Higher Order Thinking and Adult Learning

Merriam, S., Baumgartner, L. (2020). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9781119490487.

Chapter 8 Experience and Learning

Aaron, an adult basic educa on instructor with 10 years of experience, a ends a workshop on new materials and instruc onal strategies for use in adult basic educa on classes. Aaron is devoted to his work and enjoys trying out new techniques for enhancing his students' learning experiences. The workshop instructor, Dr. K., asks par cipants to introduce themselves, explain their reasons for being at the workshop, and tell what they want to learn. Dr. K. then tailors the workshop to the needs of the par cipants and provides ac vi es and opportuni es for a endees to interact and learn from each other. On the workshop evalua on, Aaron writes, “The interac on with peers was the most beneficial part of the workshop. Dr. K.'s willingness to value our experiences made this a successful workshop.” Aaron's colleague Gloria a ends a different workshop on the same subject. Par cipants listen to lectures and briefly interact with the presenter in a ques on-and-answer session at the end of the workshop. Gloria's experiences are never solicited. Her workshop evalua on reads, “I could have read this informa on in a book. The workshop was a waste of me.” The difference between the two workshops was Dr. K.'s recogni on that learners have a vast array of experiences that can be used for learning.

We learn from experience in a variety of ways. As in the vigne e, Aaron learned as the result of a direct embodied experience that engaged him mentally, physically, and emo onally in the moment. Other dimensions of experience include learning from a simulated experience or reliving a past experience. In addi on, people may make sense of their experience through collabora on with others in a community (some mes referred to as a community of prac ce) or through reflec ve or introspec ve experiences such as medita on or dreaming.

Adult educators have long underscored the fundamental role that experience plays in learning in adulthood. For example, Lindeman, in his classic and o en-cited book The Meaning of Adult Educa on in the United States (1961), stated that “the resource of highest value in adult educa on is the learner's experience” (p. 6). Experience then becomes “the adult learner's living textbook … already there wai ng to be appropriated” (p. 7). Similarly, one of the primary assump ons underlying Knowles's (1989, p. 58) work on andragogy is that “adults come into an educa onal ac vity with both a greater volume and a different quality of experience from youths.” Knowles also observes that adults tend to define themselves by their experiences, describing themselves as parents, spouses, workers, volunteers, community ac vists, and so on. Kolb (1984) states, “Learning is a con nuous process grounded in experience. Knowledge is con nuously derived and tested out in the experiences of the learner” (p. 27). Kolb notes that

these experiences can be personal (for example, the experience of happiness) or objec ve/environmental (for example, years of experience at a place of employment).

Although adult educators have accepted the connec on between experience and learning, we are s ll learning about this connec on and how to use it most effec vely in both formal and nonformal learning situa ons and most recently, in a digital environment (see, for example, Petrovic-Dzerdz and Trépanier's ar cle, “Online Hun ng, Gathering and Sharing—A Return to Experien al Learning in a Digital Age,” 2018). A number of ques ons puzzle us: What leads to learning from experience? Is the context in which the experience happens important? Are there ways we can design learning episodes to best capture this experien al component? In this chapter we explore responses to these and other important ques ons related to experience and learning. First, we briefly discuss John Dewey's view of experience and learning. Next, we describe several models of experien al learning. Third, we present educators' purposes, roles, and learning designs for experien al learning and delve into four methods associated with experien al learning: reflec ve prac ce, situated cogni on, communi es of prac ce, and cogni ve appren ceships.

Learning from Life Experiences

John Dewey (1938), in his classic volume Experience and Educa on, made some of the most though ul observa ons about the connec ons between life experiences and learning. More specifically, Dewey postulated that “all genuine educa on comes about through experience” (p. 13). However, this “does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educa ve” (p. 13). In fact, some experiences “mis-educate,” in that they actually “distort growth … narrow the field of further experiences … [and place people] in a groove or rut” (p. 13). Judging whether experiences actually produce learning can be difficult because “every experience is a moving force. Its value can be judged only on the grounds of what it moves toward and into” (p. 31). For example, being diagnosed as HIV-posi ve may make some people so bi er and angry that any posi ve or growth-enhancing learning from that life change is almost impossible. In contrast, others become highly ac ve inquirers and par cipants in maintaining their health and serving as peer counselors for other persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHAs).

For learning to happen through experience, Dewey (1938, p. 27) argued that the experience must exhibit the two major principles of con nuity and interac on: “The principle of the con nuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come a er.” In

other words, experiences that provide learning are never just isolated events in me. Rather, learners must connect what they have learned from current experiences to those in the past as well as see possible future implica ons. For example, we can assume that people who are enjoying their re rement have been able to connect their past experiences to those of the present. Ellen, a re red salesperson, who may have always traveled vicariously through the Sunday paper's travel sec on, has bought a small travel trailer and now spends several months of the year exploring new places.

The second principle, that of interac on, posits that “an experience is always what it is because of a transac on taking place between an individual and what, at the me, cons tutes his environment” (Dewey, 1938, p. 41). Going back to the example of Ellen, she is learning about new places firsthand because she now has the me and means to visit them. Through her travels, she has developed an interest in Na ve American culture and so seeks out new tribal groups to explore. As illustrated through Ellen's interest in Na ve American culture, the two principles of con nuity and interac on are always interconnected and work together to provide the basis for experien al learning. What Ellen has learned in visi ng one reserva on “becomes an instrument of understanding” for a ending the next tribal celebra on with a different group of Na ve Americans. In transla ng Dewey's ideas into educa onal prac ce, what is key is how important the situa on becomes in promo ng learning. Developing a welcoming and comfortable atmosphere, providing the right materials, and linking these materials to learners' past and future experiences are cri cal in assis ng adults to learn from their experiences.

While Dewey (1938) explored how people learned from life experiences, others have also contributed to the evolu on of the concept of experien al learning. Seaman, Brown, and Quay (2017) recently documented the term's development beginning with human rela ons training in the 1940s evolving into T-groups and sensi vity training in the 1950s, to a stand-alone theory in the 1970s. Drawing from the earlier work of Kurt Lewin, John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Carl Jung, and Carl Rogers, among others, Kolb (1984) developed what is probably the best known theory of experien al learning (see the next sec on). Kolb and Kolb (2017) have also compiled six general proposi ons of experien al learning theory. First, “learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes” (p. 25). Second, learning is a “con nuous process” (p. 26). Students' ideas must be drawn out, discussed, and refined. Next, learning requires a resolu on of “dialec cally opposed modes of adapta on to the world”; that is, learners must move “back and forth between opposing modes of reflec on and ac on and feeling and thinking” (p. 26). Fourth, “learning is a holis c process of adapta on to the world” (p. 27). Fi h, “learning involves interac ons between the person and the environment” (p. 28). Last, “learning is the process of crea ng knowledge” (p. 28). These proposi ons are evident in some of the models of experien al learning that are discussed in the next sec on.

