Learning in vivo

Key component of experiential education is reflection, not activity

Snow, Wardley, Carter and Maher (2019: 80) state that the term experiential education “is often misunderstood or misapplied through reductionist thinking to any learning that involves activity”; on the contrary, it is defined as “a pedagogical approach that encourages collective and personal critical reflection and development”. They engaged in seeking to answer questions about the feasibility of designing online experiential learning opportunities and how this can contribute to deepening professional practice in Nursing, Education, Business and Community Studies. They remark that “The key component of experiential education documented in the literature is action on the part of the student that promotes learning through reflection” (emphasis added). However, experience itself is not necessarily educative, especially when reflection is omitted. Experiential learning comprises, as per Kolb’s cycle of four stages, namely: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). Snow, Wardley, Carter and Maher (2019) report that collaborative activities through online synchronous and asynchronous technologies have been found to support the development of competence. They share lived experiences about four undergraduate-level professional programmes that involve experiential learning to varying degrees.

The first scenario pertains to a part-time blended learning programme from Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) to a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) degree. The RPN to BScN programme comprises theory courses delivered online and clinical (experiential) courses occurring in clinical practice settings. Each clinical module includes an online course site, which houses resources and “serves as an environment where students are required to reflect and think critically on their learning with their clinical instructor and other students”. The reflection principally through writing, with tools such as discussion boards, blogs, and course-specific email. This “blend of clinical learning with carefully designed online writing activities is a powerful combination”. Case studies and problem-based learning activities in the theory modules further serve as a form of experiential learning. The clinical or experiential, on the other hand are “enhanced through online activities and assignments that require critical thinking through reflection”.

The table below summarises the other three scenarios:

Scenario	Reflective Observation	Abstract Conceptualization	Active Experimentation	Concrete Experience
2.    Typical blended learning cycle, teacher education, science	The first lesson of each unit face-to-face, in which the previous experience deconstructed and explored and a new cycle established.	Asynchronous online activities were used to engage with theory related to learning objectives.	Each lesson design was unique to the student and specific community context.	Students did online video presenta-tions of their lessons & received feedback from their classmates.
3.    Typical learning cycle, occupational health & safety	Interactive learning based on content of module	Research paper	Discussion posts, blog entries & case studies	Community-based marketing outreach message
	Simulations and videos posted by professor with questions to address in blogs	Conceptualizing workforce-relevant knowledge related to the group topic	Reflecting, applying knowledge, and evaluating peers	Content presented online; three-tiered monitoring and measurement systems (peers, professor, and community members)
4.    Typical learning cycle, work place-ment courses	Discussion posts and a final reflective essay for each course	Developing a career plan (COMS 2101); information interview (COMS 3101)	Discussion posts, journal summaries, & self/supervisor evaluations	Placements with a community partner (100 hours for COMS 2101, 100 hours for COMS 3101)

It is the experience of the authors that “the practical realities of experiential education in higher education are challenging, and faculty interested in developing experiential learning opportunities for students must negotiate institutional policies, external regulatory bodies, and, at times, even concerns about legitimacy within their departments”.

Snow, K., Wardley, L., Carter, L. & Maher, P. 2019. Lived Experiences of Online and Experiential Learning Programs in Four Undergraduate Professional Programs. Collected Essays on Learning & Teaching: Pedagogical Innovation: Adapting Practice to Evolving Cultures, Section II, Vol. 12, p79-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v12i0.5388

