Kolb’s Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Cycle

The terms “Reflective Cycle” and “Experiential Learning Cycle” are often used interchangeably when referring to this four-stage learning process.

The main idea behind both terms is that effective learning occurs through a continuous cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation.

1. Concrete Experience – the learner encounters a concrete experience. This might be a new experience or situation, or a reinterpretation of existing experience in the light of new concepts.
2. Reflective Observation of the New Experience – the learner reflects on the new experience in the light of their existing knowledge. Of particular importance are any inconsistencies between experience and understanding.
3. Abstract Conceptualization – reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a modification of an existing abstract concept (the person has learned from their experience).
4. Active Experimentation – the newly created or modified concepts give rise to experimentation. The learner applies their idea(s) to the world around them to see what happens.

Effective learning is seen when a person progresses through a cycle of four stages: of (1) having a concrete experience followed by (2) observation of and reflection on that experience which leads to (3) the formation of abstract concepts (analysis) and generalizations (conclusions) which are then (4) used to test a hypothesis in future situations, resulting in new experiences.

Kolb (1984) views learning as an integrated process, with each stage mutually supporting and feeding into the next. It is possible to enter the cycle at any stage and follow it through its logical sequence.

However, effective learning only occurs when a learner can execute all four stages of the model. Therefore, no one stage of the cycle is effective as a learning procedure on its own.

The process of going through the cycle results in the formation of increasingly complex and abstract ‘mental models’ of whatever the learner is learning about.

Why These Four Stages?

Kolb’s model draws heavily on the progressive educational philosophies of John Dewey and the developmental theories of Jean Piaget, who both emphasized the pivotal role of active engagement in learning.

From Kolb’s perspective, knowledge emerges through a cyclical interplay between “doing” and “thinking,” which is why he frames learning as “the transformation of experience” rather than simply the absorption of facts.

Each stage presents a unique lens through which experiences evolve into insights and skills.

1. Critically, Concrete Experience (CE) anchors learners in hands-on action or tangible participation, setting the stage for deeper reflection.
2. Reflective Observation (RO) then prompts individuals to examine what happened and how it aligns – or conflicts – with their existing understanding of the world.
3. Out of this comparison arises Abstract Conceptualization (AC): a moment of building or refining mental models and theories that help make sense of new experiences.
4. Finally, Active Experimentation (AE) puts these theories to the test in a real or simulated environment, allowing learners to adapt their concepts, generate fresh questions, or move seamlessly back to another cycle of new experiences.

By underscoring the interdependence of these phases, Kolb contends that no single segment of the cycle is sufficient for robust learning on its own.

Instead, effective learners cycle through them repeatedly, often starting at different points depending on the task or context.

Think of it as a continuous loop, where “practice” (CE) fuels “insight” (RO and AC), and “insight” continually shapes “further practice” (AE).

This process is flexible rather than linear, some learners might reflect more before they act, while others learn best by jumping in and adjusting along the way.

The key is that all four modes contribute something vital to the creation of enduring knowledge.

Learning Styles

Kolb’s learning theory (1984) sets out four distinct learning styles, which are based on a four-stage learning cycle (see above).

Kolb explains that different people naturally prefer a certain single different learning style.

Various factors influence a person’s preferred style. For example, social environment, educational experiences, or the basic cognitive structure of the individual.

Whatever influences the choice of style, the learning style preference itself is actually the product of two pairs of variables, or two separate “choices” that we make, which Kolb presented as lines of an axis, each with “conflicting” modes at either end.

A typical presentation of Kolb’s two continuums is that the east-west axis is called the Processing Continuum (how we approach a task), and the north-south axis is called the Perception Continuum (our emotional response, or how we think or feel about it).

Kolb believed that we cannot perform both variables on a single axis simultaneously (e.g., think and feel). Our learning style is a product of these two choice decisions.

It’s often easier to see the construction of Kolb’s learning styles in terms of a two-by-two matrix. Each learning style represents a combination of two preferred styles.

The matrix also highlights Kolb’s terminology for the four learning styles; diverging, assimilating, and converging, accommodating:

	Active Experimentation (Doing)	Reflective Observation (Watching)
Concrete Experience (Feeling)	Accommodating (CE/AE)	Diverging (CE/RO)
Abstract Conceptualization (Thinking)	Converging (AC/AE)	Assimilating (AC/RO)

Knowing a person’s (and your own) learning style enables learning to be orientated according to the preferred method.

