OUTSTANDING TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT

TECHNICAL SKILLS NATIONAL PROGRAMME Study into Experiential Learning

Created by: Lakes College

Managed by In partnership with

NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR

NUCLEAR

A study of experiential learning models

and their possible application within

Science and Engineering Education

Paul Fairclough

Index

1. What is experiential learning and what is its importance within the

National College for Nuclear?

2. Why use Experiential Learning for Engineering, Science & Technology?

3. Models, examples and case studies of Experiential Learning

4. Conclusion and proposed experiential model for this Project

5. References

1. What is experiential learning and what is its importance within the National

College for Nuclear?

This paper reviews the requirements for experiential learning within the context of nuclear engineering and science and explores the existing experiential delivery models that were used to inform the delivery design models and decisions for this project. A fundamental definition of experiential learning is learning from doing or learning from experience.

An experiential delivery model provides learners with an opportunity to experience real or simulated work experiences, resources, standards and behavioural requirements. The nuclear industry has an ever-increasing age demographic which is generating a wider skills and knowledge gap as identified within Nuclear Sector Skills Strategy: Government and Industry in partnership: Sustaining Our Nuclear Skills [1].

‘The nuclear workforce is ageing and attrition rates are high and growing as a result. Industry’s own research forecasts that the workforce must grow by 4,700 people a year over the next 6 years. Over the same period 3,900 people are expected to leave the sector, mostly due to retirement. This means that the sector must recruit 8,600 people every year.’

This is a key risk to the future sustainability and growth of the nuclear industry. A means for countering this risk is to develop ‘grow your own graduate technicians and engineers’ as new intakes from schools, expand graduate programmes and/or provide cross discipline training. The nature of the nuclear industry requires new entrants, be it post school entry or experienced non-nuclear engineers, to understand and appreciate the standards associated with nuclear behaviour, nuclear safety and nuclear technical before undertaking meaningful and productive on-site work. On recruitment, these standards need to be embedded quickly bearing in mind the nature of a nuclear facility or environment. A training and educational strategy to support this process is to immerse learners into a work-related environment during the training/education programmes to reinforce the standards. Experiential learning within a simulated nuclear environment will provide this opportunity.

The ethos of the National College for Nuclear is that it prepares and enhances the students’ ability to work within the nuclear industry. Any courses which are to be designed for the national College for Nuclear will fit with this strategy and will be structured to provide a natural means of embedding ‘Experiential Learning’ into the curriculum in terms of content, delivery and assessment.

As a recap, experiential learning is any learning that supports students in applying their knowledge and conceptual understanding to real-world problems or situations where the facilitator/lecturer directs and facilitates learning. The classroom, laboratory, or virtual reality facility can serve as a setting for experiential learning through embedded activities such as case and problem-based studies, guided inquiry, simulations, experiments and/or projects.

When students are given opportunities to learn in authentic situations the learning becomes significantly more powerful. By engaging in formal, guided, authentic, real-world experiences, individuals:

o deepen their knowledge through acting and then reflecting on this action o develop skills through practical application and reflection o support the construction of new understandings when placed in novel situations o extend their learning as they bring their learning back to the academic classroom

environment

Experiential learning teaches students the competencies they need for real-work success. The nuclear industry requires work-ready graduates who the National College for Nuclear will provide with an education that teaches students the competencies they need for real-world and real work success. Although elements of the real world can be simulated in the classroom and laboratory, authentic experiential learning creates an invaluable opportunity to prepare students for a profession or career in the nuclear industry. The mission for National College for Nuclear (NCfC) courses will be to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To do this, the NCfC programmes will provide an educational environment which will create rich connections between the formal and experiential curriculums. The courses will create situations where students benefit from case studies provided by industry and from active on-going research activities within partner universities.