Be realistic about the feasible scope of online experiential learning

Tony Bates, who has been advocating online experiential learning (and defending the feasibility thereof), in July 2020, while emergency remote learning is prominently utilised, recommends assessment of the limitations, and the implications of failure. Bates admits that during the Covid-19 pandemic it became evident that online learning (on its own) is at times not appropriate. He highlights a number of limitations, such as inequity with regard to access and affordability. Bates states that “Even if students have Internet or wifi access, they need at least 10 Mbps for any form of video, but at 2 Mbps they can handle most text (without heavy graphics) and audio”. He recommends learning design for “the lowest bandwidth of Internet to which most students will have access” and caution that at 2Mbps or less the streaming of videos, graphic rich Powerpoint slides, and making use of Zoom are not feasible. Fastmetrics^TM provides the measured average internet speed per country. Note the legend from bright red, representing 0.5Mbps, through to lime, representing 26.7Mbps. If the majority of students are within the 2Mbps-10 Mbps range then a learning management system (LMS) could be used if restricted to text, audio (e.g. podcasts) and simple graphics. Bates caution further to consider the costs of data for students to be online and says “if it comes to a choice between studying and eating, you are not going to win”. He recommends blended learning initiatives such as the reading of down loadable (or mailed) text, using short videos (maximum of 5-10 minutes), and the breaking of “the learning into small chunks”.

Bates encourages that media usage is carefully considered with regard to “who are your students and what access to technology do they already have?” and reminds that there had been very successful distance education prior to Internet. Radio, the forgotten media, could be used to support text, as could television broadcasts. Mobile learning through apps on mobile phones could be considered, and social media enables students and lecturers to stay connected. Bates wisely states “it is better to reach 90% of students with a slightly less than perfect medium than to reach 50% with a more powerful medium”, and that it is “more likely to meet most students with a combination of media”.

Much as Bates recognises the gut-feel of experienced lecturers, he cautions about resistance based on “fear of having to do something different” and urge that identification of exceptions to what can taught online should be “based on pedagogical effectiveness”. Bates says that “at least some of the activities previously only done in person” “such as lab and studio work, video, simulations, virtual reality, and even remotely operated labs can” indeed be done online or through digital learning enabling the reduction of “time in labs or studios, if not altogether eliminate the need for in-person presence”. He adds that “There is also a growing number of freely accessible open educational resources that can replicate lab and studio work, such as the OER Commons [https://www.oercommons.org/] and the MIT Teaching + Learning Lab [https://tll.mit.edu/]”. Bates admits that “there are still huge gaps in appropriate OER in visual arts, media, science, engineering, technical and vocational subjects, and where OER are available they are often difficult to use (for instance requiring specialised software to run) or of poor teaching quality. To date, most OER are available only in the English language, and much is at the post-secondary level.”

5 July 2009 https://www.tonybates.ca/2009/07/05/can-you-teach-real-engineering-at-a-distance/

1 December 2014 https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/01/can-you-do-experiential-learning-online-assessing-design-models-for-experiential-learning/

20 April 2020 https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/04/20/emergency-online-learning-and-inequity-developed-countries/

21 April 2020 https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/04/21/2-emergency-online-learning-and-inequity-developing-countries/

4 July 2020 https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/07/04/what-have-we-learned-from-covid-19-about-the-limitations-of-online-learning/

Student disability impacting experiential learning

Klein (2009: 11) argues that it is important for academics to be aware which disabilities are present among a student population and how these disabilities may impact the performance of individual students. He cautions that “students with a wide range of disabilities can encounter significant obstacles when experiential instructional methods are implemented assuming that learners are disability-free”. Klein (2009: 13) differentiates visible and invisible disabilities, as well as “either permanent, temporary, or occasional impairment”—of which the last two “include students receiving chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer, students recovering from surgery, and some depressions”.

There is an increased awareness of, for example, differences in learning styles, cultural differences, varied origins of students, and the realisation to alter (and vary) instructional practices to better reach more students. Similarly, disabilities presents another important way in which students may differ. This warrants reflection and action about experiential instructional methods such as “role plays, case analysis and discussion in groups, and other exercises designed to test and build student capabilities and skills”, says Klein (2009: 12), who argues that academics should be more responsive to and accommodating of students with disabilities. Experiential learning is described (p. 16) as “a direct encounter with the phenomena being studied rather than merely thinking about the encounter [… and] ‘what experiential learning does best is to capture the interest and involvement of participants but most importantly it contributes significantly to the transfer of learning’”.

