Applying Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle for Laboratory Education

Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 2009 by Abdulwahed, Mahmoud, Nagy, Zoltan K

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a model for laboratory education based on Kolb's experiential learning theory. The method is implemented using modern teaching technologies and a combination of remote, virtual, and hands-on laboratory sessions and have been applied to the teaching of the undergraduate process control laboratory at the Chemical Engineering Department at Loughborough University, United Kingdom. An argument that poor learning in the laboratory is due to insufficient activation of the prehension dimension of Kolb's cycle was suggested and verified, providing a pedagogical explanation. The quantitative analysis showed significant enhancement of the learning outcomes of the experimental group compared with the control group. Apart from the hands-on session, the proposed model involves additional activities, such as pre- and post-lab tests and virtual laboratory sessions, which are associated with Kolb's cycle to facilitate constructivist learning. The paper provides the first laboratory education model that builds thoroughly on Kolb's experiential learning theory.

Keywords: Kolb's experiential learning, laboratory engineering education, remote and virtual laboratories

I. INTRODUCTION

The importance of laboratory experience in engineering education curricula has been emphasized in a large number of science and engineering education articles (Feisel, 2005; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004; Johnstone and Al-Shuaili, 2001; Kirschner, 1988; Ma and Nickerson, 2006). The essential role of laboratories can be correlated with the fact that engineering is, in general, an applied science that requires hands-on skills and involves elements of design, problem solving, and analytical thinking. Well designed laboratories during undergraduate engineering degrees may well improve these skills of the future engineers.

Engineering had been taught as a primarily hands-on subject up to the 18th century. However, engineering education has benefited from the advances in science and it began to embed deeper theoretical concepts by the end of the 19th century, especially in the U.S. schools initially (Feisel, 2005). Since then, the pedagogical emphasis in engineering education has been shifted more towards classroom and lecture-based education, and in many schools, less attention has been given to the laboratory education, particularly during the last 30 years (Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004; Feisel and Peterson, 2002). Wankat (2004) observed that only 6 percent of the articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education from 1993-2002 had "laboratory" as a keyword. Laboratory pedagogy has been recendy reported to be a fertile arena of research for the coming years (Feisel and Rosa, 2005; Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004), especially in the context of the increasing need to make more use of the new developments in information and communication technology (ICT) for enhancing the laboratory education.

The impact of laboratory education on students' learning is often not recognized (Roth, 1994). One reason for rethinking the role of the laboratory in engineering and science education is the recent shift towards constructivist pedagogy in which the importance of knowledge gained via experience is emphasized. Furthermore, constructivist pedagogy places a larger role on student autonomy in the learning process. This is particularly important in light of the recent increase in the needs of industry for engineering graduates who are autonomous and equipped with good hands-on skills. Enhancing laboratory education can serve as a motivating factor toward an engineering career.

Despite the important role of laboratories in engineering education, several researchers have reported that the expected benefits of laboratories on students' learning are not achieved in most of the cases (Hofestein and Lunetta, 2004; Roth, 1994). In their literature review, Ma and Nickerson (2006) found that 100 percent of the articles concerning hands-on laboratories considered that labs should be platforms for facilitating conceptual understanding, and 65 percent considered that laboratories should also facilitate the design skills. However, constructing knowledge is a complex process which is often out of the timeframe of the planned laboratory sessions. Knowledge construction has four main phases according to Kolb's experiential learning theory (1984), including stimulation, reflection, abstraction, and experimentation. Meaningful learning is an iterative process requiring reflection (Hofestein and Lunetta, 2004). These practices are generally missing in the classical handson taught laboratories. Gunstone (1991) considers that laboratories which are taught in the classical way can barely be considered as platforms of knowledge construction, since students have less time to interact and reflect while they are busy with the technical and the operational side of the lab. Kirschner (1988) points out the main shortcomings in some of the hands-on laboratory sessions, including that students are often required to solve problems that are more difficult than their cognitive abilities, students are constrained with the short time periods the labs normally offer, and teachers assume that students will be able to overcome the problems in the assigned time (Kirschner, 1988). Kirschner also describes fhat classical labs are usually taught as one single demonstration due to economical and logistical reasons; however, forming and understanding concepts require repetition (Kirschener, 1988). There is a general consensus that laboratory work generates poor learning outcomes compared to the time, effort, and costs invested in laboratory education (Hofestein and Lunetta, 2004; Johnstone and Al-Shuaili, 2001; Kirschner, 1988; Ma and Nickerson, 2006). One possible reason for the poor learning outcomes is that engineering labs are very seldom designed based on well defined constructivist pedagogical models. One of the suitable pedagogical models for engineering education: is Kolb's experiential learning framework. Kolb's experiential learning cycle is particularly suitable for engineering education which is an experiential field of science (Bender, 2001; Felder et al., 2000). Based on Kolb's theory, Moor and Piergiovanni (2003) justified the advantages of blending classroom theory with experiments. Kamis and Topi (2007) examined three hypotheses of pedagogical design for enhancing the problem solving in the field of networks subnettings. Two of them were based on Kolb's model while the third was based on the advance organizer technique (Ausubel, 1968). Bender (2001) explained a major reform of the courses taught at the Engineering Design department at the Technical University of Berlin using Kolb's theory and described the importance of incorporating the four dimensions of learning in the design of lectures. Lagoudas et al. (2000) restructured five core undergraduate engineering courses using Kolb's cycle as a pedagogical background for this process. They relied on computer software and simulations in their implementation of Kolb's theory (Lagoudas et al., 2000). Plett et al. (2006) redesigned three engineering courses building upon KoIb theories and the 4MAT system. The trial course (Introduction to Robotics) was very successful and led to a successful NSF grant proposal for curriculum design, in which they aim to redesign a series of systems courses based on the Kolb/4MAT pedagogical model. David and Wyrick (2002) assessed the learning styles of industrial engineering students over a ten-year period and used Kolb's experiential learning cycle as a pedagogical basis for designing learning experiences for the students. One key finding in their study was fhat providing balanced learning experiences to die students, based on the four stages of Kolb's cycle, had led to deeper learning and longer retention of information. Stice (1987) also implemented teaching strategies in the class that can accommodate all four stages of Kolb's cycle to improve the learning process for undergraduate students.