bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Training and Development 0:0

ISSN 1360-3736
doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12177

A revised model of experiential learning

with a debriefing checklist

Makoto Matsuo and Masaki Nagata

Although Kolb’s experiential learning model has been widely

used and remains among the most influential frameworks in
the fields of human resource development, management edu-
cation and higher education, it has been criticized for fail-
ing to propose a second-order learning process. The purpose
of this study was to revise Kolb’s model by addressing its
limitations. The revised model consists of (1) expected and
unexpected experiences, (2) the management of emotions,
(3) reflective analysis, (4) abstract conceptualization, (5)
unlearning, and (6) active experimentation. Developed from
the revised model, we created a checklist for debriefing experi-
ence-based training programs. The contribution of this study
is its development of a framework and a checklist for deep
experiential learning.

Introduction
According to the 70:20:10 framework, learning through challenging experiences
makes up 70 per cent of human resource development (HRD), social support from
others makes up 20 per cent of development and formal training programs make up 10
per cent of development (Johnson et al., 2018; McCall, 2010). The framework indicates
that experiential learning can be been viewed as integral part of HRD (Manolis et al.,
2013). McGuire and Gubbins (2010) noted that training and education have evolved to
emphasize more experience-based, action-driven and result-oriented approaches. In
particular, experiential learning approaches appear to be extraordinarily effective for
establishing the particular skills demanded of leaders (Akrofi et al., 2011; Scott, 2017).
It is noted, however, that challenging experiences do not, by themselves, guarantee
professional development. Johnson et al. (2018) reported that experience-based manage-
rial development was hindered by overconfident beliefs that unstructured experiential
learning automatically leads to professional development. Thus, it is imperative that
the experiential learning theory, which is the foundation of an intervention, is based on
a reflective process that clarifies how individuals learn from experience (Dewey, 1938;

❒❒Makoto Matsuo, Professor of Management, Graduate School of Economics and Business

Administration, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. Email: mmatsuo@econ.
hokudai.ac.jp. Masaki Nagata, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. Email: nagata.masaki.
x8@elms.hokudai.ac.jp
© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A revised model of experiential learning   1

Gibbs, 1988; Kolb, 1984). Even when informal learning occurs without any learning
goals or interventions, individuals may learn something through reflecting on their
experiences afterwards. Among several variants of experiential learning theory, Kolb’s
(1984) experiential learning model, which consists of four steps – concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation – contin-
ues to be among the most influential and notable in the fields of HRD, management
education and higher education (Illeris, 2007; Kisfalvi & Oliver, 2015; Li & Armstrong,
2015; Ng et al., 2009; Tomkins & Ulus, 2016; Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004).
Despite its popularity, Kolb’s experiential learning model has been criticized for
lacking a reflective cycle for deep learning. First, the model does not include a process
to address emotions that have a strong influence on learning (Vince, 1998). Second, the
model does not include a process for reflective analysis, such as hypothesis testing or
root cause analysis (Miettinen, 2000; Miller & Maellaro, 2016). Third, the model fails
to incorporate critical reflection (Kayes, 2002; Reynolds, 1999), which leads to deep
learning, such as transformative learning (Mezirow, 1990, 2000). Fourth, the model
has no process for unlearning, which is necessary to disrupt habitual thinking and
action (Chang, 2017). Finally, the model does not explicitly distinguish expected from
unexpected experiences even though the latter often trigger a sense of discomfort and
become catalysts for change (Ellis et al., 2006).
The purpose of the present study was to propose a revised model to elucidate the
experiential learning process by addressing the limitations of Kolb’s (1984) model. It
contributes to the existing literature by developing a framework for establishing a
learning process at a deep level. Based on the revised model, we also created a check-
list for debriefing that can be used in experience-based training programs, such as
coaching (Roche & Hefferon, 2013), simulation learning (Fanning & Gaba, 2007) and
after-event review (Ellis et al., 2006, 2010). The proposed model and checklist may offer
insight into HRD theories and practices for facilitating deep learning.