Embedding experiential learning into NCfN accredited courses will motivate students by providing the conditions for optimally supporting student learning. When students are engaged in learning experiences that they see the relevance of, they have increased motivation to learn. Students are also motivated when they are provided opportunities for practice and feedback; this process of practice and feedback clearly provides a link to ‘learn from experience’ which is an important behavioural requirement of the nuclear industry, another example of experiential learning.

Experiential learning also creates self-directed learners. Through experiential learning, students will be confronted with unfamiliar situations and tasks in a real-world context. To complete these tasks, students need to determine what they know, what they do not know, and how to learn it. This requires students to: reflect on their prior knowledge and deepen it through reflection; transfer their previous learning to new contexts; master new concepts, principles, and skills; and be able to articulate how they developed this mastery. Ultimately, these skills create students who become self-directed, life-long learners.

The expectations of a National College for Nuclear Programme

• Knowledge — the concepts, facts, and information acquired through formal learning

and past experience

• Activities — the application of knowledge to “real work” scenarios where appropriate

and the synergetic integration of work-based activities with academic studies

• Reflection — the analysis and synthesis of knowledge and activity to create new

knowledge

An exemplar of this approach could be within a project e.g.: reflective statements on project objectives

• Experience: As a member of a team, students will engage in hands-on experiments

related to an industrial project or research project, with each situation providing a

new experience.

• Reflection: Students will reflect on their experience with peers, a mentor, and a

lecturer/facilitator. Jointly, they make sense of what happened and note

inconsistencies between the experience and their previous understanding.

• Conceptualize: Undertaking reflection may lead students to develop a new idea or

modify an existing concept; in addition, they may participate in a seminar with

exposure to additional project-related concepts that may further clarify implications

for action.

• Test: Students return to their project to apply the new and/or refined knowledge in

the ‘real world’ environment to see what happens.

2. Why use Experiential Learning for Engineering, Science & Technology?

Natural Learning Styles and Relations to Engineering & Technical Teaching/Learning

This section discusses the various natural learning styles of students and relates these to the natural and commonly utilised teaching styles of engineering, science and technology lecturers. An interesting observation will be the comparisons between the natural teaching style of a lecturer to the natural learning style of learners.

There are a number of learning style models and frameworks which includes contributions from Jung [2] and Kolb [3]. A selection of ideas from these models have been investigated to enable a comparison of learning styles against teaching styles with a particular emphasis on engineering, science and technology. An initial summary of some of these points have been provided.

Sensing and Intuitive [Jung]

Sensing – perception of the world in terms of observations, experimentation and data gathering of phenomena through the use of the senses (concrete information: facts, data, observable phenomena). Sensors like facts, figures, data and prefer to solve problems which are standard in nature i.e. little variation from the norm. Sensors thrive on detail but shy from additional complications and variations. An additional characteristic of a sensor is that they like to work at a slower pace and to be immersed in the sensory experience, this creates a greater cautionary effect and less prone to mistakes.

Intuitive – indirect perception through speculation, imagination and hunches. Myers- Briggs [4] concludes that an intuitive learner likes to learn through abstract principles, theories and mathematical models. Intuitive learners prefer innovation and consideration of new ideas and methodologies rather than the regurgitation of existing information. Additional complexity interests an intuitive who takes less interest in detail. Generally the intuitive works at a fast pace but this can be prone to errors. Sensors are good at memorising facts whilst an intuitive can easily grasp concepts

There are additional key points to make regarding the differences in learning styles between a sensor and an intuitive. Intuitives work well with symbols and since words are symbols, they find the interpretation of the meaning and representation of what the words are saying much easier. This is generally a struggle for sensors, they take much longer to translate the words which puts them at a disadvantage in time constrained assessments and examinations in terms of the time required to understand the meaning of the questions. But, the intuitive may understand very quickly what is being asked and then be impatient with the detail within the question.

