The Elusive Existence of Mis-educative Experiences in Experiential Education
|
[Home] [Service Learning] [Environmental Stewardship] [Leadership] [Scholarship] [Professional Development] [Resume] [Contact Me] |
The Elusive Existence of Mis-educative Experiences in Experiential Education
Nathaniel E. Johnson
Georgia College & State University
“The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative.... any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience.”
-John Dewey (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books
Experience is a powerful tool for education. But it must be used properly, like any tool, to have the desired effect. How then can experiential educators ensure that their students are receiving genuinely and maximally educative experiences? The first problem lies in being able to clearly define what outcomes are desired. After dealing with problems of definition there are several areas of inquiry that promise to assist in maximizing experiential learning. Situated learning theory, experiential learning and education theories, theories about transfer of learning, and stage development theories have many prescriptions for genuinely educative experiences. Considering the large number of different possible factors prescribed by these competing theories, it must then be rare for every experience to meet it’s full learning potential. Instead facilitators of experiential learning processes must accept that some experiences will not be equal to others as learning tools. But just as it is rare for any experience to meet all of the various criteria of a perfect learning experience, it must also be rare for an experience to be mis-educative in the sense that Dewey implies in the opening quotation.
Defining Desired Educational Outcomes
Defining desired outcomes in terms of education is in and of itself a difficult proposition. Hovelynck (2003) develops the idea that proper facilitation of experiential education processes should not focus on the final program outcome as much as it should focus on smaller intermediate learning outcomes. The constructionist school of thought suggests that positive and negative outcomes are generated at the individual, group, and societal levels. (Quay, 2003) Any judgement of positive or negative must ultimately be kept in context of the value system of the individual making the judgement and the cultural value system to which the individual belongs.
Situated Learning
Situated Learning theory developed out of the work of Vogotsky and was further refined by Lave. Quay (2003) develops the connection between experiential education and situated learning. Situated learning theory is not a theory of experiential education, but it is similar in many ways and sheds light on the way that experiential education works. It is a holistic theory of education similar to social constructionism in that participants are considered to influence and be influenced by the social and cultural world. The key concepts of situated learning are legitimate peripheral participation and community of practice. Legitimate peripheral practice describes how learning takes place “not so much through the reification of a curriculum as through modified forms of participation that are structured to open practice to nonmembers.” (Wenger, 1998, p. 100 (as cited in Quay, 2003, p. 108)) The community of practice is an integral part of legitimate peripheral participation as it provides “a set of relations among persons, activity and world, over time, and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice.” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98. (as cited in Quay, 2003, p. 108)) Any educational experience can be addressed through this framework. Learning can not be expected to take place to its full potential when conditions for legitimate peripheral participation or a community of practice are not present.
Herbert: What is Experiential Learning?
Herbert (2003) describes experiential learning as falling on a continuum between traditional command based learning and full experiential education where the learner is in control of the learning process. He suggests that there are five major factors that move the learning process towards the experiential end of the continuum. The first consideration is the reality of the experience. Is the learning experience firsthand or secondhand? The level of risk involved is a second consideration. An experience that involves some personal risk creates a greater reality of consequences and a greater personal involvement. Responsibility is third in consideration. The learner must be fully involved and engaged in the learning process. Unpredictability is a fourth element of experiential learning according to Herbert. Experiences of this nature will always be unpredictable- because of the risk involved and because the learner makes many of the decisions about the path of education. The final element is reflection and analysis. An experiences is meaningless without taking time to put it into context and consider the meanings it has for future experiences. This is a complicated formula for an experiential educator to follow when guiding a learning experience and there is certainly room for error resulting in a less than genuine experience.
Transfer of Knowledge
A key element to a genuinely positive learning experience is the concept of transfer. If the information learned can not be successfully applied to the “real world” afterwards then the experience has not maximized it’s educational potential. Gass (1999) discusses several factors and techniques facilitators of learning experiences can use to assist in enhancing transfer of learning. Facilitators can develop appropriate goals and activities facilitating transfer. These can include activities that are similar to tasks that may be encountered in the future. Responsibility for learning should rest on the learner so that the learning is internalized. Opportunities to practice transfer should be included in the program. Finally, when appropriate, alumni or significant others can be involved. But the focus on transfer for program goals is not the only way that participants can achieve transfer.
Big Outcomes vs. Little Outcomes
Hovelynck’s comments about program vs. intermediate outcomes also apply to the concept of transfer. Program outcomes can certainly be important to the transfer of knowledge. However, if a facilitator also focuses on smaller intermediate outcomes, there are that many more learning experiences with the potential to transfer to other situations. Smaller and more manageable skills might even make a larger difference if transferred than overarching program goals, although no research into this direction has occurred yet.
Stage Development Theories of Learning
There are too many stage development theories of learning to mention them all in a brief article. To name just a few, they encompass areas such as physical, intellectual, and moral development. (For a more detailed description see L-Jay Fine, 1999) Instead consider the underlying structure to stage development theories in general. In stage development theories, individuals progress through recognizable phases around certain ages. Development is generally considered to be invariant and to build upon earlier stages. Experiential educators should take these theories into account when facilitating. Individuals can only benefit from an experience if it falls within their level of development. Outside of the desired level the experience will be either too simple or too complex for the individual to obtain the maximum educative value out of it.
Conclusion
There are many specific steps an experiential educator can take to try and facilitate the perfect learning experience. Realistically there are too many variables to considering everything that situated learning, experiential education, and stage development theories have to say about learning experiences. But failure to consider a single or even several key points does not mean the failure of an educational experience. Experiential educations strength lies in its resilience. Negative participant experiences that inhibit future learning are definitely not desired. However, they can still serve the constructive purpose of helping instructors learn how to facilitate better. An experience is only fully mis-educative if both instructor and learner fail to take anything from it. Dewey was correct that all experiences are not equally educative, there are so many factors that can influence the effectiveness of an educational experience. And while Dewey is technically correct that there are mis-educative experiences, the careful application of the resilient principles of experiential education reduce the chances of those negative outcomes.
References
Fine, L-J. (1999). Stage development theory in adventure programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 193–199). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Gass, M. A. (1999). Transfer of learning in adventure programming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 227–234). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Herbert, T. (2003). Experiential learning: a teacher’s perspective. Association for Experiential Education Horizon. Winter, 2003, 9-17.
Hovelynck, J. (2003). Moving active learning forward. Journal of Experiential Education.
Vol. 26, No. 1, 1-7.
Quay, J. (2003). Experience and participation: relating theories of learning. Journal of Experiential Education. Vol. 26, No. 2, 105-111.