Reflective learning on study tours

Educ Res Policy Prac (2012) 11:243–260DOI 10.1007/s10671-011-9124-7

A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour

Samuel Kin Tak Cheng · Kwok Keung Ho

Received: 4 April 2011 / Accepted: 3 December 2011 / Published online: 27 December 2011© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This study is to investigate the reflective learning in a group of secondary schoolstudents who participated in an educational tour to Liannan, which is located in a rural areain Guangdong Province, Mainland China. The specific aim is to develop a framework todescribe the learning in an educational tour. For this purpose, data were collected throughstudents’ reflective writing in daily journals and end-of-trip sharing passages, triangulatedwith participant observation and interviews. The data analysis involved the use of groundedtheory’s constant-comparative technique—an inductive method for generating hypothesesthat are grounded in data. During the analysis of the data, the types of student learning whichemerged were categorized in a Reflective Learning Taxonomy for an educational tour, com-prising seven levels which are developmental in nature. The interpretative framework basedon such a taxonomy of reflective learning reveals the rich context of learning in an educationaltour and so makes a contribution to research on learning outside the classroom.

Keywords Educational tour · Learning taxonomy and outcome · Reflective learning

1 Introduction

In the past few decades, there have been major educational reforms globally which haveincluded an emphasis on providing life-wide learning opportunities to learners. In tradi-tional schools, learning and teaching usually take place within the classroom, but increasingattention is now being given by governments and educators to learning in different contexts,beyond the classroom setting. (Curriculum Development Council 2002, 6, p. 1).

Despite the fact that educational tours are among the most expensive outdoor learningactivities, each year many Hong Kong schools and institutes (from primary to tertiary level)

S. K. T. ChengTsung Tsin Christian Academy, Kowloon, Hong Kong

K. K. Ho (B)Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, NT, Hong Konge-mail: [email protected]

123

244 S. K. T. Cheng, K. K. Ho

as well as organizations (charitable and non-charitable) spend a considerable amount ofmoney in organizing educational tours for students. For instance, with the support of theEducation Bureau (formerly named Education and Manpower Bureau), the Li Ka ShingFoundation donated HK$7 million to sponsor a ‘Millennium Study Tour’ for 1,000 localstudents in the summer of 2000.1 Also, the Quality Education Fund sponsored ‘ExposureLearning’ in the category of ‘All Round Education’,2 with 55 and eight projects for second-ary school educational tours to Mainland China and overseas respectively being supportedin 1998 to 2002. In its fourth call for bids in 2000 alone, 24 educational tour projects weresubmitted and over HK$10 million was allocated in sponsorship.

Deciding whether a tour should be regarded as ‘educational’ is not straightforward as itis to some extent a philosophical issue—like Dewey’s (1916) consideration of whether anexperience is ‘educative’, ‘non-educative’, ‘un-educative’ or ‘mis-educative’. In Dewey’sdefinition, ‘non-educative’ refers to learning or activity that leads to little or no immediateunderstanding and offers little or no growth in the future; ‘un-educative’ learning or activ-ity fails to clarify educational ends and consider appropriate means for seeking them; and‘mis-educative’ refers to learning or activity that is based on misunderstandings, confusionor unethical behaviour and that results in future misinterpretations; and finally ‘educative’learning experiences provide intellectual and moral growth in the present and the groundsfor more growth in the future.

However, in order to distinguish between an educational tour and other types of tour, anoperational definition of the former is required.

An educational tour, which is a kind of student activity in education, is defined for thispaper as:

a planned experiential programme/activity, taking place outside the school environ-ment, for student learning and their development in the cognitive, affective and skilldomains. Learning in educational tours takes place through participating, interactingwith the environment and student reflection during and after the activity.

Learning in an educational tour may be viewed as a form of outdoor education in whichthe context is very different from learning in a classroom. Kuh (1993) reported the valuedoutcomes of such out-of-class experiences (though in a post-secondary education context) as:cognitive complexity, knowledge acquisition and application, humanitarianism, interpersonaland intrapersonal competence and practical competence. These outcomes may attract educa-tors to become more concerned about out-of-class education, since it can be a complementto in-class education.

As indicated in Life-wide Learning Experience: a quality framework (Education andManpower Bureau 2003), learning in tours has the quality of informal learning in that it isless systematic, more flexible, less structured and less institutionalized; is more dependent onlearners’ self-motivation and self-assessment; and is ‘first-hand’ experience in real contexts,involving considerable cooperation and sharing.

As Askew and Carnell (1998, pp. 7–10) emphasized, effective learning in an educationaltour depends on the learner, the impact of the context on the learner and the action learningprocess.

The above discussion raises questions for educators and educational tour organizers.For example, a learner’s learning in the present is influenced by his/her past experiences,and only the learner can identify and tell others what has been learned in the experience.

1 http://www.lksf.org/eng/media/press/20000208.shtml (Accessed 25 May 2008).2 http://qcrc.qef.org.hk/qef/browse.phtml?nature_id=3 (Accessed 25 May 2008).

123

http://www.lksf.org/eng/media/press/20000208.shtml

http://qcrc.qef.org.hk/qef/browse.phtml?nature_id=3

A reflective learning taxonomy for an educational tour 245

Given this, how should educators describe ‘learning’ in an educational tour? Studying stu-dents’ reflections in an educational tour may provide answers to this question as such reflec-tions can be a means of tracing their learning processes.

In the following paragraphs, the literature review on learning, including experiential learn-ing, and a discussion of learning taxonomies as a means of evaluating the outcomes of reflec-tive learning is elaborated; followed by the design and methodology of the present study. Thena summary of the research result—A Learning Taxonomy for Educational Tour—is presented;followed by the summary of the major findings and their implications for programme evalua-tors and designers of educational tours. The strengths and limitations of the present researchare also presented, and recommendations for future research are provided.

