David Kolb’s Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Cycle

Key Takeaways

• Experiential learning cycle: Kolb’s theory describes learning as a 4-stage process involving concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation, transforming experiences into knowledge.
• Four learning styles: Kolb identified distinct learning preferences—Divergers (feeling/watching), Assimilators (thinking/watching), Convergers (thinking/doing), and Accommodators (feeling/doing)—which influence how individuals approach the learning process.
• Practical applications: Kolb’s theory provides valuable frameworks for designing effective learning experiences across diverse contexts, from Early Years settings to professional development and higher education.
• Balanced assessment: While Kolb’s theory has faced criticism regarding empirical support for learning styles, its emphasis on experiential learning as a continuous, cyclical process remains influential in contemporary educational practice.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Introduction

David A. Kolb, born in 1939, stands as one of the most influential educational theorists of the late 20th century. As Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University, Kolb developed theoretical frameworks that have profoundly shaped our understanding of how people learn through experience. His work bridges psychological theory and practical educational applications, creating models that resonate with educators, trainers, and learners across diverse settings.

Kolb’s significance to educational theory lies primarily in his development of two interconnected contributions that continue to influence teaching and learning practices worldwide:

1. The Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) – Published in his seminal 1984 book “Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,” this theory presents learning as a continuous process grounded in experience. Kolb conceptualised learning not as a series of outcomes but as an integrated process involving concrete experiences, reflection, conceptualisation, and active testing. His famous four-stage learning cycle provides a comprehensive model for understanding how learners transform experience into knowledge.
2. The Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) – Building upon his experiential learning theory, Kolb developed an assessment tool to identify individual learning preferences. The LSI categorises learners into four distinct styles—Divergers, Assimilators, Convergers, and Accommodators—based on their positioning along two key dimensions: how they grasp experience and how they transform it.

This article aims to provide a comprehensive examination of Kolb’s theories for education professionals, Early Years practitioners, students of educational theory, and those seeking to apply experiential learning principles in various contexts. We will explore the theoretical foundations, practical applications, evaluations of strengths and limitations, and comparisons with other significant learning theories.

Nearly four decades after their introduction, Kolb’s theories remain relevant for several compelling reasons:

• They provide a structured framework for understanding the complex and often messy process of learning from experience
• They acknowledge and validate different approaches to learning while encouraging the development of adaptive learning skills
• They offer practical tools for designing educational experiences that engage diverse learners
• They bridge theoretical understanding with practical application across educational, professional, and developmental contexts

As Smith (2001) noted, Kolb’s experiential learning model “provides an excellent framework for planning teaching and learning activities and it can be usefully employed as a guide for understanding learning difficulties, vocational counselling, academic advising and so on.” This enduring utility explains why, despite some critiques, Kolb’s theories continue to inform educational practice in the digital age, from primary classrooms to corporate training programmes.

In the sections that follow, we will delve deeper into Kolb’s biographical background, closely examine his theoretical constructs, explore practical applications, evaluate strengths and limitations, and place his work within the broader landscape of learning theories.

David Kolb: Background

David A. Kolb was born in 1939 in the United States and has built a distinguished career that spans over five decades of contribution to educational theory and organizational psychology. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Knox College in 1961 before pursuing graduate studies at Harvard University, where he earned both his Master’s degree in 1964 and his PhD in 1967 (Smith, 2001).

Academic Career and Professional Development

Following his doctoral studies, Kolb’s academic journey led him to the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University in 1976, where he has served as Professor of Organizational Behaviour. His work at this institution provided a foundation for his exploration of how individuals learn through experience and how organizations can foster more effective learning environments.

Kolb’s academic contributions have been widely recognised within educational and psychological circles. He has received multiple honorary degrees acknowledging his influence on experiential learning theory, including those from SUNY Empire State College, Franklin University, Buckingham University (UK), and his alma mater, Knox College. In 2008, Kolb and his wife Alice were jointly awarded the ‘Educational Pioneers of the Year’ by the National Society of Experiential Education, cementing his status as a leading figure in the field (Smith, 2001).

Beyond his university role, Kolb founded Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. (EBLS), an organization dedicated to advancing research and practice in experiential learning. Through this platform, he has continued to refine his theories and develop assessment tools that help individuals understand their learning preferences.

Key Influences on Kolb’s Thinking

Kolb’s theoretical framework draws extensively from three prominent thinkers whose work provided the intellectual foundation for his experiential learning model:

• John Dewey – Kolb built upon Dewey’s progressive educational philosophy, particularly the notion that learning should be grounded in experience rather than abstract concepts delivered in isolation. Dewey’s emphasis on reflection as a critical component of learning directly informed Kolb’s inclusion of reflective observation in his learning cycle.
• Kurt Lewin – As a pioneer in social psychology, Lewin’s work on group dynamics and action research significantly influenced Kolb. The concept of a cyclical learning process with concrete experience followed by observation, conceptualization and testing originated in Lewin’s work (Kolb & Fry, 1975).
• Jean Piaget – Piaget’s cognitive development theory, particularly his understanding of how intelligence develops through the interaction between the person and their environment, provided Kolb with insights into how learners construct knowledge through experience and adaptation.

Jarvis (1987) notes that Kolb’s integration of these influences resulted in a practical framework that acknowledges both the cognitive and experiential dimensions of learning, bridging theoretical psychology with practical educational applications.

Timeline of Major Publications and Theoretical Developments

Kolb’s theoretical contributions evolved over several decades, with key publications marking significant developments in his thinking:

• 1971-1976 – Kolb’s early work culminated in the development of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI), a self-assessment tool designed to help individuals identify their preferred learning styles (Kolb, 1976).
• 1975 – In collaboration with Roger Fry, Kolb published “Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning” in which they outlined the four-stage learning cycle and began to articulate how different learning styles relate to this process (Kolb & Fry, 1975).
• 1984 – Kolb published his seminal work, “Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.” This comprehensive text fully articulated his experiential learning theory, the four-stage learning cycle, and the four learning styles. This publication established Kolb’s position as a leading educational theorist and has become a foundational text in the field.
• 1990s-2000s – During this period, Kolb refined his Learning Style Inventory through multiple revisions, responding to critiques and incorporating new research findings. The LSI moved through versions 2, 2a, 3, and eventually 3.1, each improving the psychometric properties and practical applications of the assessment (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Current Work and Ongoing Contributions

In recent years, Kolb has continued to develop his theoretical framework, collaborating frequently with his wife, Alice Kolb, to extend and refine the applications of experiential learning theory:

• They have focused on the concept of “learning spaces”—physical, social, institutional, and psychological environments that can support or hinder different aspects of the learning cycle.
• Kolb has explored applications of his theories in diverse contexts, from higher education to workplace learning, healthcare professional development, and management education.
• Through Experience Based Learning Systems, the Kolbs have developed updated assessment tools and resources to help organizations implement experiential learning principles.
• Recent work has emphasized the integration of experiential learning with other educational approaches, including online learning environments and team-based learning (Baker et al., 2002).

Despite being in the later stages of his career, Kolb’s influence continues to grow as his theoretical framework is applied in increasingly diverse contexts. His work remains particularly relevant as educational institutions and workplaces seek to develop more effective approaches to lifelong learning and professional development in a rapidly changing world (Jarvis, 1995).

As Tennant (1997) observed, even as debates continue around specific aspects of Kolb’s theory, the model provides a valuable framework for understanding the complexities of how people learn from experience—a contribution that ensures his ongoing relevance in educational theory and practice.

The Experiential Learning Cycle: Core Concepts

At the heart of Kolb’s theoretical contribution lies the Experiential Learning Cycle, a dynamic model that describes how learners transform experience into knowledge. As Kolb (1984) articulated, “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” This seemingly straightforward statement encapsulates a sophisticated understanding of learning as an active, cyclical process rather than a passive acquisition of information.

The Four-Stage Learning Cycle

Kolb’s experiential learning cycle consists of four distinct but interconnected stages that form a continuous loop. Each stage represents a different mode of engaging with and processing experience. Together, they create a comprehensive model of how effective learning occurs.

Stage 1: Concrete Experience (CE) – “Feeling”

The cycle typically begins with the learner actively engaging in a new experience or reinterpreting an existing experience in a new way. In this stage:

• Learners immerse themselves in doing or experiencing something directly
• The emphasis is on tangible, felt qualities of immediate experience
• Learning occurs through sensing and feeling rather than thinking
• Personal involvement, open-mindedness, and willingness to engage are crucial

For example, a student learning about photosynthesis might observe actual plants under different light conditions or a management trainee might participate in a real team decision-making process. This direct encounter provides the raw material from which learning can develop.

Stage 2: Reflective Observation (RO) – “Watching”

Following the concrete experience, the learner steps back to observe and reflect on what they have experienced from different perspectives. During this stage:

• Learners carefully watch, listen, and consider what happened
• They ask questions about the experience and attempt to make sense of it
• There is a deliberate shift from participating to contemplating
• Objectivity, patience, and careful judgment are important qualities

Continuing with our examples, the biology student might document and reflect on what happened to plants in different lighting conditions, while the management trainee might consider how different people contributed to the team’s process and what patterns emerged.

Stage 3: Abstract Conceptualization (AC) – “Thinking”

In this stage, learners move beyond reflection to develop theories, models, or concepts that explain their observations and integrate them with existing knowledge. This involves:

• Logical thinking and rational analysis rather than feeling
• Creating theoretical models to explain observations
• Integrating disparate observations into coherent explanations
• Drawing conclusions and generating hypotheses

Our biology student might now develop an understanding of the theoretical principles of photosynthesis that explain the observed plant behaviours, while the management trainee might formulate concepts about effective team dynamics based on their experience and reflection.

Stage 4: Active Experimentation (AE) – “Doing”

The final stage involves testing theories and concepts in new situations. Here, learners:

• Apply their newly formed concepts to see if they work in practice
• Focus on practical applications rather than theoretical understanding
• Test hypotheses through hands-on experimentation
• Use theories as guides for creating new experiences

The biology student might design experiments to test their understanding of photosynthesis under different conditions, while the management trainee might try new approaches to facilitating team discussions based on their theoretical insights.

The Cycle as a Holistic Approach to Learning

What distinguishes Kolb’s model is its integration of traditionally separated dimensions of learning—concrete and abstract, active and reflective—into a unified process. As Kolb and Fry (1975) emphasize, effective learning requires abilities that are polar opposites:

• The concrete abilities of Concrete Experience and the conceptual abilities of Abstract Conceptualization
• The reflective abilities of Reflective Observation and the active abilities of Active Experimentation

This holistic approach acknowledges that complete learning involves the whole person—their thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and behaviours. Rather than privileging one mode of learning over others, Kolb’s model suggests that deep learning emerges from the creative tension between these different ways of engaging with the world.

Brookfield (1983) observes that this integration distinguishes experiential learning from more traditional pedagogical approaches that might emphasize abstract concepts without concrete application, or activities without reflective processing.

Learning as a Continuous Process

A crucial aspect of Kolb’s theory is that learning is portrayed not as a series of outcomes but as an ongoing process. As he states, “Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes” (Kolb, 1984). Several key principles underpin this understanding:

• The cycle can begin at any stage, though it often starts with a concrete experience
• Learning involves continual movement through all four stages
• Each completed cycle potentially leads to a new cycle at a higher level of complexity
• Learning spirals outward as learners develop increasingly sophisticated understandings

This cyclical nature reflects how learners continuously refine and reconstruct their knowledge through ongoing experiences and reflections. Jarvis (1987) notes that this perspective aligns with lifelong learning principles, positioning learning not as something that happens only in formal educational settings but as an integral part of human development throughout life.

The continuity of the learning process is particularly evident when we consider how the active experimentation stage naturally leads to new concrete experiences, thus beginning the cycle anew. For instance, when the management trainee applies new team facilitation approaches, this creates fresh experiences that prompt further reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation.

Kolb views the learning cycle as a “spiral” rather than a closed circle, emphasizing that each pass through the cycle builds upon previous learning. This progressive development enables learners to form increasingly complex and abstract “mental models” of whatever they are learning about (Tennant, 1997).

Implications of the Experiential Learning Cycle

The experiential learning cycle carries significant implications for educational practice:

• Learning should engage all four modes of the cycle for maximum effectiveness
• Learners should develop capacities in all four learning modes, not just their preferred ones
• Educational activities can be designed to move learners through the complete cycle
• Assessment should consider all aspects of the learning process, not just conceptual understanding

By offering a comprehensive framework for understanding how experience translates into knowledge, Kolb’s experiential learning cycle provides educators with a valuable tool for designing more effective learning experiences across diverse educational contexts, from Early Years settings to professional development programmes.

Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory: Understanding Individual Differences

While the experiential learning cycle describes the process through which all effective learning occurs, Kolb recognised that individual learners approach this process differently. Building on this insight, he developed the Learning Style Inventory (LSI), a self-assessment tool designed to identify individual preferences within the learning cycle. This aspect of Kolb’s work acknowledges the diversity of learners and provides a framework for understanding how personal tendencies influence educational experiences.

The Two Learning Continuums

Kolb’s model of learning styles is structured around two key continuums that represent different ways of engaging with and processing experience. These dimensions form the axes of a coordinate system that defines four distinct learning styles:

The Perception Continuum (Vertical Axis)

The perception continuum, often depicted as the vertical axis, describes how individuals grasp or take in new information. This continuum stretches between two contrasting modes:

• Concrete Experience (CE) – At one end of the spectrum, some learners prefer to engage with tangible, felt experiences. They rely on feelings, intuition, and specific instances rather than theories. These learners value direct experience and personal connection to the learning material.
• Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) – At the opposite end, other learners prefer to engage with abstract ideas and concepts. They process information through logical analysis, systematic planning, and intellectual understanding. These learners value theories, models, and general principles.

As Kolb (1984) notes, the perception continuum represents a tension between grasping experience through apprehension (CE) or comprehension (AC). Most learners have preferences along this spectrum, even if they can utilise both modes when necessary.

The Processing Continuum (Horizontal Axis)

The processing continuum, typically represented as the horizontal axis, describes how individuals transform or process their experiences into understanding. This continuum spans between:

• Reflective Observation (RO) – On one end, some learners prefer to process experiences by watching, listening, and carefully considering different perspectives. They tend to observe rather than act, taking time to develop a thorough understanding before moving forward.
• Active Experimentation (AE) – At the opposite end, other learners prefer to process experiences through direct action and practical application. They learn by doing, experimenting, and seeing tangible results of their efforts.

This processing continuum represents what Kolb terms the transformation dimension—how experience is converted into knowledge either through intention (RO) or extension (AE).