Engineering Lecturers are often intuitive in nature. They quickly understand concepts and can innovate through past experiences. Engineering Students are often sensors, particularly during the early stages of study. The result is a mismatch. This was supported by Godleski [5], whose analysis of students studying on an electrical course show that learners who were intuitive learners, predominantly did far better than sensors, particularly in the earlier stages of the programme. Godelski also recognised that a variation to these results related to a course module in statistics and cost estimation. Because of the nature of the module involving repetitive calculations, it was clearly a sensory experience.

To reach students, initially in the earlier stages of a course, the delivery requires pedagogy to breach the natural gap between the psyche of the lecturers and the sensor learners. This gap will narrow as the learner develops and is exposed to ever increasing experiences. Extremely good engineers exhibit either or both sensory and intuitive characteristics, so therefore it is vitally important that the initial gap does not switch off the learner, as this may lose potentially excellent engineers to the industry.

To summarise, teaching methods and material should be designed and presented to reach both sensory and intuitive learners with a mix of concrete information and abstract.

Visual and Auditory Learners

A considerable amount of research has been undertaken into the variations between visual and auditory learners. Visual learners prefer pictures, diagrams, flow charts, timelines and demonstrations. They remember images and practical demonstrations. They have difficulty remembering and hence, learning from being ‘talked to’ or ‘lectured’, they easily forget things being said to them.

Auditory learners prefer to listen and discuss as they learn through remembering and understanding the meaning of conversation and discussions, supported by verbal explanations. They learn more from what they hear and say.

Most people, particularly in the early stages of an academic programme are natural visual learners. In higher education, lectures are frequently used as a means of conveying information in terms of auditory information or facts and figures on a screen or hand out. The result is again a mismatch, the input style differs from most learners’ natural learning style. Delivery therefore requires a combination of both auditory and visual methods. This conclusion has been substantiated with the study by the Socony-Vacuum Company which has identified through their training programmes the following:

10% - retain what has been read

26% - retain what they have heard

30% - retain what they see

70& - retain what they say

90% - retain what they say as they do something

To summarise, standard lectures should include the use of diagrams, pictures, videos, flow charts etc. Mathematical functions could be illustrated by graphs, sketches, response curves etc, and use of maths software to demonstrate solutions. Live demonstrations should also be utilised where possible.

Inductive and Deductive Learners

Induction is a natural process of life learning starting at birth which proceeds from application (observation, measurements and data input) to general principles such as (rules, laws and theories).

Deduction is the reverse of induction, it is a process of learning initial principles and then proceeding to application. This is obviously the opposite to the natural learning process but it is in fact the primary method of delivering engineering courses.

Induction is the natural human learning style whilst deduction is the natural human teaching style of technical subjects – mismatch

An Informal survey carried out by Felder [5] suggests that most engineering learners see themselves as inductive learners.

An interesting extract from Felder [5]

‘One problem with deductive presentation is that it gives a seriously misleading impression. When students see a perfectly ordered and concise exposition of a relatively complex derivation they tend to think that the author/instructor originally came up with the material in the same neat fashion, which they (the students) could never have done. They may then conclude that the course and perhaps the curriculum and the profession are beyond their abilities. They are correct in thinking that they could not have come up with that result in that manner; what they do not know is that neither could the professor nor the author the first time around. Unfortunately, students never get to see the real process—the false starts and blind alleys, the extensive trial-and error efforts that eventually lead to the elegant presentation in the book or on the board. An element of inductive teaching is necessary for the instructor to be able to diminish the students’ awe and increase their realistic perceptions of problem-solving. Much research supports the notion that the inductive teaching approach promotes effective learning. The benefits claimed for this approach include increased academic achievement and enhanced abstract reasoning skills; longer retention of information; improved ability to apply principles; confidence in problem-solving abilities;26 and increased capability for inventive thought. Inductive learners need motivation for learning. They do not feel comfortable with the “Trust me—this stuff will be useful to you some day” approach: like sensors, they need to see the phenomena before they can understand and appreciate the underlying theory.’