Models of Experien al Learning

Clearly, people learn from experience. However, scholars' percep ons of how people learn differ depending upon their theore cal orienta on. In addi on to there being different dimensions to experien al learning, there are different theore cal conceptualiza ons of this type of learning. Fenwick (2003) proposes five perspec ves that “raise important ques ons about the nature of experience” (p. 38): (a) reflec ng on concrete experience (CE) (construc vist theory of learning); (b) par cipa ng in a community of prac ce (situa ve theory of learning); (c) ge ng in touch with unconscious desires and fears (psychoanaly c theory of learning); (d) resis ng dominant social norms of experience (cri cal cultural theories); and (e) exploring ecological rela onships between cogni on and environment (complexity theories applied to learning). The construc vist approach focuses on “reflec on on experience” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 22). People have concrete experiences; they reflect on them and construct new knowledge as a result of these reflec ons. In this view, the focus is on the learners' meaning-making processes as the result of an experience.

Unlike the construc vist paradigm, which emphasizes reflec on on experience, the situa ve theory posits that knowing is intertwined with doing. Fenwick (2003) states, “Learning is rooted in the situa on in which the person par cipates, not in the head of that person as intellectual concepts produced by reflec on” (p. 25). Par cipa on in a community of prac ce is the goal of this perspec ve. Fenwick con nues, “The outcome of experien al learning as par cipa on is that the community refines its prac ces, develops new ones, or discards and changes prac ces that are harmful or dysfunc onal” (p. 27) (italics in original).

The psychoanaly c perspec ve sees our unconscious as interfering with our conscious experiences. As a result, we must work through psychic conflicts to learn (Fenwick, 2003). This approach recognizes the complex role of desire in our learning. We may have conflic ng desires in a learning situa on that affect our learning experience (Fenwick, 2001). The fourth lens through which experien al learning is viewed, the cri cal cultural perspec ve, “seeks to transform exis ng social orders, by cri cally ques oning and resis ng dominant norms of experience” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 38). Last, the complexity theory says learning is produced through interac on “among consciousness, iden ty, ac on and interac on, objects and structural dynamics of complex systems” (p. 37). In this view, the focus is not on the experience itself but on the “rela onships binding them [the dynamics] together in complex systems” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 37) (italics in original).

Fenwick (2007) laments the way experien al learning receives less a en on in an educa onal se ng when some separate the mind from the body, or emphasize reflec on over the experience itself or center on “the knowledge economy” and so on. She suggests that “rather than limi ng their focus to planning experien al occasions and assessing the learning produced in experiences, educators might think of themselves, their classroom ac vi es and texts, and learners as part of an experien al ac vity system” (p. 538). These dimensions “intersect simultaneously with each other's among other sub- and suprasystems influencing and being influenced by one another, in learning that is ongoing and expansive, at biologic, psychic, social, and poli cal levels” (p. 538).

Kolb's (2014) and Jarvis's (1987) models arise from the construc vist paradigm, whereas Boud and Walker's (1991) and Usher, Bryant, and Johnston's (1997) models are situa ve in nature. Although the psychoanaly c, cri cal, and complexity approaches to experien al learning proposed by Fenwick (2003) do not have models per se, their theore cal underpinnings contribute to understanding the complexity of learning from experience.

Kolb (2014) defined learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transforma on of experience” (p. 49) (italics in original). Building primarily on the work of Dewey, Piaget, and Lewin, Kolb conceptualized that learning from experience requires four different kinds of abili es: (a) an openness and willingness to involve oneself in new experiences (concrete experience); (b) observa onal and reflec ve skills so these new experiences can be viewed from a variety of perspec ves (reflec ve observa on); (c) analy cal abili es so integra ve ideas and concepts can be created from their observa ons (abstract conceptualiza on); and (d) decision-making and problem-solving skills so these new ideas and concepts can be used in actual prac ce (ac ve experimenta on, [AE]). As can be seen in Figure 8.1, Kolb pictured these capabili es as interrelated phases within a cyclical process, star ng with the concrete experience and then moving through reflec ve observa on and abstract conceptualiza on to ac ve experimenta on. Whatever ac on is taken in the final phase becomes another set of concrete experiences, which in turn can begin the experien al learning cycle again. For Kolb, the ul mate goal of this experien al learning process is to obtain “a fully integrated personality” (Malinen, 2000, p. 89).

Figure 8.1 The experien al learning cycle and basic learning styles.

SOURCE: Adapted from Kolb (1984).

As can also be seen in Figure 8.1, Kolb has iden fied four basic learning styles—diverging, assimila ng, converging, and accommoda ng. Each learning style draws from its two adjacent learning abili es. For example, the accommoda ng learning styles draw from AE and CE. These learners prefer hands-on ac vi es and tend to “act on ‘gut’ feelings rather than logical analysis” (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 1999, p. 6). Diverging learners, on the other hand, prefer reflec ng upon concrete experience.

Kolb's four-stage model of experien al learning and his Learning Style Inventory, developed to assess one's preferred learning style, remain popular frameworks for instruc onal applica ons and research studies. A small sample from dozens of recent publica ons reveals the breadth of

applica on of his theory, from use in fields as disparate as chemistry (Sudria, Redhana, Kirna, & Aini, 2018), music (Russell-Bowie, 2013), agriculture (Baker & Robinson, 2016), computer gaming (Bontchev, Vassileva, Aleksieva-Petrova, & Petrov, 2018), sport psychology (Sato, 2018), and nursing (Koivisto, Niemi, Mul silta, & Eriksson, 2017).

One cri que of Kolb's model is that the learner's context is not considered (Fenwick, 2003). Experience and reflec on seem to exist in a vacuum. Nor does Kolb account for issues of power in his model. Jarvis's (1987, 2001) model addresses some of Kolb's shortcomings in that Jarvis's model recognizes that the person brings his or her biography into the situa on. Our construc on of our experiences is affected by our “psychological history” (Jarvis, 2001, p. 52). There are two main types of learning from experiences. We may engage in nonreflec ve learning, which includes remembering an experience and repea ng it or just doing what we are told to do. In contrast, we may engage in reflec ve learning when we “plan, monitor, and reflect upon our experiences” (p. 52). Jarvis includes both experimental learning (the result of a person experimen ng on the environment) and reflec ve prac ce (thinking about and monitoring one's prac ce as it is happening) with what he conceives as the highest forms of learning. Jarvis notes that, ironically, o en the more experiences we have, the less likely we are to learn from them. Instead, we tend to choose what is familiar and deny ourselves new learning (Jarvis, 2001). Le Cornu (2005) cri ques three dimensions of Jarvis's model including “its me-centered base, its weak process of internaliza on, and the no on of non-learning” (p. 166). She suggests several modifica ons of the model.