The Four Learning Styles

By examining where individuals fall along these two continuums, Kolb identified four distinct learning styles. Each represents a combination of preferences for perceiving and processing information. While most people can adapt to different styles, they typically have a dominant preference that shapes their approach to learning.

Divergers (CE + RO): “Feeling and Watching”

Divergers combine concrete experience with reflective observation, allowing them to view situations from multiple perspectives and generate creative ideas.

Key characteristics of Divergers:

• Strong imaginative abilities and emotional awareness
• Capacity to generate numerous ideas and see multiple perspectives
• Interest in people and cultural activities
• Tendency to gather information and consider it carefully
• Preference for working in groups and receiving personalised feedback
• Openness to new experiences and viewpoints

Professional and educational applications: Divergers often excel in careers that require creativity, emotional intelligence, and understanding diverse perspectives. These include roles in the arts, counselling, humanities, social work, and human resources. In educational settings, they benefit from discussion groups, brainstorming sessions, and opportunities to explore open-ended questions.

According to Kolb and Fry (1975), Divergers “have broad cultural interests and like to gather information.” They are often the team members who can see connections others miss and generate innovative solutions to complex problems.

Assimilators (AC + RO): “Thinking and Watching”

Assimilators combine abstract conceptualisation with reflective observation, giving them strength in creating theoretical models and integrating disparate observations into coherent explanations.

Key characteristics of Assimilators:

• Strong logical thinking and theoretical model-building capabilities
• Preference for abstract ideas over practical applications
• Methodical approach to information processing
• Interest in concepts and theories rather than people
• Ability to organise information into clear, logical formats
• Value for precision, analytical thinking, and sound theories

Professional and educational applications: Assimilators typically thrive in scientific fields, research positions, information sciences, and mathematical disciplines. They excel in planning and research roles that require careful analysis and theoretical development. In educational contexts, they prefer lectures, readings, analytical models, and time for thoughtful reflection.

Tennant (1997) notes that this learning style “is important for effectiveness in information and science careers.” Assimilators often serve as the theoretical backbone of teams, ensuring ideas are logically sound and conceptually coherent.

Convergers (AC + AE): “Thinking and Doing”

Convergers combine abstract conceptualisation with active experimentation, enabling them to find practical applications for theories and solve problems through a hypothetical-deductive approach.

Key characteristics of Convergers:

• Strong practical application of ideas and concepts
• Preference for technical tasks over interpersonal issues
• Focused problem-solving approach, often seeking a single correct solution
• Ability to make decisions and implement solutions efficiently
• Tendency toward specialisation in physical sciences or technology
• Preference for working with things rather than people

Professional and educational applications: Convergers are typically drawn to engineering, technology, applied sciences, medicine, and computer science. They excel in technical roles that involve practical problem-solving and the application of theories to real-world challenges. In learning environments, they benefit from laboratories, fieldwork, simulations, and practical applications of theory.

Kolb (1984) suggests that Convergers are “strong in the practical application of ideas.” Their ability to translate theoretical knowledge into functional applications makes them valuable in roles requiring technical expertise and problem-solving efficiency.

Accommodators (CE + AE): “Feeling and Doing”

Accommodators combine concrete experience with active experimentation, giving them strengths in implementation, adaptation, and hands-on learning.

Key characteristics of Accommodators:

• Strong instinct for action and risk-taking
• Adaptability to changing circumstances
• Reliance on intuition and trial-and-error approaches
• Preference for hands-on experience over theoretical understanding
• Comfort with ambiguity and changing conditions
• Tendency to rely on others for information rather than their own analysis

Professional and educational applications: Accommodators often excel in action-oriented roles such as marketing, sales, management, entrepreneurship, and fields requiring adaptation to rapidly changing conditions. They thrive in educational environments that offer hands-on learning, role-playing, fieldwork, and project-based approaches.

As Smith (2001) observes, Accommodators “commonly act on ‘gut’ instinct rather than logical analysis.” Their capacity for adaptation and implementation makes them valuable team members when quick action and flexibility are required.

Practical Applications of Learning Styles

Understanding learning styles offers significant benefits across various educational and professional contexts:

• Personalised instruction: Educators can design learning activities that engage different learning styles, ensuring all students have opportunities to learn in ways that align with their preferences.
• Self-awareness for learners: Individuals who understand their own learning preferences can make more informed choices about study strategies, career paths, and personal development.
• Team composition: In workplace settings, teams can be balanced to include different learning styles, creating more comprehensive approaches to problem-solving and innovation.
• Professional development: Training programmes can be designed to accommodate various learning styles, increasing effectiveness and engagement.
• Educational design: Curriculum developers can ensure learning experiences incorporate all aspects of the learning cycle, even while allowing for individual preferences.

However, Kolb himself emphasises that effective learners should be able to engage with all four learning modes, not just their preferred style. As Kolb and Kolb (2005) note, “The most effective learners are able to move around the learning cycle adapting a learning style appropriate to the learning situation at hand.”

The LSI is intended not to pigeonhole learners but to help them understand their strengths and areas for development. The ultimate goal is to develop what Kolb terms “learning flexibility”—the ability to adapt one’s approach based on the requirements of the specific learning context.

In educational practice, awareness of learning styles can guide the design of comprehensive learning experiences that engage all aspects of the learning cycle while providing entry points that appeal to learners with different preferences. This balanced approach ensures that learning is both effective and inclusive, respecting individual differences while developing well-rounded learning capabilities.

Practical Applications of Kolb’s Theory in Education

The theoretical elegance of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle and learning styles framework finds its true value in practical educational contexts. For educators, these concepts provide actionable insights that can enhance teaching practices and create more inclusive and effective learning environments. This section explores how Kolb’s theories can be implemented in educational settings from primary schools to higher education and professional development contexts.

Implementation Strategies for Teachers and Educational Institutions

Integrating Kolb’s experiential learning theory into educational practice requires thoughtful consideration of how learning experiences are structured. Several key strategies can help educators incorporate this approach effectively:

• Curriculum mapping – Educational institutions can audit their curriculum to ensure it incorporates all four stages of the learning cycle across modules and courses. This mapping helps identify gaps where certain learning modes might be underrepresented.
• Lesson planning frameworks – Individual teachers can adopt planning templates that prompt consideration of all four learning modes when designing lessons. Johnson and Johnson (1996) suggest planning sheets that explicitly address how each stage of the cycle will be engaged.
• Faculty development – Training programmes can help educators understand their own learning style preferences and how these might influence their teaching approaches. This awareness helps teachers broaden their instructional repertoire.
• Learning environment design – Physical and virtual learning spaces can be organised to support different learning modes, with areas for active experimentation, quiet reflection, collaborative discussion, and independent study.
• Assessment diversity – Assessment strategies can be diversified to evaluate learning across all stages of the cycle, rather than focusing predominantly on conceptual understanding or practical application.

At the institutional level, Kolb’s theory has implications for how education is structured more broadly. Weil and McGill (1989) suggest that experiential learning approaches can inform strategic planning in four key areas or “villages” of practice:

1. Assessing and accrediting prior experiential learning
2. Bringing change to post-compulsory educational structures
3. Using experiential learning for social change and consciousness-raising
4. Supporting personal growth and self-awareness

Designing Learning Experiences That Engage All Four Stages of the Cycle

Effective learning, according to Kolb’s theory, occurs when learners engage with all four modes of the learning cycle. Educators can design comprehensive learning experiences that deliberately move students through each stage:

Stage 1: Concrete Experience Activities

Learning experiences should provide opportunities for direct engagement with the subject matter. Examples include:

• Field trips and site visits to experience real-world applications
• Laboratory experiments where students observe phenomena firsthand
• Role-plays and simulations that create immersive experiences
• Case studies based on real situations
• Demonstrations that allow for immediate observation
• Primary source documents that connect students to authentic materials

Stage 2: Reflective Observation Activities

Following direct experiences, learners need opportunities to reflect on what they’ve observed. Teachers can facilitate this through:

• Guided journaling prompts that encourage careful consideration
• Group discussions where diverse perspectives are shared
• Question-based activities that promote deeper thinking
• Observation sheets that structure the reflective process
• Video recording of activities for subsequent analysis
• Think-pair-share activities that support collaborative reflection

Stage 3: Abstract Conceptualisation Activities

Learning experiences should help students develop theoretical understanding and connect observations to broader concepts:

• Lectures that introduce relevant theories and models
• Readings that present conceptual frameworks
• Concept mapping exercises to organise ideas
• Theory-building activities where students develop explanations
• Research projects that require analysis and synthesis
• Writing assignments that demand logical argumentation

Stage 4: Active Experimentation Activities

Finally, learners need opportunities to test concepts and apply understanding in new situations:

• Problem-solving exercises with real-world scenarios
• Projects that require practical application of theories
• Teaching others as a way to test understanding
• Creating products or performances that demonstrate learning
• Planning activities for future implementation
• Action research where students test hypotheses

Boud et al. (1985) emphasise that well-designed learning experiences should not only include all four stages but should also create connections between them, helping students recognise how concrete experiences inform conceptual understanding and how concepts can guide practical action.

Accommodating Different Learning Styles in the Classroom

While moving all learners through the complete learning cycle is important, educators can also accommodate different learning style preferences to create multiple entry points into the learning process:

For Divergers (Feeling and Watching)

• Begin lessons with personal stories or examples that create emotional connection
• Use group discussions where multiple perspectives are encouraged
• Provide opportunities for brainstorming and idea generation
• Include reflective writing activities that allow for personal expression
• Offer supportive, non-threatening learning environments
• Use multimedia presentations that engage visual imagination

For Assimilators (Thinking and Watching)

• Provide well-organised lectures with clear theoretical frameworks
• Allow time for independent reading and research
• Offer opportunities to develop models and theoretical explanations
• Structure activities with clear guidelines and logical progression
• Use case studies that require analysis and conceptual understanding
• Provide access to additional resources for deeper exploration

For Convergers (Thinking and Doing)

• Present problems with clear solutions to be discovered
• Create laboratory or workshop sessions for practical application
• Develop simulations that test theoretical knowledge
• Offer technical challenges that require logical problem-solving
• Provide immediate feedback on performance
• Design activities with clear, measurable outcomes

For Accommodators (Feeling and Doing)

• Design hands-on activities with tangible outcomes
• Create group projects that require action and adaptation
• Include role-playing exercises that allow for personal engagement
• Offer leadership opportunities in collaborative activities
• Build in flexibility for learner-directed exploration
• Provide challenges that require intuitive problem-solving

Honey and Mumford (1992), who built upon Kolb’s work, suggest that offering this variety of approaches helps not only to engage students’ preferred learning styles but also to develop their capacity in less preferred modes, gradually building more rounded learning capabilities.

Case Studies of Successful Implementation

Kolb’s experiential learning theory has been successfully implemented across various educational contexts, demonstrating its versatility and effectiveness:

Higher Education Engineering Programme

A university engineering department restructured its curriculum to follow the experiential learning cycle. First-year students began with direct experiences through industry site visits (CE), followed by guided reflection sessions (RO). These reflections informed subsequent lectures on engineering principles (AC), which students then applied in design challenges (AE). Assessment included reflective portfolios, conceptual examinations, and practical projects, addressing all learning styles. The programme reported increased engagement and improved conceptual understanding, particularly among students whose learning styles had been less accommodated in the traditional, lecture-focused approach (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Secondary School Science Teaching

A secondary school science department adopted an experiential approach to teaching physics. Each unit began with practical demonstrations or student experiments (CE), followed by structured observation and discussion (RO). Teachers then introduced relevant physical laws and theories (AC), after which students designed and conducted their own experiments to test these principles (AE). The approach particularly benefited students previously disengaged by the traditional theory-first approach, while maintaining strong conceptual understanding among all students (Baker et al., 2002).

Primary School Environmental Education

A primary school integrated experiential learning into its environmental education programme. Children began with sensory exploration of natural environments (CE), then documented and discussed their observations (RO). Teachers guided them in understanding ecological concepts (AC), which students applied through conservation projects in the school grounds (AE). The programme demonstrated strong learning outcomes across different learning styles and improved environmental awareness and attitudes (Weil & McGill, 1989).

Professional Development for Healthcare Workers

A hospital implemented Kolb-based professional development for nursing staff. The programme began with clinical scenarios or real patient cases (CE), followed by reflective practice sessions (RO). Staff then studied relevant research and best practices (AC) before implementing new approaches in supervised clinical practice (AE). This cycle-based approach improved clinical reasoning and patient outcomes compared to traditional lecture-based continuing education (Kolb, 1984).

Tools for Educators to Assess and Respond to Learning Styles

To implement Kolb’s approach effectively, educators can utilise various tools to assess learning styles and monitor engagement with the learning cycle:

Assessment Tools

• The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) – Kolb’s original assessment tool helps identify individual preferences along the two continuums. Multiple versions exist, with the LSI 3.1 being the most recent major revision (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
• Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) – Built upon Kolb’s theory but with modified terminology and application-focused questions. The LSQ identifies four learner types: Activists, Reflectors, Theorists, and Pragmatists, which closely correspond to Kolb’s styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992).
• Informal observation checklists – Educators can use structured observation forms to note student engagement with different learning activities, identifying patterns that may indicate learning style preferences.
• Learner self-assessment questionnaires – Simplified tools can help students reflect on their own learning preferences and strategies, building metacognitive awareness.

Response Strategies

Once educators have identified learning style distributions in their classroom, they can respond through:

• Varied instructional methods – Deliberately incorporating teaching approaches that appeal to different learning styles within the same lesson or unit.
• Flexible grouping strategies – Creating balanced groups that include different learning styles for collaborative work, or occasionally forming groups with similar preferences for targeted activities.
• Differentiated resources – Providing learning materials in various formats (visual, textual, interactive) to support different approaches to engaging with content.
• Choice and agency – Offering options for how students demonstrate learning, allowing them to play to their strengths while still meeting core learning objectives.
• Learning process coaching – Helping students understand how to approach tasks that align less well with their preferred style, gradually building more rounded learning capabilities.

Fleming and Baume (2006) suggest that the greatest value of learning style assessments may lie not in rigid categorisation but in the conversations they prompt about learning processes and preferences. These discussions help both educators and learners become more thoughtful about how learning occurs and how it can be supported most effectively.

Balancing Structure and Flexibility

While Kolb’s theory provides a valuable structure for educational design, effective implementation requires balancing structured approaches with flexibility and responsiveness. Jarvis (1987) cautions against overly mechanical applications of the learning cycle, noting that real learning is often messier and more contextual than theoretical models suggest.

