Applying Kolb’s Model to a Nontraditional Preservice Teaching Practicum

Preservice Teachers in the Field

The study of teacher education placement programs has been widely discussed in the literature (Ambrosetti, 2014; Butler & Cuenca, 2012; Campbell-Evans & Maloney, 1995; Clarke et al., 2012; Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer, Korthagen, & Bergen, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Davies, 2005; Franklin Torrez & Krebs, 2012; Hobson, Harris, Buckner-Manley, & Smith, 2012; Kuechle, Holzhauer, Ruey, Brulle, & Morrison, 2010). However, the examination of nontraditional placements and their effects on the emergent professionalism of preservice teachers is less prevalent. A number of critically important ideas result from this literature, ideas of import for all preservice teacher education programs. First, we know that preservice teachers have strongly formulated beliefs about teaching and learning prior to beginning their teacher training (e.g., Clark, 1988; Leavy, McSorley, & Bote, 2007; Richardson, 1996) but that these beliefs must be “examined, tested, and integrated with new more refined ideas” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 194) garnered as a result of their experiences during the practicum. We also know from this literature that the practicum experience is arguably one of the most critical components in the development of teacher identity and teacher competency. As noted by Franklin Torrez and Krebs (2012), “The student teaching experience is a pivotal component of most teacher education programs and a focus within teacher education literature” (p. 485). Finally, this literature addresses the numerous and seemingly complex issues associated with teacher education practicums, such as those presented by mentor–mentee relationships (Ambrosetti, 2014; Crasborn et al., 2010; Kuechle et al., 2010), a notion that is countered by Kolb and Kolb (2005), who note the necessity of tension as “conflict, differences, and disagreements are what drive the learning process” (p. 194).

This research acknowledges this wide body of literature, and yet there is a distinct gap—that of nontraditional and service learning field placements. Although research on student learning during house construction does exist (Dorward & Archibald, 1994; Enos, 2013), the effects of this unique opportunity on preservice and practicing teachers are less well understood. Through the examination of a unique student teaching environment using Kolb’s (1984) model, we can begin to examine consciously and with purpose the effects of nontraditional placements so as to attend to some of those noted theoretical gaps.

Experiential Learning

In addressing the haphazard study of preservice field education, the study presented here endeavored to crystalize the essential experiential components of the nontraditional practicum by systematically evaluating the development of emergent professionalism as two preservice teachers moved through and within Kolb’s (1984) model. Kolb’s experiential learning model is a seminal work in the area of experiential learning and one that speaks, although not directly to preservice teacher education, to opportunities that challenge previous knowledge through experiential opportunities. This model of experiential learning consists of four steps through which participants in the experience progress, noting that this progression may not be sequential in nature. The first, the concrete experience, is the experiential context in which one finds themselves and is the basis for the transformative learning that can take place. Next, observation of and reflection on that experience then occur as participants in the experience compare what they know and understand with the context in which they find themselves. From this, participants may move to the third step, formation of abstract concepts based upon the reflection, in which new ideas are formed. Finally, in Step 4, those new ideas are eventually tested. Kolb and Kolb (2005) described this movement through the four steps as the grasping and transforming of experience. Specifically, Kolb and Kolb (2005) note that “The ELT [experiential learning theory] model portrays two dialectically related modes of grasping experience—Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC)—and two dialectically related modes of transforming experience—Reflective Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE)” (p. 194). While both grasping experience and transforming experience, one might move through and between the steps as each step is not a discrete event leading to the next. Instead, experiential learning should be seen as a “learning cycle or spiral where the learner ‘touches all the bases’—experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting—in a recursive process that is responsive to the learning situation and what is being learned” (p. 194).

Further to Kolb’s (1984) model, a body of literature on experiential learning also exists that examines alternate benefits and risks of undertaking such an experience. For example, Boud (2005) proposed that experiential learning could have differing benefits ranging from accreditation with a governing body for the purposes of certification, hands-on experience, consciousness raising, and personal growth. Conversely, Beard and Wilson (2002) warned that to learn effectively, an environment of trust and support was essential. Otherwise, the learning could become distressed under the additional complexities of the experience. Both these benefits and risks were noted by Kolb (1984), who suggested that learning involved transactions between the person and the environment, transactions dependent upon risk taking and an often-lessened level of comfort with the environment, but that this was necessary for “assimilating new experiences into existing concepts and accommodating existing concepts to new experiences” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 194). Peterson, DeCato, and Kolb (2015) supported this when they argued that the movement one would encounter in experiential learning was a “catalyst for learning” (p. 228). In the context of this study, the environment, a construction site, played a major role in the learning of the preservice teachers, and shaped both their perceptions of learning and the learner.