Boud and Walker (1991) take a situated approach to experien al learning. These scholars augmented Kolb's model in two ways. First, they recognized that “specific contexts shape an individual's experience in different ways” (Fenwick, 2001, p. 11). Second, they were “interested in how differences among individuals—par cularly past histories, learning strategies, and emo on influence the sort of learning developed through reflec on on experience” (p. 11). Boud, Keogh, and Walker's (1985, 1996) original model consisted of three stages: (a) returning to and replaying the experience, (b) a ending to the feelings that the experience provoked, and (c) reevalua ng the experience. The authors state that people need to work through any nega ve feelings that have arisen and eventually set those aside while retaining and enhancing the posi ve feelings. If the nega ve feelings are not addressed, what commonly happens is that learning becomes blocked. In the reevalua on stage, our aim is to use this experience as a way of ge ng us ready for new experiences, and thus new learning. Four processes may contribute to this reevalua on stage:

associa on, that is, rela ng of new data to that which is already known; integra on, which is seeking rela onships among the data; valida on to determine the authen city of the ideas and

feelings which have resulted; and appropria on, that is, making knowledge one's own. (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1996, pp. 45–46)

In addi on to Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1996), other authors also recognize the importance of emo on in experien al learning (Beard & Wilson, 2018; Dirkx, 2001a, 2001b; Dirkx & Espinoza, 2017). Beard and Wilson (2018) note, “The affec ve domain can be seen to provide the underlying founda on for all learning” (p. 207). In order for people to interpret experiences posi vely and to learn effec vely they need to have “confidence in their abili es,” good self- esteem, support from others, and trust in others (p. 206). In contrast, distorted learning can occur if a person is told he or she is not talented, or distressed learning can occur when we are forced to learn something (Beard & Wilson, 2018).

In a related publica on, Beard (2010) presents numerous strategies and ac vi es to help people learn from experience including “drama, sculp ng, role-play, art, stories and metaphors” (p. 143). It is also important to work with emo ons in the classroom. He notes that fear can block learning and can manifest itself through perfec onism, anger, and aggression. The author recommends wri ng down these “scripts of the inner voice” (p. 176), then wri ng down what this rule really means, and then revising the rule. For example, perhaps a person's inner rule is: “I must never cry in public.” This rule may really mean that the person would be embarrassed if he or she cried in public. The revised rule may read: “I would rather not cry in public, but if I do, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I could handle it.” This new rule takes some of the fear away from crying in public. Techniques for crea ng posi ve emo on in the classroom also include using various aromas to help the learning process. For example, he suggests that “the scent of orange improves communica on, basil and lemon increase mental clarity” and so on (p. 143). Beard offers specific instruc ons for dealing with anger, promo ng calm, dispu ng the internal cri c in all of us, and being asser ve.

Usher, Bryant, and Johnston (1997) approach the situated or contextual nature of experience in a very different way from most other scholars who discuss experience as founda onal to learning. Although they acknowledge that Jarvis (1987) and Boud and Walker (1991), among others, use a contextual or sociological frame for learning from experience, they s ll view the work of these authors as centered on an individualized self who uses experiences as the material to be acted upon by the mind through observa ons and reflec on. Grounded in the assump on that “the self is a culturally and historically variable category,” Usher, Bryant, and Johnston (1997, p. 102) view experience instead as a text to be used in learning—as “something to be ‘read’ or interpreted, possibly with great effort, and certainly with no final, defini ve meaning” (p. 104). These authors assert that “the meaning of experience is never permanently fixed; thus, the text of experience is always open to reinterpreta on” (p. 105). Usher, Bryant, and Johnston have proposed a “map” of experien al learning within the framework of

postmodern thought. With this model, “learning does not simplis cally derive from experience; rather, experience and learning are mutually posi oned in an interac ve dynamic” (p. 107). In posing this model, these authors view the use of experience as part of the learning process as

inherently neither emancipatory nor oppressive, neither domes ca ng nor transforma ve. Rather … it is perhaps most usefully seen as having a poten al for emancipa on and oppression, domes ca on and transforma on, where at any one me and according to context both tendencies can be present and in conflict with one another. (p. 105)

Usher, Bryant, and Johnston's model, shown in Figure 8.2, is structured around two intersec ng con nua—autonomy-adapta on (empowerment of individuals to act independently to being able to adapt one's ac ons in rela on to the context) and expression-applica on (being able to apply what one knows in real-world contexts)—and four quadrants, referred to as lifestyle, voca onal, confessional, and cri cal. Learning from experience happens both between and within the quadrants, which represent different types of learning venues.

Figure 8.2 Map of experien al learning in the social prac ces of modernity.

SOURCE: Usher, Bryant, & Johnston (1997), p. 106. Reprinted by permission.

Lifestyle prac ces center on the achievement of autonomy through individuality and self- expression, par cularly in taste and style (for example, ways of speaking, clothes, leisure pursuits, vaca ons). Experience is used as a means of defining a lifestyle that is ac vely sought by people but also influenced by socially and culturally defined norms.

Voca onal prac ces are conveyed through the marketplace. Learners need to be highly mo vated in the direc on of a personal change linked to the needs of the socioeconomic environment. Voca onalism then is designed to produce flexible competencies and a predisposi on to change. As a result of learning adap ve skills through experien al means, learners become more empowered to respond to their changing voca onal environments.

In confessional prac ces our private, self-regula ng capaci es become public. In other words, realizing oneself, finding out the truth about oneself, and accep ng responsibility for oneself become both personally desirable and economically func onal. The emphasis in this process is on self-improvement, self-development, and regula on. Experience is used as enabling access to knowledge and the innermost truths about self, which in turn creates produc ve and empowered people in a number of roles (for example, as ac ve ci zen, ardent consumer, enthusias c employee).

Finally, in Usher, Bryant, and Johnston's (1997) fourth quadrant, cri cal prac ces, there is a recogni on that experience is never a basic given. The focus is on changing par cular contexts rather than adap ng to them, and therefore working with learners becomes a poli cal prac ce. Experien al learning becomes a strategy designed to find and exercise one's voice in the service of self, social empowerment, and transforma on and is not regarded as something that leads to knowledge but rather as knowledge itself. In the United States, survivors of school gun violence organizing for stricter gun regula on is an example of this fourth quadrant as is the movement of women exposing sexual harassment in the workplace with the aim of changing the workplace to one of zero tolerance for such behavior.

Although no par cular model exists to represent the psychoanaly c perspec ve that focuses on the issue of desire and the unconscious in experien al learning, Jacques Lacan's work exemplifies this approach. Lacan's idea that a person's “iden ty is split between conscious and unconscious desires” may help explain why people are conflicted in some experien al learning situa ons (Fenwick, 2001, p. 30).

Experien al learning from the cri cal cultural perspec ve looks at “power as a core issue in experience” (Fenwick, 2001, p. 39). Emancipatory learning exemplifies this perspec ve on experien al learning. People cri cally examine how power works in society, and they rise from their oppression and take ac on that makes a difference in their lives and others' lives. This perspec ve concentrates on the community, not the individual. The community recognizes that

it needs to act, takes collec ve ac on, and understands that learning arises from conflict. For example, a group of community wildlife conserva onists in Tanzania convene to discuss the impact of farming and poaching on Tanzania's wildlife popula on. They recognize they need to balance ecotourism, infrastructure (such as new roads), and farming. They believe local community control of natural resources would be beneficial and lobby to shi control from central government organiza ons to local communi es. This results in be er wildlife management. (For an interes ng ar cle on this way of managing environmental resources see Lee, 2018.)

Enabled by a journal dedicated to the topic (Journal of Experien al Educa on), experien al learning or experien al educa on con nues to be a popular focus for research and theory- building. As noted previously, one recent ar cle (Seaman, Brown, & Quay, 2017) reviewed the evolu on of the theory from its human rela ons training origins. In another ar cle authors Kuk and Holst (2018) cri qued experien al learning from feminist standpoint theory and embodied learning and called for a reconceptualiza on of experien al learning that would be inclusive of these perspec ves.