Successful educational applications of Kolb’s theory maintain this balance—using the framework to ensure comprehensive coverage of learning modes while remaining attentive to the specific needs, interests, and contexts of learners. When implemented thoughtfully, Kolb’s approach can create educational experiences that are both structured enough to ensure effective learning and flexible enough to respond to diverse learner needs.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning in Early Childhood Education

While Kolb initially developed his experiential learning theory in the context of adult education and professional development, the core principles have proven remarkably applicable to Early Childhood Education. In fact, many Early Years practitioners may recognise in Kolb’s cycle an articulation of principles that already inform high-quality practice with young children. The emphasis on direct experience, reflection, conceptualisation, and active testing aligns well with contemporary understanding of how young children learn most effectively.

Adapting Kolb’s Theories for Young Learners

Applying Kolb’s experiential learning theory to Early Years settings requires thoughtful adaptation that respects both the theoretical framework and the developmental characteristics of young children. Several key considerations guide this adaptation:

Young children are naturally experiential learners, primarily engaging with the world through direct sensory experiences and active exploration. As Piaget’s cognitive development theory suggests, children in the preoperational stage (roughly ages 2-7) learn primarily through concrete experiences rather than abstract reasoning (Piaget, 1952). This natural tendency aligns perfectly with the concrete experience stage of Kolb’s cycle.

The reflective observation stage requires careful scaffolding for young children. While adults might engage in extensive internal reflection, young children benefit from guided reflection through conversations, drawing, and other externalised means of processing experiences. Vygotsky’s concept of scaffolding within the zone of proximal development provides a useful framework for supporting children’s developing reflective capabilities (Vygotsky, 1978).

Abstract conceptualisation looks different in Early Years contexts. Rather than formal theories, young children develop what Athey (2007) calls “schema” – patterns of thought and behaviour that help them make sense of their experiences. Early Years practitioners support this process by providing language, asking questions, and helping children connect new experiences to existing knowledge.

Active experimentation comes naturally to young children, who are inherently driven to test their developing ideas through play and interaction. The Early Years practitioner’s role is to create environments rich in opportunities for such experimentation and to recognise and support children’s self-directed investigations.

Fisher (2008) argues that Early Years settings are ideal environments for experiential learning precisely because they traditionally value hands-on experiences, play-based approaches, and child-led exploration – all elements that align with Kolb’s framework. The key adaptation lies not in fundamentally changing the experiential learning cycle but in adjusting expectations about how children engage with each stage based on their developmental capabilities.

Creating Experiential Learning Opportunities in Early Years Settings

Early Years environments can be intentionally designed to facilitate the experiential learning cycle, creating rich opportunities for children to construct knowledge through meaningful experiences:

Physical Environment Design

The physical environment serves as a crucial “third teacher” in supporting experiential learning. Effective Early Years spaces include:

• Dedicated areas for different types of experiences (sensory, construction, imaginative play, quiet reflection)
• Accessible, open-ended materials that invite exploration and experimentation
• Documentation spaces where learning processes can be made visible through photos, children’s work, and written observations
• Outdoor areas that provide different sensory experiences and opportunities for large-scale exploration
• Quiet corners where children can process experiences individually or in small groups

Bruce (2011) emphasizes that well-designed Early Years environments should offer a balance of familiar materials that provide security and novel elements that stimulate curiosity and new learning. This balance supports children as they move through the experiential learning cycle, from concrete experiences to testing new ideas.

Routines and Schedules

Daily routines in Early Years settings can be structured to support the flow of the experiential learning cycle:

• Extended periods for uninterrupted play allow children to engage deeply with experiences and follow the cycle at their own pace
• Group reflection times provide opportunities for children to share observations and insights about their experiences
• Documentation activities help children revisit and consolidate learning
• Planning times enable children to develop intentions for future exploration
• Flexible schedules accommodate spontaneous investigations that emerge from children’s interests

Moyles (2010) notes that finding the right balance between child-initiated and adult-guided activities is essential for supporting experiential learning in Early Years contexts. Too much direction can interrupt children’s natural learning cycles, while too little guidance may limit the depth of reflection and conceptualisation.

Adult-Child Interactions

Early Years practitioners play a crucial role in facilitating children’s movement through the experiential learning cycle through thoughtful interactions:

• Using open-ended questions that prompt reflection and analysis
• Providing language that helps children articulate their observations and theories
• Modelling curiosity and the scientific process
• Documenting children’s learning journey to make the process visible
• Scaffolding children’s efforts to test their ideas
• Connecting current experiences to previous learning

Effective practitioners recognize when to step back and observe, when to ask questions that deepen thinking, and when to offer information or suggestions that extend learning. Athey (2007) describes this as “tuning in” to children’s schematic interests and supporting their investigations with appropriate resources and language.

Recognising and Supporting Different Learning Preferences in Young Children

While Kolb’s formal learning styles categories may not be directly applicable to very young children, Early Years practitioners can observe emerging preferences in how children approach learning:

Recognising Emerging Preferences

Early indicators of learning style preferences might include:

• Experience-oriented preferences – Some children consistently seek out sensory-rich experiences and show strong emotional engagement with materials and activities. These children may display emerging tendencies toward concrete experience.
• Observation-oriented preferences – Other children prefer to watch activities before participating, spend time examining materials carefully, or enjoy looking at books and pictures. These children may be developing strengths in reflective observation.
• Thinking-oriented preferences – Some children ask many “why” questions, enjoy classification activities, or seek patterns and explanations. These children may be showing early tendencies toward abstract conceptualisation.
• Action-oriented preferences – Other children prefer to test ideas immediately, enjoy trial and error, and actively experiment with materials. These children may be developing strengths in active experimentation.

Katz (2010) cautions against labelling young children with learning style designations but suggests that noticing these preferences can help practitioners provide appropriate support for individual children’s approaches to learning.

Supporting Diverse Learning Approaches

Early Years settings can support diverse learning approaches through:

• Providing multiple entry points to learning experiences that accommodate different preferences
• Offering a range of tools and materials that support different ways of engaging with concepts
• Creating both collaborative and individual learning opportunities
• Respecting different paces and pathways through the learning process
• Documenting learning in ways that capture different aspects of children’s engagement

Maynard and Chicken (2010) emphasize that supporting diverse learning preferences in Early Years settings helps build children’s confidence in their natural approaches while gradually expanding their repertoire of learning strategies. The goal is not to categorise children but to ensure all have opportunities to engage successfully with learning experiences.

Examples of Activities That Support the Experiential Learning Cycle in Nurseries

Early Years settings can design activities that intentionally move children through all stages of the experiential learning cycle. The following examples illustrate how this might look in practice:

Gardening Project

A gardening project exemplifies how the experiential learning cycle can unfold naturally in an Early Years setting:

• Concrete Experience: Children plant seeds, water plants, observe growth, harvest vegetables, and taste what they’ve grown. These direct, multisensory experiences form the foundation for learning.
• Reflective Observation: During group discussions, children share observations about what happened to their plants. The teacher documents these observations with photos and children’s comments. Children draw pictures of what they noticed about the plants.
• Abstract Conceptualisation: Through conversations and explorations, children develop understandings about what plants need to grow. They begin to form theories about growth cycles and plant requirements.
• Active Experimentation: Children test their theories by planting different seeds in different conditions, predicting outcomes, and observing results. They apply their learning by caring for plants in new ways based on their developing understandings.

Fisher (2008) describes such project-based approaches as particularly effective for supporting experiential learning because they provide continuity that allows the learning cycle to unfold over time.

Water Play Exploration

Water play offers rich opportunities for experiential learning:

• Concrete Experience: Children explore water through free play with various containers, tubes, funnels, and objects that sink or float.
• Reflective Observation: The teacher encourages children to notice and describe what happened during their water exploration. Photos, drawings, and discussions help children reflect on their observations.
• Abstract Conceptualisation: Through guided conversations, children begin to develop concepts related to volume, flow, buoyancy, and properties of materials. They may sort objects into those that float and sink.
• Active Experimentation: Children test their emerging understandings by predicting whether new objects will float or sink, designing boats that will float, or creating systems for moving water between containers.

Bruce (2011) notes that such open-ended materials provide ideal contexts for experiential learning because they can be explored in increasingly complex ways as children’s understanding develops.

Dramatic Play Scenario

Dramatic play naturally incorporates all aspects of the experiential learning cycle:

• Concrete Experience: Children take on roles in a pretend shop, hospital, or home corner, directly experiencing social interactions and processes through play.
• Reflective Observation: Through conversations during and after play, children discuss what happened in their scenarios and how different roles interacted.
• Abstract Conceptualisation: Children develop understandings about social roles, sequences of events, and symbolic representations through their dramatic play.
• Active Experimentation: Children test and refine their understandings by trying different approaches, incorporating new elements into their play, and applying concepts in new scenarios.

Moyles (2010) highlights how sociodramatic play provides a natural context for children to process their real-world experiences, develop conceptual understanding, and experiment with social roles and relationships.

Investigation Table

An investigation table focused on a particular concept or material supports systematic exploration:

• Concrete Experience: Children explore natural materials like pinecones, stones, and shells through their senses, noticing properties and characteristics.
• Reflective Observation: Drawing materials, magnifying glasses, and cameras help children observe more closely and record what they notice. Teachers document children’s comments about their observations.
• Abstract Conceptualisation: Through conversations and explorations, children develop classification systems, notice patterns, and make connections between objects.
• Active Experimentation: Children test their ideas by sorting materials in different ways, predicting characteristics of new items, or using materials for creative purposes based on their properties.

Athey (2007) describes how such focused investigations support children’s schematic explorations, allowing them to develop and test theories about the physical world through hands-on exploration.

Integrated Approach to Experiential Learning in Early Years

The most effective implementation of Kolb’s cycle in Early Years settings occurs when it is integrated into the overall pedagogical approach rather than treated as a separate method. As Fisher (2008) argues, experiential learning in Early Years contexts works best when:

• It emerges from children’s natural curiosity and interests
• It is embedded in play-based approaches
• It involves all senses and multiple modes of expression
• It balances child-initiated and adult-supported experiences
• It is documented in ways that make learning visible to children, practitioners, and families

Through thoughtful adaptation of Kolb’s principles, Early Years practitioners can create learning environments that honour young children’s natural learning processes while providing the structure and support needed to deepen their understanding of the world.

Professional Development and Workplace Learning Using Kolb’s Model

Beyond formal educational settings, Kolb’s experiential learning theory has found significant application in professional development and workplace learning contexts. The model’s emphasis on learning through experience makes it particularly well-suited to adult professional learning, where practitioners often have substantial practical experience but may benefit from more structured approaches to reflecting on and learning from that experience.

How Kolb’s Theories Influence Workplace Training and Development

Kolb’s influence on workplace learning can be seen across numerous industries and organisational contexts. His theories have shaped how organisations approach employee development in several key ways:

The experiential learning cycle provides a structured framework for designing workplace learning programmes that move beyond traditional lecture-based training. Kolb’s emphasis on the cyclical nature of learning aligns well with contemporary understanding of professional development as an ongoing process rather than a one-time event. Organisations increasingly recognise that effective professional learning requires opportunities for concrete experience, reflection, conceptualisation, and active experimentation.

As Mumford (1997) observes, traditional workplace training often emphasises abstract conceptualisation (through lectures and manuals) and active experimentation (through on-the-job practice), while neglecting concrete experience and reflective observation. Kolb’s model has encouraged organisations to develop more balanced learning programmes that engage all four learning modes.

This shift toward more comprehensive approaches to professional development is evident in several workplace learning trends:

• Action learning – This approach, pioneered by Revans and developed further by Kolb’s work, involves learning through tackling real workplace problems in collaborative groups. Action learning cycles typically include concrete workplace experiences, group reflection sessions, conceptual input where needed, and testing of new approaches in the workplace (Mumford, 1997).
• Reflective practice – Professional development programmes increasingly incorporate structured reflection activities, such as reflective journals, peer discussion groups, and facilitated debriefing sessions. These elements directly respond to Kolb’s emphasis on reflective observation as a crucial component of the learning process (Schön, 1983).
• Workplace coaching – The growth of coaching models in organisations reflects Kolb’s insight that learning requires both action and reflection. Effective coaches help professionals cycle through concrete experiences, reflection on those experiences, conceptualisation of new approaches, and testing of these approaches (Cox et al., 2014).
• 70:20:10 framework – This popular workplace learning model, which suggests that 70% of learning comes from job-related experiences, 20% from interactions with others, and 10% from formal educational events, aligns with Kolb’s emphasis on experience as the foundation of learning (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996).

Organisations also increasingly recognise the value of understanding learning styles in workforce development. Learning style assessments are commonly used in professional development contexts to:

• Help employees understand their own learning preferences
• Guide the design of diverse learning experiences that appeal to different styles
• Facilitate more effective team collaboration by recognising different approaches to problem-solving
• Support career development conversations about roles that might align with particular learning styles

Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), a tool developed specifically for workplace applications based on Kolb’s learning styles theory, has been widely adopted in organisational settings. The LSQ identifies four types—Activists, Reflectors, Theorists, and Pragmatists—that correspond to Kolb’s learning styles but use terminology more immediately accessible in business contexts (Honey & Mumford, 1992).

Self-Directed Learning Using the Experiential Learning Cycle

Kolb’s model offers professionals a powerful framework for self-directed learning, enabling them to take greater ownership of their development through structured reflection on experience. Self-directed learning has become increasingly important in contemporary workplaces, where rapid change requires continuous adaptation and development of new capabilities.

Professionals can apply the experiential learning cycle to their own development through a structured process:

Concrete Experience

Self-directed learners intentionally seek out experiences that will expand their capabilities:

• Taking on challenging assignments or projects
• Joining cross-functional teams to gain exposure to different perspectives
• Seeking feedback on performance from colleagues or clients
• Observing skilled practitioners at work
• Participating in simulations or scenario-based activities

Boud and Walker (1991) emphasise that not all experiences lead to learning. The quality of experience matters, particularly its relevance to development goals and the degree of engagement and reflection it encourages.

Reflective Observation

Self-directed learners develop disciplined approaches to reflection:

• Maintaining reflective learning journals to document observations and insights
• Establishing regular review sessions to examine recent experiences
• Seeking feedback from colleagues, mentors, or coaches
• Recording critical incidents for later analysis
• Using structured debriefing tools such as “What? So what? Now what?” frameworks

Cox et al. (2014) note that effective self-reflection requires both retrospective analysis (examining what happened) and prospective thinking (considering implications for future practice). Both dimensions are essential for translating experience into learning.

Abstract Conceptualisation

Self-directed learners connect their experiences to broader principles and theories:

• Reading professional literature related to their experiences
• Attending courses or webinars that provide theoretical frameworks
• Discussing conceptual implications with mentors or learning partners
• Creating personal models or frameworks that explain their observations
• Comparing their experiences with established best practices

Schön (1983) distinguishes between “knowing-in-action” (tacit knowledge demonstrated through practice) and “knowledge-about-action” (explicit theoretical understanding). Self-directed learners work to develop both types of knowledge and the connections between them.