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model

Kolb (1984) defined learning as ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through
the transformation of experience’ (Kolb, 1984, p. 38) and presented the following six
assumptions: Learning (1) is conceived as a process not an outcome, (2) is grounded in
experience, (3) requires individuals to resolve dialectically opposed modes of adapta-
tion, (4) is a holistic process, (5) involves interplay between a person and an environ-
ment, and (6) is the process of knowledge creation.
Based on these definitions and assumptions, as well as the work of Dewey, Piaget
and Lewin, Kolb (1984) proposed a four-stage cycle model of learning that consists
of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active
experimentation. This model is shown in Figure  1. Specifically, individuals involve
themselves without bias in new experiences (concrete experience); reflect on and
observe these experiences from a variety of perspectives (reflective observation); create
concepts from which new implications can be drawn and new theories for action can
be developed (abstract conceptualization) and apply the steps deriving from the impli-
cations and theories to experimentation (active experimentation) (Kolb, 1976, 1984).
This model indicates that knowledge is constructed by tension between the four
stages, each of which responds to contextual demands (Kolb & Kolb, 2009); it portrays
and idealizes a learning cycle in which learners are engaged in experiencing, reflect-
ing, thinking and following a recursive process that is congruent with the learning
environment and knowledge being learned (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
Although a number of experiential learning models have been proposed, Kolb’s
(1984) model has the reputation of being well developed and researched (Armstrong
& Mahmud, 2008) and continues to have a significant influence on the fields of HRD,
management learning and management education (Illeris, 2007; Kisfalvi & Oliver,
2015; Li & Armstrong, 2015; Ng et al., 2009; Tomkins & Ulus, 2016; Yamazaki & Kayes,
2004). For example, in HRD research, Chang (2017) extended Kolb’s (1984) model from

2    International Journal of Training and Development

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Figure 1: Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model.

a neuroscientific perspective, whereas Yeo and Marquardt (2015) developed an inte-

grated framework that combines action learning with experiential learning.
As Kolb’s (1984) model has been developed based on the cognitive psychological
tradition, it has also been criticized for overlooking the social, cultural and institu-
tional aspects of learning (Baker et al., 2005; Holman et al., 1997). Additionally, as stated
earlier, the model fails to address deep learning, including critical reflection (Kayes,
2002; Reynolds, 1999) and unlearning (Chang, 2017). Of the two limitations of Kolb’s
(1984) experiential learning model (social and cognitive), this paper is focused on the
latter, as we revise the model to elaborate on experiential learning based on a cognitive
psychological perspective.