Clearly the role of experience in learning is highly complex. Perhaps equally complex are the roles of the adult educator in the experien al learning process. In the next sec on we explore educators' roles and purposes in the classroom.

Educators' Roles and Purposes

Most educators, regardless of their arena of prac ce, are familiar with experien al learning and incorporate instruc onal ac vi es that promote this kind of learning. Wurdinger and Carlson (2010), for example, offer five approaches (o en intersec ng) for teaching for experien al learning: ac ve learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, service learning, and place-based learning. However, a deeper look into educators' purposes, roles, and instruc onal designs for experien al learning reveals some differences depending on the lens through which they view experien al learning.

Those who see experien al learning through a construc vist lens want to foster cri cal reflec on on experience and challenge learners' assump ons while valida ng personally constructed knowledge. Educators facilitate reflec on and encourage learners to discuss and analyze concrete experiences in a trus ng, open environment. For example, they challenge students' assump ons by having them reflect on specific family, work, or community situa ons.

A second role the teacher plays is that of catalyst. Instructors involve students in role-plays or problem-based learning exercises where learners must solve a dilemma. This ac vity reveals learners' assump ons and creates ample opportuni es for reflec on. Third, the adult educator may become the student's coach or mentor. Coaching is generally associated with “specific skill learning” whereas mentors serve as life guides (Fenwick, 2003, p. 117). Last, the teacher becomes the assessor of the learners' prior experien al learning. Typical assessment tools that emphasize reflec on are por olios, learners' analyses of their life or work experience, and interviews in which learners explain their “learning outcomes of their past experience” (p. 118).

The educator's role from the situa ve framework is to get learners involved in a community of prac ce (Fenwick, 2003). The educator arranges real situa ons in which the learners par cipate. Fenwick states, “The educator's role … is in providing just-in- me assistance to enable confident ac on in situa ons where confident competence is lacking” (p. 121). Fenwick adds that the instructor may also help those who become stuck or immobilized in situa ons to move ahead. The situa ve orienta on can be found in service-learning ac vi es. These experiences “are o en community-based volunteer work with different non-profit organiza ons … and are typically organized for a short-term period of a few weeks” (p. 149). Cogni ve appren ceships (discussed later in the chapter) exemplify the type of experien al learning promoted by this theore cal orienta on.

Facilitators who view experien al learning through the psychoanaly c lens want to facilitate analysis of learners' psychic conflicts that may impede learning (Fenwick, 2003). Educators can do this by encouraging students to pay a en on to their dreams, behavior, and odd images that may arise in their minds. Ac vi es that may facilitate these goals include finding materials such as images, film clips, or texts that elicit emo on. These emo ons may lead us to uncover aspects of our unconscious that block our learning (Dirkx, 2001a, 2001b). Students are encouraged to respond as educators listen and compassionately help them examine resistance and bring to light unconscious feelings associated with the material. Another technique used to help learners analyze their desires and anxie es in their workplace is to ask employees a series of ques ons about their most pleasant, frustra ng, or anxious moments at work. In addi on, Dirkx (2001a) suggests having learners “name an emo on or feeling they experienced during an assignment or classroom mee ng” (p. 16). Next, they should describe the emo on in their journal and also write anything they associate with the emo on. They may also want to draw or paint any images that come to mind. Dirkx and Espinoza (2017) suggest that paying a en on to one's emo ons can foster learning and self-understanding. The key is to not ignore, but “to call to mind and reflect on a recent emo on-laden experience or image,” connect it with previous experiences of the same emo on, then engage in dialogue about the “emo on-laden experience or image” (para. 14). This process “leads the par cipant to deeper understandings of the meaning of the image or experience, resul ng in the poten al for ac on” (para. 17).

For those educators looking at experien al learning through the cri cal cultural lens, the educator's purpose includes helping learners see the influence of power rela onships on their lives. Teachers support and encourage resistance against oppression and help learners see beyond the immediate struggle to solu ons (Fenwick, 2003). Educators engage in what Freire (1970) called problem-posing. The issues of concern come from the people, and educators help “iden fy general causes and outcomes of these issues” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 162). Instructors encourage people to cri cally analyze their situa ons and work toward a solu on. For example, workers in a factory may be concerned about the working condi ons and wages. The teachers ask ques ons to allow the workers to see they are oppressed and help workers find an empowering solu on to their problems. The learners then may, for example, engage in social ac on through forming a union, pursuing legal ac on, or figh ng as a group for be er working condi ons.

Individuals who view experien al learning through the complexity theory lens do not ins gate change through organiza ons but “seek to open spaces for the system to experiment with change itself” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 132). Complexity refers to “global condi ons of trade, migra on, communi es, educa on, ever-evolving interconnectedness of ideas, processes and organiza ons and the tangled prolifera on of technology-mediated networks” (Fenwick, Edwards, & Sawchuk, 2011, p. 18). In complexity theory's applica on to educa on “what is emphasized are the flows and rela ons among things—not the things themselves” (p. 21) (italics in original). The emphasis is on seeking change within complex systems. One of the teacher's roles in this environment is to be an interpreter in order to help students understand the changes in the complex systems in which they find themselves. In addi on, instructors “a une the learner and the learning community to the disturbances: drawing a en on to the new possibili es created, while helping to divert pa erns that may start to create unsafe spaces or power inequi es” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 134). The teacher helps learners explore changes by having them dialogue about issues in order to develop insights. Unlike the educators from the cri cal cultural perspec ve, these teachers are not expected to help the community “link its experiences to larger forces perpetua ng exploita on and inequity” (p. 169). Speaking of adult educators, Nicolaides and Marsick (2016) concur, arguing that

the skills and mindsets they need to guide adult learning in complexity and chaos contexts require increased capacity to foster understanding, acceptance, and engagement with ambiguity. …They need to know when and how to move back and forth among, and within, simple, complicated, complex, and chao c contexts. (pp. 17–18)

In sum, educators' roles and purposes may differ according to their theore cal orienta on. Construc vists foster cri cal reflec on on students' assump ons and assess learners' prior

experien al learning. Teachers from the situa ve framework engage students in a community of prac ce through service ac vi es and cogni ve appren ceships. Those from the psychoanaly c framework want to help learners bring to light unconscious conflicts that may impede learning; they can assist learners by providing ac vi es that elicit emo on and by listening to learners. Instructors who take a cri cal cultural approach help learners see the influence of power in their lives; they encourage resistance against oppression and help learners find solu ons. Last, those u lizing the complexity theory help students understand change within complex systems and work toward solu ons.

Instruc onal Methods Centering on Experience and Reflec on

In the previous sec on, we explored how educators' purposes, roles, and instruc onal focus might vary depending on one's orienta on toward experien al learning. In this sec on we review several pla orms or procedures through which experience and reflec on come together in actual prac ce. Following is a discussion of reflec ve prac ce, situated cogni on, communi es of prac ce, and cogni ve appren ceship.