To summarise, how to teach both deductive and inductive learners: An effective way to reach both groups is to follow the scientific method in classroom presentations: first induction, then deduction. The instructor precedes presentations of theoretical material

Active and Reflective Learners

Converting information into knowledge according to Kolb [3] can be grouped into two categories:

Active experimentation

Doing something with information: discussing information, testing information and explaining information

Reflective observation

Examining and manipulating information introspectively

Engineers and Technicians are more likely to be Active Learners, as such, engineers will be e.g. designers, experimentalists and problem solvers. This does not discount reflective learners from being Engineers as there is a need for theorists and mathematical modellers within engineering. Active learners will learn less from being passive e.g. in a pure lecture environment. A reflective learner will also learn less from a passive role in a lecture as this learner as a theoretician requires to reflect individually on what is presented. Engineering does require lectures, but these should not be the primarily source of delivery; they should be punctuated by demonstrations, case studies and group reflections e.g. on the previous 20 minutes of lecture etc.

To summarise, active learners do not learn much in situations that require them to be passive, and reflective learners do not learn much in situations that provide no opportunity to think about the information being presented.

Learning and Teaching Styles - Conclusions

Learning styles of most engineering students and teaching styles of most engineering and science lecturers are incompatible in several ways.

Most engineering and science students are visual, sensing, inductive, and active. Most engineering and science education is traditionally auditory, abstract (intuitive), deductive and passive. These mismatches can lead to poor student performance, frustration on behalf of the teaching staff and potentially a loss to the industry of potentially excellent engineers.

Recommendations 1 to 6

1. Motivate initial inductive learning through demonstrations of industrial scenarios, case

studies and applications. Utilise these at the beginning of each new topic area as a

means of showing the relevance of the topic area with real life experience. The

learner’s natural inductive style should then support the traditional engineering

deductive teaching style with the synergy reinforcing the concept of experiential

learning.

2. Motivate learning. As much as possible, relate the material being presented to what

has come before and what is still to come in the same course, to material in other

courses, and particularly to the students’ personal experience (inductive).

3. Provide a balance of concrete information (facts, data, real or hypothetical experiments

and their results) (sensing) and abstract concepts (principles, theories, mathematical

models) (intuitive). Increase the time for sensing and integrate with intuitive learning.

Utilise practical work, experimentation and known models to work backwards and

reinforce and introduce principles and theoretical concepts

4. Balance and integrate material that emphasizes practical problem-solving methods

(sensing/active) with material that emphasizes fundamental understanding

(intuitive/reflective).

5. Provide explicit illustrations of intuitive patterns (logical inference, pattern recognition,

generalization) and sensing patterns (observation of surroundings, empirical

experimentation, attention to detail), and encourage all students to exercise both

patterns (sensing/intuitive). Do not expect either group to be able to exercise the other

group’s processes immediately.

6. Follow the scientific method in presenting theoretical material. Provide concrete

examples of the phenomena the theory describes or predicts (sensing/ inductive); then

develop the theory or formulate the model (intuitive/inductive/ sequential); show how

the theory or model can be validated and deduce its consequences

(deductive/sequential); and present applications (sensing/deductive).

Recommendations 7 to 12

7. During lessons, liberally use pictures, schematics, graphs, and simple sketches before,

during, and after the presentation of verbal material (sensing/visual). Show

films/videos of industrial examples or practical exercises (sensing/visual.) Provide

demonstrations (sensing/visual), hands-on, if possible (active).

8. Use computer-assisted instruction and/or simulators such as virtual reality systems—

sensors respond very well to it (sensing/active).

9. During lectures provide brief intervals and opportunities for students to discuss the

immediately previous topic, give students time to think about what they have been told

(reflective).

10. Provide opportunities for students to do something active besides transcribing notes.

Small-group brainstorming activities that take no more than five minutes are extremely

effective for this purpose (active).

11. Provide practical exercises to enable the students to practice the methods being taught

(sensing/active) but do not overdo them (intuitive/reflective). Ensure that some

problems and exercises are open-ended that will require the students to undertake

some analysis (intuitive/reflective).

