Hi All
Some interesting thoughts.
For me the key is that whatever model we consider it should stimulate a greater level of thinking and reflection on the reality that we have observed or are trying to generate. We must not fall into the trap that the model becomes the complete reality or provides an answer.
I certainly agree that the simple models are the easiest to remember and therefore have the ability to hang around in the discourse. Kolb's model for example is great at provoking thought about the learning process (it is certainly doing a good job of standing the test of time), but if it were to be assumed that this was the be all and end all of experiential learning then we would certainly be missing something (there is too much that can be hidden by any simple model). However when the model provokes further thought I think it has served it's purpose. I quite like the adaptation that Jarvis (1994) made to Kolb's model. I find this adaptation of a model helps my undergraduates to engage in some real analysis of what is going on in experiential learning. We start with Kolb, which initially they all think is great and says it all, then I throw in a variation, which again most think is great and think that this is the new answer, with the others starting to realise that this is just a model and that they need to think about reality in a different way and perhaps utilise the model in stimulating their thought processes rather being the answer. Hopefully more move to this line of thinking as they progress through their studies.
I don't think any of us will ever grasp all the detail of outdoor learning, but if a model helps us reflect on the process and the outcomes of reality then for me the model has served it purpose.
All the best
Ian
Ian Harris
Director of School of Sport, Tourism and Languages
Southampton Solent University
|