiential learning theory—the Learning Style Inventory, the Adaptive Style Inventory and the Learning SkillsProfile—to test hypotheses about differences between balanced and specialized learningstyles in a sample of 198 part-time and full-time MBA students. Learning styles thatbalanced experiencing and conceptualizing showed greater adaptive flexibility in respond-ing to experiencing and conceptualizing learning contexts. The learning style specializingin experiencing showed higher levels of skill development in interpersonal skills and lowerlevels of skill development in analytic skills; while the reverse was true for the learningstyle specializing in conceptualizing. Similar tests for the acting/reflecting specialized andbalanced learning styles showed no consistent results. Analysis of male and female sub-samples produced results supporting these general conclusions. The study adds furtherconstruct validity for the hypothesis that adaptive flexibility in learning style is predictiveof highly integrated and complex levels of adult development. Key Words: adaptiveflexibility; Adaptive Style Inventory; experiential learning theory; forced choice method;ipsative measures; Learning Skills Profile; Learning Style Inventory; learning styles

Experiential learning theory (ELT) defines learning as ‘the process wherebyknowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge resultsfrom the combination of grasping and transforming experience’ (Kolb, 1984: 41).The learning model portrays two dialectically related modes of graspingexperience—concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC)—andtwo dialectically related modes of transforming experience—reflective observation(RO) and active experimentation (AE). Individual learning styles are determinedby an individual’s preferred way of resolving these two dialectics, favoring one

Articles

1350–5076[200203]33:1;5–33; 022202

Management LearningCopyright © 2002 Sage Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CAand New DelhiVol. 33(1): 5-33

mode over the other. The experiential learning theory suggests that, as such, theselearning styles represent specialized and limited ways of learning. Following Jung’stheory that adult development moves from a specialized way of adapting toward aholistic integrated way, development in learning sophistication is seen as a movefrom specialization to integration. Integrated learning is a process involving acreative tension among the four learning modes that is responsive to contextualdemands. This is portrayed as an idealized learning cycle or spiral where thelearner ‘touches all the bases’—experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting—ina recursive process that is responsive to the learning situation and what is beinglearned. The theory argues that this development in learning sophistication andcreative adaptation results from the integration of the dual dialectics ofconceptualizing/experiencing and acting/reflecting as shown in Figure 1.

Jung discovered the universal mandala symbol in many cultures and religionsthroughout time representing this holistic, dynamic adaptive process. Mandala

Figure 1 The experiential learning theory of development

Source Kolb (1984: 141). Reproduced with kind permission

6 Management Learning 33(1)

means circle, an eternal process where endings become beginnings again andagain. ‘The mandala form is that of a flower, cross, or wheel with a distincttendency toward quadripartite structures’ (Jung, 1931: 100). It often representsdual polarities, the integration of which fuels the endless circular process ofknowing. ‘Psychologically this circulation would be a “turning in a circle aroundoneself”: whereby all sides of the personality become involved. They cause thepoles of light and darkness to rotate’ (p. 104). In their theories of experientiallearning Jean Piaget, William James and Paulo Freire express similar but distinctiveviews about the integration of these dialectics.

Piaget combines these two dialectics in the idea that an act of intellectualadaptation requires a balance or equilibrium between assimilation and accom-modation. Intelligence is thus the result of the dialectic integration of internalcognitive organization, reflective abstraction, and external adaptation, activeinvolvement in experience. He says:

. . . organization is inseparable from adaptation: they are two complementary processesof a single mechanism, the first being the internal aspect of the cycle of whichadaptation constitutes the external aspect . . . The ‘accord of thought with things’ and‘the accord of thought with itself’ express this dual functional invariant of adaptationand organization. These two aspects of thought are indissociable: it is by adapting tothings that thought organizes itself and it is by organizing itself that it structures things.(1952: 7–8)

Another view is articulated by William James in his philosophy of radicalempiricism. James posed radical empiricism as a new theory of reality and mindwhich resolved the conflicts between 19th-century rationalism and empiricism, thephilosophies of idealism and materialism. For James, everything begins and endsin the continuous flux and flow of experience. His philosophy of radicalempiricism was based on two co-equal and dialectically related ways of knowing theworld—‘knowledge of acquaintance’, based on direct perception, and ‘knowledgeabout’, based on mediating conception. In radical empiricism, direct perceptionhas primacy since all concepts derive their validity from connection to senseexperience. Concepts, however, have priority in controlling human action becausethey often enable us to predict the future and achieve our desires. James (1977)draws attention to the importance of this co-equal relationship when he says:

We thus see clearly what is gained and what is lost when percepts are translated intoconcepts. Perception is solely of the here and now; conception is of the like and unlike,of the future, and of the past, and of the far away. But this map of what surrounds thepresent, like all maps, is only a surface; its features are but abstract signs and symbols ofthings that in themself are concrete bits of sensible experience. We have but to weighextent against content, thickness against spread, and we see that for some purposes theone, for other purposes the other, has the higher value. Who can decide off-hand whichis absolutely better to live and to understand life? We must do both alternately, and aman can no more limit himself to either than a pair of scissors can cut with a single oneof its blades. (p. 243)

While Paulo Freire recognizes the conceptualizing/experiencing dialectic instressing the importance of naming one’s own experience in dialogue with others,he and other critical theorists give primary emphasis to praxis, the transformative

Mainemelis et al.: Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility 7

dialectic between reflection and action—reflection informed by action and actioninformed by reflection. He writes powerfully about the dynamics of this dialectic:

As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human phenomenon . . . Within the word we findtwo dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one issacrificed—even in part—the other immediately suffers . . . When a word is deprived ofits dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changedinto idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating ‘blah’ . . . On the otherhand, if action is emphasized exclusively, to the detriment of reflection, the word isconverted into activism. The latter action for action’s sake negates the true praxis andmakes dialogue impossible. (1992: 75–8)

Drawing on the works of Piaget, James and Freire, ELT suggests that adaptiveflexibility is related to the degree that one integrates the dual dialectics of thelearning process—conceptualizing/experiencing and acting/reflecting. Over thepast three decades three instruments have been developed within the field of ELTto assess individual learning preferences, adaptive flexibility and learning skills. Inthe following two sections we describe the three ELT instruments and comment ontheir psychometric characteristics by discussing published reliability and validitydata.

Operationalizing Experiential Learning Theory

Three instruments have been developed to assess the constructs of experientiallearning theory—the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1984, 1999a), the AdaptiveStyle Inventory (Kolb, 1984; Boyatzis and Kolb, 1993) and the Learning SkillsProfile (Boyatzis and Kolb, 1991, 1995, 1997). They have been designed to betheoretically commensurate while methodologically diverse in order to reducespurious common method variance among them.

The Learning Style Inventory (LSI)

The LSI uses a forced-choice ranking method to scale an individual’s preferredmodes of learning, AC, CE, AE, and RO. Individuals are asked to complete 12sentences that describe learning. Each sentence (e.g. ‘I learn best from’) has fourendings (e.g. AC = ‘rational theories’, CE = ‘personal relationships’, AE = ‘achance to try out and practice’, and RO = ‘observation’). Individuals rank theendings for each sentence according to what best describes the way they learn (i.e.‘4 = most like you’, ‘1 = least like you’). Four scores, AC, CE, AE, and RO,measure an individual’s preference for the four modes, and two dimensionalscores indicate an individual’s relative preference for one pole or the other of thetwo dialectics, conceptualizing/experiencing (AC – CE) and acting/reflecting (AE– RO).

In this article we introduce new scores that measure the degree to which anindividual is balanced in their preference for AC versus CE, and AE versus RO.The balanced learning profile on the two ELT dimensions is computed as theabsolute value of the two dimensional scores (AC – CE and AE – RO) adjusted forpopulation variation. The assumption is that the more balanced a person is in


their dialectic preference, the more they will experience a creative tension orattraction to both poles opening a wider space for flexible adaptation anddevelopment of learning skill. A search of the 1004 studies listed in the Bibliographyof Research on Experiential Learning Theory and the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb andKolb, 2000) found only three studies investigating the balanced learning style.Goldman (1972) in a study of MIT seniors found a correlation of .34 (p ! .001)between a balanced learning style and cumulative grade point average. Weathersby(1977) in a study of adult learners at Goddard College identified a style thatbalanced the experiencing/conceptualizing dimension. She hypothesized that thisstyle represented a higher level of adult development. Finally, Wolfe (1977)compared the performance of specialized learning style teams with randomlyassigned balanced learning style teams on a computerized business game. Thebalanced teams performed significantly better than the specialized learning styleteams.

Debate and criticism in the ELT literature have often focused on the psycho-metric properties of the LSI. Results of this research have been of great value inrevising and improving the LSI during the last 15 years. The first version of theLSI was released in 1976 and received support for its strong face validity andindependence of the ELT dimensions of AC – CE and AE – RO (Marshall andMerritt, 1985; Katz, 1986). Although early critique of the instrument focused onthe internal consistency of scales and test–retest reliability, a study by Ferrell(1983) showed that LSI version 1 was the most psychometrically sound among fourlearning instruments of that time. In 1985 version 2 of the LSI was released andimproved the internal consistency of the scales (Veres et al., 1987; Sims et al.,1986). Smith and Kolb (1986) reported the following Cronbach alphas for LSIversion 2 (N = 268): AC = .83, CE = .82, AE = .78, RO = .73, AC – CE = .88,and AE – RO = .81. Critiques of this version focused their attention on the test–retest reliability of the instrument, but a study by Veres et al. (1991) showed thatrandomizing the order of the LSI version 2 items results in dramatic improvementof test–retest reliability. This finding led to an experimental research LSI versionand finally to the latest LSI revision, LSI version 3 (Kolb, 1999a, b).