Limitations of Kolb’s 1984 model

As mentioned in the Introduction, Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model has been
the target of numerous criticisms. Before proposing a revised model of a deep learning
process, we will discuss the limitations of Kolb’s model, focusing primarily on cogni-
tive and psychological issues.
First, although emotion plays an important role in creating meaning by guiding indi-
viduals in evaluating situations and responding to them (Vince, 2010), Kolb’s (1984)
model does not include an explicit process that accounts for emotions, such as anx-
iety, fear and doubt, which can characterize the beginning of learning (Vince, 1988).
Notably, emotions can sometimes interfere with learning as they can direct an individ-
ual’s focus and attention towards irrelevant processes, which undermine task perfor-
mance (Tyson et al., 2009). Similarly, Gilmore and Anderson (2011) noted that emotions
can both stimulate and inhibit learning. Several researchers, such as Gibbs (1988) and
Vince (1998), included the process underlying ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ in their models.
Vince (1998) included the process underlying ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ in their models.
Second, although reflection is a critical step in experiential learning (Heusinkveld
& Reijers, 2009), no analytical reflective process is specified in Kolb’s (1984) model.
For example, Miettinen (2000) criticized Kolb’s model for misinterpreting Dewey’s
concept of experience and reflective thought, which includes a disturbance of habits,
practical hypotheses and testing. As Kolb’s reflective observation does not guarantee
accurate abstract conceptualizations, Miller and Maellaro (2016) strongly argued that
root-cause problem-solving (i.e. reflective analysis) should be a part of any experien-
tial learning process. Gibbs (1988) also proposed a reflective cycle model involving
evaluation, analysis and conclusions.
A revised model of experiential learning  3
© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Third, several researchers have criticized Kolb’s (1984) model because it is a ‘first-
order’ process and fails to propose an adequate ‘second-order’ or higher meta-learning
process, such as critical reflection (Kayes, 2002; Reynolds, 1999; Vince, 1998). Mezirow
(1990, 2000) noted that critical reflection, or reflection on our own premises or assump-
tions, is required for transformative learning, which changes our old frames of refer-
ence into new ones. Moreover, Canhoto and Murphy (2016) found that many attempts
to apply an experiential learning model to higher education have failed to generate
deep learning experiences. Therefore, it is important to incorporate higher-order learn-
ing processes into experiential learning models.
Fourth, related to the above issue, Chang (2017) noted that an unlearning process
should be included in an experiential learning model to disrupt habitual thinking and
action. Specifically, to promote deep learning, habitual patterns need to be changed by
means of disrupting automaticity, mitigating egocentric biases and learning to unlearn
(Chang, 2017). Based on organizational research (Hedberg, 1981), individual unlearn-
ing, or abandoning obsolete beliefs, values, knowledge and routines (Akgün et al.,
2006; Becker, 2005; Hislop et al., 2014), is considered an important step in generative
learning and exploration (Fernandez et al., 2012).
Finally, although unexpected events can be an impetus for change (Ellis et al., 2006),
Kolb (1984) did not include an explicit role for unexpected experiences in his model.
Therefore, consideration of concrete experience should involve both expected and unex-
pected events. It is important to note that active experimentation should result only in
expected experiences, as unexpected experiences cannot be predicted. According to the
Happenstance Learning Theory, unplanned or unexpected events are opportunities to
contribute to vocational choices, because an individual’s career is affected by many
events that cannot be predicted in advance (Krumboltz, 2009; Mitchell et al., 1999).

A revised model of experiential learning

We revised Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model based on the foregoing. This
model, depicted in Figure  2, consists of six steps: (1) expected and unexpected

Figure 2: Revised model of the experiential learning process.

4    International Journal of Training and Development

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
experiences, (2) the management of emotions, (3) reflective analysis, (4) abstract con-
ceptualization, (5) unlearning, and (6) active experimentation. The model also assumes
that individuals are involved in the learning process at both technical and critical levels.
First, we need to pay attention not only to expected experiences, which result from
active experimentation, but also to unexpected experiences, because unexpected or
unplanned events can trigger change as well as opportunities for vocational choice (Ellis
et al., 2006; Krumboltz, 2009; Mitchell et al., 1999). Dixon et al. (2016) suggested that indi-
viduals tend to be obsessed with action planning when using learning models. To learn
at a deep level, it is necessary to reflect not only on expected experiences, which are asso-
ciated with action plans, but also on unexpected experiences, which cannot be predicted.
The second step is the management of emotions, which involves describing and
managing one’s feelings. As suggested earlier, emotions can both stimulate and inhibit
learning (Gilmore & Anderson, 2011). Specifically, anxiety, including fear, doubt and
uncertainty, can promote learning if it is well managed, but such emotions sometimes
promote defensiveness, avoidance and self-justification (Vince, 1998). In that sense,
this stage constitutes preparation for an appropriate analysis of expected and unex-
pected events. Because deep learning or critical reflection often involves anxiety, fear
and confusion (Hislop et al., 2014), it is important to cope with pressure and manage
emotions appropriately to achieve balanced reflection (Atkinson, 1999; Collin, 2004).
The third step is that of reflective analysis, which involves reviewing and analys-
ing expected and unexpected events. Reflective analysis should include (1) describing
facts appropriately (Gibbs, 1988), (2) identifying both failures and successes (Ellis et al.,
2010) and (3) analysing the causes of failures and successes (Miller & Maellaro, 2016).
Although researchers in experiential learning theory tend to emphasize problem-
solving (e.g. Manolis et al., 2013; Miettinen, 2000), we need to review not only our weak-
nesses, but also our strengths, from the viewpoint of positive psychology (Seligman
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Seligman et al., 2005). Indeed, strengths-based coaching
(Welch et al., 2014) also involves identifying and developing strengths at work.
The fourth step is that of abstract conceptualization, which is also included in Kolb’s
(1984) model. Based on our reflective analysis, we extract lessons and draw conclu-
sions by understanding our strengths and weaknesses (Welch et al., 2014), identify-
ing the causes of and solutions to problems (Miller & Maellaro, 2016), examining our
assumptions or beliefs (Mezirow, 1990, 2000) and proposing alternative methods of
action (Korthagen, 1985, 2005) and remedial action plans (Gibbs, 1988). In this step,
personal or provisional theories are developed and revised by analysing experience.
The fifth step is that of unlearning, in which individuals consciously choose to give
up, abandon or stop using obsolete knowledge, values or behaviours (Akgün et al., 2006;
Becker, 2005; Hislop et al., 2014). To disrupt habitual thinking and action, we need to
include an unlearning step in experiential learning processes (Chang, 2017). Importantly,
we need to distinguish wiping, which focuses on relatively narrow practices or activities,
from deep unlearning, which transforms values, beliefs and assumptions (Hislop et al.,
2014). In other words, there are both technical and critical levels in unlearning processes.
The sixth step is that of active experimentation, which is also included in Kolb’s
(1984) model. In this stage, the solutions, alternative methods of action or remedial
action plans that are extracted from ‘abstract conceptualization’ are implemented. As
with the unlearning stage, we need to distinguish incremental experimentation, which
occurs through general reflection, from radical experimentation, which involves crit-
ical reflection and deep unlearning. The former may correspond to single-loop learn-
ing, whereas the latter corresponds to double-loop learning (Argyris, 1991).
Finally, as depicted at the centre of Figure 2, this model assumes that each learning
step can be executed at both technical and critical levels. At the technical level, individ-
uals focus on skills or techniques, examining their effectiveness, discarding obsolete or
outdated ones and implementing technical action plans. At the critical level, individ-
uals focus on the beliefs, assumptions or values that arose during unexpected experi-
ences, and on learning to manage their defensive reactions, as well as examining the
effectiveness of their beliefs, assumption or values; they also learn to discard obsolete
or outdated ideas and to implement critical action plans for deep learning.

