See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303446688

The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0: Guide to Theory, Psychometrics,

Research & Applications

Book · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

76 228,908

2 authors:

David A. Kolb Alice Y. Kolb

Case Western Reserve University Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc.
114 PUBLICATIONS 60,336 CITATIONS 342 PUBLICATIONS 12,872 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David A. Kolb on 23 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 6

1. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNING STYLES

The Kolb Learning Style Inventory differs from other tests of learning style and
personality used in education by being based on a comprehensive theory of learning and
development. Experiential Learning Theory (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 John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, William
James, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers and Mary Parker Follett—to develop a holistic
model of the experiential learning process and a multi-dimensional model of adult
development (Figure 1.)
Figure 1.

John Dewey
Foundational Scholars of
• Experiential Education
Experiential Learning
Jean Piaget
William James
• Constructivism
Radical Empiricism

Kurt Lewin Lev Vygotsky

• Action Research • Proximal Zone of
• The T-Group Development

Carl Rogers Paulo Freire

• Self-actualization through • Naming Experience in
the Process of Experiencing Dialogue

Carl Jung Mary Parker Follett

• Development from • Learning in Relationship
Specialization to Integration • Creative Experience
(C) 2013 EBLSI

The theory, described in detail in Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of

Learning and Development (Kolb 1984), is built on six propositions that are shared by these
scholars.

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. To
improve learning in higher education, the primary focus should be on engaging
students in a process that best enhances their learning – a process that includes
feedback on the effectiveness of their learning efforts. “…education must be
conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience: … the process and goal
of education are one and the same thing.” (Dewey 1897: 79)
 7

2. All learning is re-learning. Learning is best facilitated by a process that draws

out the students’ 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 and learn from experiences that lead them to realize how new
information conflicts with their prior experience and belief.

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 to the world. 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 problem 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. ELT proposes a constructivist theory of learning
whereby social knowledge is created and recreated in the personal knowledge of
the learner.

THE CYCLE OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

ELT 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. Learning is defined 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).
 8

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. These implications can be actively tested and serve as guides in
creating new experiences (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Experiential Learning Cycle

In The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring the biology of
learning, James Zull a biologist and founding director of CWRU’s University Center for
Innovation in Teaching and Education (UCITE) sees a link between ELT and neuroscience
research, suggesting that this process of experiential learning is related to the process of
brain functioning as shown in Figure 2. “Put into words, the figure illustrates that 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.” (Zull 2002: 18-19; 2011)
 9

Figure 3. The Experiential Learning Cycle and Regions of the Cerebral Cortex.

Reprinted with permission of the author (Zull 2002)

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. 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 & Kolb 2005b). In the KLSI a person’s learning style is
defined by their unique combination of preferences for the four learning modes defining a
“kite” shape profile of their relative preference for the four phases of the learning cycle.
Because each person's learning style is unique, everyone's kite shape is a little different.

ELT posits 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 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
 10

themselves through the choice of the actual occasions that they live through” (Kolb, 1984, p.
63-64).

Previous research with KLSI versions 1-3.1 has identified four learning style
groupings of similar kite shapes that are associated with different approaches to learning —
Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating. This research has shown that
learning styles are influenced by culture, personality type, educational specialization, career
choice, and current job role and tasks (Kolb & Kolb, 2013; Kolb, 1984). These patterns of
behavior associated with the four basic learning styles are shaped by transactions between
persons and their environment at five different levels—personality, educational
specialization, professional career, current job role, and adaptive competencies. While some
have interpreted learning style as a personality variable (Garner 2000, Furnam, Jackson &
Miller 1999), ELT defines learning style as a social psychological concept that is only
partially determined by personality. Personality exerts a small but pervasive influence in
nearly all situations; but at the other levels learning style is influenced by increasingly
specific environmental demands of educational specialization, career, job, and tasks skills.
Table 1 summarizes previous research that has identified how learning styles are determined
at these various levels.

Table 1
Relationship Between Learning Styles and Five Levels of Behavior.