The LSI has also been criticized for its forced-choice method and ipsativescaling. Forced-choice rating was developed by Sisson (1948) in an effort toovercome the problems associated with the free-choice method: social desirability,leniency, severity, and acquiescent response sets (Saville and Wilson, 1991;Kerlinger, 1986; Nunnally, 1978). Several authors have concluded that the forced-choice method can effectively address these concerns (see Greer and Dunlap,1997; Saville and Wilson, 1991; Cronbach, 1960). For example, in a study with theLSI, Beutell and Kressel (1984) found that social desirability contributed less than4 percent of the variance in spite of the fact that the individual items in theinstrument had very high social desirability. Another important contribution of theforced-choice method is that it reflects the hierarchal nature of values (Greer andDunlap, 1997; Thomson et al., 1982) and the dialectical dynamics involved inlearning and life in general (Kolb, 1984; Saville and Wilson, 1991).

The forced-choice method can overcome problems of the free-choice method,but it may also create new psychometric difficulties. Forced-choice instrumentsoften (but not always) provide what are called ipsative measures: i.e. measureswhich force the summed scores for each individual to be the same (Ten Berge,


1999; Dunlap and Cornwell, 1994; Clemans, 1966). Ipsativity poses two significantannoyances. One drawback is that the spurious negative correlations betweenitems interfere with any statistical technique built around interscale/interitemcorrelations such as factor analysis and discriminant analysis (Cornwell andDunlap, 1991; Johnson et al., 1988; Hicks, 1970). Another problem is that forced-choice and ipsativity are synonymous in the minds of some writers (e.g. Freedmanand Stumpf, 1978, 1980; Certo and Lamb, 1980).

Forced-choice instruments can be designed so as to avoid ipsativity, and ipsativemeasures can, under certain conditions, be effectively transformed to non-ipsativeones (Ten Berge, 1999; Greer and Dunlap, 1997; Saville and Wilson, 1991;Davison, 1980; Goodman, 1975). In the LSI, the four scale scores (AC, CE, AE,RO) are clearly ipsative, but the two dimensional scores (AC – CE and AE – RO)are not. For example, when (AC – CE)n or (AE – RO)n takes a value of +2 (from,say, AC = 4 and CE = 2 or AC = 3 and CE = 1) the other can take a value of +2or –2. Similarly, when either of them takes the value of +1 (from 4 minus 3, 3minus 2, or 2 minus 1) the other can take the values of +3, +1, –1, or –3. In otherwords, when (AC – CE)n takes a particular value, (AE – RO)n can take two to fourdifferent values and the score on one dimension does not determine the score onthe other.

Further, it is possible to test mathematically whether the mean intercorrelationbetween AC – CE and AE – RO is an artificial or a real one. If two or morevariables are ipsative, the asymptotic expected value (i.e. mean) of the inter-correlations will be equal to –1/(m – 1) where m is the number of the variables(Clemans, 1966; Greer and Dunlap, 1997; Cornwell and Dunlap, 1991; Johnson etal., 1988). Therefore, if AC – CE and AE – RO were ipsative, their meanintercorrelation would be –1.0. But the observed empirical relation between thetwo variables is always much smaller. For example, Freedman and Stumpf (1978)reported a mean intercorrelation of .13 for a sample of 1591 graduate students;Boyatzis and Mainemelis (2000) reported an intercorrelation of –.19 for a sampleof 1296 graduate students; and Kolb (1999b) reported a mean intercorrelation of–.09 for the ethically diverse LSI normative sample of 1446 individuals. Theseresults show that the AC – CE and AE – RO scores are not ipsative. It should alsobe noted that learning styles in the LSI are determined on the basis of the twonon-ipsative dimensional scores and not the four ipsative scale scores.

The Adaptive Style Inventory (ASI)

The ASI uses a 48-item, paired comparison method to rank learning preferencesfor the four learning modes in eight personalized learning contexts. Individualsare asked to think of personal examples for each of eight situations which describefour learning contexts (two situations per context): valuing (e.g. ‘When I considermy feelings’), thinking (e.g. ‘When systematically analyzing something’), deciding(e.g. ‘When deciding between two alternatives’), and acting (e.g. ‘When I start todo something new’). For each of the eight situations individuals are provided withsix paired sentences, which compare each learning mode with the other three. Forexample, AC = ‘I set priorities’, CE = ‘I rely on my feelings to guide me’, AE = ‘Itry out different ways of doing things’ and RO = ‘I observe the situation’).


Individuals are asked to choose from each pair the sentence that is most like whatthey would actually do in that situation.

Like the LSI, the ASI assesses preferences for the four scales (AC, CE, AE, RO)and two dimensions (AC – CE and AE – RO), but it also measures adaptiveflexibility in learning—the degree to which individuals change their learning styleto respond to different learning situations in their life. Boyatzis and Mainemelis(2000) reported the following Cronbach alphas for the ASI scales (N = 936):AC = .67, CE = .72, AE = .57, RO = .47, AC – CE = .78, and AE – RO = .63.The scale reliabilities are lower in the ASI than the LSI because the ASI isdesigned to measure contextual variability. Earlier studies found that adaptiveflexibility as measured by the ASI is positively related to higher levels of egodevelopment on Loevinger’s instrument (Kolb and Wolfe, 1981). Individuals withhigh adaptive flexibility are more self-directed, have richer life structures charac-terized by many life contexts with many connections between them, and experi-ence less conflict in their lives (Kolb, 1984).

The Learning Skills Profile (LSP)

The LSP is a 72-item, modified Q-sort method to assess levels of skill developmentin four skill areas that are related to the four learning modes—interpersonal skills(CE), information skills (RO), analytical skills (AC) and behavioral skills (AE).Respondents are asked to sort 72 learning skills cards in seven categoriesdescribing their skill level: 1 = I have no skill or ability in this area, 2 = I am nowlearning this skill or ability, 3 = I can do this with some help or supervision, 4 = Iam a competent performer in this area, 5 = I am an outstanding performer in thisarea, 6 = I am an exceptional performer in this area, and 7 = I am a creator orleader in this area. Each of the 72 cards has a statement describing a specific skillor activity. The statements are scored according the way they have been sorted bythe respondent in the seven skill levels described above. The 72 items are clusteredinto 12 six-item scales, which, in turn, are clustered into the four skill areas. Theanalytical skills area (Cronbach’s alpha = .79, n = 198, in this study’s sample)consists of the skills of theory building, quantitative analysis, and use of technol-ogy. The interpersonal skills area (alpha = .80) consists of the skills of leadership,relationship, and help. The behavioral skills area (alpha = .77) includes the skillsof goal setting, action, and initiative. Finally, the information skills area (alpha =.68) consists of sense-making, information gathering, and information analysis.Several recent studies have used the LSP in program evaluation (Ballou et al.,1999; Boyatzis et al., 1995) and learning needs assessment (Rainey et al., 1993;Smith, 1990).

Validation and Evaluation of Experiential Learning Theory

Because ELT is a holistic theory of learning which identifies learning stylesdifferences among various disciplines, it is not surprising that the related researchhas been highly interdisciplinary, addressing learning and educational issues inseveral fields. The recent bibliography of research on ELT (Kolb and Kolb, 2000)includes 1004 studies conducted in the fields of management (207), education


(430), computer studies (104), psychology (101), medicine (72), as well asnursing, accounting, and law. About 55 percent of this research has appeared inrefereed journal articles, 20 percent in doctoral dissertations, and 10 percent inbooks and book chapters (Kolb et al., 2001). Many of these studies have providedempirical validation for the constructs of ELT using the Learning Style Inventory,and more recently, the Adaptive Styles Inventory and Learning Skills Profile.

There have been two recent comprehensive reviews of the ELT/LSI literature,one qualitative and one quantitative. In 1991 Hickox extensively reviewed thetheoretical origins of ELT and qualitatively analyzed 81 studies in accounting andbusiness education, helping professions, medical professions, post-secondary edu-cation and teacher education. She concluded that overall 61.7 percent of thestudies supported ELT, 16.1 percent showed mixed support, and 22.2 percent didnot support ELT (Hickox, 1991).

In 1994 Illiff conducted a meta-analysis of 101 quantitative studies culled from275 dissertations and 624 articles that were qualitative, theoretical, and quantitativestudies of ELT and the LSI. Using Hickox’s evaluation format he found that 49studies showed strong support for the LSI, 40 showed mixed support and 12studies showed no support. About half of the 101 studies reported sufficient dataon the LSI scales to compute effect sizes via meta-analysis. Most studies reportedcorrelations he classified as low (! .5) and effect sizes fell in the weak (.2) tomedium (.5) range for the LSI scales. Illiff (1994) correctly notes that the LSI wasnot intended to be a predictive psychological test like IQ, GRE or GMAT. Testsdesigned for predictive validity typically begin with a criterion like academicachievement and work backward in an atheoretical way to identify items or testswith high criterion correlations. Even so, even the most sophisticated of these testsrarely rises above a .5 correlation with the criterion. For example, while GraduateRecord Examination subject test scores are better predictors of first-year graduateschool grades than either the general test score or undergraduate GPA, thecombination of these three measures only produces multiple correlations withgrades ranging from .4 to .6 in various fields (Anastasi and Urbina, 1997).

The LSI was developed to test the construct validity of experiential learningtheory. Construct validation is not focused on an outcome criterion but on thetheory or construct that the test measures. Here the emphasis is on the pattern ofconvergent and discriminant theoretical predictions made by the theory. Failure toconfirm predictions calls into question the test and the theory. ‘However, even ifeach of the correlations proved to be quite low, their cumulative effect would be tosupport the validity of the test and the underlying theory’ (Selltiz et al., 1960:160).