A revised model of experiential learning  5

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Theoretical implications
The main theoretical contribution of this study is its framework for experiential learn-
ing at a deep level, which is based on a perspective that includes emotions (Vince,
1988, 2010), critical reflection (Mezirow, 1990; Reynolds, 1999) and unlearning (Becker,
2005; Chang, 2017; Hislop et al., 2014), to revise Kolb’s (1984) model. Our model sug-
gests that, to learn at a deep level, we need to manage anxiety, fear and confusion, to
avoid defensive reactions or self-justification; we also need to reflect critically on our
assumptions, beliefs and values and to unlearn obsolete knowledge or skills.
The second contribution of the present research is its inclusion of unexpected experi-
ences in the experiential learning model. According to the happenstance learning theory
(Krumboltz, 2009; Mitchell et al., 1999), unexpected or unplanned events are opportu-
nities for vocational choice. As critical reflective thoughts are often triggered by events
in which habitual actions do not work (Miettinen, 2000), unexpected experiences can
be a catalyst for further critical reflection and transformative learning (Ellis et al., 2006).
Third, the revised framework may improve Kolb’s (1984) model by replacing reflec-
tive observation with reflective analysis. Miettinen (2000) criticized Kolb’s model for
misinterpreting Dewey’s concept of reflective thought, which includes identifying
problems and forming hypotheses. The reflective analysis in the revised model may
include root cause problem-solving (Miller & Maellaro, 2016) as well as critical reflec-
tion (Mezirow, 1990, 2000).

A checklist for debriefing

Consistent with the revised model, we developed the debriefing checklist shown
in Table 1, which can be applied practically as a reflective tool for experience-based
learning programs, such as coaching (Roche & Hefferon, 2013), simulation learning
(Fanning & Gaba, 2007) and after-event review (Ellis et al., 2006, 2010). Debriefing,
which originated in the military, refers to a conversation process in which participants
review several elements of the focal event to learn and to improve future performance
(Firing et al., 2015). The checklist can be used for self-reflection on the part of trainees,
as well as for debriefing sessions between trainers and trainees, depending on the cir-
cumstances and learning designs. Users can reflect on their experiences by answering
the questions in this checklist. We briefly explain the list in this section.