Reflec ve Prac ce

Reflec ve prac ce allows one to make judgments in complex and murky situa ons—judgments based on experience and prior knowledge. Although reflec ve prac ce is most o en associated with professional prac ce, this process can be applied to all types of learning situa ons, both formal and informal. At the heart of reflec ve prac ce is thinking about (reflec ng on) one's experience (prac ce). Developing reflec ve prac oners and learning how to think about or reflect upon one's work may lead to being more effec ve, crea ve, and engaged in one's experience whether it be work or leisure-related. The popularity of this no on of “reflec ve prac ce” is evidenced by thousands of journal ar cles, recent books (see for example, Brandenberg, Glasswell, Jones, & Ryan, 2017; Brookfield, 2017; Gould & Baldwin, 2016; Horton- Deutsch & Sherwood, 2017; Johns, 2017), and a journal tled Reflec ve Prac ce.

Dewey and Schön are recognized as the two most influen al thinkers in conceptualizing reflec ve prac ce. As we discussed earlier, Dewey wrote about the centrality of reflec ng upon one's experience as the way we learn and become more knowledgeable. Schön, whose thinking was influenced by Dewey, published two books that are founda onal to the no on of reflec ve prac ce, The Reflec ve Prac oner (1983) and Educa ng the Reflec ve Prac oner (1987). Schön's basic idea is that although we can prepare for our work through study and various training opportuni es, it isn't un l we are engaged in the work itself that really useful learning occurs. Prac ce knowledge, the cornerstone of reflec ve prac ce, consists of much more than abstract theore cal or technical knowledge. The knowledge we gain through experience and the way we prac ce our cra are just as important. The ini a on of reflec ve prac ce involves

using data in some form, which almost always includes our past and current experiences. Our tacit knowledge about prac ce—that is, knowledge that we use every day, almost without thinking about it—is an important part of these data.

Reflec on-on-Ac on

Two key concepts from Schön are reflec on-on-ac on and reflec on-in-ac on. Reflec on-on- ac on involves thinking through a situa on a er it has happened. This mode of reflec on is presented by most authors as primarily an analy cal exercise, which results in new perspec ves on experiences, changes in behavior, and commitments to ac on. In reflec on-on-ac on, we consciously return to the experiences we have had, reevaluate these experiences, decide what we could do differently, and then try out whatever we decided to do differently.

Several authors have offered various models of carrying out this reflec ve cycle of reflec on-on- ac on. Kolb's (1984) model (discussed earlier in this chapter), or adapta ons of his model, is the one most o en used in prac ce. The cyclical nature of the model allows for a process of con nued change and growth. Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985, 1996) have added to Kolb's work on reflec on-on-ac on by stressing that we must a end to the feelings created by our experiences in order for the reflec ve process to be truly effec ve. In addi on, they have added more in-depth descrip ons of four cogni ve processes (associa on, integra on, valida on, and appropria on) that can contribute to the reflec ve process.

Osterman and Ko kamp (2004), borrowing from the work of Argyris and Schön (1978), set reflec ve prac ce within the framework of espoused theories (beliefs) and theories-in-use (ac ons). Within this framework, they view the reflec ve prac ce cycle as helping prac oners become aware of, and act on, the discrepancies between their beliefs (their espoused theories) and what they actually do. In contras ng espoused theories with ac on, people may ask themselves, “Was our ac on consistent with our intent? Did we act as we wanted to act, in a way consistent with our values?” (Osterman & Ko kamp, 2004, p. 34). For example, a teacher may espouse the theory that she is responsible for helping students who are disrup ve in class. She knows that their anger is a cry for help. However, instead of directly addressing the disrup ve students, she glares at them. Osterman and Ko kamp (2004, p. 35) state, “[The teacher] consciously knows that student misbehavior is frequently a cry for help (espoused theory) but her gut reac on is an angry one. The response may reflect a deeper assump on (theory-in-use)”—for example, that angry students are inten onally disrespec ul students.

Cri cal examina on of discrepancies between espoused theories and theories-in-use o en begin with a feeling that something could be improved upon in one's prac ce (Osterman & Ko kamp, 2004). In the process of improving their prac ce, people think about their espoused

beliefs, examine what they actually do and the results of their ac ons, and contrast their espoused beliefs with their prac ce to unearth their theories-in-use.

Descrip ons are plen ful on how to put reflec on-on-ac on into prac ce (for example, Osterman & Ko kamp, 2004; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Mon e, 2001). Some of the most popular methods used in educa on and other fields are por olio development, journal wri ng, mapping (a form of journal wri ng that can be more fluid and visual than a journal), and cri cal reflec on. Key to all of these methods is the framing of cri cal observa ons and ques ons as part of the reflec on-on-ac on process. For example, York-Barr et al. (2001, p. 47) delineate a four-step process that can guide reflec on. First, individuals must pick an event and ask themselves what happened. Second, they need to analyze and interpret the event by asking themselves ques ons such as, “Why did things happen this way? Why did I act the way I did? How did the context affect the experience? Did past experiences affect the way I reacted?” Third, people have to make sense of the event by asking themselves, “What have I learned from this event? How can I improve? How might this change my future thinking, behaving, interac ons?” Last, people must think about implica ons for ac on by querying, “What am I going to remember to think about the next me this situa on comes up? How could I set up condi ons to increase the likelihood of produc ve interac ons and learning?”

Reflec on-in-Ac on

In contrast to reflec on-on-ac on, reflec on-in-ac on reshapes “what we are doing while we are doing it” (Schön, 1987, p. 26). “Thinking on your feet” and “keeping your wits about you” are commonly used phases that describe reflec on-in-ac on. Schön (1983, 1987, 1991, 1996) challenged professionals to incorporate this form of reflec ve process as an integral part of professional development. In Schön's view, reflec on-in-ac on is triggered by surprise. What we have been thinking and doing all along as professionals no longer works. “We think cri cally about the thinking that got us into this fix or this opportunity; and we may, in the process, restructure strategies of ac on, understanding of phenomena, or ways of framing problems. … Reflec on gives rise to on-the-spot experiment” (Schön, 1987, p. 28).

For example, in running an ins tute for professionals, the ins tute staff sense that the sessions on a par cular day have not gone well. Over coffee, they ask for feedback from par cipants, and the general observa on is that they are finding the material too esoteric and are red of being “talked at.” The next presenter, who is listening to these conversa ons, has also planned to lecture. Although Ron knows he is an excellent lecturer, he decides that unless he changes the way he presents the material, he will totally lose the audience. Knowing that many of the people in the audience have experience related to his content area, he asks for volunteers to join him in a panel discussion on the topic, explaining that he is changing his format to respond to their needs as learners. While Ron works with the panel members on their roles, he asks the

rest of the par cipants to generate ques ons they would like to ask panel members. Although he has never used this format in quite this way before, he believes it might work and is willing to take a chance to recapture the interest of the par cipants. In this way, Ron is using his exper se as an instructor to change on the spot what he is doing as a presenter as he goes along. Schön goes on to observe that competent and experienced professionals use reflec on-in-ac on as a regular part of their prac ce, although they may not verbalize they are doing this. This form of reflec ve prac ce allows professionals to go beyond the rou ne applica on of rules, facts, and procedures and gives them the freedom to prac ce their cra more as professional ar stry where they create new ways of thinking and ac ng about problems of prac ce.