Hypotheses

The commensurability of the LSI, ASI and LSP makes it possible to test empiricallysome of the predictions of experiential learning theory. In this article weinvestigate whether individuals with balanced learning styles on the LSI show moresophisticated development in learning (as measured by adaptive flexibility on theASI) than individuals with specialized learning styles. Also we examine levels of


learning skill development on the LSP and their relationship to integrative andspecialized learning styles. Specifically, we test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: The more individuals are balanced on the conceptualizing/experiencingdialectic of the LSI, the more they will show adaptive flexibility on this dimension on theASI.

Hypothesis 1b: The more individuals are balanced on the acting/reflecting dialectic of theLSI, the more they will show adaptive flexibility on this dimension on the ASI.

Hypothesis 2a: The more individuals are specialized in their preference for conceptualiz-ing or experiencing on the LSI, the less they will show adaptive flexibility on thisdimension on the ASI.

Hypothesis 2b: The more individuals are specialized in their preference for acting orreflecting on the LSI, the less they will show adaptive flexibility on this dimension on theASI.

Hypothesis 3a: The more individuals are balanced on the conceptualizing/experiencingdialectic of the LSI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development inanalytical and interpersonal skills on the LSP.

Hypothesis 3b: The more individuals are balanced on the acting/reflecting dialectic of theLSI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development in behavioral andinformation skills on the LSP.

Hypothesis 4a: The more individuals have high adaptive flexibility on theconceptualizing/experiencing dialectic of the ASI, the greater will be their level oflearning skill development in analytical and interpersonal skills on the LSP.

Hypothesis 4b: The more individuals have high adaptive flexibility on the acting/reflectingdialectic of the ASI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development inbehavioral and information skills on the LSP.

Hypothesis 5a: The more individuals are specialized in their preference for conceptualiz-ing on the LSI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development in analyticalskills on the LSP.

Hypothesis 5b: The more individuals are specialized in their preference for experiencingon the LSI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development in interpersonalskills on the LSP.

Hypothesis 5c: The more individuals are specialized in their preference for acting on theLSI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development in behavioral skills onthe LSP.

Hypothesis 5d: The more individuals are specialized in their preference for reflecting onthe LSI, the greater will be their level of learning skill development in information skillson the LSP.

Method

Sample

As part of a projected 50-year longitudinal study of managerial careers and lifelongcompetency development now in its 10th year, a sample of 314 MBA students


completed a battery of learning instruments during a required course called‘Managerial Assessment and Development’ (Boyatzis, 1994; Boyatzis et al., 1995,1996, in press). From the initial sample of 314 students 116 cases were droppedfrom the analysis either because of missing data (89) or potential threats of samplebias (27 who were non-native English speakers). The final sample of 198 wascomposed of students who entered the full-time or part-time program in 1990(12), 1991 (48), 1992 (62), 1993 (61), and 1994 (15). The average age of the finalsample was 27.02 (SD = 3.64); 71 percent were full-time students and 29 percentpart-time; 63 percent were male and 37 percent female. At the conclusion of therequired course, all students were asked for permission to use their data in variousresearch studies. An average of 89 percent of the students gave their permission ineach of these samples.

Measures

Data were collected with the Learning Style Inventory version 2, Adaptive StyleInventory, and Learning Skills Profile, described earlier. Eight variables werecalculated from the LSI: raw scores for each of the learning modes (CE, RO, AC,AE); two measures of specialization in one of the dialectical modes of the twodimensions in ELT (AC – CE, AE – RO); and, to assess a balanced profile, theabsolute value of these two dialectical scores was adjusted for population variation.For example, individuals scoring equally in AC and CE can be said to be balancedon this dimension. Their absolute AC – CE score reflects an inverse score of thisbalance; that is, a low score indicates a balanced profile, whereas a high scoreindicates a learning style specializing in either end of the dialectical dimension.The absolute AC – CE score was adjusted to center it around the 50th percentile(ABS [AC – (CE + 4)]) of the LSI normative comparison group (Kolb, 1999a, b),resulting in a score with a range of 0 to 33, mean of 11.04, and a standarddeviation of 7.39 (skewness = .58, kurtosis = –.20). Similarly, the formula for thebalanced profile in the AE/RO dimension is ABS [AE – (RO + 6)], resulting in ascore with a range of 0 to 33, mean of 10.90, and a standard deviation of 6.83(skewness = .41, kurtosis = –.39).

Eight variables were calculated from the ASI: Four mode scores (CE, RO, AC,AE), two specialization scores (AC – CE and AE – RO), and two adaptive flexibilitymeasures, one for each dialectical dimension. The formulae for the adaptiveflexibility measures and the relevant univariate statistics are explained in AppendixA. These two measures are absolute values of the subtraction of the flexibility onAC minus the flexibility on CE, and flexibility on AE minus flexibility on ROrespectively. The AC/CE adaptive flexibility score ranges from 0 to 8, with a meanof 3.56 and a standard deviation of 2.24 (skewness and kurtosis are less than 1).The AE/RO adaptive flexibility score ranges from 0 to 8, with a mean of 2.19 anda standard deviation of 1.79 (skewness and kurtosis are less than 1).

Six variables were calculated from the LSP. Four were obtained from the sum ofthe scale scores of the three scales constituting each ‘quadrant’ of skills. Asdescribed earlier, one quadrant assesses CE skills (the interpersonal quadrant ofleadership, relationship, and helping skills), another quadrant assesses RO skills(the information quadrant of sense making, information gathering, and informa-tion analysis skills), and another quadrant assesses AC skills (the analytical


quadrant of theory, quantitative, and technology skills). The last quadrant assessesAE skills (the behavioral quadrant of goal setting, action, and initiative skills). Thelast two measures were computed as the dialectical dimensions difference scores(AC – CE and AE – RO).

Analyses

Commensurability tests As stated earlier, the LSI, ASI and LSP were designed to betheoretically commensurate while methodologically diverse. Prior to conductingthe hypotheses tests, we examined the commensurability of the three instrumentsby testing the correlations between the six commensurate scores. We found thatthe scores from each of the three instruments for each of the four learning modes(CE, RO, AC, and AE) and the two dialectical dimensions (AC – CE and AE – RO)were significantly correlated, as shown in Appendix B. The LSI and ASI correla-tions for the four modes and two dimensions ranged from .37 to .53 (power !99% at alpha = .05, one-tailed). The LSI and LSP showed significant correlationsfor four of the six relationships ranging from .23 to .57 (power ! 94%). The twoexceptions were RO and AE. The ASI and LSP showed significant correlations forfive of the six relationships, ranging from .15 to .39 (power ! 68%). Again, theexception was RO. Overall, 15 of the total 18 correlations among the LSI, ASI andLSP scores were significant.

Demographic differences tests The mean LSI scores for program type (i.e. full-time,part-time), gender and age are presented in Appendix C (Table C.1). The sampleoverall has an AC and AE bias, and there are no significant differences betweenfull-time and part-time students, or between age groups. There is one significantdifference in terms of gender. Men have a significantly stronger preference thanwomen for conceptualizing (t = –4.18, p " .001, power ! 98% at alpha = .05,two-tailed) and the conceptualizing end of the AC/CE dimension (t = –3.63, p ".001, power ! 95%).

In terms of the ASI, there are no significant differences between full-time andpart-time students, or between age groups (Table C.2). There are importantdifferences between male and female students with the latter adapting significantlymore toward experiencing than males (t = 2.72, p " .01, power ! 77%) and themen adapting more toward the conceptualizing end of the AC – CE dimension (t= –2.71, p " .01, power ! 77%). Women are also more adaptively flexible thanmen on the conceptualizing/experiencing dimension (t = –2.60, p " .01, power! 73%).

Finally, Table C.3 in Appendix C presents the mean LSP scores for programtype, gender and age. There are no significant differences for the age groups.Male students have significantly more developed analytical skills than femalestudents when they enter the program (t = –5.30, p " .001, power ! 99%) whilewomen specialize more on interpersonal skills (t = –4.82, p_ " .001, power !99%). Full-time students enter the program with significantly more developedinterpersonal skills (t = –2.95, p " .01, power ! 81%) than part-time students.

Across the three instruments we find significant differences between male andfemale preferences for the conceptualizing/experiencing dimension, and a lack ofsignificant differences in terms of program type and age groups. Because gender


differences were consistent across the three instruments, we conducted statisticaltests not only for the full sample but for the male and female sub-samplesseparately as well.

Hypotheses tests The hypotheses of the study were tested using regression analyses.We tested each regression model three times, one test on the full sample and twoon the male and female sub-samples. ASI adaptive flexibility in AC – CE was thedependent variable in testing for hypotheses 1a and 2a, and ASI adaptive flexibilityin AE – RO was the dependent variable in testing for hypotheses 1b and 2b. Theanalytical and interpersonal quadrants of the LSP were the dependent variables intesting for hypotheses 3a and 4a, and the behavioral and information quadrants intesting for hypotheses 4a and 4b. The dependent variables in testing forhypotheses 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d were, respectively, the analytical, interpersonal,behavioral, and information LSP skill quadrants.

We entered the LSI balanced profile scores in AC – CE and AE – RO as theindependent variables in the regression analyses for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 3a, and 3b.The LSI dimensional AC – CE and AE – RO scores were the independent variablesin testing for hypotheses 2a, 2b, 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d. Finally, the ASI adaptiveflexibility AC – CE and AE – RO scores were entered as the independent variablesto test for hypotheses 4a and 4b.