That said, everyone responds to and needs the stimulus of all types of learning styles to one extent or another – it’s a matter of using emphasis that fits best with the given situation and a person’s learning style preferences.

Here are brief descriptions of the four Kolb learning styles:

Diverging (feeling and watching – CE/RO)

These people are able to look at things from different perspectives. They are sensitive. They prefer to watch rather than do, tending to gather information and use imagination to solve problems.

They are best at viewing concrete situations from several different viewpoints.

Kolb called this style “diverging” because these people perform better in situations that require ideas-generation, for example, brainstorming.

People with a diverging learning style have broad cultural interests and like to gather information.

They are interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, and tend to be strong in the arts.

People with the diverging style prefer to work in groups, to listen with an open mind and to receive personal feedback.

Assimilating (watching and thinking – AC/RO)

The assimilating learning preference involves a concise, logical approach. Ideas and concepts are more important than people.

These people require good, clear explanations rather than a practical opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it in a clear, logical format.

People with an assimilating learning style are less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts.  People with this style are more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value.

This learning style is important for effectiveness in information and science careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.

Converging (doing and thinking – AC/AE)

People with a converging learning style can solve problems and will use their learning to find solutions to practical issues.

They prefer technical tasks, and are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects.

People with a converging learning style are best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. They can solve problems and make decisions by finding solutions to questions and problems.

People with a converging learning style are more attracted to technical tasks and problems than social or interpersonal issues. A converging learning style enables specialist and technology abilities.

People with a converging style like to experiment with new ideas, to simulate, and to work with practical applications.

Accommodating (doing and feeling – CE/AE)

The Accommodating learning style is “hands-on,” and relies on intuition rather than logic. These people use other people’s analysis, and prefer to take a practical, experiential approach.

They are attracted to new challenges and experiences, and to carrying out plans.

They commonly act on “gut” instinct rather than logical analysis.

People with an accommodating learning style will tend to rely on others for information than carry out their own analysis. This learning style is prevalent within the general population.

Educational Implications

Both Kolb’s (1984) learning stages and the cycle could be used by teachers to critically evaluate the learning provision typically available to students, and to develop more appropriate learning opportunities.

Educators should ensure that activities are designed and carried out in ways that offer each learner the chance to engage in the manner that suits them best.

Also, individuals can be helped to learn more effectively by the identification of their lesser preferred learning styles and the strengthening of these through the application of the experiential learning cycle.

For instance, a predominantly hands-on learner might benefit from more reflective exercises or conceptual discussions, while someone who excels at theoretical understanding can gain new skills by engaging in practical, experiment-based activities.

Encouraging learners to step outside their comfort zones not only diversifies their skill sets but also fosters greater adaptability.

Ideally, activities and material should be developed in ways that draw on abilities from each stage of the experiential learning cycle and take the students through the whole process in sequence.

For example, instructors can begin with a hands-on experiment (Concrete Experience), give students time for group discussions or reflective journaling (Reflective Observation), provide theoretical models or readings (Abstract Conceptualization), and then encourage practical follow-up tasks or mini-projects (Active Experimentation).

This structured approach helps students see how each step builds on the previous one, making learning more cohesive and meaningful.

Emphasizing Active Practice

Much of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory rests on the idea that learning occurs through active engagement with an experience.

While the initial concrete experience stage is sometimes interpreted simply as “encountering” or “observing” something new, it can and should be understood as hands-on, practical participation.

That active element – physically trying out a task, engaging in a simulation, or performing an experiment – often provides the most vivid source of feedback and reflection.

Without genuine participation, learners may never form the strong memory traces or deeper insights that spark the next stages of reflection and conceptualization.

For educators, trainers, and students, this underscores the need to blend theoretical teaching with real-life application.

Where possible, encouraging learners to “do” the process they’re studying (e.g., running an actual experiment, role-playing a conversation, coding a small program, etc.) yields more potent learning outcomes than passively reading or listening.

This active practice not only helps learners better retain concepts but also allows them to spot gaps in their understanding, fueling more purposeful reflection.

Navigating the “Doing” vs. “Watching” Tension

Kolb’s model highlights that individuals tend to prefer either doing (Active Experimentation) or watching (Reflective Observation), creating a spectrum along the “processing” dimension.

Conflict can arise when a person who naturally leans toward real-time experimentation interacts with someone who prefers a more watchful, contemplative approach.

Far from being a flaw in the model, this inherent tension can be a valuable teaching and learning tool: it encourages collaboration and dialogue between different learning preferences.