2 Literature review and theoretical framework

According to the Association for Experiential Education, the definition of experiential educa-tion is ‘a philosophy and methodology in which educators purposefully engage with learnersin direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills andclarify values.’3

As noted before, unlike classroom learning, there are no textbooks and formal lessons inan educational tour. Generally speaking, learning in tours of this kind can be regarded asexperiential education as learning is mainly induced through social interaction, dialogue andthe experiences encountered on the tour.

Dewey (1938) laid a philosophical foundation for learning through experience in his bookExperience and Education, which grappled in depth with the role of experience in learn-ing. Dewey argued that all genuine education comes about through experience—but that notall experiences are genuinely or equally educative, a point which is elaborated later in thissection. His theory of experience advocated two principles for interpreting the educationalfunctions of experience—continuity and interaction. In his view, all experiences influenceone’s future for better or worse, which is continuity; that is, one’s current experience is afunction of the interaction between one’s past experiences and the present situation. Inter-action, which refers to the situational influence on one’s experience, is going on between anindividual and objects and other people. As discussed earlier, there are rich interaction oppor-tunities in an educational tour—with the environment, other people and oneself (reflectingon new experiences)—the impact of which can be labeled as ‘learning through experience’.

Educational tours are rich in what Dewey (1929) refers to as ‘primary’ experiences, andthese experiences are immediate and tangible in a moving world which presents itself tothe senses and provides the raw materials from which knowledge can begin. However,Dewey claimed that primary experiences are essentially ‘non-cognitive’ and have to undergoa process of refining, which he referred to as secondary or reflective experience. Second-ary experience clarifies the meaning of primary experience, organizing it so that there isa useful accumulation of knowledge. In such secondary experiences, he contended, learn-ers can grasp experiences with understanding instead of just having sensory contact withthem.

According to phenomenography (Bowden 2000), experiences are not located either in thesubject or in the world, being neither psychological nor physical; being neither mind normatter, ‘experiences comprise an internal relationship between the subject (experiencer) andthe world’ (Marton and Booth 1997, p. 122). Joplin (1995) suggested that not all experiences

3 http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE (Accessed 29 Dec 2008).

123

http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE


can be regarded as experiential learning, and not all experiential programmes involve ‘experi-ential education’. She claimed that experience alone is insufficient and that it is the reflectionprocess, often referred to as an ‘action-reflection’ cycle, which turns experience into experi-ential education. In this regard, educational tours can justifiably be regarded as experientialeducation in which the students are involved in reflection on their experience throughout thetrip.

In describing the relationship between experience and knowledge, Kelley and Rasey(1952) argued that an individual’s experiential learning process begins with perception (orpurpose), moving to experience, then to thought (or value), which results in knowledge orlearning.

2.1 Models of experiential learning

Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) (Kolb et al. 2001) provides a holistic model of the learn-ing process and a multi-linear model of adult development, both of which are consistent withwhat is known about how people learn, grow and develop. The theory is referred to as ‘expe-riential learning’ to highlight the central role that experience plays in the learning process,an emphasis that distinguishes ELT from other learning theories. The term ‘experiential’ isused, therefore, to differentiate ELT from both cognitive learning theories, which tend toemphasize cognition over affect, and behavioural learning theories that deny any role forsubjective experience in the learning process.

Kolb et al. (2001) summarized the strengths of four learning styles: ‘concrete experience’,‘reflective observation’, ‘abstract conceptualization’ and ‘active experimentation’. Learnerswho have a ‘concrete experience’ learning style are strong in learning through experiencingand relating to people, and are sensitive to people and their feelings. In ‘reflective observa-tion’, learners are learning by reflecting and observing carefully before making judgements,viewing things from different perspectives and looking inward for meanings. Those with an‘abstract conceptualization’ learning style are strong in the logical analysis of ideas, plansystematically, and employ deductive thinking as the basis of their understanding. Finally,‘active experimentation’ involves learning by doing; such learners have the ability to getthings done, are willing to take risks and have extraverted personalities which allow them toinfluence people and events.

The work of Kolb provides a framework which can be used to observe students’ learningin an educational tour, an event which provides a context for students with different learningstyles and strengths (Bringle 2003). Students have to experience (concrete experience), toreflect (reflective observation), to internalize (abstract conceptualization) and to act (activeexperimentation). As educational tours involve many concrete experiences which differ fromstudents’ previous ones, a ‘confrontation’ of experiences is unavoidable. However, Kolb’smodel is a horizontal description of different learning styles—he did not attempt to commenton the value of these styles, or which learning style will lead to a higher level of learning. Avertical description would complement Kolb’s model by clarifying the ultimate aim of thiskind of learning for educators who design experiential learning.

Unlike Kolb’s experiential learning model, Dennison and Kirk (1990) proposed a cycleof learning which emphasized the flow of learning. The cycle includes four steps, viz., Do,Review, Learn and Apply. In the Do stage, students are engaged in learning activities whichare experiential. Then they have to reflect and evaluate the process in the Review stage. Afterthat, they extract meaning from the review and move into the Learn stage. Finally, they planto use what they have learned in future action in the Apply stage.

123


Dennison and Kirk’s cycle of learning is quite similar to the learning in an educationaltour, in which students are engaged in a learning context (tour site) to experience (Do) and arethen required to produce a reflective journal (Review). Hopefully, they can extract meaningfrom what they have experienced (Learn) and finally decide on future action for themselves(Apply).

2.2 Reflection on experience for transformation

While the most prevalent understanding of experiential learning is based on reflection, whichcasts the individual as a central actor in a drama of personal meaning-making, Duley (1981,p. 611) commented that ‘The skill of experiential learning in which people tend to be themost deficient is reflection’. In this important skill, the learner supposedly reflects on livedexperience, then interprets and generalizes this experience to form mental structures; andthese structures are knowledge, stored in the memory as concepts that can be represented,expressed and transferred to new situations. According to Knapp (1992, p. 17), ‘the aim ofreflection is to promote meaningful experience’. The achievement of meaning involves a goalthat can give significance to life which, when translated into action, results in a recognitionof harmony among feelings, thoughts and actions. The purpose of reflection is to channel andfocus the meanings that people inevitably try to derive from experiences; reflection mediatesexperience in order to help in making meaning.

