A Review of Two Active Learning Theories: Experiential Learning Theory and Inquiry Based Learning Theory

“Learning should be an active process. Too often, students come to school to watch their teachers work. When students use what they learn, they remember the information better and understand the utility of what is being taught.”

~ Dr. Bill Daggett, International Center for Leadership in Education

Inquiry-based learning and experiential learning are two beneficial types of active learning which exhibit some similarities, but also key differences which will be addressed in this mini-review blog.

Let us begin by looking at experiential learning theory (ELT).  This theory was first proposed by David A. Kolb in 1984 and builds upon John Dewey’s and Kurt Levin’s work in this field. (Experiential Learning (Kolb), 2007). According to the ELT, learning is a continuous process which is grounded in the learner’s experiences so that concepts are obtained from and continuously modified though out life’s experiences. In addition, the ELT defines four learning styles which are addressed through individual differences along two dimensions, with the y-axis showing varying preferences of obtaining information which ranges from concrete experience to abstract conceptualization and likewise the x-axis representing the preference of how to transform experiences which ranges from active experimentation to reflective observation . (Towns, 2001)

Four Types of Learners as illustrated in Kolb's ELT; (Redrawn from Towns, 2001)

According to Towns, the four types of learners each have different ways of perceiving and processing information which can be summarized by looking at what is their main question.  Divergers, who prefer combining concrete experience with reflective observation, want to know why the information is important as they have strong imaginations and a stong awareness of meanings and values.  Assimilators typically want to know what the concept is and prefer that the facts are presented in an organized logical fashion.  Convergers, who prefer using logic and active experimentation, want to know how to apply the concept can be applied. Finally, accommodators typically want to know what the possibilities are if the problem was slightly different. (Towns, 2001)

By cycling through these four different types of learning creates a learning cycle which can begin with a concrete experience, then involves observation and reflection, then formation of abstract concepts, and finally ends with testing in new situations which leads back to a new cycle again starting with concrete experiences.  (Experiential Learning (Kolb), 2007) It is worth noting that although it can begin with a concrete experience, this cycle can begin at any of the four points depending on the nature of the material to be learned. (Smith, 2013)

This theory has received both endorsements and criticisms. ELT has been noted to be an extremely useful framework which can help in planning teaching and learning activities. (Smith, 2010) In addition, the incorporation of all aspects of the learning cycle into lessons has been attributed with engaging a wider range of learning styles than the traditional lecture. (Towns, 2001) Although beneficial as an instructional strategy, ELT has also received a variety of criticisms due to some of its inherent weaknesses.  For example, it has been noted that the concrete experience part of the learning cycle needs to be further explained which will require additional research. Finally, one of the strongest critiques against the ELT is that it can be considered a marketing ploy to explain the societal benefit of Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory. (Oxendine, Robinson, & Willson, 2004) 

ELT has been widely cited in literature articles. For example, one study by Lai et al. aimed to develop an online system which would help enable experiential learning in an attempt to counteract the criticism that experiential learning lacks a method to focus student awareness in learning context. In the study, Lai et al. provided a class of fifth grade students PDA's which were equipped with digital cameras and a learning platform which would guide them through a class field trip to a garden and allow them to orally record their notes and questions.  The control group received the same guidance using paper handouts and took their notes and sketches of the plants using paper notebooks.  Through this study, it was found that the students who used the PDAs to aid in the experiential learning process had significantly higher learning achievement scores than those who utilized the paper handouts and drew sketches and took notes by hand. However, a caveat to this success story is that the students who were required to draw the sketches out by hand had a more sustained motivation for exploration than those who took pictures digitally.  It was suggested in the article that in the future the photographs should be taken at the end of the experiential learning process to help inhibit the students losing motivation to further explore. (Lai, Yang, Chen, Ho, Chan, 2007)

Another study which I found very interesting and plan to incorporate into my own classroom someday is an article by Kridelbaugh which uses online citizen-science projects as a means of incorporating experiential learning opportunities into a classroom which consisted of nonmajor science students. In the study, the instructor chose a set of potential citizen science projects from the SciStarter website which the students could pick between based on their personal interests and experiences. The project required the students to spend a minimum of three hours working on their citizen-science project, take thorough notes of their activities, take a screenshot of their activity in progress, and complete a mini science report which included research on the topic's background and overall evaluation of the project.  The overall average final grade for the students' reports was noted to be 93%. A particularly handy feature of this article was that the instructor included the grading rubric in the supplementary information which helps enable the lesson plan to be incorporated into other classrooms easily. (Kridelbaugh, 2016)

Let us now transition our focus towards an analysis inquiry-based learning (IBL). 

Inquiry-based learning is built on John Dewey's philosophy that "education begins with the curiosity of the learner" (Queen's University Center for Teaching and Learning).

According to the Institute for Inquiry, 

"Inquiry is an approach to learning that involves exploring the natural or material world in a way that leads to asking questions, making observations, planning investigations to develop explanations, rigorously testing those explanations, and discussing and debating results with others—all in the service of coming to a deeper understanding of scientific phenomena and scientific practices." (Exploratorium, 2017)

 According to Heick, IBL consists of four stages. The first stage consists of the students interacting with some form of medium which proposes an ill-structured problem that needs to be solved. In the second stage, the students summarize and analyze the obtained information and data, think critically and reflect on their knowledge, and make plans for further work. In the third stage, which has been deemed the critical stage, students think about questions such as what material is relevant and necessary, what prior knowledge and experience can help in this situation, etc. In the fourth and final stage, students create solutions which can address the problem and then identify logical applications based on their knowledge.  In addition, at this stage they determine potential next steps which can be used to extend their knowledge and research (Heick, 2017). 