Expected and unexpected experiences

A basic question in this context involves describing what happened and your course
of action. In describing events, it is necessary to distinguish between expected experi-
ences resulting from your action plan, and unexpected ones that cannot be predicted
in advance. Unexpected or unplanned events sometimes lead to deep learning.

The management of emotions

As emotions can promote and disrupt learning during and after events, it is necessary
to understand and identify their positive and negative effects on learning by using the
questions shown in Table 1. If there are negative emotions such as defensiveness or
avoidance, they will need to be managed in order to learn from the experience.

Reflective analysis
After describing events and managing emotions, it is necessary to analyse both fail-
ure and success during the events to understand why such outcomes occurred. To
learn critically and deeply, it is also important to examine whether taken-for-granted
assumptions, beliefs and values are appropriate in relation to the event. This often
leads to critical learning.

6    International Journal of Training and Development

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Table 1: Debriefing checklist

Learning process Debriefing items

Expected and unexpected What was your course of action? What happened?
experience What were the expected or planned results?
What were the unexpected or unplanned results?
The management of What were you feeling during the event?
emotions Did any emotions make you realize something
important?
Did any emotions lead to any defensiveness or avoid-
ance in learning?
Reflective analysis Were there any successes and failures with the
experience?
What were the factors causing success and failure?
Are your assumptions, beliefs, and values appropriate
in relation to the event?
Abstract Describe what you have learned from the successes
conceptualization Describe what you have learned from the failures
What assumptions, beliefs, and values do you have to
change?
Unlearning Did you find your approaches were obsolete, outdated,
or non-functional?
Are there any methods, practices, and skills you should
abandon?
Are there any assumptions, beliefs, and values you
should abandon?
Active experimentation Describe any new technical approaches that you would
like to adopt next time?
Describe any new radical approaches that you would
like to adopt next time?
Describe your changed assumptions, beliefs, or values
that you would like to develop next time?

Note: Based on Gibbs (1988) and Husebø, O’Regan and Nestel (2015).

Abstract conceptualization
Based on the analysis of the events, it is necessary to extract lessons and draw con-
clusions for both successful and failed events. As mentioned in the step on reflective
analysis, conclusions should be drawn from assumptions, beliefs and values that lead
to deep learning.

Unlearning
Based on the learned lessons, it is necessary to evaluate your approach at both techni-
cal (methods, practices and skills) and critical (assumptions, beliefs and values) levels.
If you conclude that current approaches are obsolete or nonfunctional, they should
not be used.

Active experimentation
Based on abstract conceptualization and unlearning, it is necessary to take action for
improvement and learning. To promote general and deep learning, new approaches
should be tried at both technical and critical levels.

A revised model of experiential learning  7

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 Conclusions
Although Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model is popular in various fields, it fails
to explain higher-order learning (Kayes, 2002; Reynolds, 1999; Vince, 1998). To address
this problem, we proposed a six-step model consisting of (1) expected and unexpected
experiences, (2) the management of emotions, (3) reflective analysis, (4) abstract con-
ceptualization, (5) unlearning, and (6) active experimentation. The model contributes
to the literature by describing the deep experiential learning process and by develop-
ing a checklist for debriefing. Although Gibbs’s (1988) model is widely used in debrief-
ing sessions following training or classes, the revised model and checklist offer the
advantage of suitability not only for general learning, but also deep learning. Future
research should examine the revised model quantitatively and qualitatively for further
development.

References
Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S. and Byrne, J. C. (2006), ‘Antecedents and consequences of unlearning
in new product development teams’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 73–88.
Akrofi, S., Clarke, N. and Vernon, G. (2011), ‘Validation of a comprehensive executive learning
and development measure’, International Journal of Training and Development, 15, 3, 184–209.
Argyris, C. (1991), ‘Teaching smart people how to learn’, Harvard Business Review, 69, 3, 99–109.
Armstrong, S. J. and Mahmud, A. (2008), ‘Experiential learning and the acquisition of managerial
tacit knowledge’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 2, 189–208.
Atkinson, S. (1999), ‘Reflections: personal development for managers getting the process right’,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 6, 502–11.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J. and Kolb, D. A. (2005), ‘Conversation as experiential learning’,
Management Learning, 36, 4, 411–27.
Becker, K. (2005), ‘Individual and organizational unlearning: directions for future research’,
International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 9, 7, 659–70.
Canhoto, A. I. and Murphy, J. (2016), ‘Learning from simulation design to develop better expe-
riential learning initiatives: an integrative approach’, Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 2,
98–106.
Chang, W. (2017), ‘Approaches for developing intercultural competence: an extended learning
model with implications from cultural neuroscience’, Human Resource Development Review,
16, 2, 158–75.
Collin, K. (2004), ‘The role of experience in work and learning among design engineers’,
International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 2, 111–27.
Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and Education (New York: MacMillan).
Dixon, M., Lee, S. and Ghaye, T. (2016), ‘Strengths-based reflective practices for the management
of change: applications from sport and positive psychology’, Journal of Change Management,
16, 2, 142–57.
Ellis, S., Mendel, R. and Nir, M. (2006), ‘Learning from successful and failed experience: the
moderating role of kind of after-event review’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 3, 669–80.
Ellis, S., Ganzach, Y., Castle, E. and Sekely, G. (2010), ‘The effect of filmed versus personal af-
ter-event reviews on task performance: the mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1, 122–31.
Fanning, R. M. and Gaba, D. M. (2007), ‘The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning’,
Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 2, 115–25.
Fernandez, V., Sallan, J. M., Simo, P. and Enache, M. (2012), ‘Organizational Forgetting/
Unlearning: The Dark Side of the Absorptive Capacity’, in H. Hou (ed), New Research on
Knowledge Management Applications and Lessons Learned (Rijeka: InTech), pp. 155–70.
Firing, K., Moen, A. and Skarsvåg, K. I. (2015), ‘Debriefing to learn from extreme events: the case
of Utøya’, International Journal of Training and Development, 19, 4, 301–9.
Gibbs, G. (1988), Learning by Doing. A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods (London: Further
Education Unit at Oxford Polytechnic).
Gilmore, S. and Anderson, V. (2011), ‘Anxiety and experience-based learning in a professional
standards context’, Management Learning, 43, 1, 75–95.
Hedberg, B. (1981), ‘Organizational Learning and Unlearning’, in P. C. Nystrom and W. H.
Starbuck (eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1. Adapting Organizations to their
Environments (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 3–27.