3 Learning taxonomy—a structural description of learning

While many educators recognize the significance of experiential learning, they seldomdevelop evaluation measures for it. Though the context is very different, the ways in whichlearning is evaluated in the traditional classroom may provide guidance for the evaluationof experiential learning, which is the subject of this paper. Various taxonomies have beendeveloped for traditional education. For example, Gibbs (1992) and Tang (2001, 2003) havereported categories for the meaning of learning; and Biggs and Collis’ (1982) SOLO tax-onomy is a well-known approach for measuring learning outcomes. While referring to avery different context, these taxonomies are still worth discussing as possible models of ataxonomy for the description of learning in an educational tour.

It is interesting to note that, though Gibbs’ (1992, p. 4) research was on over 2,000 stu-dents taking undergraduate degree programmes in over 40 disciplines and Tang’s (2003, p.1422) work was concerned with students studying teacher training courses, their concep-tions of learning are quite similar. Tang also claimed that these categories have a hierarchicalstructure, meaning that the lower-level meaning categories are embedded in the higher-levelones; and the relationship between the categories suggests that the levels of learning maynot be discrete but developmental, with individuals possibly moving from a low to a highlevel. Common to both the above learning taxonomies is the point that low-level learningfocuses on something concrete—the knowledge, examination, procedures and skills—whilehigh-level learning relates to something abstract such as attitudes and perspectives, as well aspersonal development. Thus the developmental direction of learning should be from concreteto abstract, and from external (learning materials) to internal (personal development).

The ‘Structure of observed learning outcomes’ (SOLO), as proposed by Biggs and Collis(1982), involved a five-stage taxonomy for learners’ output. This taxonomy is useful forjudging a learner’s progress with reference to these five stages of learning. Also, it providesa clear description to distinguish between surface learning and deep learning. Moreover, the

123


taxonomy gives teachers a goal to aim for in designing learning activities which can helpstudents attain higher stages of learning.

The above taxonomies can be helpful in developing a learning taxonomy for educationaltours—for describing the learning through reflection and hence providing an instrument forits evaluation—though they cannot be applied directly as they were developed basically forinstitutional learning, not life-wide learning. Issues related to a learning taxonomy for educa-tional tours, such as whether the learning levels are characterized by a hierarchical structureand can be separated into surface and deep approaches, are discussed in later paragraphs.

4 Design and methodology

Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology which derives its name from thepractice of generating theory from research that is ‘grounded’ in data (Corbin and Strauss2007). Many of the central components of a grounded theory approach—such as constantcomparison, theoretical sampling and coding procedures—were introduced by the sociolo-gists Glaser and Strauss (1967) in The Discovery of Grounded Theory, and were subsequentlydeveloped in later publications by these authors, in some cases in collaboration with others.Overall, this methodology emerged as an alternative strategy to more traditional approachesto scientific enquiry that relied heavily on the hypothesis testing, verification techniques andquantitative forms of analysis that were particularly popular in the social sciences at thattime.

The basic tenet of grounded theory methodology is that a theory must emerge from thedata—that is, must be grounded in the data—and it thus purports to be an inductive rather thana deductive approach. As defined by two of its major proponents (Strauss and Corbin 1990,p. 24), ‘the grounded theory approach is a qualitative research method that uses a systematicset of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon’.The intention is to develop an account of a phenomenon that identifies the major constructs,or categories, in grounded theory terms, as well as their relationships, and the context andprocess, thus providing a theory of the phenomenon that is much more than a descriptiveaccount (Becker 1993).

A grounded theory approach was chosen for the present research for two main reasons.First, the current study does not involve any pre-set hypotheses for testing; all the outcomes ofthe research are based on the data, which matches the canon of grounded theory methodology.In addition, educational tours as a context for learning are ill-defined in the present theoriesof learning. On the one hand, they involve elements of ‘traditional classroom learning’, suchas well-defined learning objectives and learning through interaction with fellow students andteachers. However, such tours also represent a distinctive context which encompasses ele-ments of learning that are missing in a conventional classroom setting, including interactionwith people from a different culture and a more open learning environment which promotesexploration and provides rich stimulation. Unfortunately, no established theories of learningseem suitable for explaining fully such a learning context; and in their absence, a groundedtheory approach—which argues for initial data collection and preliminary analyses to takeplace in advance of consulting and incorporating prior research literature— seemed an appro-priate choice for the present research. This emphasis is intended to ensure that the analysis isbased on the data and that pre-existing constructs do not shape the analysis and subsequenttheory formation; and if any existing theoretical constructs are utilized, they must be justifiedthrough the data. Note, however, that the reading and integration of existing literature isdelayed, not omitted, and is regarded as forming an important part of theory development.

123


4.1 Data collection

In this exploratory research, a purposive sample of an educational tour to Mainland Chinawas selected for examination. The tour was organized by a Hong Kong secondary schoolwith the help of a travel agent. Thirty students took part in the tour, accompanied by fiveteachers, including myself as a participant observer and an alumnus of the school as a researchassistant.

The data for this research were basically collected during and immediately after the trip,and were of three types: (1) daily journal writing; (2) end-of-trip ‘sharing’ passages; and (3)observation and interviewing by the researcher. The journal writing and sharing passagescomplemented each other: the writing of journals provided on-the-spot reflections whichreduced memory loss and the mixing of responses for each day with feelings after the 6-day trip; and the sharing passages offered a more holistic idea of students’ reactions, whichcomplemented the more ‘fragmented’ ideas and feelings generated each day. Finally, myobservations and interviews provided further insights into the students’ reactions to theirexperiences on the tour.