For instance, in a group project setting, an “Accommodator” (actively practicing and diving in) may feel frustrated by a “Diverger” (watching and reflecting) who wants more time to consider alternatives before taking action.

On the other hand, the Diverger might provide broader perspective and creative ideas that prevent the group from rushing headlong into a solution that fails to account for important nuances.

In this way, the diversity of learning preferences can spark deeper, more robust learning experiences – provided that both “doers” and “watchers” are encouraged to appreciate each other’s strengths.

Critical Evaluation

1. Over-Simplicity and Linearity of the Learning Cycle

Kolb’s four-stage experiential learning cycle is criticized for being overly linear and simplistic, failing to reflect the complex, non-sequential way people often learn in real-world settings.

Explanation

Although Kolb’s cycle has become a widely recognized framework, critics such as Jarvis (1987) and Bergsteiner et al. (2010) argue that real learning rarely follows a neat, four-step path.

Learners may skip stages, repeat them out of order, or pursue multiple learning processes simultaneously.

For instance, Bergsteiner et al. (2010) point out that Kolb’s model uses “points” to represent activities that actually unfold over time, creating inconsistencies in how the stages interrelate.

Meanwhile, John Dewey also remarked that reflection and thinking seldom occur in a fixed sequence; in practice, “a number of processes can occur at once, [and] stages can be jumped.”

As a result, rigid adherence to Kolb’s steps can oversimplify or misrepresent the dynamic, iterative, and context-dependent nature of learning.

Implications

Because the model implies a tidy progression, teachers and trainers may be misled into designing overly prescriptive lesson plans, assuming learners must go in lockstep from stage to stage.

This can limit instructional creativity and responsiveness to learners’ needs.

Moreover, researchers attempting to measure or validate learning outcomes based on a strict four-step process may find inconsistent results or conflate different variables, complicating empirical research.

Ultimately, the risk is that educators overlook more fluid, emergent pathways to knowledge, leaving them unprepared to deal with the spontaneous, recursive ways that real learning often happens.

---

2. Lack of Social and Cultural Context

Kolb’s theory focuses on the individual learner’s internal cognitive process at the expense of important social, cultural, and contextual dimensions that shape learning.

Explanation

Critics like Holman et al. (1997), Reynolds (1997), and Vince (1998) note that factors such as power relations, interpersonal interactions, and cultural norms are largely missing from Kolb’s model.

Bergsteiner et al. (2010) similarly emphasize that “abstract” and “concrete” experiences are not clearly defined and often depend on the social setting.

For instance, whether an experience is ‘active’ or ‘passive’ can vary dramatically when learners engage in group projects, simulations, or culturally mediated practices.

Additionally, Anderson (1988) and Tennant (1997) argue that Western assumptions about self-direction and cognition underlie Kolb’s framework, thus limiting its universality in non-Western or collectivist cultures.

In other words, a learner’s experience is never purely individual – it is always embedded in broader social contexts that affect how and what is learned.

Implications

By undervaluing contextual and collective factors, educators and trainers risk oversimplifying how group work, social norms, or cultural attitudes can radically reshape the learning process.

In organizational or multicultural settings, ignoring these influences may lead to friction or misunderstanding, as team members’ social roles and cultural backgrounds significantly alter how they process and internalize experiences.

Consequently, Kolb’s model may lead practitioners to focus too narrowly on “internal reflection”, missing the collaborative, political, or cultural factors that can either facilitate or hinder learning in real-world scenarios.

---

3. The Learning Styles Debate – Validity and Evidence

There is weak empirical support for stable, distinct learning styles, including Kolb’s four style categories (Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, Accommodating), and little evidence that matching instruction to these styles actually improves learning outcomes.

Explanation

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) was originally developed with a small sample, and subsequent studies have found inconsistent reliability and validity.

Tennant (1997) notes that Kolb’s style labels “neatly dovetail” with the theory’s four stages but do not necessarily reflect true individual differences.

More broadly, Pashler et al. (2008) conducted a review indicating that the central claim of learning styles—that teaching to a student’s preferred style enhances performance—lacks robust evidence and is frequently deemed a “neuromyth.”

Bergsteiner et al. (2010) further critique the conflation of multiple constructs—such as “level,” “process,” and “style”- in a single instrument, making it unclear what exactly the LSI measures.

Implications

Educators relying on learning style diagnostics may invest time and resources in tailoring instruction to categories that do not reliably exist, rather than employing varied methods that benefit all learners.