From a teacher education perspective, Kolb’s (1984) model can be utilized to examine preservice teacher emergent professionalism specifically when implemented against other critical works in the field of education. For example, Fuller (1969), in his seminal work on teacher growth and competency, suggested that teachers begin their career focused on concerns about themselves, such as personal success, and only later in their career did they progress to concerns for student learning. These same concerns could be applied to the various stages of Kolb’s (1984) model whereby during the first two stages, preservice teachers focus on surviving the practicum and receiving a successful assessment, and later progress to developing their own sense of teacher identity and a concern for student learning. As argued by Tomkins and Ulus (2016), undergraduate students typically exhibit a tendency to “appropriate the teacher’s experience rather than dwell on or develop their own” (p. 158); however, participation in a nontraditional environment that challenges preconceived beliefs through observation and reflection, the development of new ideas, and active experimentation could begin to move students beyond replication to a development of their own unique identity.

There have been many critiques of Kolb’s (1984) model, particularly centering on the absence of the learner in the experiential context (Fenwick, 2001; Jarvis, 2001; Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). In answer to this perceived deficiency, Fenwick (2001) identified constructivism as the preferred dominant orientation in experiential learning. In the constructivist model, a coach or mentor attempts to guide the learning by encouraging reflection. Although the coach or mentor can lead the student to undertake reflective actions, the individual’s interpretation dictates the meaning of the experience, thereby placing the learner at the center of the experiential context. This research, based on both Kolb’s (1984) model and the stages put forth by Fuller (1969), confirmed the placement of the learner at the center of the experiential context. The preservice teachers involved were able to both recognize and articulate their own growth over time.

Case/Participant Selection

The case study site was chosen due to its innovative housing construction program for high school students. The preservice teacher participants in this study were in their final year of a bachelor of education program, and as such, they had already completed two previous practicum placements in more traditional environments. Both of the participants were female and had no previous construction experience. In their placement requests, both of the participants expressed a desire to be placed with the school division involved in the study, and both volunteered for this nontraditional experience.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection consisted of a document analysis of required portfolios created by the preservice teachers and promotional materials created by the school on behalf of the program. Although these sources of data were important, the most enlightening data resulted from a series of semi-structured individual and focus group interviews with the preservice teachers. The semi-structured interviews were video recorded and transcribed for accuracy. Once transcribed, they were analyzed thematically using Kolb’s (1984) model as a guide. Each interview transcript was coded for instances describing the concrete experience, observation and reflection, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. This analysis was completed individually by each researcher, and then examined collectively for instances of agreement and disagreement. The four preliminary findings presented here are those that were common to researchers and supported by the other two data sources. The resultant model being presented examined these findings in relation to educational literature noted earlier, particularly the work of Fuller (1969) regarding the concerns of new teachers.

The Concrete Experience: The Environment

The practicum is by nature a concrete, experiential part of teacher education, and the nontraditional placement described here was no different in this regard. Findings suggested that the two preservice teachers had initial concerns, both prior to and early in the practicum, not unlike other preservice teachers, around their ability to fulfill expectations and successfully complete their practicum. Where their concerns did differ significantly was in the apprehension they felt around the concrete experience. Both preservice teachers expressed nervousness regarding the location of the classroom and their ability to function well in the construction environment. Similar to their previous placements, they were in a classroom, but in this case, the classroom was in the garage of the house, which was being constructed. In addition, they expressed feeling apprehensive about the fact that they “had a complete lack of understanding about construction” and “didn’t like being outdoors much” (Preservice Teacher A, 2014). Both preservice teachers noted that these concerns were distinctly attributable to the nontraditional environment and their comparison of it with a more traditional classroom setting. This initial comparison caused the preservice teachers to describe a feeling of apprehension about the environment because it was different from what they had experienced in their previous placements, and it was this sense of an impending unknown that disrupted the preservice teachers’ ideas of what stands as teaching and learning. At this point in our adaptation of the model (see Figure 1), the preservice teachers were largely concerned with their own performance, and questions centered on how they could be successful teaching in a nontraditional classroom environment. For example, they had questions such as the following:

These questions centered squarely on the concrete experience itself and on issues of self-preservation and success.