It should be noted that, of these three sources, the primary data for analysis were the stu-dents’ daily journal entries from which categories were extracted for hypothesis formulation.The end-of-tour sharing passages were treated as ‘interweaving’ data, to be collected andexamined, and my observations and interviews were treated as support and triangulation dataand were not analysed separately.

Participants were asked to write a journal by the end of each day. Three guiding questionswere given to students to help them write their journals:

(i) What were the most memorable events today? (Describe in as much detail as possible.)(ii) Have you realized anything about yourself, other people or anything else as a result

of your experiences today?(iii) Did anything which happened today stimulate you to reflect on it?

The first question aimed to help participants to recall what for them were key events duringthe day; the second question prepared them to consider the meaning of those experiences forthemselves and others; and the third question prompted them to reflect on their experiences.

4.2 Data analysis

According to the grounded theory approach, data analysis should begin with the first inter-views. Once an interview is transcribed, the data provided are ‘fractured’ by open codingand then, by comparing the information from each interview (called ‘constant comparison’),hopefully ideas—referred to as ‘indicators’—begin to emerge (Glaser 1978). As the dataare constantly compared, the researcher is able to put them into related groups from whichconcepts arise, and these concepts are then abstracted further to form categories. This processcontinues until all the available information is categorized. As the information provided fromthe data is abstracted further, patterns begin to be formed to explain what is happening inthe substantive area under study, with a core category around which all the information iscentred.

With reference to the above outline, the analysis of the data in this study consisted ofthe following stages. First, categories were generated by examining the journals of the 30participants in each day of the trip, in an effort to identify common themes in the data. Thiswas the constructive phase of data analysis where the statements in journals were fragmentedand initial categories created. This is the first round of data analysis.

123


In the second round of data analysis, students’ journals were analysed again to trace theconcepts of learning through reflection. The results from this round helped me to discoverconcepts and categories which finally led to the development of levels for describing thelearning through reflection in an educational tour.

5 A reflective learning taxonomy

Following the tenets of grounded theory approach, the data analysis in the present researchstarted with fragmented journal writing, involving a comparison of the ideas expressed instudents’ journals, from which indicators and categories (to use Glaser’s term) emerged.Finally, after constant comparison of fragmented and re-structured data, a reflective learningtaxonomy is developed as a description of learning through reflection in the context of aneducational tour.

From the first round of analysis of students’ comments, the following ideas were identi-fied: making observations; reporting experiences; doing comparisons; showing appreciation;expressing self-awareness; and even reflecting on life. Those categories were fragments andtheir relationships were not the emphasis in the first round of data analysis. The categoriesfound in this round of data analysis stimulated my development of a Reflective LearningTaxonomy.

As discussed above, a learning taxonomy can help conceptualize and structure the mean-ing of learning (Gibbs 1992; Tang 2003), or describe the learning outcomes as in the SOLOtaxonomy (Biggs and Collis 1982). Moreover, a hierarchically structured learning taxonomycan help in differentiating surface learning from deep learning. In an effort to overcome thelimitation raised in the first round of analysis that the categories were described as discreteelements in an educational tour without consideration of any linkages between them, andprovide an additional layer of understanding of students’ learning in an educational tour, ataxonomy of reflective learning was built, which includes the following seven levels:

1. Description2. Relational description3. Interpretation4. Relational interpretation5. Abstraction and generalization6. Resolution7. Extended resolution.

These findings are presented as hypotheses that are grounded in data and tentative, pendingadditional rounds of data-gathering and analysis.

Each level of reflective learning is illustrated by extracts from students’ journals—manyof which have already been referred to in the previous section—and triangulated with myobservations and interviews. The journal quotations provide evidence that the categories andlevels of reflective learning are well grounded in the data. For reasons of confidentiality,pseudonyms are used hereafter for all members, with numbers in brackets after the namesfor cross-referencing.

In the Reflective Learning Taxonomy, lower levels of reflective learning are embeddedin the higher levels. Consequently, if a student writes a reflection which includes learningat different levels, the highest level reached was selected for analysis (Tang 2003; Martonet al. 1993). As in Tang (2003), these levels have a hierarchical structure, meaning that thelower-level categories are embedded in the higher-level ones; and the relationship between

123


the categories suggests that the levels of learning may not be discrete but developmental. Thedifferent levels of reflective learning are now outlined and illustrated.

5.1 Level 1: description

This is the lowest level of reflective learning in the journals submitted by participants onthe tour. At this level, students only describe the physical environment, or simply report onincidents or events they have experienced through direct observation, though even this canbe regarded as a kind of reflection, as participants have to select what to describe at the endof the day. For example, Ka Po (S01) made the following comment about the house of TongLung Fai, a local family:

There is nothing in their house …

Also, on a family visit to Chung Ming’s house, Mei Ling (S09), a Secondary 4 girl, noted:

I saw many flies.

Such examples are labeled as Level 1 in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy as they are simplydirect descriptions of what had been observed. It should be noted that the above exampleswere usually combined with other descriptive/elaborative points and the chunks given herehave been selected simply to illustrate this level in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy.

Other examples classified as Level 1 included descriptive reports on incidents or eventswhich took place during a day. The following quotation from Shuk Kwan (S11) is typical.

This morning, after we had had our breakfast, we took many pictures. The host familytook out two sets of traditional costumes for us to wear. We stole peanuts from otherpeople’s fields. Then we walked for an hour to meet our friends. Tonight, we had acelebration party. We saw a lot of performances.

Although Shuk Kwan’s comment was rather long, it was still labeled as Level 1 as it did notinvolve any elaboration of feeling or interpretation of the incident.

5.2 Level 2: relational description

Level 2 represents reflective learning which involves not just descriptions of what has beenseen and actions taken, but also relates these observations to, for example, prior information,understanding, knowledge or previous experience. Following Biggs and Collis’ (1982) SOLOtaxonomy, relational description is considered to be at a higher level than pure descriptionsince it involves the linking of events observed or activities undertaken in the present—in thiscase on the tour—with things which had happened or been seen previously. Typical examplesincluded making comparisons between the living environment on the tour and in Hong Kong.For instance, Wai Yan (S26) noted:

Today I stayed with the host family. I thought of Hong Kong when I was helping tomake a fire with wood.