Active Experimentation

Self-directed learners deliberately test new approaches based on their reflections and conceptualisations:

• Setting specific development goals based on insights from reflection
• Creating action plans for implementing new approaches
• Seeking opportunities to test new skills in low-risk situations
• Monitoring results of new approaches and adjusting as needed
• Building feedback mechanisms to evaluate effectiveness

Kolb and Kolb (2009) emphasise that experiential learning is most effective when learners take an experimental approach, treating each application as a hypothesis to be tested rather than a fixed solution.

The self-directed application of the experiential learning cycle creates what Schön (1983) calls the “reflective practitioner”—a professional who continuously learns from experience through a disciplined process of reflection and experimentation. This approach is particularly valuable in professions characterised by complexity, uncertainty, and rapid change, where pre-defined solutions are rarely sufficient.

Team Development Through Understanding Different Learning Styles

Kolb’s learning style framework provides valuable insights for team development in workplace settings. Understanding the different ways team members approach learning and problem-solving can enhance collaboration, improve communication, and help teams leverage their cognitive diversity.

Team Composition and Cognitive Diversity

Teams that include members with different learning styles bring diverse cognitive strengths to their work:

• Divergers contribute creative ideas, multiple perspectives, and attention to human factors in problem-solving.
• Assimilators offer theoretical frameworks, logical analysis, and systematic approaches to complex problems.
• Convergers provide practical solutions, focus on implementation, and technical problem-solving capabilities.
• Accommodators bring action orientation, adaptability in changing circumstances, and willingness to take calculated risks.

Research suggests that teams with balanced representation of different learning styles often outperform homogeneous teams on complex tasks. Kayes et al. (2005) found that teams with diversity in learning styles demonstrated greater adaptability and more comprehensive problem-solving approaches than teams dominated by a single style.

Team Learning Processes

Understanding learning styles can help teams design more effective learning processes:

• Project planning – Teams can intentionally structure projects to incorporate all four stages of the learning cycle, ensuring comprehensive approaches to complex challenges.
• Meeting design – Meetings can be structured to engage different learning modes, with time for both divergent thinking (brainstorming) and convergent thinking (decision-making).
• Conflict management – Many team conflicts stem from different approaches to learning and problem-solving. Recognising these differences as complementary rather than competitive can reduce unnecessary tension.
• Knowledge sharing – Teams can develop multiple channels for sharing knowledge that appeal to different learning preferences (written documentation, visual representations, hands-on demonstrations, discussion forums).

Kayes et al. (2005) propose a team learning cycle based on Kolb’s model that helps teams intentionally move through concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation as a collective unit.

Team Roles Based on Learning Styles

Some organisations explicitly use learning style preferences to inform team roles and responsibilities:

• Divergers might lead idea generation sessions, stakeholder consultations, or activities requiring empathy and creativity.
• Assimilators might take responsibility for research, data analysis, or development of theoretical models and frameworks.
• Convergers might focus on technical implementation, problem-solving, or testing of solutions.
• Accommodators might lead change initiatives, crisis response, or activities requiring adaptation to changing circumstances.

While these alignments can leverage natural strengths, Mumford (1997) cautions against rigid role assignments based on learning styles. The goal should be to help team members develop versatility while acknowledging their preferences, not to pigeonhole them into limited functions.

Team Coaching Using Kolb’s Framework

Team coaches and facilitators can use Kolb’s model to develop more effective interventions:

• Diagnosing team challenges in terms of the learning cycle (e.g., identifying whether a team is stuck in action without reflection or in analysis without application)
• Designing team development activities that engage all four learning modes
• Helping team members understand and appreciate different learning approaches
• Facilitating team reflection processes that translate experience into learning

Cox et al. (2014) suggest that team coaching based on experiential learning principles is particularly effective for helping teams navigate complex challenges and develop new capabilities collectively.

Applications in Professional Education

Kolb’s experiential learning theory has had significant impact on professional education across various fields, influencing how universities and professional bodies prepare practitioners for complex professional roles.

Healthcare Education

Medical, nursing, and allied health professional education has embraced experiential learning approaches:

• Simulation-based training – Healthcare education increasingly uses high-fidelity simulations to provide concrete experiences of clinical scenarios in controlled environments. These simulations are typically followed by structured debriefing sessions that guide learners through reflection, conceptualisation, and planning for future practice (Fanning & Gaba, 2007).
• Problem-based learning – Many medical schools structure curricula around clinical cases that students work through in facilitated small groups. This approach integrates concrete experience (the case), reflection (discussion), conceptualisation (research), and experimentation (application to new cases) (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980).
• Clinical placements – Supervised practice in clinical settings provides authentic experiences, with preceptors and tutors guiding reflection and conceptualisation. Learning portfolios and reflective journals help students integrate these experiences with theoretical knowledge (Fanning & Gaba, 2007).
• Interprofessional education – Learning activities that bring together students from different health professions often use Kolb’s cycle to structure shared learning experiences, reflection on different professional perspectives, development of collaborative frameworks, and practice of team-based approaches (Barr, 2013).

Business Education

Business schools and corporate universities have adopted experiential approaches to develop management and leadership capabilities:

• Case method teaching – Business cases provide vicarious concrete experiences, with classroom discussions facilitating reflective observation and conceptualisation. Students then apply insights to new cases or real business challenges (Reynolds, 1998).
• Business simulations – Complex simulations allow management students to experience business decision-making in compressed timeframes, with debriefing sessions helping them extract principles and refine strategies (Keys & Wolfe, 1990).
• Action learning projects – Many MBA programmes include team-based projects addressing real organisational challenges. These projects provide concrete experience while facilitated reflection sessions and academic assignments support conceptualisation (Reynolds, 1998).
• Internships and placements – Structured work experiences with reflection components help students integrate theoretical knowledge with practical application (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Legal Education

Legal education has moved beyond purely doctrinal approaches to incorporate more experiential elements:

• Clinical legal education – Law school clinics provide students with supervised experience representing real clients, combined with seminars that support reflection and conceptualisation (Bloch, 1982).
• Simulated practice – Moot courts, negotiation exercises, and client interviewing simulations provide concrete experiences followed by detailed feedback and reflection (Bloch, 1982).
• Problem-based learning – Case problems require students to apply legal knowledge to factual scenarios, with reflection on different approaches and outcomes (Grimes, 2014).
• Reflective practice journals – Many legal education programmes require students to maintain reflective journals documenting their developing understanding of legal practice (Grimes, 2014).

Engineering Education

Engineering education has shifted from theory-first approaches to more balanced experiential models:

• Design projects – Team-based design challenges provide concrete experiences of the engineering process, with structured reflection on team dynamics and technical challenges (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
• Laboratory work – Hands-on laboratory sessions allow students to experience phenomena directly, with lab reports structured to guide reflection and conceptualisation (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
• Industry placements – Work-integrated learning experiences help students connect theoretical knowledge with practical applications in real engineering contexts (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
• Project-based learning – Extended projects addressing authentic engineering challenges help students develop both technical and professional capabilities through guided experience (Reynolds, 1998).

Integration of Technology in Experiential Professional Learning

Technological developments have created new opportunities for experiential learning in professional contexts:

• Virtual reality simulations provide immersive concrete experiences in situations that might be dangerous, rare, or impractical in real life
• Digital reflection tools such as e-portfolios and learning journals support more structured reflection processes
• Learning analytics help identify patterns in learning activities and outcomes that inform more personalised approaches
• Mobile learning applications enable capture of workplace experiences for later reflection and discussion
• Online collaborative platforms support team learning across geographical distances

Kolb and Kolb (2009) suggest that these technological tools are most effective when they support, rather than replace, the fundamental experiential learning process. Technology should enhance, not substitute for, the direct engagement with experience that forms the foundation of experiential learning.

Measuring Impact of Experiential Learning in Professional Contexts

Organisations implementing Kolb-based approaches to professional development face the challenge of measuring their impact. Evaluation approaches include:

• Learning portfolios that document movement through the experiential learning cycle
• Workplace performance measures that assess application of learning
• Behavioural assessment of specific skills before and after experiential learning interventions
• Self-assessment of confidence and competence in targeted capability areas
• Team performance metrics for collaborative learning initiatives

Mumford (1997) emphasizes that measuring the impact of experiential learning requires assessment methods that capture the process of learning, not just outcomes. This might include evaluating the quality of reflections, the sophistication of conceptual models developed, and the adaptability demonstrated in new situations.

The widespread adoption of Kolb’s approach in professional development contexts reflects its alignment with contemporary understanding of workplace learning as an ongoing, experience-based process. By providing a structured framework for translating experience into knowledge, Kolb’s model helps professionals develop the adaptive expertise needed in rapidly changing fields.

Evaluation of Kolb’s Learning Theory

Limitations and Criticism of Kolb’s Research and Theory

Kolb’s work has been subject to significant critical scrutiny since its introduction. These critiques focus on several key areas of concern:

Issues with Empirical Support

One of the most persistent criticisms of Kolb’s theory concerns the perceived lack of robust empirical validation for key aspects of the model:

• Limited initial research base – Tennant (1997) points out that Kolb’s original research involved relatively small samples, raising questions about the generalisability of his findings. The empirical foundation for the four distinct learning styles was particularly limited.
• Difficulty in empirical testing – The nature of the theory presents challenges for empirical validation. As Jarvis (1987) notes, testing whether learning actually proceeds through the four stages in the sequence Kolb proposes is methodologically complex, as the stages may overlap or occur simultaneously in practice.
• Contradictory research findings – Studies attempting to validate aspects of Kolb’s theory have produced mixed results. Some research supports the existence of the learning cycle stages, while other studies question whether the stages are as distinct or sequential as the model suggests (Delahoussaye, 2002).
• Questionable psychometric properties – Earlier versions of the Learning Style Inventory faced criticism regarding their reliability and validity. While later revisions have improved psychometric properties, questions remain about whether the instrument consistently measures stable learning preferences (Reynolds, 1997).

Coffield et al. (2004), in their comprehensive review of learning style models, classified Kolb’s model as having only partial evidence for validity and reliability, noting particular concerns about test-retest reliability in the Learning Style Inventory.

Challenges with the Learning Styles Classification

The learning styles component of Kolb’s theory has faced particularly strong criticism:

• Oversimplification – Critics argue that reducing learning preferences to four categories represents an oversimplification of the complex and multifaceted ways individuals approach learning. Tennant (1997) suggests that the four learning styles are described in somewhat extravagant terms without sufficient evidence for such clear-cut distinctions.
• Cultural limitations – Anderson (1988) highlights that the learning style model takes little account of different cultural experiences and conditions. The model was developed primarily within Western cultural contexts and may not adequately reflect learning approaches in other cultural traditions.
• Risk of stereotyping – There are concerns that learning style classifications can lead to stereotyping or pigeonholing learners. Reynolds (1997) cautions against using learning style assessments in ways that might limit rather than expand learning opportunities.
• Integration difficulties – Tennant (1997) notes that the Learning Style Inventory has “no capacity to measure the degree of integration of learning styles,” making it difficult to assess how learners might combine approaches or shift between styles in different contexts.
• Binary dimensions – Kolb’s model suggests that learners cannot simultaneously engage in opposing processes (such as concrete experience and abstract conceptualisation). Jarvis (1987) questions this assumption, suggesting that learning often involves multiple simultaneous processes.

The broader learning styles movement, of which Kolb’s model is a part, has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years. Pashler et al. (2008), in a widely cited review, found limited evidence for the “meshing hypothesis”—the idea that instruction matched to a student’s learning style produces better learning outcomes—which undermines a key practical application of learning style theories.

Methodological Concerns

Several methodological issues have been raised regarding both the development and application of Kolb’s theory:

• Circular reasoning – Some critics suggest that the experiential learning cycle contains elements of circular reasoning, with stages defined in relation to each other rather than as independently observable phenomena (Reynolds, 1997).
• Staged thinking – Dewey (1933), whose work influenced Kolb, cautioned against overly sequential models of thinking and learning. Jarvis (1987) echoes this concern, noting that real learning rarely proceeds in such a neat, linear fashion as the cycle might suggest.
• Forced classifications – The Learning Style Inventory requires respondents to rank order preferences, forcing distinctions that may not reflect their actual learning approaches. This ipsative measurement approach has been criticised for producing artificially distinctive profiles (Reynolds, 1997).
• Contextual variation – Learning approaches likely vary significantly based on context, task, and subject matter. Kolb’s model has been criticised for not adequately accounting for this situational specificity (Coffield et al., 2004).
• Research design limitations – Many studies of experiential learning use self-report measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias and limited self-awareness. Direct observation of learning processes is methodologically challenging but may provide more valid evidence (Reynolds, 1997).

These methodological concerns do not necessarily invalidate Kolb’s insights but suggest caution in how the theory is interpreted and applied, particularly when making claims about individual learning styles.

Strengths and Support for Kolb’s Theories

Despite these criticisms, Kolb’s work has demonstrated considerable strengths that explain its enduring influence:

Practical Applicability Across Diverse Settings

A key strength of Kolb’s theory is its practical utility across a wide range of educational contexts:

• Educational design framework – As Tennant (1997) acknowledges, “the model provides an excellent framework for planning teaching and learning activities and it can be usefully employed as a guide for understanding learning difficulties, vocational counselling, academic advising and so on.”
• Cross-disciplinary relevance – The model has proven applicable across diverse fields including business education, healthcare training, teacher education, and technical fields. This broad applicability suggests it captures something fundamental about learning processes.
• Accessibility to practitioners – The relatively straightforward nature of the experiential learning cycle makes it accessible to practitioners who may not have extensive backgrounds in educational theory. This accessibility has facilitated its wide adoption in practice-oriented fields.
• Structured reflection tool – The model provides a valuable framework for guiding reflective practice, helping learners extract meaningful insights from their experiences through a structured process (Boud et al., 1985).
• Versatile application – The theory works at multiple levels, from designing individual learning activities to structuring entire curricula or professional development programmes. This versatility has contributed to its widespread adoption.

The practical value of Kolb’s work is evidenced by its continued use in educational and professional development contexts decades after its introduction. While theoretical critiques are important, this sustained practical utility suggests the model captures something meaningful about learning processes.