Behavior level Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating

Personality Introverted Introverted Extraverted Extraverted
types Feeling Intuition Thinking Sensation
Educational Arts, English Mathematics Engineering Education
specialization History Physical Medicine Communication
Psychology Science Nursing
Professional Social service Sciences Engineering Sales
career Arts Research Medicine Social service
Information Technology Education
Current jobs Personal Information Technical Executive
jobs jobs jobs jobs
Adaptive Valuing Thinking Decision Action
competencies skills skills skills skills
 11

Personality Types.

Although the learning styles of and learning modes proposed by ELT are derived
from the works of Dewey, Lewin and Piaget many have noted the similarity of these
concepts to Carl Jung’s descriptions of individuals’ preferred ways for adapting in the
world. Several research studies relating the LSI with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) indicate that Jung’s Extraversion/Introversion dialectical dimension correlates
with the Active/Reflective dialectic of ELT and the MBTI Feeling/Thinking dimension
correlates with the LSI Concrete Experience/ Abstract Conceptualization dimension. The
MBTI Sensing type is associated with the LSI Accommodating learning style and the
MBTI Intuitive type with the LSI Assimilating style. MBTI Feeling types correspond to
LSI Diverging learning styles and Thinking types to Converging styles. The above
discussion implies that the Accommodating learning style is the Extraverted Sensing
type, and the Converging style the Extraverted Thinking type. The Assimilating learning
style corresponds to the Introverted Intuitive personality type and the Diverging style to
the Introverted Feeling type. Myers (1962) descriptions of these MBTI types are very
similar to the corresponding LSI learning styles as described by ELT (Kolb, 1984, pp:
83-85).

Educational Specialization.

Early educational experiences shape people’s individual learning styles by instilling

positive attitudes toward specific sets of learning skills and by teaching students how to
learn. Although elementary education is generalized, there is an increasing process of
specialization that begins in high school and becomes sharper during the college years.
This specialization in the realms of social knowledge influences individuals’ orientations
toward learning, resulting in particular relations between learning styles and early
training in an educational specialty or discipline. For example, people specializing in the
arts, history, political science, English, and psychology tend to have Diverging learning
styles, while those majoring in more abstract and applied areas like medicine and
engineering have Converging learning styles. Individuals with Accommodating styles
often have educational backgrounds in education, communication and nursing, and those
with Assimilating styles in mathematics and physical sciences.

Professional Career.

A third set of factors that shape learning styles stems from professional careers.
One’s professional career choice not only exposes one to a specialized learning
environment, but it also involves a commitment to a generic professional problem, such
as social service, that requires a specialized adaptive orientation. In addition, one
becomes a member of a reference group of peers who share a professional mentality, and
a common set of values and beliefs about how one should behave professionally. This
professional orientation shapes learning style through habits acquired in professional
training and through the more immediate normative pressures involved in being a
competent professional. Research over the years has shown that social service and arts
careers attract people with a Diverging learning style. Professions in the sciences and
 12

information or research have people with an Assimilating learning style. The

Converging learning styles tends to be dominant among professionals in technology
intensive fields like medicine and engineering. Finally, the Accommodating learning
style characterizes people with careers in fields such as sales, social service and
education.

Current Job Role.

The fourth level of factors influencing learning style is the person’s current job role.
The task demands and pressures of a job shape a person’s adaptive orientation. Executive
jobs, such as general management, that require a strong orientation to task
accomplishment and decision making in uncertain emergent circumstances require an
Accommodating learning style. Personal jobs, such as counseling and personnel
administration, that require the establishment of personal relationships and effective
communication with other people demand a Diverging learning style. Information jobs,
such as planning and research, that require data gathering and analysis, as well as
conceptual modeling, require an Assimilating learning style. Technical jobs, such as
bench engineering and production that require technical and problem-solving skills
require a convergent learning orientation.

Adaptive competencies.