In this case, Wai Yan appears to be thinking about how alien to her life at home this activityis. It may be argued that she was making sense of this experience of cooking based on herprevious experience. Using Piaget’s terms, Wai Yan assimilated this experience of making afire with wood, recognized that this did not happen in Hong Kong, and then tried to accom-modate to and make sense of this situation. Unfortunately, this possible underlying meaningwas not reported and so this reflection can only be classified as Level 2.

123


Also, in reflecting after a home visit to a rural family, Wai Mei (S23) commented:

The most unforgettable thing is that I can get close to rural people living in the mountainregion, something which I have never experienced before.

This quotation is classified at Level 2 ‘Relational description’, as Wai Mei has reflected onher lack of any similar experience in the past and has included this additional informationin her description. However, as in the case of Wai Yan, Wai Mei does not mention how shemade sense of her experience of ‘getting close to rural people’ and so, again, this reflectionis classified as Level 2.

Also, after distributing shoes and school bags to students at Nong Xiang Primary School,Sin Ying (S27), the group leader, reported:

I saw the kids wearing worn-down shoes, but I … have a lot of shoes in Hong Kong.

Once again, the distinction between simple and relational description is clear as Sin Yinghas related her observation that the rural children’s shoes are in a poor condition (Level 1—‘Description’) to the fact that she has many pairs of shoes in Hong Kong, a piece of additionalinformation which shows that she was more aware of why this event was worth recording,thus going beyond Level 1 reflective thinking.

Overall, this level of reflective learning is based on observation or incidents which tookplace on the tour but extra related information drawn from other contexts is embedded in thequotations, thus illustrating a higher level in reflective thinking in the selection of recordedevents.

5.3 Level 3: interpretation

In reflective learning at this level, students give an interpretation of what they have observedor experienced, or describe their feelings directly. This involves drawing on concepts derivedfrom previous knowledge and experience, as well as putting the ‘present’ and the ‘previous’together, and analysing their relationship. For example, expressing one’s feelings is a way ofresponding to the present, but is influenced by previous’ experiences of a similar kind.

The daily journals of students provided illustrations of this move to a higher level ofreflective learning, as well as showing the embeddings of the lower in the higher levels. Forexample, Ka Ling’s (S17) journal included the statement:

The sponsored boy was not so poor; at least they [his family] had a television and anelectric lamp. However, another family that we visited had only an electric lamp.

Commenting on the existence of a television and an electric lamp in different families belongsto Level 1 of reflective learning, as it just gives a direct description of what was observed.However, this quotation was finally assigned to Level 3 because of the interpretation involved.In suggesting that the boy mentioned should not be considered ‘so poor’, Ka Ling’s relativejudgment was clearly an integration of a relational description and a prior concept of what itmeans to be ‘poor’.

And, after taking the first lesson with rural children, Yick Ling indicated her views ontheir ability:

When I taught, I realized that the rural kids were lacking in knowledge.

In this case, Level 3 seemed appropriate as Yick Ling’s comment on ‘lack of knowledge’involved interpretation of what she had observed, and probably drew on a comparison withwhat she knew about youngsters in Hong Kong.

123


In addition to interpretations drawing on concepts and ideas in students’ minds, a directexpression of feelings triggered by episodes on the tour was regarded as Level 3 reflectivelearning.

For example, after the exercise session on the first morning, Tak Man (S22) said:

I felt curious and [had] fun the first time when I did morning exercise.

The feelings of ‘curiosity’ and ‘fun’ were based on the description of an experience—morningexercise (Level 1)—and though no Level 2 clues were given about how they were generated,the feelings were an expression of Tak Man’s responses to the experience.

Relational description is embedded in interpretation as any interpretation requires a frameof reference, which is obviously additional to what has been observed and experienced.However, put simply, interpretation is at a higher level than relational description because itrequires the student not only to put ‘present’ and ‘previous’ together but also interpret theirrelationship or express their feelings. Nevertheless, Level 3 reflective learning just offers adirect description of interpretation and feelings, without indicating the process involved orthe relevant previous knowledge and experience.

5.4 Level 4: relational interpretation

As with the characteristic distinction between Level 1 and Level 2, Level 4 differs from Level3 by going beyond simply offering an interpretation or describing feelings. In this higher level,additional information, knowledge and experience is introduced in the interpretation, whichillustrates a more complex interpretive process.

Such statements often included comparisons between this rural area and Hong Kong interms of (a) people’s general behaviour or (b) children’s behaviour in the classroom. Thefollowing quotation from Yim Chi (S13) on reflecting on her first day of teaching is typical:

I felt that the curriculum these students were having was not as advanced as that inHong Kong. Also, they seldom have English [lessons].

In this case, Yim Chi interprets the rural curriculum as being ‘not advanced’ by using theHong Kong curriculum as a point of reference, which was additional information drawn fromher experience beyond the tour.

Another example can be seen in the following comment by Ping (S14) after the first dayof teaching:

The students continued to practice writing the alphabet and pronouncing new wordsduring the recess. They were hard-working and eager to learn. Hong Kong studentsshould learn from them.

This is a typical example of Level 4 reflective learning as Ping’s interpretation of the ruralchildren being ‘hard-working and eager to learn’ is based on a frame of reference that HongKong students could learn from them.

Besides adding related information about Hong Kong, students sometimes put themselvesand the rural children/adults together in the process of interpreting. For example, after visitinga rural family, Long Ho (S10) said:

Our living [standard] is far better than theirs. Their lives are so simple.

This interpretation, in which ‘our living’ and ‘their lives’ is contrasted, obviously again drawson a context beyond the tour and is a typical example of Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’.