Intuitive Framework for Understanding Learning Processes

Kolb’s model provides an intuitive and accessible framework for understanding complex learning processes:

• Integration of experience and abstraction – The model effectively bridges the traditional divide between concrete experience and abstract theorising, recognising both as essential components of learning. This integration resonates with many educators’ intuitive understanding of effective learning.
• Recognition of learning diversity – By acknowledging different approaches to learning, the model validates diverse cognitive styles and helps explain why individuals may approach the same learning task differently.
• Alignment with educational traditions – The model builds upon established educational philosophies, particularly those of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget, providing continuity with respected theoretical traditions while offering new insights (Kolb, 1984).
• Holistic perspective – Unlike purely cognitive approaches to learning, Kolb’s model incorporates feeling, perception, thinking, and action, providing a more holistic view of the learning process that resonates with educators’ observations of real learning.
• Dynamic process orientation – By emphasising learning as a process rather than an outcome, the model aligns with contemporary understanding of education as developing capabilities rather than just transmitting information.

These intuitive strengths help explain why Kolb’s model has resonated with educators across many contexts, even as more technically precise learning theories have emerged.

Enduring Influence on Educational Practice

Perhaps the strongest evidence for the value of Kolb’s theory is its enduring influence on educational practice:

• Experiential education movement – Kolb’s work has provided theoretical grounding for the broader experiential education movement, lending academic credibility to approaches that emphasise direct experience and reflection (Weil & McGill, 1989).
• Reflective practice – The model has significantly influenced the development of reflective practice approaches across professional fields, particularly through its emphasis on the transformation of experience through reflection (Schön, 1983).
• Professional development frameworks – Numerous professional development frameworks incorporate elements of Kolb’s cycle, particularly in fields such as healthcare, education, and management (Cox et al., 2014).
• Assessment innovation – The model has influenced the development of more diverse assessment approaches that evaluate not just conceptual knowledge but also reflective capabilities and practical application (Boud et al., 1985).
• Conceptual language – Terms from Kolb’s model, such as “active experimentation” and “reflective observation,” have become part of the standard vocabulary for discussing learning processes, indicating the theory’s penetration into educational discourse.

This influential legacy suggests that, whatever its theoretical limitations, Kolb’s work has made valuable contributions to educational practice and continues to provide useful frameworks for understanding and facilitating learning.

Contradictory and Supporting Research

Research examining Kolb’s theory has produced mixed findings, with some studies supporting key elements of the model while others raise questions about specific claims:

Recent Studies Testing the Validity of Experiential Learning

Research on the experiential learning cycle has produced varied results:

• Support for the four-stage process – Some research supports the basic structure of the learning cycle. Peterson et al. (2015) found that engineering students who engaged with all four stages of the cycle demonstrated deeper understanding than those who experienced only partial cycles.
• Questions about sequencing – Studies by Jarvis (1987, 1995) suggest that learning does not always follow Kolb’s proposed sequence. Jarvis developed a more complex model allowing for multiple pathways through the learning process based on empirical observations of adult learners.
• Context dependency – Research by Holman et al. (1997) indicates that the relevance of different stages of the cycle may vary depending on the learning context and subject matter. Some learning situations may emphasise certain stages over others.
• Integration with other processes – Studies by Illeris (2007) suggest that experiential learning interacts with social and emotional dimensions of learning in complex ways not fully captured by Kolb’s model. This research points toward more integrated models of learning.
• Neurological investigations – Recent neurological research provides some support for different modes of processing that align with Kolb’s stages, though the neuroscience suggests more complex interactions than a simple cyclical model (Zull, 2002).

The mixed nature of these findings suggests that while the experiential learning cycle captures important aspects of how learning occurs, the process may be more complex, context-dependent, and variable than the original model implies.

Evidence For and Against the Existence of Distinct Learning Styles

Research on learning styles has been particularly contentious:

• Against fixed styles – In a comprehensive review, Pashler et al. (2008) found limited evidence for the effectiveness of matching teaching to learning styles, concluding that the learning styles hypothesis “receives very limited support from the available evidence.”
• Situational variability – Studies by Peterson et al. (2009) indicate that individuals often adapt their learning approach based on the context and content rather than applying a consistent style across different situations, challenging the stability of learning styles.
• For style preferences – While questioning fixed styles, some research supports the existence of learning preferences that influence how individuals approach new learning situations. Kolb and Kolb (2005) presented evidence that such preferences can be meaningfully measured and may influence educational and career choices.
• Against simple categorisation – Research by Coffield et al. (2004) suggests that learning approaches are more complex than four-category models can capture, with individuals often showing hybrid patterns or context-specific variations.
• For metacognitive value – Studies by Freedman and Stumph (1980) indicate that awareness of learning preferences, even if not fixed traits, can enhance metacognition and help learners develop more flexible approaches to different learning situations.

This mixed evidence suggests that while individuals may have preferences in how they approach learning, these are likely more fluid, context-dependent, and multidimensional than suggested by fixed learning style categories.

Modifications Proposed by Later Researchers

In response to perceived limitations of Kolb’s original model, numerous researchers have proposed modifications:

• Jarvis’s model – Jarvis (1987) developed an expanded model that identifies nine possible responses to potential learning situations, including non-learning responses (presumption, non-consideration, rejection) and both non-reflective and reflective learning paths. This model acknowledges more complex pathways through the learning process.
• Honey and Mumford’s LSQ – Honey and Mumford (1992) developed the Learning Styles Questionnaire as an alternative to Kolb’s LSI, using different terminology (Activists, Reflectors, Theorists, and Pragmatists) and focusing more directly on observable behaviours rather than psychological processes.
• Expanded learning style inventories – Later revisions of the Learning Style Inventory, including work by Kolb and Kolb (2005), have expanded the original four styles to nine patterns, acknowledging greater complexity in how learning preferences manifest.
• Integration with social learning theories – Researchers like Illeris (2007) have proposed more integrated models that combine experiential learning with social learning theory, recognising that learning occurs within social contexts that influence how experience is processed.
• Embodied cognition perspectives – Recent work by Shapiro and Stolz (2019) examines experiential learning through the lens of embodied cognition, emphasising how physical experience shapes cognitive processes in ways not fully articulated in Kolb’s original model.

These modifications generally preserve the core insight that learning involves the transformation of experience through reflection while addressing limitations in the original formulation. Many expand rather than reject Kolb’s framework, suggesting its fundamental value despite specific critiques.

Balanced Assessment

A balanced evaluation of Kolb’s theory recognises both its limitations and contributions. As Tennant (1997) observes, while the model has significant limitations from a strictly scientific perspective, it “provides an excellent framework for planning teaching and learning activities.”

The experiential learning cycle offers valuable insights into how experience can be transformed into knowledge through a structured process of reflection and experimentation. This framework has proven practically useful across diverse educational contexts, even if the learning process is more complex and variable than the model might suggest.

The learning styles component of the theory is more problematic, with limited evidence for fixed styles and questions about the practical value of style-based educational interventions. However, the recognition of diversity in learning approaches remains valuable, particularly when styles are viewed as flexible preferences rather than fixed traits.

Kolb’s enduring contribution may lie not in the precise details of his model but in his emphasis on learning as an active, experiential process involving both concrete engagement and abstract reflection. By challenging transmission models of education and highlighting the role of experience in learning, Kolb has influenced educational practice in ways that extend beyond the specific details of his theoretical framework.

As with many influential theories, the value of Kolb’s work may be judged not just by its empirical precision but by the productive conversations and innovations it has inspired across educational contexts. The ongoing refinement and adaptation of his ideas by subsequent researchers demonstrates both their limitations and their continued relevance to understanding how people learn from experience.

Comparing Kolb with Other Learning Theories

Kolb and Piaget: Cognitive Development and Experiential Learning

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development stands as one of the most influential frameworks for understanding how thinking develops from childhood through adolescence. Kolb explicitly acknowledges Piaget as a significant influence, and several important connections exist between their theories:

Similarities with Piaget

Both Kolb and Piaget emphasize the constructivist nature of learning. For both theorists, knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to learner but is actively constructed through the learner’s engagement with the environment. Piaget’s concept of knowledge construction through assimilation and accommodation has clear parallels with Kolb’s view of learning as the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984).

The cyclical nature of learning appears in both theories. Piaget’s concept of equilibration—the process through which cognitive structures develop through cycles of disequilibrium and re-equilibration—bears similarities to Kolb’s learning cycle. In both models, learning occurs when existing mental structures prove inadequate for new experiences, prompting adaptation (Silberman, 2007).

Both theorists recognize the importance of concrete experience in learning. Piaget’s sensorimotor stage emphasizes how direct physical interaction with the environment forms the foundation for later, more abstract thinking. Similarly, Kolb’s concrete experience stage acknowledges the primacy of direct engagement with the subject matter (Kolb, 1984).

The development of abstract thinking is important in both theories. Piaget’s formal operational stage describes the capacity for abstract reasoning that develops in adolescence, while Kolb’s abstract conceptualization stage represents the ability to form theoretical models from experience. Both recognize this as a significant cognitive achievement (Silberman, 2007).

Differences from Piaget

While Kolb draws heavily from Piaget, important distinctions exist between their theories:

Piaget focuses primarily on cognitive development from childhood through adolescence, proposing distinct developmental stages tied to age ranges. Kolb, conversely, deals mainly with adult learning and does not propose a strict developmental sequence, instead offering a cycle that operates throughout adulthood (Tennant, 1997).

Piaget emphasizes universal cognitive structures that develop in a relatively fixed sequence across all individuals. Kolb places greater emphasis on individual differences, particularly through his learning styles framework, suggesting that people develop different preferences for engaging with the learning cycle (Kolb, 1984).

The social dimension of learning receives limited attention in Piaget’s earlier work, which focuses primarily on the individual child’s interaction with the physical world. Kolb, while not primarily focused on social learning, acknowledges social contexts more explicitly, particularly in workplace and educational applications of his theory (Jarvis, 1987).

Methodologically, Piaget relied heavily on observational studies of children, while Kolb developed his theory through a combination of theoretical integration and psychometric research with adults. These different approaches reflect their different focus populations and research traditions (Tennant, 1997). Read our in-depth article on Jean Piaget here.

Kolb and Vygotsky: The Social Dimension of Learning

Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory provides an interesting counterpoint to Kolb’s model, highlighting dimensions of learning that receive less emphasis in experiential learning theory.

Connections with Vygotsky

Both theorists recognize learning as an active process rather than passive reception. Neither views the learner as an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge, instead seeing learning as a constructive process requiring engagement (Illeris, 2007).

The importance of tools and mediation appears in both theories. Vygotsky emphasizes how cultural tools (especially language) mediate learning, while Kolb recognizes how different disciplines and professional contexts shape learning approaches. Both acknowledge that learning does not occur in a vacuum but is mediated by cultural and disciplinary frameworks (Jarvis, 1987).

Both theories have practical educational applications. Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development has informed scaffolding approaches in education, while Kolb’s learning cycle has guided experiential education and professional development. Both frameworks offer practical guidance for educators (Illeris, 2007).

Contrasts with Vygotsky

Social interaction stands as the central mechanism of learning in Vygotsky’s theory, with development occurring first on the social plane before being internalized by the individual. Kolb, while not excluding social dimensions, places greater emphasis on individual cognitive processes and personal reflection on experience (Jarvis, 1995).

Vygotsky emphasizes the cultural and historical context of learning, viewing cognitive development as inseparable from its sociocultural context. Kolb’s model, while acknowledging context, focuses more on universal processes of experiential learning that operate across cultural settings (Jarvis, 1995).

The role of language receives much greater emphasis in Vygotsky’s theory, where it serves as both a cultural tool and the primary medium through which higher mental functions develop. Language plays a less central role in Kolb’s framework, which focuses more on the interaction between concrete experience and abstract conceptualization (Illeris, 2007).

The developmental aspect of Vygotsky’s theory traces how cognitive functions develop from interpersonal to intrapersonal planes through social interaction. Kolb focuses less on developmental processes and more on how existing cognitive capacities operate in the learning cycle (Tennant, 1997). Read our in-depth article on Lev Vygotsky here.

Kolb and Dewey: Experience and Education

John Dewey’s educational philosophy represents perhaps the most direct influence on Kolb’s experiential learning theory. Dewey’s emphasis on the educational value of experience provided the foundation upon which Kolb built his more structured model.

Alignments with Dewey

Both theorists place experience at the center of the learning process. Dewey’s famous declaration that “all genuine education comes about through experience” (Dewey, 1938) finds clear expression in Kolb’s model, which begins with concrete experience as the foundation of learning.

The reflective dimension of learning is crucial for both theorists. Dewey emphasized that “we do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience,” a sentiment directly reflected in Kolb’s reflective observation stage (Kolb, 1984).

Both reject the passive transmission model of education. Dewey’s criticism of traditional education as the transmission of static information parallels Kolb’s emphasis on active engagement with experience rather than passive reception of information (Dewey, 1938).

The continuity of learning experiences appears in both theories. Dewey emphasized how each experience should lead to further experiences in a continuous process of growth. Similarly, Kolb’s cycle represents a continuous process where each completed cycle potentially leads to a new one at a higher level (Kolb, 1984).

The integration of theory and practice is fundamental to both approaches. Dewey sought to overcome the traditional separation between knowing and doing, as does Kolb through the integration of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation in his learning cycle (Dewey, 1938).

Distinctions from Dewey

Dewey’s approach is more explicitly philosophical and less psychological than Kolb’s. While Dewey was concerned with broad educational philosophy and the role of education in democratic society, Kolb focuses more narrowly on the psychological processes of learning from experience (Tennant, 1997).

The structured nature of Kolb’s cycle represents a more formalized model than Dewey’s more fluid discussions of experiential learning. As Jarvis (1987) notes, Dewey cautioned against overly sequential models of thinking and might question the neat cyclical structure of Kolb’s model.

Kolb’s learning styles framework has no direct parallel in Dewey’s work. While Dewey acknowledged individual differences, he did not develop a typology of learning approaches comparable to Kolb’s learning styles inventory (Tennant, 1997).

The social and political dimensions of education receive greater emphasis in Dewey’s work. His concern with education for democratic citizenship and social reform extends beyond Kolb’s focus on individual learning processes (Dewey, 1938). Read our in-depth article on John Dewey here.

Kolb and Gardner: Multiple Approaches to Learning

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences offers an interesting comparison with Kolb’s learning styles approach, as both theories address individual differences in learning but from quite different perspectives.

Points of Connection with Gardner

Both theories challenge the unitary view of intelligence or learning ability. Gardner rejects the notion of a single “general intelligence,” instead proposing multiple intelligences; similarly, Kolb challenges the idea that learning proceeds in the same way for all individuals (Gardner, 1983).

Both frameworks have educational implications that promote more diverse teaching approaches. Gardner’s multiple intelligences and Kolb’s learning styles both suggest that educators should use varied instructional methods to engage different types of learners (Silberman, 2007).