The fifth and most immediate level of forces that shapes learning style is the specific
task or problem the person is currently working on. Each task we face requires a
corresponding set of skills for effective performance. The effective matching of task
demands and personal skills results in an adaptive competence. The Accommodative
learning style encompasses a set of competencies that can best be termed Acting skills:
Leadership, Initiative, and Action. The Diverging learning style is associated with
Valuing skills: Relationship, Helping others, and Sense-making. The Assimilating
learning style is related to Thinking skills: Information-gathering, Information-analysis,
and Theory building. Finally, the Converging learning style is associated with Decision
skills like Quantitative Analysis, Use of Technology, and Goal-setting (Kolb, 1984).

The following summary of the four basic learning styles is based on both research
and clinical observation of these patterns of KLSI scores (Kolb, 1984, Kolb & Kolb 2013).

An individual with diverging style has CE and RO as dominant learning abilities.

People with this learning style are best at viewing concrete situations from many different
points of view. It is labeled “Diverging” because a person with it performs better in
situations that call for generation of ideas, such as a “brainstorming” session. People with a
Diverging learning style have broad cultural interests and like to gather information. They
are interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, have broad cultural interests,
and tend to specialize in the arts. In formal learning situations, people with the Diverging
style prefer to work in groups, listening with an open mind and receiving personalized
feedback.
 13

An individual with an assimilating style has AC and RO as dominant learning

abilities. People with this learning style are best at understanding a wide range of
information and putting into concise, logical form. Individuals with an Assimilating style are
less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. Generally, people
with this style find it more important that a theory have logical soundness than practical
value. The Assimilating learning style is important for effectiveness in information and
science careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures,
exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.

An individual with a converging style has AC and AE as dominant learning abilities.

People with this learning style are best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. They
have the ability to solve problems and make decisions based on finding solutions to questions
or problems. Individuals with a Converging learning style prefer to deal with technical tasks
and problems rather than with social issues and interpersonal issues. These learning skills
are important for effectiveness in specialist and technology careers. In formal learning
situations, people with this style prefer to experiment with new ideas, simulations, laboratory
assignments, and practical applications.

An individual with an accommodating style has CE and AE as dominant learning

abilities. People with this learning style have the ability to learn from primarily “hands-on”
experience. They enjoy carrying out plans and involving themselves in new and challenging
experiences. Their tendency may be to act on “gut” feelings rather than on logical analysis.
In solving problems, individuals with an Accommodating learning style rely more heavily on
people for information than on their own technical analysis. This learning style is important
for effectiveness in action-oriented careers such as marketing or sales. In formal learning
situations, people with the Accommodating learning style prefer to work with others to get
assignments done, to set goals, to do field work, and to test out different approaches to
completing a project.

The nine learning styles of the KLSI 4.0

Data from empirical and clinical studies over the years has shown that these original
four learning style types—Accommodating, Assimilating , Converging and Diverging— can
be refined further into a nine style typology that better defines the unique patterns of
individual learning styles and reduces the confusions introduced by borderline cases in the
old 4 style typology (Eickmann, Kolb, & Kolb, 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005a&b; Boyatzis &
Mainemelis, 2000). With feedback from users we first began noticing a fifth “balancing”
style describing users who scored at the center of the Learning Style grid. Later we
discovered that individuals who scored near the grid boundary lines also had distinctive
styles. For example an “Experiencing” style was identified between the Accommodating and
Diverging styles 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).
 14

The new KLSI 4.0 introduces these nine style types by moving from a 4 pixel to 9
pixel resolution of learning style types as described below. The 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 kite shape of each style, is depicted
in Figure 4. See Appendix 9 for detailed descriptions and case studies of the nine types.

Figure 4. The Nine Learning Styles in the KLSI 4.0

The Initiating style - initiating action to deal with experiences and situations.
The Initiating style is characterized by the ability to initiate action in order to deal with
experiences and situations. It involves active experimentation (AE) and concrete experience
(CE).

The Experiencing style - finding meaning from deep involvement in experience. The
Experiencing style is characterized by the ability to find meaning from deep involvement in
experience. It draws on concrete experience (CE) while balancing active experimentation
(AE) and reflective observation (RO).
 15

The Imagining style - imagining possibilities by observing and reflecting on

experiences. The Imagining style is characterized by the ability to imagine possibilities by
observing and reflecting on experiences. It combines the learning steps of concrete
experience (CE) and reflective observation (RO).