8    International Journal of Training and Development

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Heusinkveld, S. and Reijers, H. A. (2009), ‘Reflections on a reflective cycle: building legitimacy in
design knowledge development’, Organization Studies, 30, 8, 865–86.
Hislop, D., Bosley, S., Coombs, C. R. and Holland, J. (2014), ‘The process of individual unlearn-
ing: a neglected topic in an under-researched field’, Management Learning, 45, 5, 540–60.
Holman, D., Pavlica, K. and Thorpe, R. (1997), ‘Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning
in management education: the contribution of social constructionism and activity theory’,
Management Learning, 28, 2, 135–48.
Husebø, S. E., O’Regan, S. and Nestel, D. (2015), ‘Reflective practice and its role in simulation’,
Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11, 368–75.
Illeris, K. (2007), ‘What do we actually mean by experiential learning?’, Human Resource
Development Review, 6, 1, 84–95.
Johnson, S. J., Blackman, D. A. and Buick, F. (2018), ‘The 70:20:10 framework and the transfer of
learning’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29, 383–402.
Kayes, D. C. (2002), ‘Experiential learning and its critics: preserving the role of experience in
management learning and education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1,
2, 137–49.
Kisfalvi, V. and Oliver, D. (2015), ‘Creating and maintaining a safe space in experiential learning’,
Journal of Management Education, 39, 6, 713–40.
Kolb, D. A. (1976), ‘Management and learning process’, California Management Review, 18, 3,
21–31.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Kolb, A. Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2005), ‘Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential
learning in higher education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 2, 193–212.
Kolb, A. Y. and Kolb, D. A. (2009), ‘Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach
to Management Learning, Education and Development’, in B. Someckh and S. E. Noffke
(eds), The SAGE Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development (London:
SAGE Publications Ltd), pp. 42–68.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (1985), ‘Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the
Netherlands’, Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 5, 11–5.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2005), ‘The organization in balance reflection and intuition as complementary
processes’, Management Learning, 36, 3, 371–87.
Krumboltz, J. D. (2009), ‘The happenstance learning theory’, Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 2,
135–54.
Li, M. and Armstrong, S. J. (2015), ‘The relationship between Kolb’s experiential learning
styles and Big Five personality traits in international managers’, Personality and Individual
Differences, 86, 422–6.
Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R. and Chita, R. (2013), ‘Assessing experiential learning styles:
a methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory’,
Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 44–52.
McCall, M. W. (2010), ‘Recasting leadership development’, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 3, 3–19.
McGuire, D. and Gubbins, C. (2010), ‘The slow death of formal learning: a polemic’, Human
Resource Development Review, 9, 3, 249–65.
Mezirow, J. (1990), Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers).
Mezirow, J. (2000), ‘Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformation Theory’,
in J. Mezirow and Associates (eds), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a
Theory in Progress (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), pp. 3–33.
Miettinen, R. (2000), ‘The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective
thought and action’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19, 1, 54–72.
Miller, R. J. and Maellaro, R. (2016), ‘Getting to the root of the problem in experiential learning:
using problem solving and collective reflection to improve learning outcomes’, Journal of
Management Education, 40, 2, 170–93.
Mitchell, K. E., Levin, A. S. and Krumboltz, J. D. (1999), ‘Planned happenstance: constructing
unexpected career opportunities’, Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 115–24.
Ng, K., Van Dyne, L. and Ang, S. (2009), ‘From experience to experiential learning: cultural in-
telligence as a learning capability for global leader development’, Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8, 4, 511–26.
Reynolds, M. (1999), ‘Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating less hierar-
chical approaches’, Journal of Management Education, 23, 5, 537–553.
Roche, B. and Hefferon, K. (2013), ‘The assessment needs to go hand-in-hand with the debrief-
ing’: the importance of a structured coaching debriefing in understanding and applying a

A revised model of experiential learning  9

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
 positive psychology strengths assessment’, International Coaching Psychology Review, 8, 1,
20–34.
Scott, K. S. (2017), ‘An integrative framework for problem-based learning and action learning:
promoting evidence-based design and evaluation in leadership development’, Human
Resource Development Review, 16, 1, 3–34.
Seligman, M. E. P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), ‘Positive psychology: an introduction’,
American Psychology, 55, 1, 5–14.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N. and Peterson, C. (2005), ‘Positive psychology progress:
empirical validation of interventions’, American Psychologist, 60, 5, 410–21.
Tomkins, L. and Ulus, E. (2016), ‘Oh, was that “experiential learning”?! Spaces, synergies and
surprises with Kolb’s learning cycle’, Management Learning, 47, 2, 158–78.
Tyson, D. F., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. and Hill, N. E. (2009), ‘Regulating debilitating emotions in
the context of performance: achievement goal orientations, achievement-elicited emotions,
and socialization contexts’, Human Development, 52, 329–56.
Vince, R. (1998), ‘Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle’, Journal of Management Education, 22,
3, 304–19.
Vince, R. (2010), ‘Anxiety, politics and critical management education’, British Journal of
Management, 21, s26–s39.
Welch, D., Grossaint, K., Reid, K. and Walker, C. (2014), ‘Strengths-based leadership develop-
ment: insights from expert coaches’, Consulting Psychology Journal, 66, 1, 20–37.
Yamazaki, Y. and Kayes, D. C. (2004), ‘An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: a
review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation’, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3, 4, 362–79.
Yeo, R. K. and Marquardt, M. J. (2015), ‘(Re) Interpreting action, learning, and experience: inte-
grating action learning and experiential learning for HRD’, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 26, 1, 81–107.

10    International Journal of Training and Development

© 2020 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.