Both theories have been widely adopted by educators seeking to address learner diversity. The practical appeal of both frameworks lies in their recognition of different learning strengths and their implications for more inclusive educational approaches (Gardner, 1983).

Areas of Divergence from Gardner

The nature of the proposed differences varies significantly. Gardner’s multiple intelligences represent distinct domains of ability (linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, etc.), while Kolb’s learning styles represent different approaches to the same learning process (Tennant, 1997).

Gardner’s theory is more domain-specific, suggesting that individuals may have different levels of intelligence across different content domains. Kolb’s learning styles are more process-oriented, describing preferences for how individuals engage with learning regardless of content area (Gardner, 1983).

The developmental aspect receives greater emphasis in Gardner’s work, which traces how different intelligences develop from childhood. Kolb focuses primarily on adult learning rather than developmental trajectories from childhood (Silberman, 2007).

The neurological basis of learning receives more attention in Gardner’s theory, which originally claimed distinct neurological systems for different intelligences. Kolb’s theory, while not incompatible with neurological approaches, was not developed with specific claims about brain structures or functions (Gardner, 1983). Read our in-depth article on Howard Gardner here.

Overlaps and Distinctions in Approaches to Learning and Development

When viewed collectively, these theories reveal several important themes and distinctions in approaches to understanding learning:

Active vs. Passive Learning

All the theorists discussed reject passive transmission models of education in favor of more active approaches. However, they emphasize different aspects of active learning:

For Piaget, activity primarily means mental operations constructing knowledge through interaction with the environment. For Vygotsky, activity is fundamentally social, occurring through interaction with more knowledgeable others. Dewey emphasizes purposeful activity directed toward solving authentic problems. Kolb integrates these perspectives, recognizing both individual cognitive activity and interaction with the environment (Illeris, 2007).

Individual vs. Social Dimensions

The theories vary in their emphasis on individual cognitive processes versus social interaction:

Piaget and Kolb lean more toward individual cognitive processes, though neither excludes social dimensions entirely. Vygotsky places social interaction at the center of learning, viewing individual cognition as derived from social processes. Dewey occupies a middle ground, recognizing both individual experience and social context as essential to learning (Jarvis, 1995).

Universal Processes vs. Individual Differences

Some theories emphasize universal learning processes while others highlight individual differences:

Piaget and Vygotsky focus primarily on universal developmental processes that operate across individuals. Gardner and Kolb place greater emphasis on individual differences, though in quite different ways—Gardner through domain-specific intelligences and Kolb through process-oriented learning styles (Tennant, 1997).

Developmental vs. Process Orientation

The theories differ in their focus on developmental change versus ongoing learning processes:

Piaget and Vygotsky present primarily developmental theories, tracing how cognitive capabilities evolve from childhood through adolescence. Kolb and Dewey focus more on ongoing learning processes that operate throughout life, though both acknowledge developmental dimensions (Illeris, 2007).

Theoretical Foundations and Philosophical Underpinnings

Examining the philosophical foundations of these theories reveals important differences in their underlying assumptions and intellectual traditions:

Epistemological Foundations

The nature of knowledge and how it is acquired differs across these theoretical frameworks:

Piaget’s constructivist epistemology views knowledge as actively constructed through the interaction of existing cognitive structures with new experiences. Vygotsky’s social constructivism sees knowledge as fundamentally social, existing first between people before being internalized by individuals. Dewey’s pragmatism views knowledge as arising from active engagement with problematic situations, with its value lying in its practical utility. Kolb integrates elements of these approaches, emphasizing both the construction of knowledge through experience and its validation through application (Kolb, 1984).

Conception of the Learner

Each theory conceptualizes the learner in slightly different ways:

For Piaget, the learner is primarily a cognitive being who constructs understanding through active engagement with the environment. Vygotsky sees the learner as fundamentally social, developing higher mental functions through interaction with culture and community. Dewey views the learner as an active agent engaged in purposeful inquiry within a democratic community. Kolb integrates these perspectives while adding attention to individual learning preferences, viewing the learner as both cognitively active and individually distinctive in their approach to learning (Jarvis, 1987).

Educational Aims

The theories also imply different views about the ultimate aims of education:

Piaget’s focus on cognitive development suggests that education should aim to foster the development of logical thinking and conceptual understanding. Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective implies that education should facilitate the learner’s full participation in cultural practices and mastery of cultural tools. Dewey explicitly connects education with democratic citizenship, suggesting that education should prepare learners for thoughtful participation in democratic society. Kolb’s focus on experiential learning suggests that education should develop adaptive flexibility, enabling learners to respond effectively to new situations throughout life (Illeris, 2007).

Methodological Approaches

The theories emerged from different research traditions and methodological approaches:

Piaget relied primarily on naturalistic observation and clinical interviews with children, developing detailed descriptions of children’s thinking at different developmental stages. Vygotsky combined theoretical analysis with experimental studies, particularly examining how social interaction shapes cognitive development. Dewey developed his educational philosophy through theoretical reflection on educational practice and broader philosophical traditions. Kolb integrated theoretical insights from previous thinkers with psychometric research, developing instruments to assess learning styles and validate aspects of his model (Tennant, 1997).

Synthesis and Integration

While these theories differ in important ways, they are not necessarily incompatible. Each offers valuable insights into different aspects of learning, and together they provide a more comprehensive understanding than any single theory alone.

Kolb’s experiential learning theory can be seen as a synthesis that integrates elements from multiple theoretical traditions:

From Piaget, Kolb adopts the constructivist view of knowledge and the importance of adapting cognitive structures to accommodate new experiences. From Vygotsky, he acknowledges the social and cultural contexts that shape learning, particularly in professional education. From Dewey, he embraces the centrality of experience in learning and the importance of reflection in transforming experience into knowledge. Additionally, Kolb shares with Gardner an appreciation for individual differences in learning, though conceptualized differently.

This synthetic quality helps explain both the strengths and limitations of Kolb’s theory. By integrating multiple perspectives, Kolb creates a broadly applicable framework that resonates with diverse educational traditions. However, this integration sometimes lacks the depth and specificity found in more focused theories.

In contemporary educational practice, these theories are often used in complementary ways. Educators might draw on Vygotsky’s insights about scaffolding and social learning, Piaget’s understanding of developmental readiness, Gardner’s recognition of multiple intelligence domains, and Kolb’s framework for structuring experiential learning activities—all within a single educational programme.

As Jarvis (1995) suggests, the most productive approach may not be to ask which theory is “correct” but rather to consider how different theoretical perspectives illuminate different aspects of the complex phenomenon of human learning. Kolb’s enduring contribution lies in providing a accessible and widely applicable framework that bridges multiple theoretical traditions while focusing attention on the transformative potential of reflective experience.

Practical Tools and Resources for Applying Kolb’s Theory

Translating Kolb’s theoretical framework into practical educational activities requires specific tools, resources, and approaches. This section explores the various instruments, planning frameworks, and resources available to educators, trainers, and learners who wish to apply experiential learning theory in diverse contexts.

Assessment Instruments for Identifying Learning Styles

Several assessment tools have been developed to help identify learning preferences based on Kolb’s framework. These instruments serve different purposes and contexts, from formal research to practical educational applications.

The Learning Style Inventory (LSI)

The Learning Style Inventory, developed by Kolb himself, remains the primary instrument for assessing learning styles within his theoretical framework. The LSI has undergone several revisions since its introduction in 1971:

The original LSI (1971) consisted of nine items, each asking respondents to rank four words in order of how well they described their learning approach. This version faced criticism regarding its psychometric properties, particularly test-retest reliability (Kolb, 1976).

LSI Version 2 (1985) expanded to twelve items while maintaining the same format. This revision improved reliability somewhat but still faced methodological critiques regarding its forced-choice format (Kolb, 1985).

LSI Version 3 (1999) maintained the twelve-item structure but included normative data from a larger, more diverse population and improved psychometric properties. This version also introduced randomised sentence endings to reduce response bias (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

LSI Version 3.1 (2005) refined the instrument further and expanded the learning style typology from four to nine styles, acknowledging greater complexity in learning preferences. This version introduced the concept of learning flexibility—the ability to adapt one’s learning style to different situations (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

LSI Version 4 (2011) represents the most recent major revision, incorporating the latest research findings and continuing to refine the instrument’s psychometric properties. It maintains the expanded nine-style typology while providing more comprehensive guidance for interpretation (Kolb, 2013).

The LSI is now commercially available through Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc., the organisation founded by Kolb to develop and disseminate resources related to experiential learning theory. While primarily used in educational and professional development contexts, the LSI has also been employed in research studying learning preferences across disciplines, cultures, and professional fields.

The Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)

Developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford in the 1980s, the Learning Styles Questionnaire emerged as an alternative to Kolb’s LSI, particularly for use in management and professional development contexts:

The LSQ identifies four learning styles that correspond roughly to Kolb’s categories but with different terminology: Activists (similar to Accommodators), Reflectors (similar to Divergers), Theorists (similar to Assimilators), and Pragmatists (similar to Convergers) (Honey & Mumford, 1992).

Unlike the LSI’s forced-choice ranking format, the LSQ uses a binary agree/disagree response format for 80 statements about learning preferences. This different methodological approach addresses some criticisms of the LSI’s ipsative format (Honey & Mumford, 1992).

The LSQ focuses more explicitly on observable behaviours rather than psychological processes, making it more accessible for practitioners without extensive backgrounds in learning theory. This practical orientation has contributed to its popularity in professional development contexts (Mumford, 1997).

Multiple versions of the LSQ exist, including a shortened 40-item version for contexts where time is limited. The instrument is commercially available through Peter Honey Publications and is widely used, particularly in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries (Honey & Mumford, 2006).

Other Related Assessment Tools

Several other instruments assess constructs related to Kolb’s learning styles, though with different theoretical foundations:

The Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model and its associated Index of Learning Styles (ILS) assesses preferences along four dimensions: active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and sequential/global. While not directly derived from Kolb’s theory, there are conceptual overlaps, particularly in the active/reflective dimension (Felder & Silverman, 1988).

The VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinesthetic) Questionnaire developed by Neil Fleming assesses sensory preferences in learning. While conceptually distinct from Kolb’s theory, the VARK addresses modality preferences that educators might consider alongside learning style preferences (Fleming & Mills, 1992).

The Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) and its derivatives focus on students’ approaches to learning tasks rather than stable learning styles. This line of research examines deep, surface, and strategic approaches to learning, which may complement Kolb’s framework by addressing the quality of engagement with learning activities (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).

Using Assessment Tools Effectively

The most productive use of these instruments involves viewing them as starting points for reflection rather than rigid categorisations. As Coffield et al. (2004) suggest, learning style assessments are most valuable when they:

• Promote self-awareness and metacognition about learning processes
• Serve as conversation starters about learning preferences and strategies
• Help identify potential areas for development and growth
• Guide the design of diverse learning experiences that engage different preferences
• Support reflection on learning experiences and outcomes

The instruments should be used with appropriate caution, recognising their limitations and avoiding deterministic applications that might restrict rather than expand learning opportunities. As Moon (2004) notes, the goal should be to use these tools to develop learning flexibility rather than to reinforce fixed approaches to learning.

Planning Templates for Designing Experiential Learning Activities

Educators and trainers can use various planning frameworks to design learning experiences that incorporate all stages of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. These templates provide structured approaches to ensuring comprehensive learning experiences.

The Learning Cycle Planning Template

This straightforward template helps educators design activities for each stage of the learning cycle:

Concrete Experience: Specify the direct experience learners will engage with (e.g., case study, simulation, field experience, problem-solving activity, primary source document).

Reflective Observation: Detail how learners will reflect on the experience (e.g., discussion questions, journaling prompts, debriefing structure, observation frameworks).

Abstract Conceptualisation: Outline how learners will connect their experience to theoretical concepts (e.g., readings, lectures, concept mapping activities, analytical frameworks).

Active Experimentation: Describe how learners will apply their insights in new situations (e.g., projects, simulations, planning activities, application exercises).

Silberman (2007) suggests that this basic template can be adapted for different educational contexts, from brief classroom activities to extended professional development programmes.

The 4MAT System

Developed by Bernice McCarthy, the 4MAT System builds upon Kolb’s learning cycle to create a more detailed instructional design framework that addresses both learning styles and the cycle itself:

The system organises instruction around four key questions that align with Kolb’s cycle: Why? (meaning and relevance), What? (conceptual content), How? (practical application), and What If? (creative extensions and adaptations) (McCarthy, 1990).

For each question, the 4MAT System suggests specific types of activities that engage different learning preferences while moving learners through the complete learning cycle. This creates a comprehensive instructional sequence that supports diverse learners (McCarthy, 1990).

The 4MAT System has been widely adopted in both K-12 and adult education contexts, with extensive support materials available through About Learning, Inc., the organisation founded by McCarthy to disseminate the approach (McCarthy & McCarthy, 2006).

Experience-Based Learning Systems (EBLS) Planning Resources

Kolb’s organisation, Experience-Based Learning Systems, offers several planning resources for educators applying experiential learning theory:

The EBLS Learning Space Design Template guides educators in creating physical and conceptual learning environments that support all aspects of the experiential learning cycle. This includes considerations for physical space, time allocation, learning activities, and assessment approaches (Kolb & Kolb, 2017).

The Experiential Learning Module Format provides a structured template for designing comprehensive learning experiences, from initial engagement through action planning for transfer. This resource includes guidance for addressing different learning styles within a unified learning experience (Kolb & Kolb, 2017).

The Institutional Development Matrix helps educational institutions evaluate how well their overall approach supports experiential learning across multiple dimensions, from curriculum design to faculty development. This resource supports systemic implementation of experiential learning approaches (Kolb & Kolb, 2017).

These resources are available through the Experience Based Learning Systems website and associated publications, providing comprehensive support for implementing Kolb’s approach at multiple levels.

Subject-Specific Planning Templates

Various educators have developed planning templates tailored to specific disciplines or contexts:

For business education, the Business Experiential Learning Cycle (BELC) adapts Kolb’s model to business case analysis, guiding students through concrete engagement with case materials, reflective analysis, conceptual generalisation, and application planning (Reynolds, 1998).

In healthcare education, the Clinical Reasoning Cycle integrates elements of Kolb’s model with domain-specific considerations for clinical decision-making. This framework guides students from initial patient assessment through reflection, hypothesis generation, and treatment planning (Levett-Jones et al., 2010).

For outdoor and adventure education, the Facilitation Cycle provides a structured approach to guiding experiential learning in wilderness contexts, with specific tools for facilitating reflection and transfer of learning (Priest & Gass, 2005).

These discipline-specific adaptations demonstrate how Kolb’s model can be tailored to particular educational contexts while maintaining its fundamental structure and principles.

