Experiential learning: AMEE Guide No. 63

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

The work of many experiential learning and socio-cultural theorists is underpinned by constructionist philosophies. Socio-cultural learning theories acknowledge the importance of interactions for both individuals and collective learning in workplaces. Context and potential for participation (in terms of opportunities and type of participants) must be accounted for when designing an experiential learning intervention. Educators need to distinguish between theoretical concepts which describe ideal learning circumstances (and aspire to reproduce these) and experience in practice, in order to address the realities of education in complex workplaces.

Figure 1. Kolb's learning cycle.

Box 1. Central tenets of socio-cultural theory.

• The subject matter of learning and the processes by which people learn are not uniform; they are as diverse as the people who learn (Wertsch 1991), so socio-cultural theory is constructionist.

• Peoples’ higher mental functions are strongly influenced by the activities of social milieus in which they develop (Wells 1999).

• Learning is mediated by artefacts, which have cultural and historical significance, and sign systems, of which language is the most prominent and important.

• Action, which can be defined as a goal-directed joint activity, has a central place in learning.

• Learning is situated within the context in which it takes place; the subject matter, content and process of learning are inseparable from one another.

• If interactions are perceived to be adversarial (with either people or institutions) then this will lead to a different sort of ‘learning’ and risks marginalisation of the learner rather than gradual integration into the practice community (Wenger 1998).

Figure 2. Generic model components of activity systems and associated definitions. Source: Reproduced from Yardley (2011), after adaptation from Schryer et al. (2003), Dayton (2008) and Morris (2009).

Box 2. Example of using activity theory to interpret workplace learning.

Medical students are the subject of two concurrent activity systems, which are in contradiction with one another. The object of their experiences in activity system 1 is to become competent. The object of those same experiences in activity system 2 is to care safely for patients. Using artefacts like their stethoscopes, pens and prescription charts, the (tacit) rules of system 1 are that students should be given responsibility. There is a division of labour in workplaces, which may result in other members of the practice community – notably, nurses and, perhaps, supervisors – giving students’ responsibility that enhances their competence, but goes beyond the limits that assure patient safety. Some components of activity system 2 are similar but others are different; key artefacts are operating procedures, and a division of labour that might, for example, emphasise the role of pharmacists in ensuring proper prescribing procedures and safe decisions. If a student, who is not formally licensed to prescribe but is able to ‘get away with it’ because of lax procedures is asked by a nurse to prescribe, there is a contradiction between the object of learning and the object of patient care which may result in ‘getting away with it’ when the pressure is when the pressure is on.

Figure 3. Support of learners.

Box 3. Support of learners (example text alongside Figure 3).

Example: Addressing the elements of support when introducing a clerkship student to a new ward

• Practical: make sure the student knows the layout of the ward, where to find key items (e.g. for practical procedures), how to contact you.

• Affective support: introduce the patient to key members of staff and ensure the student and staff understand the student's role and intended activities, discuss with student any potentially challenging patient encounters which might occur.

• Cognitive support: identify learning objectives for students and discuss how these link with other aspects of their learning, encourage students to discuss any ‘surprises’ in order to help them develop authentic workplace knowledge.

Figure 4. Transitions in experiential learning.

Wertsch J. Voices of the mind. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead 1991

 Google Scholar

Wells G. Language and education: Reconceptualising education as dialogue. Annu Rev Appl Linguist 1999; 19: 135–155

 Google Scholar

Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY 1998

 Google Scholar

Yardley S. Understanding authentic early experience in undergraduate medical educationDoctorate. Keele University, Keele 2011

 Google Scholar

Schryer CF, Lingard L, Spafford M, Garwood K. Structure and agency in medical case presentations. Writing selves and societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, C Bazerman, D Russell. The WAC Clearing House and Mind, Culture, and Activity, , CO 2003; 62–96

 Google Scholar

Morris C. Developing pedagogy for doctors-as-teachers: The role of Activity Theory. Knowledge, values and educational policy: A critical perspective, H Daniels, H Lauder, J Porter. Routledge, London 2009; 273–281

 Google Scholar