Klein (2009: 13 – 14) published a taxonomy of student disabilities:

• Visible disabilities include students who are blind, who have cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy; and/or use a wheelchair, crutches or braces.
• Invisible disabilities include visual impairment including color blindness and macular degeneration; hearing loss and deafness; neurological disorders such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Asperger’s Disorder; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS); psychiatric disorders; and a chronic health impairment such as epilepsy, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, cancer, cardiac problems, and HIV/AIDS.
  • Learning disabilities is a group of disorders marked by significant difficulty in taking in, encoding, organizing, retaining and/or expressing information. Remembering, reading, writing and speaking may be affected. There is also one kind of learning disability (prosopagnosia) that makes it difficult for individuals to remember the faces of others, though this disability can also arise from a traumatic brain injury.
  • Psychiatric disorders include chronic or temporary major or minor depression; bipolar disorder characterized by alternating periods of high, even manic, energy and periods of moodiness, irritability or depression; anxiety disorders, including social anxiety disorder; and obsessive-compulsive disorder, in which adherence to ritual, or avoiding germs or close proximity to others, drives behaviour
  • [ADD and ADHD] An individual with ADHD is impulsive, easily distracted, inattentive and hyperactive, often wanting to get up and change his or her location. An individual with ADD has difficulty is sustaining attention but is not characterized by hyperactivity.
  • Asperger’s Disorder was first described in the 1940’s by Viennese pediatrician Hans Asperger, who observed autistic-like behaviors and difficulties with social and communication skills in boys who had normal cognitive and language development. Individuals with Asperger’s often want to fit in and interact with others, but they may be awkward, not understanding of conventional social rules, or show a lack of empathy. Common are limited eye contact, difficulty in sustaining normal conversation, unusual speech patterns – e.g., lacking inflection or too loud - and not understanding the subtleties of language, such as gestures, irony or humor.

Klein (2009: 24) reports on the development of a student self-assessment questionnaire (pp. 33 – 34, note that permission required for duplication and distribution) and associated fact sheet. The primary purpose, he says, is to prompt students who may have an undiagnosed disability, as well as those who are trying to cope on their own with a known disability, to make contact with the disabilities services office. The self-assessment questionnaire has thirty-four questions, group in eight sections. The development of the questionnaire drawn from a number of sources. Candid completion thereof facilitates the identification of the presence of up to nine disabilities: learning disabilities; ADD and ADHD; a health problem or impairment; social anxiety disorder; Asperger’s Disorder or Syndrome; clinical depression; bipolar disorder or bipolar depression; and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The associated fact sheet (pp. 35 – 37) provides basic information on each of the disabilities.

Other proactive strategies Klein (2009) mentions towards making reasonable accommodations for students who have, or who believe they have, a disability include (a) a voluntary self-disclosure disability statement (p. 31) and (b) a set of interview questions (p. 32) serving a guide with regard to a discussion pertaining help with disabilities. Klein (2009) points out that for this approach to work a student must be willing to make his or her disability known. Students are not necessary required to name his or her disability, however, must be sincere and willing to disclose the kinds of difficulties encountered.

Klein, G.D. 2009. Student Disability and Experiential Education. The Journal of Effective Teaching (since rebranded as the Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education), 9(3), 11-37. Electronically accessible from https://uncw.edu/jet/articles/vol9_3/volume0903.pdf

Aspects of certain experiential learning equates to adventure education

In searching for literature about the various manifestations and best practices of the broad notion of experiential learning, the notions of experiential education and adventure education emerged. The Journal of Experiential Education (JEE) is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, which publishes articles in a diverse range of in subject areas including, but not limited to, environmental education, service learning, outdoor adventure programming, therapeutic applications, research and theory, the creative arts, and much more. Related to adventure education is mindful place-based education, which Deringer (2017, p. 334) says is about experiencing “place more deeply through incorporating the practice of mindfulness”. Mindfulness entails non-judgmental focusing of one's awareness on the present moment. 