Conclusion: The Lasting Impact of David Kolb’s Learning Theory

David Kolb’s experiential learning theory, developed over four decades ago, has profoundly influenced our understanding of how people learn from experience and how education might be structured to support this natural learning process. As we have explored throughout this article, Kolb’s contributions extend beyond a single learning model to encompass a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between experience and knowledge development.

Summary of Key Concepts

At the heart of Kolb’s contribution lies his experiential learning cycle, which describes learning as a continuous process of engagement with experience, reflection, conceptualisation, and active experimentation. This cycle captures the dynamic nature of learning as an ongoing process of adaptation rather than a series of discrete outcomes. As Kolb (1984) himself articulated, “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.”

The four stages of this cycle represent distinct but interconnected modes of learning:

• Concrete Experience provides the foundation for learning through direct engagement with the subject matter, emphasising feeling and intuition over analysis.
• Reflective Observation involves stepping back from experience to consider its meaning from multiple perspectives, asking what happened and why.
• Abstract Conceptualisation focuses on integrating reflections into coherent theories and concepts, moving from specific observations to general principles.
• Active Experimentation involves testing theories and concepts in new situations, translating abstract ideas into practical applications.

Building upon this cyclical model, Kolb identified four learning styles that represent different approaches to engaging with the learning process:

• Divergers (feeling and watching) excel at generating creative ideas and seeing situations from multiple perspectives.
• Assimilators (thinking and watching) demonstrate strengths in creating theoretical models and integrating disparate information into coherent explanations.
• Convergers (thinking and doing) show aptitude for practical problem-solving and the application of ideas in specific situations.
• Accommodators (feeling and doing) learn best through direct experience and action, often taking a trial-and-error approach to learning.

These core concepts have been refined and elaborated over time, with later developments including an expanded model of nine learning styles and greater attention to learning spaces—the physical, social, institutional, and psychological environments that support experiential learning. Throughout these developments, however, the central insight remains: learning involves a dynamic process of engaging with experience and transforming it into knowledge through reflection and application.

Enduring Impact on Educational Theory and Practice

The impact of Kolb’s work can be seen across diverse educational contexts, from Early Years settings to professional development and higher education. Several aspects of this influence stand out as particularly significant:

Kolb’s experiential learning theory has helped bridge the traditional divide between theory and practice in education. By emphasising the complementary relationship between concrete experience and abstract conceptualisation, his model has encouraged educational approaches that integrate practical engagement with theoretical understanding. As Beard and Wilson (2013) note, this integration has proven particularly valuable in professional fields where the application of knowledge in complex real-world situations is essential.

The experiential learning cycle has provided educators with a structured framework for designing comprehensive learning experiences. Rather than focusing exclusively on content transmission or skill development, Kolb’s model encourages attention to the entire learning process, from initial engagement through reflection, conceptualisation, and application. This comprehensive approach has informed curriculum design, lesson planning, and assessment practices across educational contexts (Silberman, 2007).

Kolb’s attention to learning styles has contributed to greater awareness of learner diversity. While the learning styles concept has faced criticism and refinement over time, the recognition that learners may approach the learning process differently has encouraged more inclusive educational practices. As Coffield et al. (2004) suggest, even if learning styles are not fixed traits, awareness of learning preferences can support metacognition and help educators provide multiple pathways to learning.

The experiential learning model has influenced specific educational methodologies that emphasise learning through experience. Problem-based learning, service learning, work-integrated learning, and simulation-based education all reflect elements of Kolb’s approach, with their emphasis on concrete engagement followed by structured reflection and application. These methodologies have gained traction across disciplines, from business and healthcare to science and humanities education (Moon, 2004).

Perhaps most significantly, Kolb’s work has contributed to a shift in educational philosophy from transmission models toward more constructivist approaches. By emphasising the active role of the learner in constructing knowledge through experience, Kolb’s theory aligns with broader movements in education that recognise learning as an active, learner-centred process rather than passive reception of information. This philosophical shift has influenced educational policy, institutional structures, and classroom practices (Jarvis, 1987).

Future Directions for Research and Application

As education continues to evolve in response to changing societal needs and technological developments, several promising directions emerge for further research and application of Kolb’s experiential learning theory:

The integration of experiential learning with digital technologies offers significant potential for expanding access to meaningful learning experiences. Virtual reality, augmented reality, and sophisticated simulations can provide concrete experiences that might otherwise be inaccessible due to practical, financial, or safety constraints. Research exploring how these technologies can support the full experiential learning cycle, rather than just the concrete experience stage, represents an important frontier (Taylor & Marienau, 2016).

The relationship between experiential learning and equity in education deserves greater attention. While experiential approaches can potentially engage diverse learners, questions remain about how cultural, socioeconomic, and linguistic factors influence engagement with different aspects of the learning cycle. Research examining how experiential learning can be implemented in ways that support rather than disadvantage marginalised learners is critically important (Coffield et al., 2004).

The neurological underpinnings of experiential learning offer another promising research direction. Advances in neuroscience provide opportunities to explore the neural processes involved in different stages of the learning cycle and how these might relate to learning preferences. This research could potentially provide stronger empirical foundations for aspects of experiential learning theory while refining our understanding of how the brain processes and integrates different types of learning experiences (Zull, 2002).

Applications of experiential learning in online and blended learning environments represent an area of growing importance, particularly following the global shift toward digital learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research examining how to effectively support the experiential learning cycle in digital contexts, including facilitating meaningful reflection and collaborative experimentation, will be increasingly valuable as online learning continues to expand (Taylor & Marienau, 2016).

The development of more sophisticated assessment approaches for experiential learning outcomes represents another important direction. Traditional assessment methods often emphasise conceptual knowledge over other aspects of the learning cycle. Innovative approaches that can validly assess reflection, integration, and application capabilities will be essential for fully realising the potential of experiential learning approaches (Moon, 2004).

Final Thoughts on the Importance of Experiential Learning in Modern Education

In a rapidly changing world characterised by complex challenges and continuous technological development, Kolb’s emphasis on learning as an adaptive process has never been more relevant. Several aspects of experiential learning theory align particularly well with contemporary educational needs:

The focus on learning how to learn, rather than just acquiring specific knowledge, prepares learners for ongoing adaptation throughout their lives. As information becomes increasingly abundant and accessible, the capacity to engage meaningfully with new experiences, reflect effectively, and apply learning in novel contexts becomes more valuable than static knowledge acquisition (Beard & Wilson, 2013).

The integration of theory and practice supported by experiential learning approaches helps bridge the gap between educational institutions and the communities they serve. By engaging learners in authentic experiences followed by critical reflection and conceptual integration, experiential approaches can develop the practical wisdom needed to address complex real-world challenges (Dewey, 1938).

The recognition of diverse learning approaches supports more inclusive educational practices that can engage learners who might be marginalised by more narrowly focused pedagogical methods. By designing learning environments that support multiple pathways through the learning cycle, educators can reach more learners and help them develop more balanced learning capabilities (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

The emphasis on reflection as a critical component of learning supports the development of metacognitive capabilities that enable lifelong learning. In a world where specific knowledge and skills may become quickly outdated, the capacity for reflective learning becomes an essential foundation for ongoing development (Moon, 2004).

As we look to the future of education, Kolb’s experiential learning theory offers not a rigid methodology but a flexible framework for thinking about how meaningful learning occurs and how it might be supported across diverse contexts. The enduring value of his work lies not just in the specific model he proposed but in the fundamental insight that learning involves the transformation of experience through reflection, conceptualisation, and active experimentation.

The educational theorist Jerome Bruner once observed that “Knowing is a process, not a product” (Bruner, 1966). Perhaps Kolb’s most significant contribution has been to illuminate this process in ways that have helped countless educators design more effective learning experiences. By understanding learning as a continuous cycle of engagement with experience, we can create educational approaches that prepare learners not just for the world as it is but for the world as it is becoming.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is Kolb’s Learning Theory?

Kolb’s Learning Theory, also known as Experiential Learning Theory, proposes that learning is a continuous process based on experience. The theory suggests that effective learning occurs through a four-stage cycle: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. According to Kolb (1984), learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.”

This theory emphasizes that meaningful learning involves direct engagement with experiences, reflection on those experiences, development of theoretical understanding, and application of that understanding in new situations. Unlike traditional educational approaches that focus primarily on abstract concepts, Kolb’s theory recognizes the crucial role of both experience and reflection in the learning process.

What Are The 4 Stages Of Kolb’s Learning Cycle?

The four stages of Kolb’s Learning Cycle represent different modes of engaging with and processing experience:

1. Concrete Experience (CE): This is the “feeling” stage where learners actively engage with a tangible experience or situation. This might involve performing a task, participating in an activity, or encountering a new situation directly rather than just reading or hearing about it.
2. Reflective Observation (RO): This “watching” stage involves stepping back from the experience to observe and reflect on what happened. Learners consider the experience from different perspectives and focus on understanding what occurred and why.
3. Abstract Conceptualization (AC): During this “thinking” stage, learners develop theories and concepts to explain their observations. They integrate their reflections into logical theories, looking for patterns and connections with existing knowledge.
4. Active Experimentation (AE): In this “doing” stage, learners test their theories and concepts in new situations. They apply what they’ve learned to see how well their understanding works in practice, which often leads to new experiences and continues the learning cycle.

While presented sequentially, Kolb emphasized that these stages form a continuous cycle that can begin at any point, with each completed cycle potentially leading to another at a higher level of understanding.

What Are The 4 Kolb Learning Styles?

Kolb identified four distinct learning styles based on preferences for different combinations of the learning cycle stages:

1. Divergers (CE + RO): Combining concrete experience with reflective observation, Divergers excel at viewing situations from multiple perspectives and generating creative ideas. They tend to be imaginative, emotionally aware, interested in people, and good at brainstorming. They often ask “Why?” questions and perform well in activities requiring idea generation.
2. Assimilators (AC + RO): Combining abstract conceptualization with reflective observation, Assimilators excel at creating theoretical models and integrating disparate observations into coherent explanations. They prefer abstract concepts over practical applications and value logical soundness over practical value. They typically ask “What?” questions and are drawn to information sciences and research roles.
3. Convergers (AC + AE): Combining abstract conceptualization with active experimentation, Convergers are strong in practical application of ideas and technical problem-solving. They prefer dealing with technical tasks rather than interpersonal issues and excel at finding practical uses for theories. They typically ask “How?” questions and are often drawn to engineering and technology fields.
4. Accommodators (CE + AE): Combining concrete experience with active experimentation, Accommodators learn best through hands-on experience and active testing. They rely more on intuition than logic, adapt well to changing circumstances, and take a practical, experiential approach. They typically ask “What if?” questions and often excel in action-oriented roles requiring adaptation and risk-taking.

In later revisions of his theory, Kolb expanded these four styles into nine more nuanced patterns, recognizing the complexity of individual learning preferences.

How Can Teachers Apply Kolb’s Theory In The Classroom?

Teachers can apply Kolb’s theory in the classroom by designing learning experiences that guide students through all four stages of the experiential learning cycle while accommodating different learning styles:

For Concrete Experience, teachers can provide hands-on activities, simulations, field trips, laboratory exercises, role-plays, or problem-solving scenarios that engage students directly with the subject matter. These experiences create the foundation for learning by generating curiosity and personal connection to the material.

For Reflective Observation, teachers can facilitate discussions, journaling activities, questioning sessions, and structured debriefings that help students process their experiences. Providing guiding questions like “What happened?” and “What did you notice?” helps students extract meaning from their experiences.

For Abstract Conceptualization, teachers can introduce relevant theories, models, and concepts through lectures, readings, or guided discovery activities. Connecting students’ observations to broader principles helps them develop conceptual understanding rather than isolated knowledge of specific examples.

For Active Experimentation, teachers can assign projects, problem-solving activities, or real-world applications that allow students to test their understanding in new contexts. These activities help consolidate learning while developing practical capabilities.

Effective implementation involves not just cycling through these stages but also providing multiple entry points that accommodate different learning style preferences. This might mean offering choices in how students engage with material or designing diverse activities that appeal to different approaches to learning.

What Are The Criticisms Of Kolb’s Learning Theory?

Despite its widespread influence, Kolb’s learning theory has faced several significant criticisms:

Limited empirical support has been a persistent concern. Critics like Tennant (1997) note that the original research base was relatively small, and subsequent studies have produced mixed results regarding the existence of distinct learning styles and the sequential nature of the learning cycle.

The learning styles component has received particular scrutiny. Pashler et al. (2008) found limited evidence for the “meshing hypothesis”—the idea that matching instruction to learning styles improves outcomes—raising questions about the practical value of learning style assessments. Critics argue that the four-style categorization oversimplifies the complex and context-dependent nature of learning preferences.

Methodological concerns include the forced-choice format of the Learning Style Inventory, which has been criticized for producing artificially distinctive profiles. Reynolds (1997) questioned the reliability and validity of earlier versions of the LSI, though later revisions have addressed some of these concerns.

The sequential nature of the learning cycle has been challenged by researchers like Jarvis (1987), who suggest that learning often involves multiple simultaneous processes rather than a neat progression through discrete stages. Real learning may be messier and more context-dependent than the model implies.

Cultural limitations have been identified by Anderson (1988) and others, who note that the model was developed primarily within Western cultural contexts and may not adequately reflect learning approaches in other cultural traditions, potentially limiting its cross-cultural applicability.

Despite these criticisms, many educators continue to find value in Kolb’s model as a framework for designing comprehensive learning experiences, even while acknowledging its limitations.

How Does Kolb’s Theory Apply To Online Learning?

Applying Kolb’s experiential learning theory to online learning involves thoughtfully designing digital experiences that support all four stages of the learning cycle:

For Concrete Experience, online learning can utilize interactive simulations, virtual reality environments, case studies with multimedia elements, online role-playing activities, or collaborative problem-solving tasks. These digital experiences can provide the experiential foundation that might otherwise be missing in online environments.

For Reflective Observation, online discussion forums, reflective journaling activities, guided questioning prompts, and video-based debriefing sessions can help learners process their experiences. Digital tools like e-portfolios can support documentation and reflection on learning experiences over time.

For Abstract Conceptualization, online lectures, readings, concept mapping tools, and analytical frameworks can help learners connect their observations to theoretical principles. Interactive visualizations and models can make abstract concepts more accessible in the digital environment.

For Active Experimentation, project-based assignments, online simulations with variable parameters, virtual labs, and real-world application tasks can help learners test and apply their understanding. Digital tools that allow learners to create, design, or solve problems provide opportunities for active experimentation.