12. Give students the option of cooperating on formative assignments (active). Active

learners generally learn best when they interact with others; if they are denied the

opportunity to do so they are being deprived of their most effective learning tool.

3 Models, Examples and Case Studies of using Experiential Learning

Brief Summary of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model

With reference to Kolb [3], this provides a theory/model for developing techniques to deliver programmes utilising experiential learning. This model has a basis within identifying the appropriate learning style of the learner/group and matching the teaching and delivery approach to that learner/group. Comparisons of learning styles and delivery styles have been considered in the previous chapter. The main component of Kolb’s model is based on the use of both student and teacher reflection within the experiential learning and teaching process. Boreham [7] states, "the term 'learning from experience' really means learning from reflection on experience". The basis of this statement refers to the fact that without reflection on the experience, if something has gone wrong, it will go wrong next time. Kolb's four-stage model describes the learning cycle (Figure 3.1) of how experience is translated through reflection into learning and embedded theoretical concepts. This the proceeds to practical experimentation and additional experiential experiences. Kolb calls the four stages as:

• concrete experience (CE)

• reflective observation (RO)

• abstract conceptualisation (AC)

• active experimentation (AE)

The four stages relate to each other in a cycle. Depending upon the learning experience, entry to the cycle can be at any point, but from that point the stages within the cycle must be followed in sequence. The theme of the cycle is learning from experiences within the cycle. Hence, understanding that after a learning event there is a consequence, and reflections should be undertaken of that consequence. The Kolb cycle employs an 'abstract-concrete' dimension (AC-CE) and an 'active-reflective' (AE-RO) dimension. These can be linked to the learning styles within chapter 2. These are the two dimensions which reflect the learning process and correspond to the two key ways by which learning takes place Jung [2], such as ‘SENSING’ and ‘INTUITION’. To recap: the first is ‘concrete’ and the second is ‘abstract’ [page 7]. This process allows the learners to perceive the experience and then there is a requirement to understand it through transforming it. At this point learners differ in their approach to doing, this can be either active or reflective [Chapter 2 – Page 10]. Figure 3.1

Conclusions – benefits or not to Engineering and Science

The Kolb model is a tried and tested methodology and has been implemented on many occasions. The cyclic approach lends itself well to engineering and science which is evidenced by the previous sections on learning and teaching styles. The next section discusses the HRDQ model which is a piece of work that follows on from Kolb and demonstrates that there is more to consider than just the experience of the learner.

The HRDQ (Human Resource Development) Model – Experiential Learning Model

The HRDQ Experiential Learning Model is a variation on the work undertaken by Kolb [3] and John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Kurt Levin. This element of research has referenced Glaser and Roadcap - ‘Designing Experiential Learning in Adult Organisations’ [8].

The HRDQ Model is a methodology designed to provide guidance for designers, deliverers and learners who will be involved in experiential learning activities. This Experiential Learning Model is an ellipse which has seven distinct phases; focusing, experiencing, reflecting, thinking, modifying, practising and integrating. The ellipse rotates and is driven by a single learning goal. Extract [9] ‘Each of the seven phases is designed to further the learner’s movement toward the achievement of that learning goal. Movement toward achieving the learning goal begins with Phase 1: Focus, and moves through the subsequent phases to Phase 7: Integration. These phases in the learning process are considered sequential and dependent on the preceding phase.’ The seven phases of the model can be linked to the activities/requirements of the designer, deliverer and learner.

Phase 1 - Focusing the Learner

The first phase of the learning process is to help learners relate to the learning about to be undertaken. This can be in the form of a brief or outline of the overall problem relating to an industrial scenario. The focus activity will depend upon the learning to take place. The designer of the learning has to consider the location and creation of focusing activities. The deliverer will be required to utilise the focusing activities to enable the learners to have a clear view of the holistic activity. The learner will be required to gain a personal interest in the learning activity which is likely to be an analogy to a real work or life experience i.e. relevant.