Results

A balanced learning profile on the conceptualizing/experiencing dialectic of theLSI was positively related with adaptive flexibility on this dimension, as shown inTable 1; the relation was stronger for the female sub-sample. Hypothesis 1a wastherefore supported. A balanced learning profile on the acting/reflecting dialecticof the LSI did not show any significant relation with adaptive flexibility on thesame dimension in the ASI in either sub-sample. Hypothesis 1b was thereforerejected. The results showed also an unexpected significant negative relation inthe male sub-sample between the balanced learning profile in the AE – CEdimension and adaptive flexibility in the AE – RO dimension.

In the male sub-sample, specialization in a preference for conceptualizing onthe LSI was negatively related with adaptive flexibility on this dialectical dimen-sion. This indicates that males with a specialization in conceptualizing are lessflexible on this dimension according to the ASI. This pattern does not appear inthe female sub-sample where there are no significant regression results. Therefore,hypothesis 2a is supported for one mode or end of this dimension in the male sub-sample and rejected for the other end, as well as for the female sub-sample.Specialization in a preference for acting or reflecting on the LSI was not relatedwith adaptive flexibility on this dialectical dimension, as shown in Table 2.Therefore, hypothesis 2b was rejected.

A balanced learning profile on the conceptualizing/experiencing dimension ofthe LSI showed significantly less developed learning skills in the analyticalquadrant in the male sub-sample, and in the information quadrant in the femalesub-sample. There were no significant regression results with regard to theinterpersonal quadrant, as shown in Table 3. Hypothesis 3a was therefore rejected.


Table 1 Regression analyses: adaptive flexibility predicted by balanced learning profile

Adaptive flexibility in the ASI dimensions of:Conceptualizing/experiencing Acting/reflecting

Balanced learning profile in: β R2 F d.f. β R2 F d.f.

Full sample (N = 198)Conceptualizing/experiencing .25*** .04Acting/reflecting –.09 .08 8.08*** 2, 195 .10 .01 1.12 2, 195

Male sub-sample (n = 124)Conceptualizing/experiencing .17* .00Acting/reflecting –.20* .08 5.09** 2, 121 .13 .02 1.10 2, 121

Female sub-sample (n = 74)Conceptualizing/experiencing .34*** .08Acting/reflecting .08 .12 4.93*** 2, 71 .02 .01 .23 2, 71

Notes Due to inverse scoring in the computation of adaptive flexibility, the lower the score the more adaptively flexible the individual. The same is truefor the balanced learning profile where the lower the score the more balanced the profile. Thus a positive β between the balanced learning profile andadaptive flexibility indicates a positive relation between them.* p ! .05; ** p ! .01, *** p ! .001

Mainem

elis et al.: Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility

17

Table 2 Regression analyses: adaptive flexibility predicted by specialized learning styles

Adaptive flexibility in the ASI dimensions of:Conceptualizing/experiencing Acting/reflecting

Learning style specializing in: β R2 F d.f. β R2 F d.f.

Full sample (N = 198)Conceptualizing/experiencing .25*** .06Acting/reflecting .05 .06 6.20*** 2, 195 .01 .00 .33 2, 195

Male sub-sample (n = 124)Conceptualizing/experiencing .29** .06Acting/reflecting .07 .08 5.14** 2, 121 .01 .00 .19 2, 121

Female sub-sample (n = 74)Conceptualizing/experiencing .09 –.04Acting/reflecting –.01 .01 .33 2, 71 –.05 .00 .10 2, 71

Notes Due to inverse scoring in the computation of adaptive flexibility, the lower the score the more adaptively flexible the individual. Thus a positive βbetween the balanced learning profile and learning specialization indicates a negative relation between them.* p ! .05; ** p ! .01, *** p ! .001

18M

anagement Learning 33(1)

A balanced learning profile on the acting/reflecting dimension of the LSI did notshow greater learning skills in either relevant quadrant (the behavioral orInformation quadrants of learning skills). Therefore, hypothesis 3b too wasrejected.

Adaptive flexibility on the conceptualizing/experiencing dimension did notshow any significant relation with the learning skills in the analytical andinterpersonal quadrants. Adaptive flexibility on the acting/reflecting dimensiondid not show any associations with the learning skills in the behavioral andinformation quadrants. Therefore, hypotheses 4a and 4b were rejected.

Specialization in conceptualizing on the LSI showed positive relation to greaterlearning skills in the analytic quadrant for both the male and female sub-samples,as shown in Table 4. The relation was stronger for the female sample. Special-ization in experiencing on the LSI showed positive association to greater learningskills in the interpersonal quadrant for both sub-samples. Therefore, hypotheses 5aand 5b were supported.

Specialization in acting on the LSI showed a positive association to the learningskills in the behavioral quadrant in the female sub-sample only. Hypothesis 5c wastherefore supported for the female sub-sample and rejected for the male sub-sample. Specialization in reflecting on the LSI did not show a relation to greaterlearning skills in the information quadrant as shown in Table 4. Hypothesis 5d wasthus rejected.

Discussion

Summary of Results

The primary prediction from experiential learning theory was that individuals whointegrate the dual dialectics of the learning model of conceptualizing andexperiencing as well as acting and reflecting will be more flexible on thosedimensions. It was confirmed for the AC/CE dimension for both sub-samples butnot for the AE/RO dimension.

Results from the corollary prediction that specialized learning styles mightrespond less flexibly to different learning contexts showed unpredicted findings.Flexibility on the AE/RO dimension is unrelated to degree of specialization in anyof the learning styles in both sub-samples, whereas flexibility on the AC/CEdimension is unrelated to degree of specialization in any of the learning styles inthe female sub-sample. However, in the male sub-sample, specialization in theconceptualizing learning style was related to being less flexible on the AC/CEdimension of ASI adaptive flexibility.

Contrary to prediction, individuals with the balanced learning style did not showgreater learning skill development. Balance on the LSI AE/RO dimension wasunrelated to level of learning skill in any area of the LSP. Individuals who werebalanced on the LSI AC/CE dimension, surprisingly showed lower levels of skilldevelopment in analytic skills for men and information skills for women. Adaptiveflexibility in either dimension did not show any significant association to thelearning skills for either sub-sample.

Individuals with learning styles specialized in experiencing (CE) show higherlevels of interpersonal skill whereas individuals who specialize in conceptualizing


Table 3 Regression analyses: level of skill development predicted by balanced learning profile

Level of development in LSP skillsAnalytical Interpersonal Behavioral Information

Balanced learning profile in: β R2 β R2 β R2 β R2

Full sample (N = 198)Conceptualizing/experiencing .28*** –.02 .10 .20**Acting/reflecting .04 .08 –.01 .00F 8.08*** .62 1.06 3.97*d.f. 2, 195 .08 2, 195 .01 2, 195 .01 2, 195 .04Male sub-sample (n = 124)Conceptualizing/experiencing .29** –.09 .08 .13Acting/reflecting –.06 .12 .03 –.08F 5.94** 1.58 .39 1.60d.f. 2, 121 .09 2, 121 .03 2, 121 .01 2, 121 .03Female sub-sample (n = 74)Conceptualizing/experiencing .20 .17 .15 .28*Acting/reflecting .22 –.01 –.06 .11F 3.25* 1.04 .97 3.46*d.f. 2, 71 .08 2, 71 .03 2, 71 .03 2, 71 .09

Notes A positive β between the balanced learning profile and learning specialization indicates a negative relation between them.* p ! .05; ** p ! .01, *** p ! .001

20M


Table 4 Regression analyses: level of skill development predicted by specialized learning styles

Level of development in LSP skillsAnalytical Interpersonal Behavioral Information

Learning style specialization: β R2 β R2 β R2 β R2

Full sample (N = 198)Conceptualizing/experiencing .51*** –.30*** .01 .05Acting/reflecting .02 .09 .21** .04F 33.31*** 12.24*** 4.32* .33d.f. 2, 195 .25 2, 195 .11 2, 195 .04 2, 195 .00Male sub-sample (n = 124)Conceptualizing/experiencing .34*** –.30** .10 –.07Acting/reflecting –.12 .07 .10 –.01F 11.12*** 7.19** 1.65 .30d.f. 2, 121 .16 2, 121 .11 2, 121 .03 2, 121 .00Female sub-sample (n = 74)Conceptualizing/experiencing .62*** –.27 .16 .20Acting/reflecting .14 .14 .36** .08F 20.72*** 4,14* 5.47** 1.42d.f. 2, 71 .37 2, 71 .10 2, 71 .13 2, 71 .04

Notes * p ! .05; ** p ! .01, *** p ! .001

Mainem


21

(AC) showed higher levels of analytic skill on the LSP. These findings areconsistent for both sub-samples. Learning styles that are specialized in acting orreflecting show less or no significant relationship to levels of skill development inthe corresponding LSP areas. Women who specialize in the acting style, however,show higher levels of skill development in the behavioral quadrant.

The ELT instruments show a high degree of commensurability. The high degreeof inter-correlation of the dimensions and dialectics suggest scales and instrumentsassessing comparable theoretical dimensions. Meanwhile, their differential con-struct and criterion validation results support the discriminant validity of the scalesand measures. In terms of age and gender, as shown in Appendix C (Tables C.1,C.2, and C.3), there is a consistent lack of findings regarding type of program andage, while there are consistent findings regarding gender. As the literature wouldsuggest, women show an increased tendency toward the experiencing end of thedialectic, increased flexibility on this dimension, and greater learning skilldevelopment, while men show the opposite tendency toward conceptualizing(White, 1992, 1994; Kolb, 1984).