Observation of and Reflection on the Experience: Multiple Points of Contact

This practicum on a construction site required the preservice teachers to question that which stands as knowledge and learning, thereby prompting them to examine their own perceptions of learning and teaching against the more comfortable notion provided by traditional classrooms. Two experienced teachers, one who specialized in math and science and another who specialized in English and social studies, guided this observation and reflection by providing opportunities for the preservice teachers to observe their practice, and engage in discussion regarding the reasons for choices made during teaching. For example, preservice teacher A, in her practicum portfolio, described reflecting on the plans created by her partner teacher and the resultant discussion that came from that observation.

When I look at his [partner teacher] plans and I look at mine I wonder why the result was so different. I basically did what he did but it did not work out at all the same. When I asked him he said he just knows the kids and the plans come second. You have to plan for the kids, not the subject. (Preservice Teacher A practicum portfolio, 2015)

From this experience, she was able to both observe and reflect on what her partner teacher viewed as successful planning in this environment. As a result of examples such as this, where the preservice teachers and partner teachers were able to work together, a “community of practice that involves membership, identity formation, transitioning from novice to expert through mentorship, and experience in the activities of practice” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 200) was created. This provided each preservice teacher with two additional points of contact, an additional partner teacher and a peer, making evident the “collective knowledge held by each member of the community” (p. 200).

In addition to the two partner teachers and the students, the construction site was also the work site for a variety of trades people, and enjoyed frequent visitors from the builder, the city planning authority, school board representatives, and interested community members. All of these community partners became points of contact for the preservice teachers, and many of these groups took a hand in the education of the Grade 10 students, particularly the trades professionals, as the students engaged with the real-world tasks associated with their curriculum. In the early stages of attempting to teach the students, the preservice teachers, through observation of their partner teachers’ interactions with community, became aware of the necessity of working with trades and community people on the site. As the outcome of this project was to build two houses that would be sold by the homebuilder, the interruptions, such as they might be viewed through an educational lens, were in fact necessary to the project at hand. Although this could have been viewed as disrupting, the partner teachers instead embraced these partnerships and, as a result, so did the preservice teachers. This made the task of teaching both richer and more complex. The preservice teachers made efforts to relate their lessons to the housing construction whenever possible as the concrete application of the lesson appealed to many of the students. However, interaction with visitors and trades people provided the additional challenge of getting students to refocus on the lesson after the visitor had left.

As shown by our adapted model (see Figure 1), the preservice teachers found themselves reflecting on the visitors to the classroom. This reflection was supported by observations of how their partner teachers included community members as part of the classroom. In effect, they began to reflect on their own concerns as a result of watching those around them. Although the preservice teachers were still largely concerned with their own performance, the nature of their questions changed due to the reflective observation they had been practicing. For example, they had questions such as the following:

These questions evidenced the preservice teachers’ ability to engage in observation and reflection that led to a change in their emergent professionalism and sense of self as a teacher.

Formation of Abstract Concepts Based Upon Reflection: Interdisciplinarity

Based primarily upon their reflections around feedback provided and given that the two preservice teachers were with the same group of students all day, the two preservice teachers were able to draw upon reflection to create abstract ideas about the learning of their students. This led to a particular way of designing the learning for their students as they engaged in the planning process. Both preservice teachers acknowledged a need for lessons that were interdisciplinary in nature, lessons that were able to address multiple outcomes while honoring the students’ desire for a real-world connection between learning and content. As one of the preservice teachers noted,

In this class the students seem to have an opinion or know when what you’re teaching matters to them and when it doesn’t. As much as I could, I had to think about the lessons differently, not as English but as, how can I link this English to the house or to another subject? I had to think about it totally differently. (Preservice Teacher B, 2015)

The formation of an interdisciplinary perspective of learning occurred in response to not only the students but also the environment. By moving toward a more abstract conception of subject matter content, the preservice teachers were able to work with the recurring reality of constant interruptions to the learning environment. As a result of the regular need for contractors to interrupt lessons, the preservice teachers found themselves designing learning that incorporated both the construction of the house and multiple curricular outcomes. This was necessary both from a design perspective and as an efficiency measure allowing them to ensure suitable engagement with necessary curriculum. They began to draw on trades people, parents, and community members involved with the construction to speak on topics that integrated the construction with the curriculum. They found themselves designing learning that drew on “large-scale projects that are more inquiry-based” (Preservice Teacher A, 2015) to create interdisciplinary lessons that combined multiple subjects and connected to the real-life work of the construction site.

The preservice teachers were able to integrate feedback from their partner teachers along with their observations and reflections on the environment to begin to form ideas of their own regarding teaching and learning in this context. In essence, they were able to consider what was required of them to benefit the students. At this point in the adapted model (see Figure 1), the preservice teachers began to consider how their teaching could be strengthened for the benefit of the students. For example, they had questions such as the following:

Through consideration of these issues, the preservice teachers were beginning to evidence a more robust sense of their own emergent professionalism.