The asynchronous nature of many online learning environments presents both challenges and opportunities for experiential learning. While immediate feedback and spontaneous interaction may be reduced, the extended time for reflection can potentially deepen learning if structured effectively. Taylor and Marienau (2016) suggest that successful online experiential learning requires thoughtful design that goes beyond content delivery to create meaningful engagement with all stages of the learning cycle.

How Do Kolb’s Learning Styles Differ From Other Learning Style Theories?

Kolb’s learning styles differ from other learning style theories in several important ways:

Theoretical foundation: Unlike many learning style theories that emerged primarily from observation or intuition, Kolb’s model is grounded in a comprehensive theory of experiential learning. The learning styles are derived from preferences within the learning cycle rather than standing as independent constructs.

Process orientation: Kolb’s learning styles represent different approaches to the learning process rather than fixed traits or content preferences. They describe how learners prefer to engage with learning situations rather than what content they prefer to learn or what sensory modalities they favor.

Developmental perspective: Kolb views learning styles not as fixed characteristics but as developed preferences that can change over time and across contexts. His theory acknowledges that effective learners develop capacity in all four modes while potentially maintaining preferences for certain approaches.

Holistic integration: Unlike theories that focus on single dimensions (like visual/auditory/kinesthetic preferences), Kolb’s model integrates perception (how we take in experience) and processing (how we transform experience) into a more comprehensive framework for understanding learning differences.

Compared to Fleming’s VARK model, which focuses on sensory preferences, or the Felder-Silverman model, which examines multiple independent dimensions, Kolb’s approach offers a more integrated perspective that connects learning preferences to a broader theory of how learning occurs through experience. This theoretical grounding has contributed to its enduring influence despite critiques of the learning styles concept more generally.

How Can Kolb’s Theory Be Applied In Professional Development?

Kolb’s experiential learning theory offers a valuable framework for professional development across various fields:

For designing comprehensive professional learning experiences, the experiential learning cycle provides a structure that moves beyond traditional workshop formats. Effective professional development can begin with concrete workplace experiences or simulations, incorporate structured reflection through discussion or journaling, connect these reflections to relevant theories or best practices, and include opportunities to apply new insights in workplace contexts.

Action learning approaches, where professionals work together on real workplace challenges, exemplify experiential learning principles. These approaches, advocated by Mumford (1997), typically involve cycles of action and reflection, with participants developing new concepts and testing them through workplace application.

Reflective practice, a cornerstone of professional development in fields like education, healthcare, and social work, draws heavily on Kolb’s emphasis on reflection as a critical component of learning from experience. Structured approaches to professional reflection, such as those described by Schön (1983), help practitioners develop deeper insights from their everyday work experiences.

Learning style awareness can help professionals understand their own learning preferences and develop greater adaptability. Cox et al. (2014) suggest that awareness of learning preferences can improve team collaboration and help professionals select development opportunities that align with their preferred approaches while also challenging them to develop in less preferred areas.

Mentoring and coaching relationships can be enhanced by attention to experiential learning principles. Effective mentors and coaches guide professionals through the experiential learning cycle, helping them reflect on experiences, develop conceptual understanding, and apply new insights in their practice.

Professional development programmes based on experiential learning principles tend to be more sustained and integrated with practice than traditional one-off training sessions, potentially leading to more meaningful changes in professional behavior and understanding.

What Is The Relationship Between Kolb’s Theory And Reflective Practice?

Reflective practice and Kolb’s experiential learning theory share fundamental connections, with reflection serving as a critical bridge between experience and learning:

Within Kolb’s learning cycle, reflective observation represents a distinct and essential stage, emphasizing that experience alone is insufficient for learning. As Dewey (1938) noted, “We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience.” Kolb’s model formalizes this insight by positioning reflection as the process that transforms concrete experiences into conceptual understanding.

Schön’s (1983) influential work on reflective practice complements Kolb’s theory by distinguishing between “reflection-in-action” (reflecting while engaged in an activity) and “reflection-on-action” (reflecting after the experience). These concepts add nuance to understanding how reflection operates within the experiential learning cycle and how professionals develop expertise through reflective engagement with practice.

Both frameworks emphasize the iterative nature of professional learning. Kolb’s cycle shows how reflection leads to conceptualization and experimentation, which generate new experiences for further reflection. Similarly, reflective practice describes an ongoing process of action, reflection, and adjusted action that characterizes professional development.

The quality of reflection significantly impacts learning outcomes in both frameworks. Moon (2004) notes that surface-level reflection may lead to limited learning, while deeper reflective approaches that question assumptions and consider multiple perspectives typically produce more profound insights and changes in practice.

When applied in professional contexts, both frameworks encourage practitioners to move beyond routine application of techniques toward more thoughtful, adaptive practice based on continuous learning from experience. This reflective orientation helps professionals navigate complex, uncertain situations that cannot be addressed through technical knowledge alone.

The integration of these approaches has been particularly influential in fields like education, healthcare, and social work, where reflective practice guided by experiential learning principles has become a cornerstone of both professional education and continuing development.

How Has Kolb’s Theory Influenced Early Years Education?

Kolb’s experiential learning theory has significantly influenced Early Years education, resonating with and reinforcing child-centered approaches to early learning:

The emphasis on concrete experience aligns naturally with young children’s developmental needs. As Piaget identified, young children learn primarily through sensory engagement and direct interaction with their environment. Early Years settings implementing Kolb-influenced approaches provide rich, multisensory experiences as the foundation for learning rather than abstract instruction.

Play-based learning, a cornerstone of quality Early Years practice, exemplifies experiential learning principles. Through play, children naturally cycle through concrete experiences, reflection (often supported by adult questioning), development of concepts and mental models, and testing of ideas through further play. Bruce (2011) notes how this play-based cycle supports deep learning across developmental domains.

The learning environment in Early Years settings can be designed to support all aspects of the experiential learning cycle. Practitioners create areas for active exploration (supporting concrete experience), quiet spaces for reflection, documentation displays that support conceptualization, and opportunities for children to test and refine their ideas through ongoing projects.

Documentation practices in approaches like Reggio Emilia make children’s learning visible by capturing their experiences, reflections, and developing theories. This documentation supports children’s movement through the learning cycle while making their learning processes visible to educators, parents, and the children themselves.

Adult-child interactions in experiential Early Years settings typically involve scaffolding reflection through thoughtful questioning rather than direct instruction. Practitioners help children process their experiences with questions like “What did you notice?” and “Why do you think that happened?” supporting their movement from experience to reflection and conceptualization.

While Kolb’s formal learning styles framework is rarely applied directly with young children, the recognition of diverse approaches to learning has influenced Early Years practice. Effective settings provide multiple pathways for engagement, recognizing that even young children may approach learning experiences in different ways.

Fisher (2008) suggests that Early Years education naturally embodies experiential learning principles when it respects children’s intrinsic motivation to explore, experiment, and make meaning from their experiences—a perspective that aligns closely with Kolb’s understanding of how learning occurs.

References

• Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 2-9.
• Athey, C. (2007). Extending thought in young children: A parent-teacher partnership (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation. Quorum Books.
• Barr, H. (2013). Toward a theoretical framework for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(1), 4-9.
• Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer.
• Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2013). Experiential learning: A handbook for education, training and coaching (3rd ed.). Kogan Page.
• Bloch, F. S. (1982). The andragogical basis of clinical legal education. Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 321-353.
• Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.
• Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and learning: Reflection at work. Deakin University Press.
• Brookfield, S. D. (1983). Adult learning, adult education and the community. Open University Press.
• Bruce, T. (2011). Early childhood education (4th ed.). Hodder Education.
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
• Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
• Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (2014). The complete handbook of coaching (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Delahoussaye, M. (2002). The perfect learner: An expert debate on learning styles. Training, 39(5), 28-36.
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath.
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
• Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm.
• Eyler, J. (2009). The power of experiential education. Liberal Education, 95(4), 24-31.
• Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115-125.
• Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
• Fisher, J. (2008). Starting from the child: Teaching and learning in the foundation stage (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
• Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137-155.
• Freedman, R. D., & Stumph, S. A. (1980). Learning style theory: Less than meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 445-447.
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
• Grimes, R. (2014). Delivering legal education through an integrated problem-based learning model – the nuts and bolts. International Journal of Clinical Legal Education, 21(2), 228-256.
• Holman, D., Pavlica, K., & Thorpe, R. (1997). Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in management education. Management Learning, 28(2), 135-148.
• Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles (3rd ed.). Peter Honey Publications.
• Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2006). The learning styles questionnaire: 80-item version. Peter Honey Publications.
• Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge.
• Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. Croom Helm.
• Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult and continuing education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1996). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
• Katz, L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early childhood research and practice, 12(2), 1-8.
• Kayes, D. C., Kayes, A. B., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(3), 330-354.
• Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16(2), 307-336.
• Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2020). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (9th ed.). Routledge.
• Kolb, D. A. (1976). The learning style inventory: Technical manual. McBer.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
• Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory: Technical manual (Revised ed.). McBer.
• Kolb, D. A. (2013). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0: Guide to theory, psychometrics, research & applications. Experience Based Learning Systems.
• Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process (pp. 33-57). John Wiley.
• 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, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297-327.
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 2, 9-38.
• Levett-Jones, T., Hoffman, K., Dempsey, J., Jeong, S. Y. S., Noble, D., Norton, C. A., Roche, J., & Hickey, N. (2010). The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: An educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ patients. Nurse Education Today, 30(6), 515-520.
• Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1996). The career architect development planner. Lominger.
• Maynard, T., & Chicken, S. (2010). Through a different lens: Exploring Reggio Emilia in a Welsh context. Early Years, 30(1), 29-39.
• McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT system to bring learning styles to schools. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 31-37.
• McCarthy, B., & McCarthy, D. (2006). Teaching around the 4MAT cycle: Designing instruction for diverse learners with diverse learning styles. Corwin Press.
• Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge.
• Moyles, J. (2010). The excellence of play (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
• Mumford, A. (1997). Action learning at work. Gower Publishing.
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
• Peterson, K., DeCato, L., & Kolb, D. A. (2015). Moving and learning: Expanding style and increasing flexibility. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(3), 228-244.
• Peterson, E. R., Rayner, S. G., & Armstrong, S. J. (2009). Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future? Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 518-523.
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
• Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.
• Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2), 115-133.
• Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29(2), 183-200.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Shapiro, L., & Stolz, S. A. (2019). Embodied cognition and its significance for education. Theory and Research in Education, 17(1), 19-39.
• Silberman, M. (2007). The handbook of experiential learning. Pfeiffer.
• Smith, M. K. (2001). David A. Kolb on experiential learning. The Encyclopedia of Pedagogy and Informal Education.
• Taylor, K., & Marienau, C. (2016). Facilitating learning with the adult brain in mind: A conceptual and practical guide. Jossey-Bass.
• Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Weil, S. W., & McGill, I. (1989). Making sense of experiential learning: Diversity in theory and practice. Open University Press.
• Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Stylus Publishing.

Further Reading and Research

Recommended Articles

• Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185-195.
• Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 44-52.
• Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning – a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064-1077.
• Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Experiential education in the age of neuroscience. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73-95.
• Stirling, A. (2013). Applying Kolb’s theory of experiential learning to coach education. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4(2), 100-109.
• Tomkins, L., & Ulus, E. (2016). ‘Oh, was that “experiential learning”?!’ Spaces, synergies and surprises with Kolb’s learning cycle. Management Learning, 47(2), 158-178.
• Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304-319.
• Winkler, C., & Marshall, A. (2017). Experiential learning for enhancing environmental literacy regarding energy: A professional development program for inservice science teachers. Athens Journal of Education, 4(1), 29-47.

Suggested Books

• Beard, C. (2018). Dewey in the world of experiential education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2018(158), 27-37.
  • Explores the philosophical foundations of experiential learning through Dewey’s influence and connects theory to contemporary practice.
• Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Using experience for learning. Open University Press.
  • A foundational text examining how experience is used in learning processes with practical applications across educational contexts.
• Clapper, T. C. (2015). Cooperative-based learning and the Zone of Proximal Development. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 148-158.
  • Connects experiential learning with Vygotsky’s concepts and provides frameworks for facilitated learning experiences.
• Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2014). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (4th ed.). Routledge.
  • Contains comprehensive chapters on experiential learning approaches in higher education with practical implementation strategies.
• Jacobson, M., & Ruddy, M. (2015). Open to outcome: A practical guide for facilitating & teaching experiential reflection (2nd ed.). Wood ‘N’ Barnes Publishing.
  • Provides practical facilitation tools for guiding reflection in experiential learning contexts with many ready-to-use activities.
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The experiential educator: Principles and practices of experiential learning. Experience Based Learning Systems.
  • Written by David Kolb and Alice Kolb, this book provides their most current thinking on experiential learning theory and practice.
• Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge.
  • Focuses specifically on the reflective component of experiential learning with tools for enhancing reflective practice.
• Peterson, K., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). How you learn is how you live: Using nine ways of learning to transform your life. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  • Applies experiential learning principles to personal development with self-assessment tools and practical strategies.
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
  • Classic text on reflective practice in professional education that complements Kolb’s work on experiential learning.
• Silberman, M. L., & Biech, E. (2015). Active training: A handbook of techniques, designs, case examples, and tips (4th ed.). Wiley.
  • Comprehensive resource of experiential training methods with detailed activity instructions applicable across educational contexts.

Recommended Websites

• Association for Experiential Education (AEE)
  • Professional membership organisation offering conferences, publications, and resources for experiential educators across diverse fields and contexts.
• Experience Based Learning Systems
  • David Kolb’s official organisation providing research papers, assessment tools, and resources on experiential learning theory and learning styles.
• Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education (ELTHE) Journal
  • Open-access journal publishing research and case studies on experiential learning applications in higher education with downloadable articles.
• Higher Education Academy (now Advance HE)
  • Provides extensive resources on experiential learning in higher education contexts, including case studies, guides, and research papers.
• Infed (Encyclopedia of Informal Education)
  • Contains comprehensive articles on experiential learning theory, key theorists, and applications with extensive reference lists.
• International Consortium for Experiential Learning (ICEL)
  • International network of organisations and individuals promoting experiential learning worldwide with resources, conferences, and publications.
• Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI)
  • Official site for accessing the LSI assessment tool with supporting resources for interpretation and application.
• National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE)
  • Professional organisation providing principles of good practice, research, and resources focused on experiential education in higher education contexts.
• The Experiential Learning Teaching Commons
  • Digital repository of teaching resources, research, and tools for implementing experiential learning across educational settings.
• What Works Clearinghouse (Institute of Education Sciences)
  • Government-sponsored site evaluating the evidence base for educational approaches, including experiential methods, with practice guides and intervention reports.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV David Kolb’s Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Cycle. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/david-kolb-learning-styles-cycle (Accessed: 25 March 2025).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile