Computer-supported experiential learning
(Phase One - staff development)

Alan Staley and Diana Eastcott

Learning Methods Unit University of Central England in Birmingham,
email: alan.staley@uce.ac.uk

The Computer-Supported Experiential Learning Project has been established to promote
the use of communication and information technologies for teaching and learning within a
vocational university. Phase 1 has concentrated upon raising awareness and actively
involving academic staff in experiencing these technologies. The project is curriculum-led,
and considers how technology can be applied appropriately to an established curriculum
model which links theory and practice (Kolb, 1984). All academic staff were invited to take
part by logging onto the university intranet, accessing information about teaching and
learning, trying out ideas and emailing their online mentors with their plans and
reflections. In addition, all staff could take part in discussion forums concerning a range of
issues. The participation of academic staff is reported; which staff registered as having
visited the site, which staff actively used the information to experiment with their teaching,
and which staff took part in public online discussions. Barriers which limited participation
are also reported The outcome of Phase 1 has been to encourage over 40 academic staff
to embed the use of learning technologies in their own course modules in Phase 2 with
continued support from the Learning Methods Unit.

Introduction

In recent years the University of Central England in Birmingham has made considerable invest-
ments in developing computer networks. Developments have been technology-led, and the major
use of the network has been for administration. The Computer-Supported Experiential Learning
Project has been designed to refocus upon the curriculum, and to encourage academic staff to use
the network technologies for teaching and learning. The broad aim of the project is to investigate
and systematically evaluate the appropriate use of technology to improve the quality of learning.

The curriculum model

The theoretical framework for the research is a well-established curriculum model developed by
Kolb (1984) which links theory and practice (see Figure 1). This model is relevant in a range of

39



Man Stale/ and Diana Eastcott Computer-supported experiential learning (Phase One - staff development)

Concrete
experience

Active Reflective
experimentation observation

Abstract
conceptualisation

Figure l:The Kolb Learning Cycle

educational contexts from continuing professional development to vocationally orientated
undergraduate courses. It has been used effectively by the authors of this paper on a wide range
of staff development programmes.

The crucial elements of this model are the links it makes between theory and practice; or, in the
words of Kolb, between 'concrete experience' and 'abstract conceptualization'. It is common
for university courses to be described as either practical or theoretical. Similarly, it is often said
that theories are taught at university but 'real' learning is what happens out in the workplace.
However, it is not sufficient just to have an experience in order to learn. Equally, it is not
sufficient simply to learn new concepts. This learning must be tested out in new situations. The
learner needs to make the link between theory and action by planning for that action, carrying it
out, and then reflecting upon it, relating what happens back to the theory.

Experiential learning in the context of the model designed by Kolb involves a systematic,
cyclical sequence of learning activities. The cycle may be entered by the learner at any point,
but its stages must be followed in sequence. The interesting pedagogical issue is to develop
appropriate learning and teaching strategies at each stage of the cycle. In other words, to
provide structures which help learners to link theory and practice.

The 'reflective observation' and 'active experimentation' stages of the cycle are crucial.
Reflective observation is the process of reflecting on an experience and making sense of it.
Based on the work of Schon (1987) on the reflective practitioner, this stage of the learning cycle
acknowledges the complexity of professional working practices where each decision is made in
relation to the individual's own repertoire of examples, values, commitments and knowledge. In
reality, reflection overlaps with the 'abstract conceptualization' stage of the cycle where new
ideas and knowledge help the learner to have insights and to understand situations in a different

40



ALT-} Volume 7 Number I

way. The active experimentation stage of the cycle is the point where the learner plans how to
make the link between theory and action. Concrete experience is therefore the practice of trying
out the ideas in the workplace.

The stages of the cycle are by no means clear-cut. Considerable overlap can occur, as noted
above. Work on learning styles (Kolb, 1974; Honey and Mumford, 1986) indicates that just as
there is seen to be a division between theory and practice in education, so individuals may have
particular preferences in their learning. Distinct styles of learning associated with the four
stages of the experiential learning cycle have been identified, some learners being stronger at
the 'practical' aspects, others at the 'theoretical' part of the cycle.

Application of technology to the curriculum model
The application of Kolb's model to Phase 1 is described in terms of abstract conceptualization,
concrete experience, active experimentation and reflective observation.

Abstract conceptualization
Academic staff spend considerable tune in lectures expounding facts, theories, and concepts to
students that constitute the knowledge base of a subject. The effectiveness of lectures has often
been questioned (Bligh, 1972; Gibbs, 1982), and it is suggested that precious time with students
could be better spent elsewhere in the Kolb Cycle. A subject knowledge base can be constructed
as a Web (or intranet) site that students access in their independent learning time. That is not to
suggest 'discovery' learning, where students discover things for themselves in a haphazard way
(e.g. surfing the net), but rather a focused pursuit of knowledge. Key to this pursuit of
knowledge are the learning activities within the site that students must do for real in the
concrete experience stage of the cycle. In this way, the students' learning is being 'driven' by
activities and problems, as described by Boud (1991).

Elton (1996) has suggested that we should not always expect students to be intrinsically
motivated by our subject, and that students' intrinsic motivation will improve as they gain a
sense of achievement or progress. Therefore, it is suggested that this stage of the cycle could
include some formative computer-assisted assessment (CAA), so that students can check their
understanding of key issues before putting theory into practice.

Concrete experience
In the post-Dearing age of lifelong learning it seems likely that work-based learning will grow,
and links between theory and practice will need to be more explicit. Experiencing 'real world'
problems is crucial to this model, and it is envisaged that where possible learning activities
embedded within the Web site can be performed in a working environment. Where this is not
possible (as in many full-time undergraduate programmes) it is suggested that academic staff
create 'substitute experiences' such as role-plays, mock courts, client briefings etc. In this way,
class-contact time is shifting from conceptualizing to experiencing. Whilst the authors
acknowledge that some experiences can be simulated by computer, this is considered to be a last
resort, used only wliere real experiences are too dangerous, expensive, or not practical.

Active experimentation and reflective observation
It is at these stages of the cycle that computer-mediated communication (CMC) is of particular
importance. In active experimentation students can email their online tutor or mentor concern-
ing their plans for putting theory into practice. The online tutor can individually guide and

41



Alan Stale/ and Diana Eastcott Computer-supported experiential teaming (Phase One - staff development)

C M O M IbHcd) » die thon

imAadowrt.aaniytaied'wiattopi.

• t «pplyi«t I I K O I T 10
practice with tvtor by
E-asall - private 1:1

vhich allows m a y 10
oust? comnaaicatioa.
(taBcti»bc«ik,elKtnaic

New Has sad eoaospa andopod m WWW style
pifes. todod«e aaWnse tot camma* m d o n H

wledse. Rna.1velestbi.of
i * i • r i -

Figure 2: A model for applying learning technology to the experiential learning cycle

support students, offering advice, warning of pitfalls, and generally helping those students that
cannot see a way forward. Reflective observation is well suited to online conferencing, where
groups of students can work co-operatively to reflect upon how the theories worked in practice,
and how the different contexts in which students have been working have influenced this.
Online conferencing is particularly suited to this, due to its asynchronous nature, which gives
students time to think and make a considered contribution, unlike many face-to-face
communications (McConnell, 1994). The member of academic staff is now functioning as a
group facilitator as opposed to an individual mentor.

In summary, several technologies are being suggested, each having a specific purpose and place
in the cycle. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

Instigating organizational change

Rather than simply telling academic staff about this model, it was decided that all academic
staff within the University should have opportunity to experience it for themselves. An intranet
site was developed using Microsoft Front Page, that contained ideas and theories about
teaching, learning and learning technology. This included practical activities and small-scale
experiments that staff could try out for real in their classes, i.e. putting theory into practice. The
site also contained email links to a team of online mentors who could be contacted for help and
support. All staff visiting the site were initially asked to register their name and faculty. Staff
were also given the opportunity of taking part in several online discussion forums, one designed
to reflect upon their experiments, and several others such as 'Rumours Central', created purely
to entice staff into using the technology. This phase of the project lasted fifteen weeks, after

42



Au-J Volume 7 Number I

which all staff not taking part were sent a questionnaire to establish the reasons for not
participating, and their attitudes to learning technologies.

Participation
In total 59 staff participated in the project to some extent For some, this simply meant browsing
the site and registering. Others went on to use the online mentoring facility or discussion forums.
Analysis of the questionnaire revealed that another 30 staff visited the site but did not register.

The participants were from all faculties that have access to the network, indicating wide-
ranging interest in using learning technologies. The Vice-Chancellor and one Pro-Vice-
Chancellor participated, revealing senior management commitment However, only three
managers (Deans, Associate Deans, Heads of Departments, and Heads of Schools) participated.
All other participants were lecturing staff.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is the younger staff that are attracted to learning
technologies, and older staff demonstrate resistance to new technologies and changing work
practices. This project did not substantiate this, as there was no significant difference between
the ages of those staff that participated, and those that did not. A gender bias did emerge though,
as only 18.6 per cent of the participants were female, in a target population that was 39.8 per
cent female.

Very few staff used the online mentoring facility to assist putting theory into practice, although
there was considerable dialogue with one member of staff who was redesigning a course
module. Many staff went straight to the discussion forums, and what follows is an analysis of
these. It can be clearly seen from Figure 3 that although staff started to participate as soon as the
project started, this soon diminished, reaching a low during Easter. Readvertising the project
with a sample of a 'rumours' discussion including a response from the Vice-Chancellor
provoked more response, but without doubt the greatest level of participation occurred after
'Learning Technology Week', a week of awareness-raising events that brought staff together
face-to-face.

This pattern of participation demonstrates the nature of online conferencing. Clearly, interest
wanes and, unless there is some personal value to be obtained, participation will drop. Staff had
no motive to participate other than curiosity; there was no assessment or certification to
encourage participation. It is also worth noting how the face-to-face events generated interest
and raised motivation.

An analysis of discussion entries per member of staff revealed that the discussions were
dominated by one of the authors and a small group of staff. This pattern is similar to face-to-
face discussions, with a small number of students frequently dominating events (Gibbs, 1992).
While most staff only posted one or two messages (a tentative foray into the online world),
some staff really got involved. In several instances, these staff were not academic staff, but
technical support staff who had found out about the project and instantly realized the
application to their area. Hence the 'technical queries' and 'intranet developments' discussion
forums developed nicely. The discussion forum concerning teaching and learning issues was
less spontaneous and needed considerable prompting from the authors. The rumours discussion
forum was also slow to develop, with staff tending to read contributions but being reluctant to
add new ones. The greatest discussion in the rumours forum followed an example given by the

43



Nan Staley and Diana Eastcott Computer-supported experiential learning (Phase One - staff development)

Computer Supported Experiential Learning Project

50
45
40
35

20
15
10
5

- N o . of Staff Registered for Project

-No. of Discussion Entries

Advertise
Project

1 LesmiflQ TechnnJwiLvWpjikJ %

N " T Y "
1 Re-Advertise 1

\
^

V L Easter .
Si ••*. T ^

i- - - - - ---m--^^fz: --
II • " ^ H

X-/--4
S, .jj^l \
.̂.̂ ^̂ v I ^

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Weeks

Figure 3: Participation in the Computer Supported Experiential Learning project over time.

Vice-Chancellor of what a rumour might look like as a way of introduction - 'Is it true that staff
at Perry Barr will be charged £100.00 per year to use the car park from September?' Clearly,
whilst many of these discussions were light-hearted, they did entice staff to use the technology.

Of the staff that did not participate in the project, 26.7 per cent completed a questionnaire
designed to establish their views on learning technology. The major reason for not taking part in
the project was time (73.6 per cent of respondents). One respondent in particular expressed the
time demands that are placed upon academic staff:

Too busy with full teaching, research, and admin load + HEFC + course revalidation + new
course developments.

One barrier to the uptake of learning technology is therefore time, especially when one
considers the 'up-front' investment in time that learning technology demands. Other barriers
included problems of access to, and reliability of, the technology.

Only 9 per cent of respondents indicated that they were not interested in the project, and the
attitude to learning technology was very encouraging. Few staff considered that their careers are
threatened by the technology. Most staff were interested in applying the technology to their
teaching and learning and believed that learning technology would enhance the quality of
student learning. The only other barrier that was identified was that of technical support, which ,
is aptly summed up by one respondent:

. . . this creates a huge barrier to encouraging me to do anything involving technology in my
teaching and learning. If the IT environment improved, and the support culture existed, I
would get more involved. At present, I bang my head against a brick wall.

Outcomes

Phase 1 of the project has raised awareness, and actively involved academic staff in
using learning technology applied to an established curriculum model. It has encouraged

44



Aa-J Valume 7 Number I

approximately 40 staff to embed the use of learning technology in their own course modules in
Phase 2 of the project. Training and support of the Learning Methods Unit will continue during
this phase. Phase 2 will evaluate fifteen learning technology projects across most faculties in the
university.

References

Bligh, D. (1972), What's the Use of Lectures?, Penguin.

Boud, D. (1991), The Challenge of Problem Based Learning, London: Kogan Page.

Elton, L. (1996), 'Strategies to enhance student learning: a conceptual analysis', Studies in
Higher Education, 21, 57-68.

Gibbs, G. (1982), Twenty Terrible Reasons for Lecturing, Standing Conference on Educational
Development.

Gibbs, G. (1985), Learning by Doing - A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods, London
Further Education Unit.

Gibbs, G. (1992), Discussions with More Students, The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding
Council.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986), The Manual of Learning Styles, Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning - Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M and McIntyre, J. M. (1974), Organisational Psychology, an
Experiential Approach, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

McConnell, D. (1994), Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning, London:
Kogan Page.

Schon, D. A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, London: Jossey Bass.

45