Earlier, in LO19093, I posted (in part)...
>> For me, these have a clear connection to the learning styles set forth by
>> Kolb, Rubin and McIntyre more than 25 years ago:
>>
>> 1. Concrete Experience (CE)
>> 2. Reflective Observation (RO)
>> 3. Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
>> 4. Active Experimentation (AE)
Rick then responded...
>Aren't these presented by Kolb as activities in a sequential cycle? That's
>how it's been explained to me.
They were presented to me as learning styles and as a cycle of events.
They were accompanied by a learning styles inventory that purportedly
identified an individual's dominant or preferred style, however, it was
said that all people make use of all styles because it takes all to
complete the cycle that results in learning. (Personally, although I find
them fun and very useful in stimulating group discussions, I attach very
little credence to such models or instruments.)
>"Styles" would reflect that some part of the population is more
>comfortable and more able in one learning mode than in other learning
>modes. (Similar to "type" theories, such as Myers-Briggs. Also Human
>Dynamics of Seagal and Horne).
That is the gist of what was presented to me in 1972. I was being trained
as an organization development (OD) consultant in the Navy's then
brand-new Human Resources Management Program and we had Dave Kolb, Irv
Rubin, and Jim McIntyre as consultants to the project at various points.
I suspect their model has evolved since then and I have kept track of it
only very loosely, however, to my knowledge, the basic framework has not
changed. If it has, I am confident that some knowledgeable soul will
point that out to us all.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@worldnet.att.net
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>