123


5.5 Level 5: abstraction and generalization

Level 5 of reflective learning is concerned with written responses which include abstractionand generalization of meaning through interpreting observations and experience. Reflectivelearning at this level shows evidence of ‘deeper’ thinking and is a more complicated processwhich involves interpretation of what was observed and happened, generated through a com-plex reaction with the ‘previous’ knowledge and experiences. Though not all the quotationsshowed this process of thinking clearly, it is not difficult to see the migration to this higherlevel of learning. The example below, in which Sheuk Man (S02) described her home visitillustrates this level:

The most unforgettable scene was [my] home visitation. I went to the wrong family.However, they showed their welcome. In Hong Kong … if I knocked on the wrongdoor, they [the residents] would really scold me. They answered all my questions …Looking at their smiling faces, I felt what ‘sincerity’ means. Though we are born in anew era which is generally agreed to be an ‘evil’ generation, we can find ‘sincerity’somewhere in our world. It was so exciting! Try to be more sincere instead of beingsecular!

In Sheuk Man’s story, the moving up of her reflective learning to Level 5—‘Abstractionand generalization’—can be traced in the following way. Her story starts with a visit to thewrong family (Level 1—‘Description’), where, to her surprise, she was welcomed (Level3—‘Interpretation’). She compares the situation with a similar one in Hong Kong to supporther interpretation that she would surely be scolded in the latter case (Level 4—‘Relationalinterpretation’). She experienced the sincerity of the rural people (Level 3—‘Interpretation’)and interpreted this based on the ‘common understanding’ of this being an ‘evil’ new era(Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). Finally, she concludes with a generalized statement:‘Try to be more sincere instead of being secular!’ (Level 5—‘Abstraction and generaliza-tion’). While her concluding statement, which was based on an incident in the tour but notconfined to it, illustrates the process of learning from lower levels up to Level 5, it includesno evidence that Sheuk Man has made any resolution to show more sincerity in her own dailylife.

An example such as Sheuk Man’s, in which she showed awareness of her own interpreta-tion, was rarely found in the journals of the students. Many other examples at this level showonly the ‘final product’—the abstraction and generalization of meaning—though it is quitedifficult to trace the process. Noted below is an illustrative example from Ping (S14) afterwhat she viewed as a happy day with rural children:

This trip gave me a deep understanding that satisfaction in the heart is more importantthan the material life.

In Ping’s statement, there is no direct clue about the process which led her to come to theabove conclusion. However, elsewhere she reported the warm smiling faces of the ruralchildren (Level 3—‘Interpretation’) which she said she seldom sees in Hong Kong (Level4—‘Relational interpretation’), before drawing the above conclusion about the importanceof ‘satisfaction in the heart’. In doing so, she has extended her interpretation of an experienceon the tour and has abstracted and generalized meaning from it—a common feature of Level5 learning.

123


5.6 Level 6: resolution

As indicated earlier, the key distinguishing feature of Level 6 reflective thinking is the ele-ment of decision-making. As in the immediately lower level, the learning is based on theobservations and events which took place in the tour and there is a process of interpretation,but in this case there is a further stage of ‘resolution’. While abstraction and generalizationmay sometimes be simply a statement which the learners consider appropriate for publicconsumption, resolution has more meaning for them as it involves a personal decision: itshows a movement upwards from the general to the personal. In a sense, it can be regardedas internalization of abstraction and generalization and often includes statements such as: ‘Ihave to treasure …’, ‘I have to learn …’, or ‘I have to apply …’.

A clear illustration of this level of learning can be found in the following quotation from KaLing’s (S17) reflective journal. Feeling ashamed after teaching rural children for the wholemorning, she said:

The kids concentrated so hard in the class. It made me feel ashamed of myself becausein Hong Kong I do not even finish the work the teacher has assigned to me. However,students here took the initiative to reply to our questions. I have to treasure my learningopportunities and the chances for learning English.

In this quotation, Ka Ling observed and appreciated the attitude to learning of the villagechildren (Level 3—‘Interpretation’). She then interpreted it in the light of her own ‘previ-ous’ experience in Hong Kong (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’). Finally, she claimedthat she needed to value more the opportunities she has been given to learn English (Level6—‘Resolution’). Though the process of moving from Level 4 to Level 5 and then Level 6 isnot evident, it is believed that such a process exists, though hidden. As Ka Ling consideredthat people have to treasure the chances they have for learning (Level 5—‘Abstraction andgeneralization’), she then turned this belief into a decision to assign greater value to her ownopportunities for learning.

Another aspect of life on which students typically made a decision in their journals wasto cherish the food available to them in Hong Kong. In Liannan, they usually had simple andnot particularly pleasant food, but they noticed that the village people treasured even suchsimple fare. After a meal which a rural family had gone to great pains to prepare for her, HoiLam (S20) commented:

I have to treasure food. In Hong Kong, we often have much food left after a meal, andwe throw it away. I think this is wasteful.

Hoi Lam’s resolution started from observing the considerable effort the family had made tocook a meal for her (Level 1—‘Description’) and she felt the warmth of their reception (Level3—‘Interpretation’). She then recalled the situation in Hong Kong where people frequentlythrow away excess food and felt this was wasteful (Level 4—‘Relational interpretation’).Finally, she made the decision to value food more in the future (Level 6—‘Resolution’).

Such examples show internalization of resolution, based on observations and events whichhappened on the tour, interpretation (simply descriptive or relational) and abstraction andgeneralization.

5.7 Level 7: extended resolution

In a few cases, students’ writing showed that they were not only stating a decision, but alsodeducing a general principle for their lives from it. An extended resolution, in which Level 6

123


‘Resolution’ and the levels below it are embedded, moves beyond the resolution per se andout of the context of the educational tour: it becomes a rule of life for the students concerned.This is considered to be the highest level of reflective learning found in students’ writtenwork.