There is ample evidence that reflec on-in-ac on is considered a crucial skill to develop in the prepara on of professionals in all fields of prac ce. A small sampling of recent ar cles reveals the range of applica on from nursing (Fryer & Boot, 2017), to public school principals (Bond, 2011), the legal profession (Leering, 2017), engineering (Currano & Steinert, 2012), social work (Sicora, 2017), and public administra on educa on (Harper, 2018).

Schön also dis nguished between knowing-in-ac on and reflec on-in-ac on. Farrell (2012) explains the difference in an example from teaching:

Applying Schön's work to teaching…knowing-in-ac on would be crucial because teachers cannot possibly ques on every ac on or reac on while they are teaching; they would not be able to get through the class…However, when a new situa on or event occurs and teachers' established rou nes do not work for them, then, according to Schon (1983) teachers use reflec on-in-ac on to cope. Reflec on-in-ac on involves a reflec ve conversa on in which the prac oner is listening to the situa on's backtalk. (pp. 11–12; italics in original)

Applying reflec ve prac ce

The key role that reflec on plays in learning through experience has been undertheorized according to Harvey, Coulson, and McMaugh (2016). Drawing from their knowledge of experience-based learning in the higher educa on environment including prac cums, work- integrated learning, internships, service learning, and community par cipa on, as can be seen in Table 8.1, the authors iden fied several assump ons that underpin reflec ve prac ce.

Table 8.1 Assump ons Underpinning a Theory of an Ecology of Reflec on

SOURCE: Harvey, Coulson, & McMaugh (2016), p. 5.

In applying these assump ons, the authors write that

as learners engage with reflec ve prac ce they may do so at different levels ranging from shallow repor ng to a deeper and cri cal level. Cri cal reflec on, in turn, is related to both metacogni on and transforma ve learning. Reflec ve prac ce is diverse in the modes of prac ce available and in the endless contexts and applica ons possible. A fundamental pedagogical assump on is that reflec ve prac ce can be taught and, therefore, learnt. Reflec ve prac ce's contribu on to experien al learning is as an enabler of praxis. (Harvey, Coulson, & McMaugh, 2016, p. 14)

Implemen ng reflec ve prac ce in instruc onal se ngs needs to be though ully approached according to York-Barr et al. (2001). They offer some guidelines beginning with deliberately slowing down to consider mul ple perspec ves. Second, maintaining an open point of view is also necessary. The purpose of reflec ve prac ce in a group is not in needing to be right or in winning but in openness to a variety of perspec ves, for it is only in openness that new understandings can occur. Third, reflec ve prac ce requires “ac ve and conscious processing of thoughts,” which may include analysis, synthesis, and metacogni on (thinking about thinking) in order to achieve a “broader context for understanding” (York-Barr et al., 2001, p. 7) (italics in original). Fourth, beliefs, goals, and prac ces must be examined. Beliefs are formed from experiences and influence behavior, and goals include “desired aims, outcomes, or inten ons,” which may be general or specific (p. 7). Prac ces include one's “disposi ons, behaviors, and skills in specific areas of performance, such as designing instruc on and assessment strategies, interac ng with students, developing rela onships with families” (pp. 7–8). The outcome of reflec on is to gain deeper insights that lead to ac on. Although reflec ve prac ce theore cally should result in the most though ul and useful solu ons to prac ce problems, this may not be the case depending on the beliefs educators have about this prac ce. Wellington and Aus n

(1996) have argued that depending on their beliefs and values, prac oners have very different orienta ons toward reflec ve prac ce. These differing orienta ons influence how reflec ve prac ce is used, and therefore the possible outcomes of this prac ce. For example, do those involved believe that educa on should be a libera ng or “domes ca ng” form of prac ce? And what is more important to them: system or human concerns? Wellington and Aus n have depicted a way of thinking about reflec ve prac ce that acknowledges how it could be filtered through the belief and value systems of prac oners, which in their view results in five orienta ons toward reflec ve prac ce: the immediate, the technical, the delibera ve, the dialec c, and the transpersonal.

Prac oners who use the immediate orienta on, focusing basically on survival, rarely use any form of reflec ve prac ce. Those who view prac ce as more of a domes ca ng ac vity—that is, who see societal needs as taking precedence over individual needs—lean toward the technical and delibera ve orienta ons. The technical mode “uses reflec on as an instrument to direct prac ce” (Wellington & Aus n, 1996, p. 308), usually within predetermined guidelines and standards. The delibera ve orienta on “places emphasis on the discovery, assignment and assessment of personal meaning within an educa onal se ng” (p. 310). Those opera ng from this orienta on are typically humanis c, stress communica on, and believe that the a tudes and values of learners are important. Although people whose orienta on is delibera ve some mes are uncomfortable with the organiza on in which they work, they nevertheless tend to work within that system. And finally, those who view educa onal prac ce as libera ng primarily have the dialec c and transpersonal orienta ons. Prac oners whose orienta on toward reflec ve prac ce is dialec cal “reject the limita ons of authorized organiza onal structures and parameters and are uncomfortable working within them. … They tend to … focus on poli cal and social issues … [and] advocate poli cal awareness and ac vism” (p. 310). In contrast, the transpersonal orienta on “centers on universal personal libera on. … They ques on educa onal ends, content and means from a personal, inner perspec ve” (p. 311). This orienta on, applied to groups, is the basis for what is called organized reflec on. This is a type of reflec on that occurs “within and as a collabora ve en ty,” where groups cri cally ques on the status quo (Welsh & Dehler, 2004, p. 20). It examines power rela onships in groups and emancipa on is its aim.

Wellington and Aus n (1996) cast these orienta ons not as compe ng views of what reflec ve prac ce should encompass but as different ways of going about reflec ve prac ce. They believe that prac oners need to recognize their own predominant modes, as well as respect the preferred orienta ons of others. “When prac oners become aware of their own preferences and prejudices across models, they can begin to reflect upon a wider range of ques ons and develop a wider range of responses” (p. 314). No ma er what orienta on people have, two

basic processes have been iden fied as central to reflec ve prac ce: reflec on-on-ac on and reflec on-in-ac on.

Situated Cogni on and Communi es of Prac ce

Although reflec ve prac ce and situated cogni on both involve learning from real-world experiences, how these experiences are interpreted is o en quite different. In most models of reflec ve prac ce, learning from experience is s ll viewed as something that goes on in someone's head. Individuals, whether by themselves or in groups, think through problems presented to them and then act on those problems by changing their prac ce on the spot or as they encounter similar situa ons at a later date. Experience provides the catalyst for learning in reflec ve prac ce, but o en it is seen as separate from the learning process itself.

In situated cogni on, one cannot separate the learning process from the situa on in which the learning occurs. Knowledge is not received and later transferred to another situa on “but part of the very process of par cipa on in the immediate situa on” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 25; italics in the original). The proponents of the situated view of learning argue that learning for everyday living (which includes our prac ce as professionals) happens only when people interact with the community that surrounds them (including its history and cultural values and assump ons), “the tools at hand” (such as objects, technology, language, images, and symbols), and the par cular ac vity at hand (Fenwick, 2003, p. 25). In a classic example from the pioneering work of Jean Lave (1988), adults were given math problems having to do with products they could buy in the grocery store. Those who actually went into the store, handled the products, and interacted with others in the store got 98% of the problems correct versus 59% correct when given the exact same problems on a paper-and-pencil test. In other words, the physical and social experiences and se ngs in which learners find themselves and the tools they use in that situa on are integral to the en re learning process. Learning to navigate the subway system in an unfamiliar city is another example of situated cogni on in that one is likely to be in the subway system itself, reading signs and maps, buying a cket, and perhaps interac ng with others. For a summary of the components of situated cogni on, see Table 8.2.