Interpretation

The above results provide consistent and significant support for the conclusionthat individuals with learning styles that balance experiencing and conceptualizingrespond more flexibly in adapting to experiencing and conceptualizing learningsituations. It can also be concluded that learning style specialization in con-ceptualizing is related to higher levels of development in analytic skills whilespecialization in experiencing is related to higher levels of development ininterpersonal skills. Thus, on this experiential learning dialectic, balance is relatedto flexibility and specialization is related to skill development.

Detailed gender differences support these overall results. The finding thatfemale adaptive flexibility is higher than male and that the relationship betweenbalance and flexibility is stronger for women can be explained by the fact thatwomen on the average are more balanced in their learning style than men whencompared to the LSI normative sample. The female mean on AC – CE is 4.91 atthe 52 percentile of the normative sample and the male mean is 11.31 at the 68percentile (Kolb, 1999b). This is a result of the much replicated findings thatwomen tend to be more oriented to experiencing while men are oriented towardconceptualizing. Thus, while the total sample tends to be specialized in con-ceptualizing (mean = 8.91 at the 62 percentile), men are far more specialized inconceptualizing than women. This extreme specialization is negatively related toflexibility for men and unrelated for women who in general are more balanced,with learning preferences that go more deeply into the experiencing realm.

That this sample of MBA students is more abstract than the norm is notsurprising since a major variable in student selection is the total GMAT score. Inthis sample, the GMAT total score is correlated with AC – CE .26 (p ! .001, n =192, power " 97%). The fact that specializing in conceptualizing is more stronglyrelated to greater levels of analytic skill development for women than for men alsosupports the idea that learning style specialization is related to skill development.

While the above results show consistent support for the conceptualizing/experiencing dialectic of experiential learning, there is a consistent lack of


findings for the acting/reflecting dimensions. One possible explanation for thismay lie in the context of the study–MBA students in a degree program thatemphasizes analytic skills. In contrast, Freire’s work that emphasizes the acting/reflecting dialectic was developed in the context of oppressed people for whomthe learning challenges are in the acting realm. Another possible interpretation ofthe lack of results on the acting/reflecting dialectic is that this LSI dimension isnot as powerful a predictor as the experiencing/conceptualizing dimension. Illiff’s(1994) meta-analysis of the LSI would not support this conclusion since he foundsimilar effect sizes for both dimensions (.34 and .32 respectively).

Implications for Research and Practice

One of the major goals in creating the ASI was to develop a quantitative measureof adult development based on the experiential learning theory of development;where it is hypothesized that adaptive flexibility in learning style is related to ahighly integrated and complex level of adult development. The finding that ASIadaptive flexibility is related to integrating the experiencing/conceptualizinglearning style dialectic adds further construct validation for this idea. This is thefirst study to examine the relation between balanced learning profiles and adaptiveflexibility. Further research to replicate and extend the reliability and constructvalidity, as well as mathematical analysis of new formulas to assess ASI adaptiveflexibility can add to our understanding of experiential learning and adultdevelopment. A necessary next research step is to improve the internal consistencyof the ASI scales. While the AC, CE and (AC – CE) alphas fall into the acceptable.7 level (see Clark and Watson, 1997; Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991), the AE, ROand (AE – RO) alphas are much lower. Since the lower the reliability of a measurethe lower its expected correlation with any other measure (Carmines and Zeller,1989), the low reliabilities of the AE, RO, and (AE – RO) scales offer analternative explanation as to the lack of support for hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 4b.

Parallel to improving the psychometric properties of the ASI, scholars shouldseek to extend the study of integrated learning and adaptive flexibility in otherareas of organizational research. A promising research direction is the investiga-tion of the impact of learning preferences and adaptive flexibility on attemptedpedagogical innovations in management education. Boyatzis and Mainemelis(2000) recently analyzed the distribution of 1358 learning and adaptive styles ofMBA students and found that, although there is a bias toward AC styles, there isalso a considerable pluralism of styles among MBA students. For example, while 38percent of full-time students have a preference for learning by conceptualizing(e.g. lectures, case studies and readings), 21 percent are inflexible in that learningmode, and while 32 percent of the students have a learning preference for acting(e.g. internships) another 30 percent are inflexible in that mode and thus morelikely to become bored or uninterested when this method of instruction is beingemployed. An interesting research question is how newly attempted pedagogies,such as action learning and web-based learning, affect student learning. Boyatzisand Mainemelis (2000) suggest that as long as these pedagogical innovations areunbalanced and emphasize one dominant learning mode—be it acting in actionlearning or conceptualizing in web-based learning—they are doomed to under-mine the learning opportunities of students who are not flexible in that learning


mode. If that were true it would have important implications not only fordesigning curricula that balance different learning orientations, but also forattempting to help students increase their degree of adaptive flexibility throughthe course of management education (see also Boyatzis et al., 1995; Lengnick-Halland Sanders, 1997).

A second promising direction for future research involves the impact of adaptiveflexibility on the ability of managers to respond effectively to the rapidly changingrequirements of jobs and work environments. A numbers of authors (e.g. Ilgenand Pulakos, 1999; Pulakos et al., 2000; Thatch and Woodman, 1994) haveemphasized in recent years that job performance is becoming increasinglydependent on the ability of managers to adapt to uncertain environmentalconditions, changing technologies, corporate restructuring, mergers, or culturallydiverse markets and work contexts. For example, Pulakos et al. (2000) haverecently analyzed 1311 critical incidents from 21 different jobs and survey datafrom 1715 employees in 24 different jobs, and proposed that adaptive perform-ance in organizations has eight dimensions: handling emergencies or crisissituations; handling work stress; solving problems creatively; dealing with uncertainand unpredictable work situations; learning work tasks, technologies, and proce-dures; demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; demonstrating cultural adaptabil-ity; and demonstrating physically oriented adaptability. The authors also suggestthat future research should specify the individual characteristics, skills, andattributes that relate to adaptive performance (2000: 622). The theoreticalframework and three commensurate instruments for assessing learning prefer-ences, adaptive flexibility, and skills that we presented in this article may be usedto respond to the call of Pulakos et al. (2000) and other authors. For example,drawing on the results of our study, we would hypothesize that managers whospecialize in a particular learning style on the LSI (e.g. experiencing) will showhigher level of skill development in a commensurate area of skills on the LSP (e.g.interpersonal skills) and will perform better in those jobs whose adaptiverequirements match that area of skills (e.g. jobs that require demonstratinginterpersonal adaptability). We would also hypothesize that managers who scorehigher on adaptive flexibility on the ASI will perform better in those jobs whoseadaptive requirements are more complex and depend on all eight dimensions ofadaptive performance identified by Pulakos et al. (2000).

A third direction for future research is the relation between adaptive flexibilityand employee creativity. In today’s global and dynamic economy the prosperity oforganizations depends upon the ability of their members to disengage frompreferred ways of thinking and doing so that they can generate novel and usefulideas and products (Amabile, 1988; Shalley et al., 2000; Sternberg et al., 1997).Although creativity researchers have given attention to the interaction betweenindividual learning styles and the context of work (e.g. Sternberg et al., 1997;Woodman et al., 1993), there has been an ongoing frustration in attempting toexplain this interaction through the lens of basically acontextual psychologicaltheories and methods. For example, the long-time favorite divergent thinking testshave largely failed to produce valid predictions about real world creativity(Amabile, 1996; Baer, 1998; Gardner, 1993) and the commonly held idea thatindividuals with reflective learning styles are more creative than those with activestyles (for a review see O’Hara and Sternberg, 1999) does not seem to apply well


in those domains, like management, in which creativity requires not only reflectionbut also active performance and improvisation (Nemiro, 1997; Sawyer, 1992,1998). Our thesis is that creative adaptation, as the basis of generating creativeideas and actions, results from integrating the dual dialectics of learning, theprocesses of diverging and converging, assimilating and accommodating (seeFigure 1). We are not alone in this conclusion. Brophy (1998) has recentlysummarized findings that support the theory that creative problem-solving involvesboth divergent and convergent processes, Ayman-Noley (1999) has noted that inthe Piagetian and neo-Piagetian theories of development creativity is linked to theintegration of the dialectical processes of assimilation and accommodation, andmany organizational authors have suggested that creativity is a process thatintegrates dialectical tensions (e.g. Evans, 1992; Hampden-Turner, 1999; Main-emelis, 2000). In this study we have operationalized both integrated learning andadaptive flexibility; future research can now build upon our work to investigatetheir relation to employee creativity.

Implications for practice must be considered tentative at this point, awaitingreplication and further construct validation of the balanced LSI learning profileand adaptive flexibility on the ASI. At a minimum the study gives a suggestedanswer to the often asked questions, ‘What does it mean if I score “in the middle”on the LSI?’ or ‘What is the difference between balanced and specialized learningstyles?’ The findings suggest that the balanced learning profile, particularly on theconceptualizing/experiencing dialectic, is more flexible in adapting to differentlearning contexts, but may be less effective for skill development than a specializedlearning style commensurate with specific specialized learning skills. Also, thesubstantial correlation between LSI scores and ASI total scores suggest thatindividuals’ ASI total scores are similar to their LSI scores. Finally, data from thisgraduate management program suggest that emphasizing conceptualization andanalytic skills in selection and curriculum, while fostering analytic skill develop-ment, may inhibit pluralism of student learning styles (see Boyatzis and Main-emelis, 2000; Lengnick-Hall and Sanders, 1997) and the flexibility required inmost managerial jobs to balance interpersonal and analytic job demands (seeBoyatzis, 1982).

Note

This research was completed when the first author was a PhD student at Case WesternReserve University. We thank two anonymous reviewers of Management Learning for theirinsightful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1988) ‘A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations’, in B. M.Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 123–67.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Anastasi, A. and Urbina, S. (1997) Psychological Testing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Ayman-Noley, S. (1999) ‘A Piagetian Perspective on the Dialectic Process of Creativity’,Creativity Research Journal 12: 267–75.