Active Experimentation: Creating a Hands-On Learning Environment

The abstract concepts noted above entered into the phase of active experimentation through their implementation, and it was at this point that evidence of emergent professionalism could be seen. As Fuller (1969) noted in his seminal study, preservice teachers begin their teaching practice focused on their own performance, largely due to the evaluative nature of the practicum. Fuller also noted, however, that this concern with self-diminished with experience, and preservice teachers were able to shift their gaze from their own performance to concerns based on the needs of the learners. This shift, which we termed emergent professionalism, was evident in the final phase of Kolb’s (1984) model as the preservice teachers in this study grappled with creating an environment conducive to the needs of their students.

The preservice teachers utilized the abstract concept of interdisciplinarity to make decisions around the learning and teaching for their students. First, they quickly determined that the students preferred lessons that were tactile and creative in nature. As one of the preservice teachers noted,

They like videos but a lot of the time it’s drawing body systems on the board, getting them to do that. Or getting them to draw out a city map, or to create . . . anything that’s . . . they’re creating, they were very happy to do. (Preservice Teacher A, 2015)

The resultant implementation of their ideas—that of having students create and do versus read about and watch—engaged students in ways that they found meaningful, particularly given that the Grade 10 students involved in this program applied for admission based on the desire for a different kind of learning environment. The preservice teachers recognized and implemented learning in a more tactile and kinesthetic environment.

With growing insight into their students’ preferences for tactile, connected learning, the preservice teachers further demonstrated their emergent professionalism through an awareness of student need as the driver of teacher design. They began to address issues of interactivity, both with the curriculum and the environment. For example, in describing the reality that the students want to be outside building the house, Preservice Teacher A examined how this need drove her planning around the mathematical concept of angles. By necessity, her planning took into account the fact that

the kids all want to be outside building the house. They all get to go at certain times but it’s also really flexible and some kids just need that, to go out there. So we go out there too and measure angles. They would all pick that over math in here. So while they measured angles I learned how to frame a house. (Preservice Teacher A, 2014)

Some subjects such as math and science were more naturally suited to the construction project, whereas other areas such as social studies were more of a challenge. Regardless of this challenge, however, the preservice teachers found ways to implement the conceptions of interdisciplinarity and connectedness developed as a result of their movement through Kolb’s (1984) model. Preservice Teacher B (2015) noted her use of interdisciplinary planning when she said,

Instead of studying government out of the textbook I was able to connect the real world and the past to something that they relate to. We did a building plan of the city and brought in the city planner to talk about it with the kids. They drew a map and planned it all out the way they would do it. And they loved it, and the plans were really good. (Preservice Teacher B, 2015)

In evaluating these student-driven lessons, the preservice teachers took into consideration feedback from students, additional evidence of their shift to concerns for others. Finding themselves in the classroom with the same students all day provided a unique experience, particularly from a secondary education perspective. This allowed the preservice teachers to gather feedback from the students on their lessons in an authentic and natural way. For example, during lunch hours, discussion would often touch on the day’s lessons, and the preservice teachers would ask their students questions such as, “Was that interesting to you? If it’s not interesting, what can I do to make it more relatable to you” (Preservice Teacher B, 2015).

Finally, in addition to creating a hands-on learning environment, the preservice teachers were able to become colearners alongside their students. This allowed them to both model effective learning strategies and gave them the opportunity to understand the learning needs of their students by observing them in the construction environment. Under the supervision of experienced trades people, the students and preservice teachers found themselves building a deck, framing, tiling, and assisting with electrical work. As a result of the close work with trades people, the preservice teachers modeled conversation skills, skills seen as equally valuable for students. Preservice Teacher A (2014) provided an example of this modeling when she noted that, “The kids are a little shy, sometimes, if they don’t know somebody so I try to get the ball rolling on conversation. This way they see how to talk to people in a professional kind of way,” and by the conclusion of the project, the preservice teachers observed, “these kids can talk to any adult” (Preservice Teacher A, 2015).

At this point in the adapted model (see Figure 1), the preservice teachers began to demonstrate emergent professionalism as evidenced by their concerns for student learning. No longer preoccupied with concerns for their success, they shifted their focus to those elements of learning most valued by students in this environment. Ultimately, the preservice teachers began to consider not how they could strengthen their teaching for the benefit of students but how the needs of students would influence their work. For example, they had questions such as the following:

At this point, preservice teachers were beginning to understand the necessity of allowing students agency in their own learning.