Interes ngly, situated cogni on is par cularly congruent with what we know about adult learning in that much of this learning takes place in the context of everyday life interac ng with others and the “tools” in that context. From professional training such as nursing (Onda, 2012),

graduate medical educa on (Ar no, 2013), and teacher educa on (Korthagen, 2010) to entrepreneurship (Dew, Grichnik, Mayer-Haug, Read, & Brinckmann, 2015) to literacy and technology (Gee, 2010), and even considering immersion in art (Reboul, 2015), situated cogni on is a robust framework for linking experience and learning. Machles (2004), through his study of the situated learning of occupa onal safety by biotechnical employees, provides us with an example of how situated cogni on translates into prac ce. In his study, par cipants interacted with each other in the workplace to learn occupa onal safety on the job. Steve, a study par cipant, stated, “I think most everything I have learned, especially about safety … has been learned from other people. … It was learned from my co-workers and stuff. There was never a class” (p. 145). The tools for learning can be physical tools or concepts learned at the workplace. Machles (2004) observed that workers' tools included physical equipment, such as the eye wash and shower used to treat chemical accidents, as well as concepts such as “don't hesitate, respond quickly” (p. 154). A study respondent, James, spoke about how he used both the physical tools of the eye wash and shower and the concept of “respond quickly” to save a colleague's sight a er a chemical accident. James stated, “Another guy got something in his eye. … I got him in the safety shower. I kept him there 20 minutes. … It's kind of an automa c reflex. Grab and go” (p. 113).

Table 8.2 Situated Cogni on Principles Rela ng to Learning Environments

SOURCE: Wilson & Myers (2000), p. 71. Reprinted by permission.

Learning in context. Thinking and learning make sense only within par cular situa ons. All thinking, learning, and cogni on are situated within par cular contexts; there is no such thing as nonsituated learning.

Communi es of prac ce. People act and construct meaning within communi es of prac ce. These communi es are powerful repositories and conveyors of meaning and serve to legi mate ac on. Communi es construct and define appropriate discourse prac ces.

Learning as ac ve par cipa on. Learning is seen in terms of belonging and par cipa ng in communi es of prac ce. Learning is seen as a dialec cal process of interac on with other people, tools, and the physical world. Cogni on is ed to ac on—either direct physical ac on or deliberate reflec on and internal ac on. To understand what is learned is to see how it is learned within the ac vity context.

Knowledge in ac on. Knowledge is located in the ac ons of persons and groups. Knowledge evolves as individuals par cipate in and nego ate their way through new situa ons. The

development of knowledge and competence, like the development of language, involves con nued knowledge-using ac vity in authen c situa ons.

Media on of ar facts. Cogni on depends on the use of a variety of ar facts and tools, chiefly language and culture. These tools and constructed environments cons tute the mediums, forms, or worlds through which cogni on takes place. Problem solving involves reasoning about purposes in rela onship to the resources and tools that a situa on affords.

Tools and ar facts as cultural repositories. Tools embody the history of a culture. They enable thought and intellectual processes and constrain or limit that thought. They also provide powerful means of transmi ng culture.

Rules, norms, and beliefs. Cogni ve tools include forms of reasoning and argumenta on that are accepted as norma ve in society. Using a tool in a certain manner implies adop on of a cultural belief system about how the tool is to be used.

History. Situa ons make sense within a historical context, including the past experiences and interac ons of par cipants, as well as an cipated needs and events. Cultures, through tools, ar facts, and discourse prac ces, embody the accumulated meanings of the past.

Level of scale. Cogni on can best be understood as a dynamic interplay between individual and social levels. Focus on one level, while assuming constancy or predictability at the other, is bound to at least partly misinterpret the situa on.

Interac onism. Just as situa ons shape individual cogni on, individual thinking and ac on shape the situa on. This reciprocal influence conitutes an alterna ve concep on of systemic causality to the more commonly assumed linear object causality.

Iden es and construc ons of self. People's no on of self—of con nuing iden ty, separate from others yet belonging to various groups—is a contracted ar fact with many uses. People have mul ple iden es, which can serve as tools for thinking and ac ng.

In viewing learning from a situated perspec ve, two other ideas are key. The first is that the emphasis in the learning process changes from being concerned about memory and how we process informa on internally to percep on and the se ngs in which those percep ons are made (Hansman, 2001). In essence, according to Clancey (1997), “[E]very human thought and

ac on is adapted to the environment, that is, situated, because what people perceive, and how they conceive of their ac vity, and what they physically do develop together” (pp. 1–2). There are also, according to Morgan (2017), three levels at which situated cogni on can occur: the subpersonal, which is the “interplay of body, brain, and the world” (p. 226); the personal in which “nego a ons and conflicts” take place among “human actants” (p. 226); and the suprapersonal, which involve “wider interac ons” (p. 226). The educator's task is to “find methods to integrate” these levels, “while acknowledging, at the same me, their lived irreconcilability” (p. 231).

According to proponents of the situa ve perspec ve, this situated nature of cogni on makes the transfer process from using learning gained from one situa on to the next more problema c, which has led some theorists to ques on whether knowledge, especially prac cal knowledge, can really transfer across situa ons (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996). However, construc vists maintain that the transfer of learning from one situa on to another is possible (Fenwick, 2003). Scholars who study organiza onal learning indicate that knowledge transfer of tacit knowledge (knowledge evident in our ac ons but that may not be explicitly ar culated) occurs through socializa on with others (Fenwick, 2003). They also recognize that explicit knowledge can be transferred.

The second issue in viewing learning from a situated cogni on perspec ve is assuming that learning and knowing are primarily a cultural phenomenon. This assump on moves the study of cogni on (and therefore, learning from experience) into the social and poli cal realm and raises the issue of knowledge and power as a legi mate part of the study of cogni on (Fenwick, 2003; Kirshner & Whitson, 1997). Although power and knowledge are fundamental to the theory of situated cogni on, it has o en been downplayed or overlooked in favor of how to apply the concept prac cally (Fenwick, 2003). In acknowledging cogni on and learning from experience as a cultural phenomenon, the perspec ves of cri cal, feminist, and postmodern thinkers become crucial. Among the major results of thinking about cogni on from a cultural frame are the cri ques that have been fostered about tradi onal educa onal theory and prac ce (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988). Foremost among these cri ques is a challenge to the fundamental no on that learning is something that occurs within the individual. Rather, learning encompasses the interac on of learners and the social environments in which they func on.