Pouty (2007, p. 4) defines adventure education “as direct, active, and engaging learning experiences that involve the whole person and have consequences”, and cites (p. 12) the Kraft and Sakofs (1988) definition for experiential education; which in addition to the first sentence includes: “Students make discoveries and experiment with knowledge themselves instead of hearing or reading about the experiences, thus developing new skills, new attitudes, and new theories or ways of thinking.” Pouty (2007, p. 5) points out that only “20 percent of the population can learn well in a setting where reading and writing are the dominant pedagogy and skill sets” and argues further in favour of adventure education as ideal means towards instilling the following essential competencies required by contemporary workplaces:

• Collaborative teamwork (leveraging the skills of multiple others is a necessity to learn and produce)
• Creative problem solving and product development
• Communication with passion and skill to influence others
• A sense of ethics and corporate responsibility for greater community

Panicucci (2007, p. 44) outlines the importance of adhering to the adventure wave, a metaphor for the three essential components illustrated below, namely (a) the briefing—framing thereof or an introduction thereto; (b) the doing—immersing in the actual experience or event, the crest or climax; and (c) debriefing—reflection time after the wave passed.

The benefits of a simulated learning experience can be optimised by directly frontloading during briefing. Gass and Stevens (2007, p. 105) explain that “Frontloading refers to specifically highlighting the learning that is to take place before, or in front of” it happening. The briefing would include clarifying the objectives; motivating what might be derivable from the anticipated experience; indicating what behaviours and actions would enhance or contribute (function) to bigger success; but also what may hinder (dysfunction) accomplishments. Indirect frontloading is more subtle, the making of suggestions, giving of tips, or offering alternatives/options. In some instances direct frontloading could be detrimental in that participants become obsessed with task completion, rather than deriving the learning benefits.

The debriefing part of the adventure wave can be enhanced by funnelling, in which a group is guided through a serious of six stags or filters (Gass & Stevens, 2007: pp. 112-114). Imagine a funnel with the narrow end pointing downward, as illustrated (from p. 113) below. The experience is ‘poured’ into the wide end, and then filtered through a series of six sequenced questions. The six steps are an expanded version of Borton’s (1970) ‘three basic [human] information processing [(HIP)] functions’, namely “experience (Sensing), sense-making (Transforming) and engagement with the world (Acting)” says Rolfe (2014, p. 488). Self-knowledge, Borton (1970, p. 93) argued, “is as difficult to obtain as it is powerful, and usually has been won by relatively few people” and advanced the ‘What’ (increasing awareness), ‘So What’ (evaluating intention), and ‘Now What” (experimenting with new behaviour) as process education model and means to the end of self-knowledge. These debriefing filters, steps or stages could be facilitated either in a face-to-face setting or on-line through a learning management system. The six steps, stages or filters are:

• What? — Filters #0 entails review, and #1 recall and remember
  • Filter #0 refocuses the attention on the subject of interest, clarifying exactly what the topic of the debriefing is
  • Filter #1 entails participants describing what they experienced, recalling the detail and supplementing each other’s recollections/stories
• So What? — Filters #2 affect and effect, and #3 summation
  • Filter #2 addresses emotions and causes; how participants felt and impact of the event on them personally
  • Filter #3 moving of the reflection focus to what has been learned from participation, which ideally should mirror the learning objectives
• Now What? — Filters #4 application, and #5 commitment
  • Filter #4 entails facilitation of learning transfer, or the making of connections to real life applications
  • Filter #5 cements the value derived from participation by facilitating commitment

Borton, T. (1970). Applying the process approach, chapter 8, pp. 93-105. In Reach Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deringer, S.A. (2017). Mindful Place-Based Education: Mapping the Literature. Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 40(4) 333–348. Electronically accessible from https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825917716694

Gass, M.A. & Stevens, C.A. (2007). Facilitating the adventure process, pp. 101-123. In Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Journal of Experiential Education (JEE). Electronically accessible at http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jee

Pouty, D. (2007). Introduction to adventure education, pp. 3-17. In Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Panicucci, J. (2007). Cornerstones of adventure education, pp. 33-48. In Pouty, D.; Panicucci, J. & Collinson, R. (Eds). (2007). Adventure education: theory and applications. Campaign, IL: Human Kinetics.