Overemphasis on neat “style” boxes can also mislead students into thinking they learn only in one fixed way, limiting their willingness to develop a broader repertoire of learning approaches.

If the core idea of stable, universal styles is conceptually flawed, it may undermine confidence in Kolb’s model as a whole and prompt critics to question whether we should focus more on flexible strategies than on static labels.

---

4. Dynamic Nature of Learning and Adaptability

Kolb’s original model can appear too static, implying that each person consistently follows a specific style or cycle, whereas in reality learning preferences are fluid and adapt to new tasks or contexts.

Explanation

Early presentations of Kolb’s theory often treated learning style as if it were a fixed trait: someone is an “Assimilator” or an “Accommodator” across all situations.

Jarvis (1987) argued there was no mechanism in Kolb’s ELT for measuring how well a learner integrates all modes.

However, Kolb & Kolb (2005) later clarified that learning preferences – like Diverging or Converging – are better seen as dynamic states shaped by personal context and experiences.

Bergsteiner et al. (2010) echo this view, emphasizing that activities classified as “concrete” or “active” vary considerably depending on whether the learner is actually doing or merely reading about an experience.

As individuals move through different professional roles, educational levels, or cultural environments, their approach to learning can shift rapidly.

Implications

When learners and educators assume styles are static, they may fail to capitalize on moments where a shift in learning approach could be more effective (e.g., moving from hands-on experimentation to reflective observation).

This rigid mindset can stifle innovation and personal growth, as learners may not realize they can (and perhaps should) alter how they learn depending on the task.

Recognizing the adaptable nature of learning encourages more holistic teaching strategies, in which students are guided to strengthen less-preferred modes, thereby developing a broader skill set that fosters long-term professional and personal development.

---

5. Alternative Models and Recent Adaptations

Numerous alternative frameworks have emerged that refine or replace Kolb’s linear four-stage cycle, aiming to tackle its oversights, such as social context, rapid feedback loops, and evolving learning needs.

Explanation

One well-known alternative is Boyd’s OODA loop (Observe–Orient–Decide–Act), originally from military strategy.

Ryder and Downs (2022) argue that reflective models like Kolb’s can be too static and “outdated” in fast-paced, unpredictable environments, whereas the OODA loop emphasizes continuous reassessment and re-entry into different stages at varying speeds.

Jarvis’s (2004) expanded model proposes multiple potential “routes,” including pathways where learning may not occur at all, stressing that the environment (physical, cultural, social) can fundamentally alter one’s experiential process.

Bergsteiner et al. (2010) specifically advocate recasting Kolb’s cycle to incorporate correct graphic syntax and more nuanced distinctions between “concrete” and “abstract,” pointing out that certain types of learning might warrant an entirely separate cycle for passive/observational experiences.

Implications

Adopting or adapting these updated frameworks can help educators and organizations move beyond a “one-size-fits-all” linear model, facilitating a more realistic engagement with how people learn in changing, complex contexts.

A more flexible and context-aware approach can foster resilience and agility—attributes especially valuable in modern workplaces or highly dynamic fields like technology, healthcare, or leadership development.

Ultimately, the existence of robust alternatives challenges practitioners and researchers to refine or update Kolb’s theory, ensuring it aligns better with empirical evidence and diverse learning environments.

References

Anderson, V. (1988). Cultural Learning and Kolb’s Cycle (cited in Tennant, 1997).

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neumann, R. (2010). Kolb’s experiential learning model: critique from a modelling perspective. Studies in continuing education, 32(1), 29-46.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Routledge.

Coffield, F., Ecclestone, K., Hall, E., & Moseley, D. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford Further Education Unit.

Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, MA: McBer.

Kolb, D.A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences, in: A.W. Chickering (Ed.) The Modern American College (pp. 232–255). San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process (pp. 33–57). New York: Wiley.

Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational psychology: readings on human behavior in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult Learning in the Social Context. Croom Helm.

Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education–is the learning styles ‘myth’important?. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 241866.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological science in the public interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Ryder, M., & Downs, C. (2022). Rethinking reflective practice: John Boyd’s OODA loop as an alternative to Kolb. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100703.

Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). “Evolving Kolb: Experiential Education in the Age of Neuroscience.” Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73–95.

Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and Adult Learning (2nd ed.). Routledge

Further Reading

• How to Write a Psychology Essay
• David Kolb’s Website
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological science in the public interest, 9(3), 105-119.
• What? So What? Now What? Reflective Model