Phase 2 - Experiencing

In this phase, learners are presented with a concrete problem or situation that is relevant and integrates them fully into the learning activity. This could be in the form of a hands on practical with a system or through interactive demonstrations. The designer of the learning will be required to research, develop or acquire appropriate experiences. . The deliverer will be required to become fully familiar with the operation of the structured activity and be able to respond to questioning about the relevance of the activity. The learner will be required to engage in the activity and have the tools to enable the experience to provide learning progress. This could be in the form of note taking, photos and result recording.

Phase 3 - Reflecting

Reflecting is the process of reviewing the experience that has been undertaken but also remembering previous experiences and comparing this with the new learning that has taken place. The designer must provide adequate time for processing, discussion, and connection to past experiences and also provide material to stimulate questions from learners ranging from straightforward yes/no to in depth questioning requiring deeper reflection on the answers and to invoke further analysis. The deliverer must provide opportunities for the learners to process and discuss information and ideas relating to the experiences which will enable them to make links between different learning experiences. The learner will be required to consider the experience and relate these previous experiences using, where appropriate, the deliverers’ questions to new insights, knowledge and skills. Phase 4 - Thinking

Sometimes learners do not have an adequate conceptual base to understand fully their experience in phase 2. The purpose is to stimulate thought after having a relevant experience and processing that experience. This may require the learner to further clarify the theoretical concepts may need some clarifying theory. The designer will be required to identify and structure relevant theory content associated with the learning experience. The deliverer will be required to understand and present relevant theory to learners to clarify experiences and reflection. The learner will be required to use the theory to understand experiences and critical reflection.

Phase 5 - Modifying

This is an addition to the Kolb model. As a result of an experience, critical reflection, and theory, learners need to think about their own knowledge, attitudes, or behaviour and, if required, modify them so that they are more productive and satisfying. The designer will be required to provide a means to provide feedback mechanisms to enable the students to consider improvements that can be made to their learning processes.

The deliverer will be required to select, prepare, manage and assess student’s feedback and to be able to provide opportunities for learners to implement improvements. The learner will be required to consider the feedback and decide if there are any changes to be made.

Phase 6 - Practicing

In this phase, learners are provided with an opportunity to practice and apply their new learning. This may might be in the form of a group project with a set specification or a practical experiment working on a real industrial process. The designer will be required to produce relevant activities and/or scenarios from industry and if required adapt them to the specific use of the learning module. The deliverer will be required to supervise and assess these activities. The learner will be required practice and practice new knowledge, attitudes, and skills.

Phase 7 - Integrating

The integration is about critically appraising and integrating new learning into changed ways of behaving and to show that the learner has benefitted from the learning experience in behaviour, knowledge and skills.

Conclusions – benefits or not to Engineering and Science

The HRDQ model links very closely to the Kolb model. In addition, it makes some interesting points with clear relationships and responsibilities between the designer, deliverer and learner. It is important to note that to ensure that if experiential learning is to be successful, the methodology, approach and thought processes of all three roles need to be considered. This approach will be utilised as a part of the model to be implemented for this project. Even though on occasion it is obvious, it is still essential to make these links clear. The ‘modifying’ phase will require closer scrutiny in terms of engineering and science applications. This phase could be fully utilised to embed the demand for specific nuclear behaviours and attitudes with a particular reference to ‘learn from experience feedback’.

Example of the implementation of the Kolb model

RSVP Design

RSVP Training has produced an excellent freely available handbook [9]. The handbook describes the process of experiential learning following the Kolb model. The handbook describes the learning process in terms of:

According to RSVP [9], the cycle reflects the model suggested by Kolb and ‘Learning happens, both formally and informally’.

Extract [9]

1. We experience something: we act deliberately or something unplanned happens to us 2. We take time to explore our reactions and responses to something that we experience 3. We understand what happened and draw conclusions from this 4. We adapt or modify future decisions and behaviours as a result of the learning process.

If we fail to complete any of these stages, the likelihood is that any perceived learning is incomplete. We may have ‘jumped to conclusions’ or we may understand but fail to apply the learning in the future.’

As good practice, the handbook provides a variety of examples within the Kolb cycle and how these can be implemented.

As stated within RSVP [9], there are implications for the deliver/lecturer in terms of modifying an existing traditional ‘lecture’ method of delivery of imparting knowledge to a method of ‘facilitating’ learner achievement of knowledge through experience and utilising their own preferred method of learning, primarily making the learning relevant. This requires the method to focus on a ‘learner-centred’ approach which requires flexibility of resource availability and the teaching staff approach. An interesting observation is the RSVP view experiential activities are ‘thinking about thinking’ or ‘learning about learning’. The handbook focuses on the importance of the reflection process, both for the learner and the deliverer and these statements clarify this importance.

The good practice examples within the handbook explain this methodology. RSVP explains and give examples utilising the following diagram to illustrate the process. For further reading refer to RSVP [9].y

RSVP Training has provided a case study demonstrating the application of the experiential learning model for the requirements of a large MOD based company. The case study describes how a transformation occurred in learning for a group of supervisors when a new programme of experiential learning was developed as an alternative to a previously delivered theoretical classroom and formal assessment based course. Key learning from this case study has provided some clear conclusions for experiential learning delivery:

a. Carry out a pre-assessment of the learner’s confidence and competence to enable

a starting position to be identified.

b. The deliverer to appreciate a learner’s working or potential working environment to

enable the promotion of the reality of the learning process.

c. Develop a highly logical and practical learning environment to enable the learner

to build skills in a step-by-step process, using activity based learning whilst initially

not making real demands upon ‘academic’ ability but recognising practical

common-sense approaches.

d. The deliverer must have a flexible approach to facilitate issues of uncertainty which

may arise e.g.”So what do I do when this happens?”

e. Develop individual learner action plans for continuation between modules and on

completion of the course

f. Ensure the course includes an activity-based programme. It is clear that learners

both enjoy and remember this type of learning taken from these activities. Linking

to Kolb [3], the process of activity, review and introduction of theory matches the

learning style of many learners.

g. It is important at an early stage within a course to develop the learner’s ability to

reflect individually on their learning. In addition, time should be made available to

encourage learners to listen and learn from others, this skill may need developing

formally.

Additional Case Studies of the Implementation of Experiential Learning

A case study in experiential learning: pharmaceutical cold chain management on wheels.

Reference [11]

Extract

‘INTRODUCTION:

People who handle and regulate temperature-sensitive pharmaceutical products require the knowledge and skills to ensure those products maintain quality, integrity, safety, and efficacy throughout their shelf life. People best acquire such knowledge and skills through "experiential learning" that involves working with other learners and experts.

METHODS:

The World Health Organization developed a weeklong experiential learning event for participants so they could gain experience in how temperature-sensitive products are handled, stored, and distributed throughout the length of the distribution supply chain system. This experiential learning method enabled participants to visit, critically observe, discuss and report on the various components of the cold chain process. An emphasis was placed on team members working together to learn from one another and on several global expert mentors who were available to guide the learning, share their experiences, and respond to questions.

RESULTS:

The learning event, Pharmaceutical Cold Chain Management on Wheels, has been conducted once each year since 2008 in Turkey with participants from the global pharmaceutical industry, health care providers, national regulatory authorities, and suppliers/vendors. Observations made during the course showed that it was consistent with the principles of experiential and social learning theories. Questionnaires and focus groups provided evidence of the value of the learning event and ways to improve it.

DISCUSSION:

Reflecting the critical elements derived from experiential and social learning theories, five factors contributed to the success of this unique experiential learning event. These factors may also have relevance in other experiential learning courses and, potentially, for experiential e-learning events’

Observation

It is clear from the case study that the main elements of the standard experiential model have been followed. The key experiential factors have been identified in bold and underlined.

Newcastle University – Learning from Stealth – reference StuBrew

The Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials Department within Newcastle University have implemented experiential learning by stealth. An interesting approach has been taken with the development of a small scale

commercial brewery. The brewery includes a fully automated process utilising industrial standard equipment and systems. The Advanced Process Control & Chemical Engineering students are familiarised with the plant at the beginning of their programme as a holistic process. The students gain a ‘focus’ for their future studies and identify a ‘real work’ need for Chemical Process Engineering and Automation. Early in their studies, the students get initial hands on experience and are encouraged to undertake a range of investigative experiments which provides a ‘concrete experience’ in terms of determining a range of expected (or non-expected) results.

The students then utilise these results (thinking) within formative and summative assessments within their course of studies supported by theoretical input from lectures, seminars and tutorials. In addition, the commercial operation of the brewery is considered and linked to the optimum performance of the plant. This provides additional dimensions to the theoretical thought processes ensuring that the students make the link between operational practice, theoretical concepts and reflect on commercial success.

Some of the students are given the opportunity to complete the experiential loop through the practical implementation of process plant improvements within a dissertation/project work within the brewery.

4 Conclusion and Proposed Experiential Model for the OTLA Project

The learning styles and teaching styles of learners and deliverers have been investigated and it is clear that there are mismatches. The model to be proposed will take these mismatches and the 12 recommendations (Chapter 1) into consideration whilst also utilising the best practice elements that have been previously implemented relating to the Kolb and HRDQ models.

The HRDQ model considers the needs and requirements of the three main interested parties with demonstrable success of the model identified within case studies. Based on HRDQ, a new diagrammatical representation of the model can be produced detailing the approach to be taken with bespoke descriptions of each phase being directly related to engineering and/or science-based learning and how these link to both the teaching and learning styles that are often used.

An additional phase to the HRDQ should be considered, this being based on assessment. It is insufficient to consider assessment of experiential learning to be purely based on observation of knowledge, judgement and behaviours. It is important that traditional assessment methodologies be considered at some point within the model cycle, probably as an offshoot or embedded within the reflection phase.

It is also important that the model is sufficiently robust to account for normally highly theoretical subject areas or disciplines. The description of each phase and associated examples of good practice for each phase will be a vital component of the proposed model. The detailed structure and implementation of each phase of the model will be designed as part of the next stage of the Outstanding Teaching, Learning & Assessment project.

To summarise:

• The model must consider and address learning and teaching styles

• The model will provide good practice examples at each phase specifically related to

engineering and/or science

• The model must have the flexibility to embed theoretical learning within the experiential

learning experience

• The model must consider assessment strategy and include, if required, traditional

methods. Examples of assessment methods should be included as guidance

References

1. Nuclear Sector Skills Strategy: Government and Industry in partnership: Sustaining

Our Nuclear Skills, Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2015

2. Jung, C.G., Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.,

1971.

3. Kolb, David A. Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential

Learning in Higher Education, Academy of Management Learning & Education,

2005, Vol. 4, No. 2, 193–212. 2005

Kolb, D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source o/Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984.

4. Briggs, I. and Myers, D. Introduction to Type: A Guide to Understanding Your

Results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Oxford Psychologists Press, 2000

5. Godleski, E.S., “Learning Style Compatibility of Engineering Students and Faculty,”

Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, ASEE/

6. Felder, R Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, Engr.

Education, 1988

7. Boreham

8. Glaser, R. & Redcap, B. Designing Experiential Learning in Adult Organizations

9. RSVP Design, A Free Guide from RSVP Design on using Experiential Learning in

Training and Development. http://rsvpdesign.co.uk/free-experiential-learning-

manual-b/

10. Case Study 1 – Implementation of Supervisory Training

11. Case Study 2– Pharmaceutical cold chain management

Online experiential learning model.