The Reflecting style - connecting experience and ideas through sustained reflection.
The Reflecting style is characterized by the ability to connect experience and ideas through
sustained reflection. It draws on reflective observation (RO) while balancing concrete
experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC).

The Analyzing style - integrating ideas into concise models and systems through
reflection. The Analyzing style is characterized by the ability to integrate and systematize
ideas through reflection. It combines reflective observation (RO) and abstract
conceptualization (AC).

The Thinking style - disciplined involvement in abstract reasoning and logical

reasoning. The Thinking style is characterized by the capacity for disciplined involvement in
abstract and logical reasoning. It draws on abstract conceptualization (AC) while balancing
active experimentation (AE) and reflective observation (RO).

The Deciding style - using theories and models to decide on problem solutions and
courses of action. The Deciding style is characterized by the ability to use theories and
models to decide on problem solutions and courses of action. it combines abstract
conceptualization (AC) and active experimentation (AE).

The Acting style - a strong motivation for goal directed action that integrates people
and tasks. The Acting style is characterized by a strong motivation for goal directed action
that integrates people and tasks. It draws on active experimentation (AE) while balancing
concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC).

The Balancing style - adapting by weighing the pros and cons of acting versus
reflecting and experiencing versus thinking. The Balancing style is characterized by the
ability to adapt; weighing the pros and cons of acting versus reflecting and experiencing
versus thinking. It balances concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, active
experimentation and reflective observation.

These nine KLSI 4.0 learning styles further define the experiential learning cycle by
emphasizing four dialectic tensions in the learning process. In addition to the primary
dialectics of Abstract Conceptualization/Concrete Experience and Active
Experimentation/Reflective Observation, The combination dialectics of
Assimilation/Accommodation and Converging/Diverging are also represented in an eight
stage learning cycle with Balancing in the center. Thus The Initiating style has a strong
preference for active learning in context (Accommodation) while the Analyzing style has a
strong preference for reflective conceptual learning (Assimilation). The Imagining style has
a strong preference for opening alternatives and perspectives on experience (Diverging)
while the Deciding style has a strong preference for closing on the single best option for
action (Converging). The formulas for calculating the continuous scores on these
combination dialectics are reported on page 41. Figure 5 depicts this expanded learning
cycle and illustrates how an individual's particular style represents their preferred space in
the cycle.
16

Figure 5
 17

LEARNING SPACE

If learning is to occur, it requires a space for it to take place. While, for most, the
concept of learning space first conjures up the image of the physical classroom environment,
it is much broader and multi-dimensional. Dimensions of learning space include physical,
cultural, institutional, social and psychological aspects (See Figure 6).

Figure 6

In ELT these dimensions 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 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 along with the expectation that time spent reflecting will not be
rewarded.

Three other theoretical frameworks inform the ELT concept of learning space. Urie
Bronfrenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) work on the ecology of human development has made
significant sociological contributions to Lewin’s life space concept. He defines the ecology
of learning/development spaces as a topologically nested arrangement of structures each
contained within the next. The learner’s immediate setting such as a course or classroom is
called the microsystem, while other concurrent settings in the person’s life such as other
courses, the dorm or family are referred to as the mesosystem. The exosystem encompasses
the formal and informal social structures that influence the person’s immediate environment,
 18

such as institutional policies and procedures and campus culture. Finally, the macrosystem
refers to the overarching institutional patterns and values of the wider culture, such as
cultural values favoring abstract knowledge over practical knowledge, that influence actors
in the person’s immediate microsystem and mesosystem. This theory provides a framework
for analysis of the social system factors that influence learners’ experience of their learning
spaces.
Another important contribution to the learning space concept is situated
learning theory (Lave and Wenger 1991). Like ELT situated learning theory draws on
Vygotsky’s (1978) activity theory of social cognition for a conception of social knowledge
that conceives of learning as a transaction between the person and the social environment.
Situations in situated learning theory like life space and learning space are not necessarily
physical places but constructs of the person’s experience in the social environment. These
situations are embedded in communities of practice that have a history, norms, tools, and
traditions of practice. Knowledge resides, not in the individual’s head, but in communities of
practice. Learning is thus a process of becoming a member of a community of practice
through legitimate peripheral participation (e.g. apprenticeship). Situated learning theory
enriches the learning space concept by reminding us that learning spaces extend beyond the
teacher and the classroom. They include socialization into a wider community of practice
that involves membership, identity formation, transitioning from novice to expert through
mentorship and experience in the activities of the practice, as well as the reproduction and
development of the community of practice itself as newcomers replace old-timers.

Finally, in their theory of knowledge creation, Nonaka and Konno ( 1998) introduce
the Japanese concept of “ba”, a “context that harbors meaning”, which is a shared space that
is the foundation for knowledge creation. “Knowledge is embedded in ba, where it is then
acquired through one’s own experience or reflections on the experiences of others.” (Nonaka
and Konno 1998:40) Knowledge embedded in ba is tacit and can only be made explicit
through sharing of feelings, thoughts and experiences of persons in the space. For this to
happen, the ba space requires that individuals remove barriers between one another in a
climate that emphasizes “care, love, trust, and commitment”. Learning spaces similarly
require norms of psychological safety, serious purpose, and respect to promote learning.

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 that 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 4. 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.
 19

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 and 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 7, 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.

Figure 7. The Learning Space of an MBA Program Defined by the

Learning Styles of MBA Students (n = 1286; Kolb & Kolb 2005a)
Concrete
Experience

Initiating Experiencing Imagining

10.1% 6% 5.1%

Active Reflective
Experimentation Acting Balancing Reflecting Observation
13.5% 10.2% 9.3%

Deciding Thinking Analyzing

12.7% 17% 16%

Abstract
Conceptualization

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.” Teachers objectively create learning spaces by the information and
activities they offer in their course; but this space is interpreted in the students’ subjective
experience through the lens of their learning style.
 20

Creating learning spaces for experiential learning

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
& 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 enhancement of experiential learning can be achieved through the creation

of learning spaces that promote growth producing experiences for learners. A central
concept in Dewey’s educational philosophy is the continuum of experience that arrays
experiences that promote or inhibit learning. “The belief that all genuine education comes
about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely educative…For
some experiences are mis-educative. Any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of
arresting or distorting the growth of further experience…Hence the central problem of an
education based on experience is to select the kind of present experiences that live fruitfully
and creatively in subsequent experiences” (Dewey 1938, p. 25-28). There are a number of
educational principles that flow from this philosophy.

Respect for Learners and their Experience. A growth producing experience in the
philosophy of experiential learning refers not just to a direct experience related to a subject
matter under study but to the total experiential life space of the learner. This includes the
physical and social environment and the quality of relationships. We refer to this as the
Cheers/Jeers experiential continuum. At one end learners feel that they are members of a
learning community who are known and respected by faculty and colleagues and whose
experience is taken seriously, a space “where everybody knows your name”. At the other
extreme are “mis-educative” learning environments where learners feel alienated, alone,
unrecognized and devalued. Learning and growth in the Jeers environment “where nobody
knows your name” can be difficult if not impossible. This principle an be problematic for
even the finest educational institutions. President Lawrence Summers of Harvard dedicated
his 2003 commencement address to the introduction of a comprehensive examination of the
undergraduate program, motivated in part by a letter he received from a top science student
which contained the statement, “I am in the eighth semester of college and there is not a
single science professor here who could identify me by name.” Summers concludes “The
only true measure of a successful educational model is our students’ experience of it.”
(Summers 2003:64)

Begin Learning with the Learner’s Experience of the Subject Matter. To learn
experientially one must first of all own and value their experience. Students will often say,
“But I don’t have any experience.” meaning that they don’t believe that their experience is of
any value to the teacher or for learning the subject matter at hand. The new science of
learning (Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000) is based on the cognitive constructivist
theories of Piaget and Vygotsky that emphasize that people construct new knowledge and
understanding from what they already know and believe based on their previous experience.
 21

Zull (2002) suggests that this prior knowledge exists in the brain as neuronal networks which
cannot be erased by a teacher’s cogent explanation. Instead the effective teacher activates
prior knowledge, building on exploration of what students already know and believe, on the
sense they have made of their previous concrete experiences. Beginning with these or
related concrete experiences allows the learner to re-examine and modify their previous
sense-making in the light of new ideas.