In using experience in the framework of situated cogni on, the emphasis is on “providing enabling experiences in authen c versus decontextualized contexts” (Choi & Hannafin, 1995, p. 53). As Greeno (1997) has though ully observed,

When we recognize that all learning involves socially organized ac vity, the ques on is not whether to give instruc on in a ‘complex, social environment’ but what kinds of complex, social ac vi es to arrange, for which aspects of par cipa on, and in what sequence to use them. (p. 10)

From this perspec ve educa on and training by just abstrac on is of li le use. Rather,

to meet the test of “authen city,” situa ons must at least have some of the important a ributes of real-life problem solving, including ill-structured complex goals, an opportunity for the detec on of relevant versus irrelevant informa on, ac ve/genera ve engagement in finding and defining problems as well as in solving them, involvement in the student's beliefs and values, and an opportunity to engage in collabora ve interpersonal ac vi es. (Young, 1993, p. 45)

Closely related to the concept of situated cogni on is the literature on communi es of prac ce. Lave (1988), who is credited with pu ng forward the framework of situated cogni on, in fact writes about situated cogni on in communi es of prac ce (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Communi es of prac ce consist of groups of people who come together over some common interest. We all belong to communi es of prac ce whether it be our family, our workplace (Webber, 2016), our civic or community organiza on, or a professional associa on. These communi es are made up of people who have different levels of knowledge. When one joins a community, interac on with others allows the novice to learn about the norms, behaviors, and a tudes of the community and the novice gradually moves from the periphery toward the center. This movement is a result of learning. According to Wenger, these communi es of prac ce have “shared histories of learning” (Wenger, 1998, p. 103). Learning is “at the very core” (p. 215) of a community of prac ce.

O en used interchangeably with community of prac ce is the term “learning community.” There is a large literature on both community of prac ce and the learning community including a journal tled Learning Communi es Journal. In organiza ons, educa on, and professional and community-based groups the learning in communi es of prac ce and learning communi es is o en mediated by technology. King (2017) suggests that one can build a learning community through the use of media-based projects, and of course there are hundreds if not thousands of online communi es where par cipants raise ques ons, share with one another, and engage in learning.

Cogni ve Appren ceships

Cogni ve appren ceships have received much a en on in the literature. “Cogni ve appren ceship methods try to enculturate [learners] into authen c prac ces through ac vity and social interac on in a way similar to that evident—and evidently successful—in cra appren ceship” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 37). The cogni ve nature of the appren ceship places emphasis on teaching learners different ways of thinking about whatever they are learning, as well as any skills associated with the appren ceship. Fenwick (2003) adds, “Cogni ve appren ceship moves away from the purely situa ve view of learning, trea ng learners as independent reflec ve constructors of knowledge” (p. 152). Garcia-Cabrero et al. (2018) note that whereas tradi onal appren ceship models focus on the physical tasks involved in learning a trade, cogni ve appren ceship “concentrates on developing the mental models and cogni ve and metacogni ve skills that learners need in order to perform tasks in more expert-like ways” (p. 815).

Based on a study of different forms of cogni ve appren ceship used in several professions, such as engineering, medicine, and educa onal administra on, Brandt, Farmer, and Buckmaster (1993) have created a five-phase model (see Table 8.3). The first phase, modeling, is where the model demonstrates the ac vity as he or she verbally describes the ac vity. Phase 2, approxima ng, consists of the learner doing the ac vity with the teacher providing support (scaffolding) and coaching the learner. In Phase 3, the coaching and scaffolding are gradually removed and the learner works in less-defined situa ons individually and in groups. The student is self-directed in Phase 4 and assistance from the instructor is provided only when requested. In Phase 5, generalizing, the generalizability of the skill is discussed and students are encouraged to try the skill in new situa ons.

Table 8.3 Cogni ve Appren ceship Phases

SOURCE: Brandt, Farmer, & Buckmaster (1993), p. 71.

Cogni ve appren ceship as an instruc onal strategy has been studied in hundreds of se ngs ranging from health sciences (Lyons, McLaughlin, Khanova, & Roth, 2017), to achieving musical independence in ensembles (Weidner, 2018), to improving faculty teaching (Stefaniak, 2018) to medical students in an intensive care unit (O'Connor, 2018). In an interes ng study of librarians learning how to facilitate story me programming through a cogni ve appren ceship, Brown and Stefaniak (2016) state that there is a need for flexibility when using a cogni ve appren ceship model based on par cipants' prior knowledge and experience. They also note the importance of modeling and coaching. Several studies indicate that the cogni ve appren ceship model produces be er results in the classroom than tradi onal instruc on (Garcia-Cabrero, et al., 2018; Hockly, 2000; Mayer, Mautone, & Prothero, 2002; Saada , Tamizi, Ayub, & Bakar, 2015; Snyder, 2000; Walker, 2003). Mayer et al. (2002) required college students to solve geology problems using a computer game. Those who were given instruc onal support and scaffolding outperformed those who received basic instruc on. Cope, Cuthbertson, and Stoddart (2000) surveyed nurses who had completed their prac ce placements in nursing. Results demonstrated the benefits of scaffolding and mentoring for nurses in a prac cum se ng. In a study comparing a cogni ve appren ce model with tradi onal instruc on in sta s cs learning among postgraduate students, Saada et al. (2015) found the cogni ve appren ceship model to be sta s cally significant over tradi onal instruc on in promo ng students' problem-solving performance.

Summary

The experiences of adults have always been viewed as a cri cal component of learning in adulthood. Various theore cal perspec ves emphasize different aspects of experien al learning. The construc vist perspec ve highlights reflec ng on the concrete experience and making meaning of it. The situa ve approach focuses on ge ng learners involved in a community of prac ce because in this view learning is intertwined with doing. The psychoanaly c lens emphasizes the learner's need to get in touch with his or her unconscious desires and fears. The cri cal approach focuses on the need to resist dominant social norms. Last, the complexity theory of experien al learning emphasizes the rela onships among experiences.

Although exploring the role of experience in learning has a long history, we con nue to discover more about the connec ons between learning and experience and how to assist adults in formal and nonformal se ngs to capture the richness of learning from experience. Discussed in this chapter were the theories of Dewey (1938), Schön (1983, 1987), Kolb (1984), Jarvis (1987), Boud and Walker (1991), and Usher, Bryant, and Johnston (1997), which offer varying conceptual views of the process of learning from experience. Central to all of these writers is the no on that learning from experience involves adults' connec ng what they have learned from current experiences to those in the past as well to possible future situa ons.

We reviewed several common methods employed in experien al learning, including reflec ve prac ce, situated cogni on, communi es of prac ce, and cogni ve appren ceships. Reflec ve prac ce, one of the main ways in which educators have structured learning from experience, focuses on helping learners make judgments based on experience related to primarily complex and murky problems. Situated cogni on acknowledges the importance of the social and cultural context of learning. In other words, the physical and social experiences and situa ons in which learners find themselves and the tools they use are integral to the learning process. The importance of the authen city of the experience in which adults learn is stressed in the situated cogni on framework. Two ways educators have put this concept of authen c experiences into formal prac ce are through communi es of prac ce and cogni ve appren ceships.

Last, integrated throughout our discussion of experien al learning are analyses and cri ques of various aspects of experien al learning. For example, some cri cs assert that the focus on cogni ve reflec on in the experien al learning literature is a limited perspec ve, one that fails to account for the role of oppressive social structures (Fenwick, 2003). Finally, current discussions in the experien al learning literature center on the role of the educator in the process and how technology is both a source for and a purveyor of experien al learning.

Printed by: Prin ng is for personal use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmi ed without the publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.