Similar to ELT, IBL has also received both positive and negative feedback from the academic community. On one hand, IBL has been praised as a "leading instructional strategy for science" as it promotes active learning with transferable skills and can help motivate students (Avsec and Kocijancic, 2016) However, one main criticism of IBL is that it does not couple well with the traditional standards-based tests. (Markham, 2017) Another criticism for IBL is the lack of reliable quantitative measurement of achievements gained through IBL versus that of other teaching methods. (Avsec and Kocijancic, 2016) Finally, another criticism of IBL is that unguided IBL has been deemed ineffective and overly challenging for the students' cognitive level. (Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017) Despite these criticisms, guided IBL has been shown to be beneficial in a variety of studies.

An interesting study on IBL by Lehtinen and Viiri addressed how the guidance provided by digital simulations and teachers provide different benefits and that the correlation of both is needed for optimal learning support. In the study, the instructors utilized a technique known as distributed scaffolding in which guidance comes from multiple sources. The students consisting of one class each of third and fifth graders first received a mini lesson on balance and then partook in the "Balancing Act" simulation from the PhET website. The investigators than analyzed the type of guidance received from the simulation as well as that from the instructor. The simulation provided instant feedback through scoring their answers which provided real-time information about their understanding of the material. It also provided practice assignments in the form of a game allowing each student to progress through the content at their own pace and provided the student with the correct answer when the student did not answer the question correctly. The instructors were then free to provide process constraints to help the students determine how to solve the problem, help provide feedback as the students discuss how to solve the problem, and provide prompts to help the students reflect on their answers instead of moving on without understanding why the answer is right.  Therefore, it was concluded that through combining guidance from the simulation with that from the instructor the students were able to receive both differentiated guidance where each form of guidance served a different purpose and synergistic guidance in which both forms of guidance compliment each other to help students learn. (Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017)

Another interesting study on IBL which I would like to incorporate into a laboratory when I teach is entitled "An Inquiry into the Water Around Us" by Saitta, Legron-Rodriguez, and Bowdon. The undergraduate STEM majors as part of their general chemistry lab coursework collaborate with high school students to analyze local water samples. The high school students are responsible for obtaining the water samples and then the related experiments are conducted separately with the exception of one collaborative experiment conducted on campus.  The undergraduate students wrote correspondent letters of their results from each experiment to the high school students and also collaborated though Skype and/or FaceTime as well as through personal letters. The project was met with positive reviews from the students with 93% agreeing that the project helped them evaluate information, communicate ideas, and apply the content to the real world (Saitta, Legron-Rodriguez, & Bowdon, 2013)

In conclusion, experiential learning theory and inquiry-based learning theory are two forms of active learning which are built upon John Dewey's school of thought that curriculum needs to be relevant to the students and that learning through doing is necessary for learning. (Levin, nd) While the two learning theories share some similarities, they also exhibit key differences. One key difference is that ELT utilizes a concrete experience which is observed and reflected up allowing for the formation of abstract concepts and testing resultant applications in new situations; whereas IBL begins with an ill-defined problem which needs to be solved through obtaining and analyzing data, and thinking critically.

References

Avsec, S., & Kocijancic, S. (2016). A Path Model of Effective Technology-Intensive Inquiry-Based Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (1), 308–320.

Centre for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2017, from http://www.queensu.ca/ctl/what-we-do/teaching-and-assessment-strategies/inquiry-based-learning

Heick, T. (2017, August 14). 4 Phases of Inquiry-Based Learning: A Guide For Teachers. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from http://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/4-phases-inquiry-based-learning-guide-teachers/

Institute for Inquiry: Examining the Art of Science Education. (2015, December 02). Retrieved September 10, 2017, from https://www.exploratorium.edu/education/ifi

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2008). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. The SAGE Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development, 42-68. doi:10.4135/9780857021038.n3

Kridelbaugh, D. M. (2016). The Use of Online Citizen-Science Projects to Provide Experiential Learning Opportunities for Nonmajor Science Students †. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(1), 105-106. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1022

Lai, C., Yang, J., Chen, F., Ho, C., & Chan, T. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: the interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326-337. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00237.x

Lehtinen, A., & Viiri, J. (2016). Guidance Provided by Teacher and Simulation for Inquiry-Based Learning: a Case Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 193-206. doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9672-y

Levin, C., & Pinto, M. (n.d.). Only a Teacher Schoolhouse pioneers (C. Scott, Ed.). Retrieved September 13, 2017, from https://www.pbs.org/onlyateacher/john.html

Markham, T. (2017). The Challenges and Realities of Inquiry-Based Learning. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/03/the-challenges-and-realities-of-inquiry-based-learning

Oxendine, C., Robinson, J., & Willson, G. (n.d.). Experiential Learning (M. Orey, Ed.). Retrieved September 11, 2017, from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Experiential_Learning

Saitta, E. K., Legron-Rodriguez, T., & Bowdon, M. A. (2013). An Inquiry into the Water Around Us. Science, 341(6149), 971-972. doi:10.1126/science.1230000

Smith, M. K. (2013, June 20). David A. Kolb on experiential learning. Retrieved September 6, 2017, from http://infed.org/mobi/david-a-kolb-on-experiential-learning/

Towns, M. H. (2001). Kolb for Chemists: David A. Kolb and Experiential Learning Theory. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107. doi:10.1021/ed078p1107.7