Creating and Holding a Hospitable Space for Learning. To learn requires facing
and embracing differences; be they differences between skilled expert performance and one’s
novice status, differences between deeply held ideas and beliefs and new ideas or differences
in the life experience and values of others that can lead to understanding them. These
differences can be challenging and threatening, requiring a learning space that encourages
the expression of differences and the psychological safety to support the learner in facing
these challenges (Sanford 1966). As Robert Kegan says, “…people grow best where they
continuously experience an ingenious blend of challenge and support” (1994: 42). As
Kegan implies by his use of the term “ingenious blend”, creating and holding this learning
space is not easy. He notes that while educational institutions have been quite successful in
challenging students, they have been much less successful in providing support. One reason
for this may be that challenges tend to be specific and immediate while support must go
beyond an immediate “You can do it.” statement. It requires a climate or culture of support
that the learner can trust to “hold” them over time. In Conversational Learning (Baker,
Jensen and Kolb 2002) we draw on the work of Henri Nouwen (1975) and Parker Palmer
(1983, 1990, 1998) to describe this challenging and supportive learning space as one that
welcomes the stranger in a spirit of hospitality where “students and teachers can enter into a
fearless communication with each other and allow their respective life experiences to be their
primary and most valuable source of growth and maturation” (Nouwen: 60).

Making Space for Conversational Learning. Human beings naturally make

meaning from their experiences through conversation. Yet genuine conversation in the
traditional lecture classroom can be extremely restricted or nonexistent. At the break or end
of the class the sometimes painfully silent classroom will suddenly come alive with
spontaneous conversation among students. Significant learning can occur in these
conversations, although it may not always be the learning the teacher intended. Making
space for good conversation as part of the educational process provides the opportunity for
reflection on and meaning making about experiences that improves the effectiveness of
experiential learning (Keeton, Sheckley, and Griggs 2002, Bunker 1999). For example the
creation of learning teams as part of a course promote effective learning when
psychologically safe conditions are present (Wyss-Flamm 2002). Conversational Learning
describes the dimensions of spaces that allow for good conversation. Good conversation is
more likely to occur in spaces that integrate thinking and feeling, talking and listening,
leadership and solidarity, recognition of individuality and relatedness and discursive and
recursive processes. When the conversational space is dominated by one extreme of these
dimensions, e.g. talking without listening, conversational learning is diminished.

Making Space for Development of Expertise. With vast knowledge bases that are
ever changing and growing in every field, many higher education curricula consist of course
 22

after course “covering” a series of topics in a relatively superficial factual way. Yet as the
National Research Council in it’s report on the new science of learning recommends on the
basis of research on expert learners; effective learning requires not only factual knowledge,
but the organization of these facts and ideas in a conceptual framework and the ability to
retrieve knowledge for application and transfer to different contexts (Bransford, Brown, and
Cocking 2002). Such deep learning is facilitated by deliberate, recursive practice on areas
that are related to the learner’s goals (Keeton, Sheckley, and Griggs 2002). The process of
learning depicted in the experiential learning cycle describes this recursive spiral of
knowledge development. Space needs to be created in curricula for students to pursue such
deep experiential learning in order to develop expertise related to their life purpose.

Making Spaces for Acting and Reflecting . Learning is like breathing; it involves a
taking in and processing of experience and a putting out or expression of what is learned. As
Dewey noted, “…nothing takes root in mind when there is no balance between doing and
receiving. Some decisive action is needed in order to establish contact with the realities of
the world and in order that impressions may be so related to facts that their value is tested
and organized.” (1934: 45) Yet many programs in higher education are much more focused
on impressing information on the mind of the learner than on opportunities for the learners to
express and test in action what they have learned. Many courses will spend 15 weeks
requiring students to take in volumes of information and only a couple of hours expressing
and testing their learning, often on a multiple choice exam. This is in contrast to arts
education built on the demonstration-practice-critique process where active expression and
testing are continuously involved in the learning process. Zull (2002) suggests that action
may be the most important part of the learning cycle because it closes the learning cycle by
bringing the inside world of reflection and thought into contact with the outside world of
experiences created by action. (cf. Dewey 1897) Keeton, Sheckley and Gross (2002)
propose another level of action/reflection integration, emphasizing the importance of active
reflection in deepening learning from experience.