In fact, there were only three examples of this level in the 346 units analysed in the Stageone analysis. The following quotations illustrate these examples.

Wai Tak (S25) described his feeling of failure in teaching in his journal. As I observed,he was a dedicated ‘teacher’ in the classroom; and on his second day of teaching, he made astrenuous effort to teach an English song – but felt the outcome was not satisfactory, as notedbelow:

The [students’] learning today was unsatisfactory. I used an inappropriate method. Imade every effort to teach the whole song and made my students have hard feelings.I have learned to take care about different aspects in doing a task. Though some wereminor aspects, we cannot ignore them. I reflected not to do things in a ‘stiff’ way, but tomake a detailed plan which will result in better achievement. More diligence in work,more appreciation from other people.

In Wai Tak’s reflection, he interpreted the classroom learning on that day as ‘unsatisfac-tory’—a typical instance of Level 3 reflective learning; then he moved on to analyse hismethod of teaching and generalize a way of working on-task—consider a variety of aspectsin carrying out a task, and don’t ignore minor ones. Such a generalization showed that WaiTak had attained Level 5 reflective learning. In fact, this conclusion is rather meaningful,especially from a teenager without work experience. However, he moved on to internalizethe generalized meaning and resolved that he must be more flexible and develop a detailedplan in order to have a better outcome (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Finally, he extended his res-olution to a relationship between diligence and appreciation from others—a more desirablelearning outcome from the viewpoint of educators—and so his response was classified asLevel 7 in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy.

Another example came from Ka Sin (S08) who, after a day spent with a village host family,wrote:

Sham Hoi Keung and his brother were diligent in their studies … I have to learn fromthem.Diligence and effort will pay off. Diligence leads to progress. People doing nothingand trying nothing shall regret this.

Ka Sin’s first statement offered the interpretation that Sham Hoi Keung and his brother werecommitted to their studies (Level 3) and then she decided that she must follow their examplein her own studies (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Her second comment was labeled ‘Extendedresolution’ (Level 7) as she expressed a context-free principle as a rule for life which onceagain achieves the highest level in the taxonomy.

The last example is extracted from Ping’s (S14) journal on the first day, after distributingmaterials to deprived students:

I am very blessed, but I do not feel satisfied. I concentrate too much on material life. Ihave to concentrate more on satisfaction in the heart.I should become more open, confident, considerate and tolerant, so that I can learnmore.

As in the case of Ka Sin, Ping’s first quotation was stimulated by seeing the needs of poorchildren in Liannan (Level 1—‘Description’), and then she turned to a comparison with her

123


own situation and interpreted the children’s situation as ‘unfortunate’ (Level 4—‘Relationalinterpretation’). This led to an element of self-understanding in which she felt she was tooconcerned with the material aspects of life and decided to focus more on behaving in wayswhich gave her ‘satisfaction in the heart’ (Level 6—‘Resolution’). Up to that level, Ping’sreflection is similar to that of many other students. What takes her comment beyond that ofmost students is her final statement about a wide variety of personal characteristics whichshe feels she must change. This clearly goes well beyond the context of the tour to becomea set of general principles which should govern her life.

6 Summary and conclusions

The aim of this study was to describe the learning gained in an educational tour. By using agrounded theory approach, concepts and categories of learning which emerged from the datawere classified hierarchically using a taxonomy. Finally, a Reflective Learning Taxonomywas built up for use in assessing the levels of learning the participants attained. It shouldbe noted that the taxonomy is developmental in nature, with the learning at the higher lev-els being assumed to have moved through the lower levels. According to grounded theorymethodology, the taxonomy and other findings from this exploratory study are tentative, tobe followed up with further data-gathering and analysis.

One of the major outcomes of the present research was the development of a ReflectiveLearning Taxonomy for Educational Tours, in which the levels of reflective learning pre-sented emerged from the data. The taxonomy includes seven developmental levels, namely:Description (Level 1), Relational description (Level 2), Interpretation (Level 3), Relationalinterpretation (Level 4), Abstraction and generalization (Level 5), Resolution (Level 6) andExtended resolution (Level 7). This served as a simple model for assessing the learningachieved by the participants in the tour to Liannan.

7 Implications and recommendations for educational tour organizers

In recent years, educational tours have become a popular means of outdoor learning adoptedby schools, youth organizations and even the Education Bureau; and in many cases, the orga-nizations concerned require some form of programmed evaluation after a tour, especiallyfor those programmes funded by other bodies. The hierarchical structure of the ReflectiveLearning Taxonomy developed in this paper provides a useful framework for educators andyouth workers for setting objectives for tours and measuring the qualitative differences inreflection on experience as a means of learning of those who take part in them. Using thetaxonomy, those concerned can assess the feedback from participants after each task, eachday or the whole trip, and thus can outline clearly the group members’ paths to learning andthe educational value of the programme.

This taxonomy of reflective learning can be thought of as constituting ‘the goals of aneducational tour’, in which, after its completion, the participants have acquired new experi-ences which trigger the abstraction of meaning and personal resolutions, some of which eveninvolve a change in their philosophy of life. The taxonomy, therefore, not only provides aframework for evaluating tour programmes, but also offers a direction for educators whenthey are designing activities for pre-trip training sessions, the activities and the debriefingsessions after their completion.

123


It is important to clarify that the aim of the taxonomy is not to categorize or label indi-vidual students as surface learners and deep learners, but to classify their reflections intosurface or deep reflective learning. In fact, all the participants in this study showed more orless deep reflective learning; and, as seen earlier, they may use both approaches at differenttimes, although they may have their own preferences for one or the other.

The existing learning theories relate mainly to cognitive learning. In contrast, the presentReflective Learning Taxonomy focuses primarily on changes in personal values and atti-tudes, and helps to fill a gap in the literature on this less developed area. Moreover, previouslearning outcomes taxonomies have been constructed in relation to classroom teaching andlearning, while the present Reflective Learning Taxonomy has been developed in the contextof an educational tour. This taxonomy is also applicable to other educational activities whichinvolve reflection as a learning strategy.

