These days experiential learning is very
popular in marketing education. However, I worry that some marketing educators
are providing merely experiences to
their students, rather than experiential
learning. The most influential theory of experiential learning is
undoubtedly that of David Kolb, often presented in textbook form as the
learning cycle: concrete experience; reflective observation; abstract conceptualization;
active experimentation. Kolb is often cited in papers by marketing educators
about the experiential learning tasks they set for students. But has Kolb been
misunderstood?
Two recent articles in particular suggest
that we may have a problem with experiential learning in marketing education. Firstly,
Hunter-Jones (2012) finds resistance to participation in experiential learning projects
from some very able students because they are concerned that the inherent
uncertainties in such a learning process may damage their grades. She calls these the formulaic learners: “They are less prepared, or even able, to be
flexible and accommodating of other learners in case this has a negative
influence on their overall mark. They want to be in control of their own
achievements and are formulaic in achieving this”(Hunter-Jones,
2012:26). Most, perhaps all, of the
colleagues in the marketing academy with whom I have shared these insights from
Hunter-Jones’ article have found them entirely plausible. Secondly, Young and colleagues (2008) tried out experiential learning on a Principles of Marketing module
and found that, unless students
are carefully guided through all four stages of the Kolb learning cycle,
experiential learning activities can result in surface learning rather than
deep learning. They make what seems to me to be a very important point when
they say: “experience in and of itself is not educative
… if students do not think seriously about their experiences, their experiences
may reinforce stereotypes and incorrect suppositions” (Young, et al., 2008:28). For example, I grew up at a time when crass homophobic and sexist
jokes were staples of TV comedians. Thankfully, we have now learned that such
practices are hurtful, damaging and unacceptable. However, simply sitting
through more and more TV shows containing such jokes (greater experience) will
not teach you that they are a bad thing, in fact it may simply convince you
that such jokes are “normal”, i.e. reinforce the stereotype.
For those of you not already deeply
acquainted with Kolb’s work, let me suggest one or two places where you could
start looking. Well, if you haven’t read Kolb’s 1984 book “Experiential
Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development”, you may be
surprised at the extent to which it engages with the philosophy of knowledge
(Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, Edmund Husserl, George Hegel), although less
surprised at all of the learning theorists who pop up. Here is Kolb’s
definition of experiential learning to get you thinking: “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience” (D. A. Kolb, 1984:38). Then, of course, one needs a critical perspective on these things,
and Christopher Kayes’ (2002) article can serve that purpose. And, naturally, one also has to
look at a more recent re-statement of Kolb’s theory re-formulated in the light
of two decades of criticism, reflection and reformulation, a purpose served by
Kolb & Kolb (2005). An aspect of this more recent work that will interest those who
follow developments in neuroscience (or neuromarketing) is that Kolb & Kolb
call attention to research that suggests a link between the Kolb learning cycle
and the process of brain functioning. They cite biology professor James Zull (2002), and at Zull’s website you find
the following interesting information:
“According to our current model of the
connection between brain function, human learning, and education, we believe
that education can engage the learner's brain to the fullest extent when
students follow a cycle of concrete experience with their subject, reflection
on their experience and connecting it to their prior knowledge, generation of
their own abstract hypotheses about their experience and testing their
hypotheses through action, which produces a new sensory (concrete) experience.”
(http://www.case.edu/artsci/biol/people/zull.html)
In other words, there is some evidence that
the learning cycle is built into the structure of the brain!
References
Hunter-Jones, P.
(2012). The Continuum of Learner Disengagement: Ethnographic Insights into
Experiential Learning in Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 19-29.
Kayes, C. D. (2002). Experiential Learning and its Critics:
Preserving the Role of Experience in Management Learning and Education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 1(2), 137-149.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and
Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 193-212.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential
Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Young, M. R., Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, J. W. (2008).
Evaluating Experiential Learning Activities. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 13, 28-40.
Zull, J., E. (2002). The
Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of
Learning. VA: Stylus: Sterling.
