My first introduction to learning as a process was as an educational student. It was Kolb’s Learning Styles that differentiates between concrete learners and abstract learners, active experimenters and reflective/observational people. University was also the time when I became aware of my own learning style. I knew for some time that I preferred reading over doing experiments. I finished my physics degree knowing that I hated experimental research. I was going to be a theoretical physicist if I continued.
Being a “victim” of coyote mentoring through my high school retreats, I’ve been very attracted to the Natural Learning Cycle. It resonates much more with me. But Kolb’s conceptualization has had more academic research and focus than the natural learning cycle. The truth behind the natural cycle and its “directions” comes from many years of experience, from mentors working with young and old, from generational knowledge.
If these two learning models are valid, where do they overlap? Are they covering the same thing just in different ways?
Kolb’s Learning styles has been placed into a learning cycle with the following order: experience (we experience many things but one event causes us to want to know more), reflection (something happens that does not fit with what we know or something about the experience has created a sense of wonder, of wanting to learn), theorizing (we build new ideas to try to incorporate the experience that did not fit), and experimenting (trying the new ideas and see what happens). The results of the experiment lead back into experience and the cycle c0ntinues.
As I’ve said, this is the model that was presented to us as new teachers. I have constantly been aware of my students and how they work through this cycle. When I plan activities and lessons this cycle is automatically the framework on which I build.
The Natural Learning Cycle used compass direction to orientate the lesson:
Northeast: Awareness – the goal is to create a sense of awareness that learning is about to begin. The student is built up to be receptive to the learning.
- This encompasses the “experience” part of Kolb’s learning cycle. A new experience, a motivational demo, a mysterious device is presented. Awareness of learning and that something doesn’t quite make sense and needs to be explored.
East: Engagement - curiosity is established. Excitement is built through a story or a mystery.
- This is the “reflection” part of the learning.
Southeast: Movement – here people start to explore, they begin to move around and begin the process. Mistakes are made but they keep going.
- This is the “theorizing” aspect.
South: Focus – This is the “business” end of the lesson. The students focus on the task at hand and get down to work.
- Here is the “experimenting” part of the process.
Southwest: A break – everyone needs to step back from the intensity of the South. Kolb’s cycle does not have this, and yet, we have all experienced it and do experience it in our daily lives. It may be a coffee break or a lunch room chat.
West: Sharing – Another shortage in Kolb’s learning cycle that I have experienced in my classes is that learning is strengthened when students get to share what they encountered in the lesson. Sharing gives words to the thoughts and feelings and so it creates stronger memories. It also forms a type of evaluation to see if a topic needs to be re-explored.
Northwest: The student “masters” the concept and helps others.
North: Reflection – the material becomes a part of the student’s life. This is hard for most teachers to see. But the north is reached when the material is a part of the “tool box” the student has.
Northeast: We are back to the beginning where a new situation may arise to start the learning over again.
I find that the Natural Learning Cycle much more comprehensive. I see that the distinctions it makes are important while Kolb’s cycle too simplistic and does not honor the humanity of learners. We are not automatons who learn in such a logical fashion. And this is the calling of Coyote Mentoring – teach using the humanity of the teacher and the learner.