Baer, J. (1998) ‘The Case for Domain Specificity of Creativity’, Creativity Research Journal 11:173–8.

Ballou, R., Bowers, D., Boyatzis, R. E. and Kolb, D. A. (1999) ‘Fellowship in LifelongLearning: An Executive Development Program for Advanced Professionals’, Journal ofManagement Education 23(4): 338–54.

Beutell, N. J. and Kressel, S. S. (1984) ‘An Investigation of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory:Social Desirability and Normative Scoring’, Psychological Reports 55: 89–90.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982) The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1994) ‘Stimulating Self-directed Change: A Required MBA Course CalledManagerial Assessment and Development’, Journal of Management Education 18(3):304–23.

Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S. and Kolb, D. A. (eds) (1995) Innovation in Professional Education:Steps in a Journey from Teaching to Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyatzis, R. E. and Kolb, D. A. (1991) Learning Skills Profile. Boston, MA: TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group, 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116,[email protected].

Boyatzis, R. E. and Kolb, D. A. (1993) Adaptive Style Inventory: Self Scored Inventory andInterpretation Booklet. Boston, MA: TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group, 116Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116, [email protected].

Boyatzis, R. E. and Kolb, D. A. (1995) ‘From Learning Styles to Learning Skills: TheExecutive Skills Profile’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 10(5): 3–17.

Boyatzis, R. E. and Kolb, D. A. (1997) ‘Assessing Individuality in Learning: The LearningSkills Profile’, Educational Psychology 11(3–4): 279–95.

Boyatzis, R. E., Leonard, D., Rhee, K. and Wheeler, J. V. (1996) ‘Competencies Can BeDeveloped, but Not the Way We Thought’, Capability 2(2): 25–41.

Boyatzis, R. E. and Mainemelis, C. (2000) ‘An Empirical Study of the Pluralism of Learningand Adaptive Styles in an MBA Program’, paper presented at the annual meeting of theAcademy of Management, Toronto, Management Education and Development Division.

Boyatzis, R. E., Wheeler, J. and Wright, R. (in press) ‘Competency Development inGraduate Education: A Longitudinal Perspective’, in Proceedings of the First World Conferenceon Self-Directed Learning. Montreal: GIRAT.

Brophy, D. R. (1998) ‘Understanding, Measuring, and Enhancing Individual CreativeProblem-solving Efforts’, Creativity Research Journal 11: 123–52.

Carmines, E. G. and Zeller, R. A. (1989) Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Certo, S. and Lamb, S. (1980) ‘An Investigation of Bias within the Learning Style Inventorythrough Factor Analysis’, Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation 2: 1–7.

Clark, L. A. and Watson, D. (1997) ‘Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective ScaleDevelopment’, Psychological Assessment 7(3): 309–19.

Clemans, W. V. (1966) ‘An Analytical and Empirical Examination of Some Properties ofIpsative Measures’, Psychometric Monographs 14.

Cornwell, J. M. and Dunlap, W. P. (1991) ‘On the Questionable Soundness of FactoringIpsative Data: A Response to Saville & Wilson’, Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology 67: 89–100.

Cronbach, L. J. (1960) Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper.Davison, M. L. (1980) ‘A Psychological Model for Testing Order Hypotheses’, Journal of

Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 33: 123–41.Dunlap, W. P. and Cornwell, J. M. (1994) ‘Factor Analysis of Ipsative Measures’, Multivariate

Behavioral Research 29(1): 115–26.


Evans, P. A. L. (1992) ‘Balancing Continuity and Change: The Constructive Tension inIndividual and Organizational Development’, in S. Srivastva and R. Fry (eds) Executiveand Organizational Continuity, pp. 253–83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ferrell, B. G. (1983) ‘A Factor Analytic Comparison of Four Learning Styles Instruments’,Journal of Educational Psychology 75(1): 33–9.

Freedman, R. D. and Stumpf, S. A. (1978) ‘What Can One Learn from the Learning StyleInventory?’, Academy of Management Journal 21(2): 275–82.

Freedman, R. D. and Stumpf, S. A. (1980) ‘Learning Styles Theory: Less Than Meets theEye’, Academy of Management Review 5(3): 115–17.

Freire, P. (1992) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gardner, H. (1993) Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.Goldman, M. (1972) ‘Learning Style Influence on Career Decision’, unpublished master’s

thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Goodman, L. A. (1975) ‘A New Model for Scaling Response Patterns: An Application of the

Quasi-independence Concept’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 755–68.Greer, T. and Dunlap, W. P. (1997) ‘Analysis of Variance with Ipsative Measures’,

Psychological Methods 2(2): 200–7.Hampden-Turner, C. M. (1999) ‘Control, Chaos, Control: A Cybernetic View of Creativity’,

in R. E. Purser and A. Montuori (eds) Social Creativity, vol. 2, pp: 17–31. New Jersey:Hampton.

Hickox, L. K. (1991) ‘An Historical Review of Kolb’s Formulation of Experiential LearningTheory’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.

Hicks, L. E. (1970) ‘Some Properties of Ipsative, Normative and Forced Choice NormativeMeasures’, Psychological Bulletin 74: 167–84.

Ilgen, D. R. and Pulakos, E. D. (1999) ‘Employee Performance in Today’s Organizations’,in D. R. Ilgen and E. D. Pulakos (eds) The Changing Nature of Work Performance:Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development, pp. 1–20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Illiff, C. H. (1994) ‘Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory: A Meta-analysis’, unpublished doctoraldissertation, Boston University.

James, W. (1977) ‘Percept and Concept: The Import of Concepts’, in J. McDermott (ed.)The Writings of William James. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, C. E., Wood, R. and Blinkhorn, S. F. (1988) ‘Spuriouser and Spuriouser: The Useof Ipsative Personality Tests’, Journal of Occupational Psychology 61: 153–62.

Jung, C. G. (1931) ‘Foreword and Commentary’, in R. Wilhelm (trans.) The Secret of theGolden Flower. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.

Katz, N. (1986) ‘Construct Validity of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, Using Factor Analysisand Guttman’s Smallest Space Analysis’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 63(3): 1323–6.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1999a) Learning Style Inventory, Version 3. Boston, MA: TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group, 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116,[email protected].

Kolb, D. A. (1999b) Learning Style Inventory Version 3: Technical Specifications. Boston, MA:TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group, 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA02116, [email protected].

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E. and Mainemelis, C. (2001) ‘Experiential Learning Theory:Previous Research and New Directions’, in R. J. Sternberg and L. F. Zhang (eds)Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, pp. 227–47. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.


Kolb, A. and Kolb, D. A. (2000) Bibliography of Research on Experiential Learning Theory and theLearning Style Inventory. Cleveland, OH: Department of Organizational Behavior, Weather-head School of Management, Case Western Reserve University.

Kolb, D. A. and Wolfe, D. (1981) Professional Education and Career Development: A Cross-sectional Study of Adaptive Competencies in Experiential Learning. Final report NIE grant no.NIE-G-77–0053, ERIC no. ED 209 493 CE 030 519. Cleveland, OH: Department ofOrganizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A. and Sanders, M. M. (1997) ‘Designing Effective Learning Systems forManagement Education: Student Roles, Requisite Variety, and Practicing What WeTeach’, Academy of Management Journal 40(6): 1334–68.

Mainemelis, C. (2000) ‘The Time of Creativity: Toward a Typological Framework’, paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Organiza-tional Behavior Division.

Marshall, J. C. and Merritt, S. L. (1985) ‘Reliability and Construct Validity of AlternateForms of the Learning Style Inventory’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 45:931–7.

Nemiro, J. (1997) ‘Interpretive Artists: A Qualitative Exploration of the Creative Process ofActors’, Creativity Research Journal 10: 229–39.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Hara, L. and Sternberg, R. J. (1999) ‘Learning Styles’, in M. A. Runco and S. Pritzker

(eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity, vol. 2, pp. 147–53. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Piaget, J. (1952) The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International University

Press.Pedhazur, E. J. and Schmelkin, L. P. (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated

Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A. and Plamondon, K. E. (2000) ‘Adaptability in the

Workplace: Development of a Taxonomy of Adaptive Performance’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 85(4): 612–24.

Rainey, M. A., Hekelman, F., Galazka, S. F. and Kolb, D. A. (1993) ‘Job Demands andPersonal Skills in Family Medicine: Implications for Faculty Development’, FamilyMedicine 25: 100–3.

Saville, P. and Wilson, E. (1991) ‘The Reliability and Validity of Normative and IpsativeApproaches in the Measurement of Personality’, Journal of Occupational Psychology 64:219–38.

Sawyer, K. (1992) ‘Improvisational Creativity: An Analysis of Jazz Performance’, CreativityResearch Journal 5: 253–63.

Sawyer, R. K. (1998) ‘The Interdisciplinary Study of Creativity in Performance’, CreativityResearch Journal 11: 11–19.

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S. (1960) Research Methods in Social Relations.New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L. and Blum, T. C. (2000) ‘Matching Creativity Requirements andthe Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave’, Academy ofManagement Journal 43: 215–23.

Sims, R. R., Veres, J. G., Watson, P. and Buckner, K. E. (1986) ‘The Reliability andClassification Stability of the Learning Style Inventory’, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 46: 753–60.

Sisson, E. D. (1948) ‘Forced Choice: The New Army Rating’, Personnel Psychology 8: 297–9.Smith, D. (1990) ‘Physician Managerial Skills: Assessing the Critical Competencies of the

Physician Executive’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of OrganizationalBehavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University.

Smith, D. and Kolb, D. A. (1986) Users Guide for the Learning Style Inventory. Boston: Hay/McBer.


Sternberg, R. J., O’Hara, L. A. and Lubart, T. I. (1997) ‘Creativity as Investment’, CaliforniaManagement Review 40: 8–21.

Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1999) ‘A Legitimate Case of Component Analysis of Ipsative Measures,and Partializing the Mean as an Alternative to Ipsatization’, Multivariate BehavioralResearch 34(1): 89–102.

Thatch, L. and Woodman, R. W. (1994) ‘Organizational Change and Information Technol-ogy: Managing on the Edge of Cyberspace’, Organizational Dynamics 23(1): 30–46.

Thomson, B., Levitov, J. E. and Miederhoff, P. A. (1982) ‘Validity of the Rokeach ValueSurvey’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 42: 899–905.

Veres, J. G., Sims, R. R. and Locklear, T. S. (1991) ‘Improving the Reliability of Kolb’sRevised LSI’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 51: 143–50.

Veres, J. G., Sims, R. R. and Shake, L. G. (1987) ‘The Reliability and Classification Stabilityof the Learning Style Inventory in Corporate Settings’, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 47(4): 1127–33.

Weathersby, R. (1977) ‘Program Profiles by Learning Style’, unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Harvard University.

White, J. (1992) ‘Applying an Experiential Learning Styles Framework to Management andProfessional Development’, Journal of Management Development 11(5): 55–64.

White, J. (1994) ‘Individual Characteristics and Social Knowledge in Ethical Reasoning’,Psychological Reports 75: 627–49.

Wolfe, J. (1977) ‘Learning Styles Rewarded in a Complex Simulation with Implications forBusiness Policy and Organizational Behavior Research’, paper presented at 1977 Acad-emy of Management meeting, in Academy of Management Proceedings.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. and Griffin, R. W. (1993) ‘Toward a Theory of Organiza-tional Creativity’, Academy of Management Review 18: 293–321.

Appendix A: Adaptive Flexibility Formulae

The formulae for the two adaptive flexibility measures are based on the vectors for each ofthe eight items of the ASI. There are two possible vectors per dimension for each item. Forexample, the AC/CE vectors for Item 1 are:

If AC ! CE, Vector AC/Item1 = 1, Vector CE/Item1 = 0.If AC = CE, Vector AC/Item1 = Vector CE/Item1 = 1.If AC " CE, Vector AC/Item1 = 0, Vector CE/Item1 = 1.

The valence of individuals’ preference for each mode is given by summing the vectors ofthe eight items:

SUM (Vectors AC) = Vector AC/Item1 + . . . + Vector AC/Item8.SUM (Vectors CE) = Vector CE/Item1 + . . . + Vector CE/Item8.SUM (Vectors AE) = Vector AE/Item1 + . . . + Vector AE/Item8.SUM (Vectors CE) = Vector RO/Item1 + . . . + Vector RO/Item8.

The formulae for adaptive flexibility in the two ASI dimensions are the following (notethat due to subtraction the scoring is inverse: i.e. the lower the score, the higher theadaptive flexibility):

Adaptive flexibility in AC/CE = ABS [SUM (Vectors AC) – SUM (Vectors CE)]

This score has a minimum value = 0, maximum = 8, mean = 3.56, standard deviation =2.24, skewness = .24, and kurtosis = –.93.

Adaptive flexibility in AE/RO = ABS [SUM (Vectors AE) – SUM (Vectors RO)]

This score has minimum = 0, maximum = 8, mean = 2.19, SD = 1.79, skewness = .96,kurtosis = .82.


Appendix BTable B Univariate statistics and Pearson correlations among LSI, ASI, and LSP scores (N = 198)

Item Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1. LSI AC 33.66 7.72 —2. LSI CE 24.74 6.81 –.45 —3. LSI AE 33.73 7.10 –.44 .01 —4. LSI RO 27.87 7.89 –.20 –.44 –.48 —5. LSI (AC – CE) 8.91 12.36 .87 –.83 –.28 .12 —6. LSI (AE – RO) 5.85 12.89 –.12 .27 .84 –.88 –.22 —7. LSI ABS (AC –

[CE + 4])11.04 7.39 .33 –.28 –.10 .01 .36 –.06 —

8. LSI ABS (AE –[RO + 6])

10.90 6.83 –.04 .04 –.04 .05 –.05 –.05 –.08 —

9. ASI AC 13.86 3.91 .49 –.27 –.23 –.04 .46 –.10 .14 –.07 —10. ASI CE 9.87 3.92 –.40 .43 .08 –.05 –.49 .07 –.20 .08 –.62 —11. ASI AE 11.77 3.32 –.17 .02 .42 –.23 –.12 .37 –.01 –.07 –.40 –.10 —12. ASI RO 12.51 3.07 .07 –.23 –.26 .37 .17 –.37 .08 .07 –.05 –.37 –.44 —13. ASI (AC – CE) 3.99 7.05 .50 –.39 –.17 .01 .53 –.10 .19 –.08 .90 –.90 –.17 .18 —14. ASI (AE – RO) –.74 5.41 –.14 .14 .41 –.35 –.17 .44 –.05 –.09 –.22 .15 .86 –.83 –.20 —15. ASI Adaptive

flexibility AC/CE3.56 2.24 .20 –.21 –.01 .00 .24 –.01 .26 –.11 .40 –.41 –.11 .13 .45 –.14 —

16. ASI Adaptiveflexibility AE/RO

2.19 1.79 .04 –.06 .00 .02 .06 –.01 .03 .10 –.01 .02 –.04 .01 –.01 –.03 .04 —

17. LSP Analytical (AC) 67.55 20.14 .54 –.30 –.24 –.05 .50 –.10 .27 .02 .36 –.35 –.01 –.01 .40 .00 .15 .01 —18. LSP Interpersonal

(CE)83.73 14.70 –.24 .31 .12 –.15 –.32 .16 –.02 .08 –.12 .15 .05 –.11 –.15 .10 .04 .01 –.11 —

19. LSP Behavioral(AE)

84.86 13.62 .03 .11 .12 –.23 –.04 .21 .10 –.01 .10 –.07 .18 –.23 .09 .24 .12 .00 .18 .55 —

20. LSP Information(RO)

78.60 11.44 .15 .09 –.11 –.13 .05 .02 .20 –.02 .13 –.09 .01 –.06 .13 .04 .12 –.03 .33 .53 .64 —

21. LSP (AC – CE) –16.2 26.26 .55 –.41 –.25 .04 .57 –.17 .22 –.03 .35 –.35 –.04 .05 .39 –.05 .09 .01 .83 –.65 –.17 –.0422. LSP (AE – RO) 6.27 10.79 –.12 .04 .26 –.15 –.10 .23 –.08 .00 –.02 .01 .22 –.23 –.02 .27 .01 .04 –.13 .13 .58 –.25 –.01

Notes Significance (two-tailed): r’s ! ABS (.14), p " .05; r’s ! ABS (.18), p " .01; r’s ! ABS (.24), p " .001

30M


Appendix CTable C.1 Mean LSI scores for program type, gender, and age

Program Gender AgeFull-time Part-time Male Female ! 27 27–32 " 32

LSI scores (n = 140) (n = 58) (n = 124) (n = 74) (n = 59) (n = 103) (n = 29)

Conceptualizing (AC) 33.10 35.00 35.35 30.81*** 33.90 33.09 34.45Experiencing (CE) 25.03 24.05 24.05 25.91 24.46 25.21 23.48Acting (AE) 33.73 33.72 33.53 34.05 33.10 34.70 31.79Reflecting (RO) 28.14 27.22 27.06 29.23 28.54 27.00 30.28AC – CE 8.07 10.95 11.31 4.91*** 9.44 7.87 10.97AE – RO 5.59 6.50 6.47 4.82 4.56 7.70 1.52Balanced learning 10.63 12.02 11.60 10.09 11.37 10.50 12.21Profile in AC/CEBalanced learning 11.00 10.67 11.06 10.64 10.93 10.46 12.00Profile in AE/RO

Notes Due to inverse scoring in the computation of the balanced learning profile, the lower the score the more balanced the profile.*** Mean difference is statistically significant at p ! .001

Mainem


31

Table C.2 Mean ASI scores for program type, gender, and age


ASI scores (n = 140) (n = 58) (n = 124) (n = 74) (n = 59) (n = 103) (n = 29)

Conceptualizing (AC) 13.69 14.29 14.32 13.09 14.27 13.61 13.86Experiencing (CE) 10.05 9.45 9.30 10.84** 10.10 9.78 9.76Acting (AE) 11.79 11.72 11.67 11.93 11.41 12.12 11.41Reflecting (RO) 12.49 12.55 12.71 12.16 12.24 12.50 12.97AC – CE 3.64 4.84 5.02 2.26** 4.17 3.83 4.10AE – RO –.70 –.83 –1.04 –.23 –.83 –.39 –1.55Adaptive flexibility in AC/CE 3.51 3.67 3.87 3.03** 3.53 3.66 3.62Adaptive flexibility in AE/RO 2.25 2.03 2.38 1.86 2.39 2.17 1.90

Notes Due to inverse scoring in the computation of the balanced flexibility, the lower the score the more adaptively flexible the individual. ** Meandifference is statistically significant at p ! .01

Table C.3 Mean LSP scores for program type, gender, and age


LSP skills (n = 140) (n = 58) (n = 124) (n = 74) (n = 59) (n = 103) (n = 29)

Analytical (AC) 65.45 72.62 73.05 58.34*** 69.00 65.79 67.31Interpersonal (CE) 85.11 80.40 82.65 85.54 84.76 82.43 87.17Behavioral (AE) 85.61 83.07 84.85 84.88 86.59 83.23 87.69Information (RO) 78.64 78.50 79.10 77.76 79.29 76.77 82.02AC – CE –19.66 –7.78*** –9.60 –27.20*** –15.76 –16.64 –19.86AE – RO 6.97 4.57 5.76 7.12 7.31 6.47 5.62

Note *** Mean difference is statistically significant at p ! .001

32M


Contact Addresses

Charalampos (Babis) Mainemelis is Assistant Professor in the Department of Organisa-tional Behaviour, London Business School, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4SA, UK. [email:[email protected]]Richard E. Boyatzis and David A. Kolb are both Professors in the Department of Organiza-tional Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University,10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7235, USA. [email: [email protected]] and[email: [email protected]]


Extra MaterialsRecommended materials are marked with ‘ ’

On Experiential Learning Theory:• 4 page summary‘‘’ Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Learning Cycle: http://tru.uni-sz.bg/tsj/

Volume2_4/EXPERIENTIAL%20LEARNING.pdf

• Zhang, Li-Fang. "Thinking Styles and Cognitive Development." The Journal of Genetic Psychology 163, no. 2 (2002): 179-95. http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%20Nine/6879499.pdf

Resources from Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. A company founded and chaired by D.A. Kola himself, dedicated to the theory and practice of experiential learning. See Research Library. http://learningfromexperience.com/research/

• General Theory

The Process of Experiential Learning, Kolb, D. A. 1984, Chapter 2. In D. Kolb, The experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. NJ: Prentice-Hall. PDF, 21 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/process-of-experiential-learning.pdf

Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions, Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. 2000, Prepared for R. J. Sternberg and and L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive learning, and thinking styles. PDF, 40 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/experiential-learning-theory.pdf

• Learning Styles Inventory (LSI)

Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility: Testing Experiential Learning Theory of Development, Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., & Kolb, D. A. 2002, Management Learning, 33 (1):5-33. PDF, 29 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2013/09/learning-style-and-adaptive-flexibility-ML-2002.pdf

• Learning Skills Profile (LSP)

Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education, Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. 2005, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, 193–212. PDF, 21 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2011/03/Learning-styles-and-learning-spaces.pdf

• The Learning Flexibility Index: Assessing Contextual Flexibility in Learning Style, Sharma G., Kolb, D. A. 2010, Case Western Reserve University PDF, 30 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/the-learning-flexibility-index-assessing-contextual-flexibility-in-learning.pdf

http://tru.uni-sz.bg/tsj/Volume2_4/EXPERIENTIAL%20LEARNING.pdf

http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%20Nine/6879499.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/research/

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/process-of-experiential-learning.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/experiential-learning-theory.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2013/09/learning-style-and-adaptive-flexibility-ML-2002.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2011/03/Learning-styles-and-learning-spaces.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/the-learning-flexibility-index-assessing-contextual-flexibility-in-learning.pdf

• Learning Identity

• Assessing Individuality in Learning: The Learning Skills Profile, Boyatzis, R. E. & Kolb, D. A. 1991, Educational Psychology 11(3,4), 279-295. PDF, 17 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/Boyatzis-Kolb-LSP.pdf

On Becoming a Learner: The Concept of Learning Identity, Kolb A. & Kolb, D. A. 2009, Essays on Adult Learning Inspired by the Life and Work of David O. Justice. Learning Never Ends. CAEL Forum and News 2009. P. 5-13. PDF, 11 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/05/on-becoming-a-learner-the-concept-of-learning-identity.pdf

• The Learning Way: Meta-Cognitive Aspects of Experiential Learning. Simulation and Gaming. Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. 2008, Simulation & Gaming. 40(3): 297-327. PDF, 32 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2013/09/Metacognitive-EL-SG-article-6-09.pdf

• Using ELT

• p.15-18. Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development, Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. 2009, P. 42-68. The SAGES Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development. Edited by S. J. Armstrong, and C. V. Fukami. PDF, 59 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/ELT-Hbk-MLED-LFE-website-2-10-08.pdf

• Using Experiential Learning Theory to Promote Student Learning and Development in Programs of Education Abroad, Passarelli M. A., Kolb, D. A. 2012, In Michael Vande Berg, Michael Page, & Kris Lou (Eds.) Student Learning Abroad. Sterling, VA. PDF, 23 Pages http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/using-experiential-learning-theory-to-promote-student-learning-and-development-in-programs-of-education-abroad.pdf

• Deliberate Experiential Learning: Mastering the Art of Learning from Experience, Kolb, D. A., & Yeganeh, B. 2012, In K. Elsbach, C. D. Kayes & A. Kayes (Eds.), Contemporary Organizational Behavior in Action (1st Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. PDF, 12 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/deliberate-experiential-learning.pdf

• p 4, 5,7, 8. Designing Learning, Eickmann, P., Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. 2004, Designing learning. In R. J. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 241-247). Stanford: Stanford University Press. PDF, 10 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/Designing-Learning.pdf

• Culture

Are There Cultural Differences in Learning Style?, Joy, S., Kolb, D. A. 2009, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1): 69-85. PDF, 18 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/are-there-cultural-differences-in-learning-style.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/Boyatzis-Kolb-LSP.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/05/on-becoming-a-learner-the-concept-of-learning-identity.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2013/09/Metacognitive-EL-SG-article-6-09.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/ELT-Hbk-MLED-LFE-website-2-10-08.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/using-experiential-learning-theory-to-promote-student-learning-and-development-in-programs-of-education-abroad.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/deliberate-experiential-learning.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/Designing-Learning.pdf

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/are-there-cultural-differences-in-learning-style.pdf

• Eastern Experiential Learning: Eastern principles for learning wholeness, Trinh, M. P. & Kolb, D. A. 2012, Journal of Career Planning and Adult Development, Special Issue “Recovering Craft: Holistic Work and Empowerment. William Charland, Guest Editor. PDF, 16 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2012/02/eastern-experiential-learning.pdf

Learning Styles and Typologies of Cultural Differences: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison, Yamzaki, Y. 2006, Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5):521-548 PDF, 53 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/yoshi-typologies-of-cultural-differences.pdf

• Discipline Specific

• Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences: Diverse Pathways, Kolb, D. A. 1981, In A. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. PDF, 25 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/Learning-styles-and-disciplinary-difference.pdf

• Conversation

Conversation as Experiential Learning, Kolb, D. A., Baker, A. C., & Jensen, P. J. 2002, In A. C. Baker, P. J. Jensen, D. A. Kolb and Associates, Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum. PDF, 26 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/conversation-as-experiential-learning.pdf

• The Evolution of a Conversational Learning Space, Kolb, A. 2002, In A. C. Baker, P. J. Jensen, D. A. Kolb and Associates, Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation. Westport, Connecticut:Quorum. PDF, 58 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/the-evolution-of-a-conversational-learning-space.pdf

Experiential Learning: From Discourse Model to Conversation: Intervew with David Kolb, Kolb, D. A. 1988, Lifelong Learning in Europe, 3, 148-153. PDF, 6 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2011/03/experiential-learning-from-discourse-model-to-conversation.pdf

• Unclassified

• Learning to Play, Playing to Learn: A Case Study of a Ludic Learning Space, Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. 2010, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1): 26-50. PDF, 30 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/Kolb_Play-and-learning.pdf

• Mindfulness and Experiential Learning, Yaganeh, B. and Kolb, D. A. 2009, Working Paper, Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. PDF, 14 Pages. http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2013/09/Mindfulness-and-Experiential-Learning-ODP-Yeganeh_Kolb_-5-09.pdf

On Self Theories:

Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals, Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Ellen Winfield 2002, Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan. PDF, 25 Pages. http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/garp/articles/eccles02c.pdf

• “Theories of Intelligence”. Extracted from haikulearning.com https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwjVmby1rsHIAhXHPo4KHaSXB_k&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbarrie.haikulearning.com%2Fthata%2Fmusresources%2Fcms_file%2Fshow%2F26869553.pdf%3Ft%3D1408547495&usg=AFQjCNGov0Bb5l4u8j9btUTdAtLTgrsrbw&sig2=GRjA-EWESNh-bWmQwqGBog

"Module 17: Self Theories". Extracted from IBA University’s Management 101 Study Resources (Fall 2014). PDF, 18 pages. https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwiY4YSbuMHIAhVIj44KHYRBBiY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhighered.mheducation.com%2Fsites%2Fdl%2Ffree%2F007809786x%2F945113%2Fboh9786X_unit05_mod17.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEPjaNKCK4w9tYuXtbSHqKddB1sVg&sig2=l9sZU8ez8fH5jb8aVitKDQ

TEDxNorrkoping. (2014, November). Carol Dweck: The Power Of Believing That You Can Improve [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/carol_dweck_the_power_of_believing_that_you_can_improve?language=en

Trevor Ragan. (2014, January 30). Carol Dweck—A Study On Praise And Mindsets [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWv1VdDeoRY

Curious Minds. (2015, April 23). Professor Carol Dweck ‘Teaching A Growth Mindset’ At Young Minds 2013 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmMJXvUmRh0

Happy and Well. (2013, October 20). Carol Dweck ‘Mindset—The New Psychology Of Success’ At Happiness And Its Causes 2013 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmMJXvUmRh0

The School Of Life. (2013, July 31). Carol Dweck On Perfectionism [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgUF5WalyDk

University of Virginia. (2013, March 21). 2013 Ridely Lecture: Carol Dweck On Student Mindsets [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGnqgXmlTk4

overview: experiential learning resources · elt, elt cycle, learning style, learning flexibility...

Documents