Making Spaces for Feeling and Thinking. We have seen a polarization between
feeling and thinking in the contrast between the feeling oriented learning space of CIA arts
education and the thinking oriented learning spaces of the Case undergraduate and MBA
programs (Kolb & Kolb 2005a). It seems that educational institutions tend to develop a
learning culture that emphasizes the learning mode most related to their educational
objectives and devalues the opposite learning mode. Yet, Damasio (1994, 2003), LeDoux
(1997), Zull (2002) and others offer convincing research evidence that reason and emotion
are inextricably related in their influence on learning and memory. Indeed it appears that
feelings and emotions have primacy in determining whether and what we learn. Negative
emotions such as fear and anxiety can block learning, while positive feelings of attraction
and interest may be essential for learning. To learn something that one is not interested in is
extremely difficult.

Making Space for Inside-out Learning. David Hunt (1987, 1991) describes
inside-out learning as a process of beginning with oneself in learning by focusing on one’s
experienced knowledge; the implicit theories, metaphors, interests, desires and goals that
guide experience. Making space for inside-out learning by linking educational experiences to
 23

the learner’s interests kindles intrinsic motivation and increases learning effectiveness. Under
the proper educational conditions, a spark of intrinsic interest can be nurtured into a flame of
committed life purpose. (Dewey 1897) Yet learning spaces that emphasize extrinsic reward
can drive out intrinsically motivated learning (Kohn 1993, Deci and Ryan 1985, Ryan and
Deci 2000). Long ago Dewey described the trend toward emphasis on extrinsic reward in
education and the consequences for the teacher who wields the carrot and stick: “Thus in
education we have that systematic depreciation of interest which has been noted…Thus we
have the spectacle of professional educators decrying appeal to interest while they uphold
with great dignity the need of reliance upon examinations, marks, promotions and emotions,
prizes and the time honored paraphernalia of rewards and punishments. The effect of this
situation in crippling the teacher’s sense of humor has not received the attention which it
deserves. (1916: 336)

Making Space for Learners to Take Charge of their own Learning . Many
students enter higher education conditioned by their previous educational experiences to be
passive recipients of what they are taught. Making space for students to take control of and
responsibility for their learning can greatly enhance their ability to learn from experience.
Some use the term self-authorship to describe this process of constructing one’s own
knowledge vs. passively receiving knowledge from others, considering self-authorship to be
a major aim of education (Kegan 1994, King 2003, Baxter-Magolda 1999). Others describe
this goal as increasing students’ capacity for self direction (Boyatzis 1994, Robertson 1988).
The Management Development and Assessment course in the Case MBA program aims to
develop student self direction through assessment and feedback on learning skills and
competencies and the development of a learning plan to achieve their career/life goals
(Boyatzis 1994). Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2002) argue for the development of meta-
cognitive skills to promote active learning. By developing their effectiveness as learners
(Keeton, Sheckley and Griggs 2002), students can be empowered to take responsibility for
their own learning by understanding how they learn best and the skills necessary to learn in
regions that are uncomfortable for them. Workshops on experiential learning and learning
styles can help students to develop meta-cognitive learning skills. At CIA and the Case
undergraduate programs student workshops help students interpret their LSI scores and
understand how to use this information to improve their learning effectiveness. John Reese
at the University of Denver Law School conducts “Connecting with the Professor”
workshops in which students select one of four teaching styles based on the four predominant
learning styles that they have difficulty connecting with. The workshop gives multiple
examples of remedial actions that the learner may take to correct the misconnection created
by differences in teaching/learning styles. Peer group discussions among law students give
an opportunity to create new ideas about how to get the most from professors with different
learning/teaching styles (Reese 1998).