Educational tour organizers and evaluators are in need of a practical framework to evalu-ate tour programmes, but little research work has been carried out in this specific area. Thepresent study provides not only a theoretical framework to benefit the education community,but also a practical framework for frontline practitioners to use. This Reflective LearningTaxonomy can also be employed by tour sponsors who may require a form of systematicevaluation to assess the success of tours.

8 Limitations of the study

As a qualitative study based on grounded theory methodology, the analysis of students’detailed descriptions and reflections in their daily journals and end-of-trip reports, togetherwith observation and on-the-spot interviews to serve as triangulation, provided rich informa-tion on the level of students’ learning on the tour. However, it has to be recognized that thisresearch also has certain limitations

For example, it needs to be emphasized that this study is based on a single journey on akind of ‘help the poor’ trip, and so its findings clearly cannot be applied to the whole range ofeducational tours with somewhat different purposes. Also, as stressed in a grounded theoryapproach, such an exploratory study methodology produces results which need to be con-firmed or otherwise through further research—a process for which, however, the ReflectiveLearning Taxonomy developed here should be helpful.

In addition, the data collected in this research consisted mainly of written work, whichclearly requires a certain level of ability in written expression; and this can vary consider-ably among the students involved, as happened in this study. Tours for primary level pupilsor students with certain disabilities may therefore need other data collection methods. Forexample, such students may be interviewed, with their reflections tape-recorded for analysis,or primary school students can express their learning by drawing pictures and having a guidedsharing session afterwards.

Another limitation of the study is that it relies on students’ self-reporting of reflection,which can be affected by their moods and dispositions. After the first 2 days, I noticed thatsome students appeared to be getting tired of submitting daily journals, or ignored the guidingquestions and just wrote a few words to fulfill the ‘assignment’ required by their teachers, adevelopment which explains the ‘failure to submit’ and ‘unable to analyse’ data. However,this was offset to some degree by the use of triangulation. Students who may be reluctant toexpress themselves openly in their peer group may still carry out in-depth reflection at home.

123


Some further suggestions for improving the learning outcomes of the trip are:

• First, the student-to-teacher (or group leader) ratio should be kept low, as closer super-vision is likely to make students take the reflective learning task more seriously.

• Second, it is important to train students prior to the trip to set aside quiet time for writingtheir reflections.

• Third, some training in reflective writing before the tour would be beneficial.• Four, for triangulation, various other kinds of data can be collected, both verbal and

written, and within groups and individually, as well as further observation.

Finally, in this study, I was a participant observer. Being a teacher in the school made itconvenient for me to approach and talk to student participants. However, the possible roleconflict between being teacher and researcher may sometimes have confused students andaffected my efforts to adopt a completely neutral position.

9 Recommendations for future research

The present research on the components of a particular programme provides a useful indica-tion of the sorts of features and participant characteristics which trigger high-level reflectivelearning. The findings can therefore be of practical value to designers of educational tourswhen arranging appropriate programmes for their clients.

However, there is a need for further research which can take various forms. For instance,as has been noted several times, the categories in the Reflective Learning Taxonomy aretentative and have to be tested in other studies. Since the present study involved only oneschool and 30 students, a larger sample of educational tour participants should be studied inorder to stabilize the categories.

In the past, I have been involved in different types of educational tours—such as anexploratory nature tour in South Africa and a Christian mission tour in Cambodia—and amtherefore fully aware that the intended learning in educational tours can vary considerably.It would therefore be worth investigating the extent to which the taxonomy developed in thisstudy is applicable to tours with a variety of different objectives.

Other questions relating to the taxonomy can also be explored. For example, is it appli-cable to educational tours involving different age groups? With appropriate modification ofreflection data collection, can it describe adequately the learning of clients with a differ-ent level of ability? Examining such issues may require contributions from researchers indifferent education sectors.

Another recommendation for future research is to trace whether individual participantsactually implement the resolutions and extended resolutions they have asserted in their reflec-tions. In fact, the impact of an educational tour on participants’ actual behaviour may lastfor only a short period or be lifelong, and so it would be an interesting topic to examine thekinds of experiences which tend to have a more sustained effect on their lives.

Lastly, there can be further research on the features and participant qualities revealed inthis study. For example, there could be more in-depth investigation of issues such as thefollowing: Are the programme features found to trigger high-level reflective learning in thiseducational tour applicable to tours with different purposes? And should we design instru-ments for selecting suitable learners for educational tours?

Drawing on the way Dewey describes the process, as seen in his collected works (Simpsonet al. 2005, pp. 59–61), educators (teachers and experiential learning programme designers)should play the role of navigators in students’ voyage of experiential learning, to guide,

123


direct and steer the boat so that it will involve educative—not non-educative, un-educativeor mis-educative—experiences.

References

Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (1998). Transforming learning: Individual and global change. London: Cassell.Becker, P. H. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health

Research, 3(2), 254–260.Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New

York: Academic Press.Bowden, J. A. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phe-

nomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.),

Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts. Char-lotte: Information Age Publishing.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Basic education curriculum guide. Hong Kong: Government

Printer.Dennison, B., & Kirk, R. (1990). Do, review, learn, apply: A simple guide to experiential learn-

ing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New

York: Macmillan.Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and nature. Lasalle: The Open Court Publishing Co.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Duley, J. S. (1981). Field experience education. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American

College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Education and Manpower Bureau. (2003). Life-wide Learning Experience: A quality framework, Life-wide

Learning Section, EMB. http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/lwl/QF/pdf/Quality_LWL_Experience_eng_Aug2004.pdf.

Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: TES.Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley,

CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago: Aldine Publication Company.Joplin, L. (1995). On defining experiential education. In K. Warren, M. Sakofs, & J. Hunt, Jr. (Eds.), The

theory of experiential education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Kelley, E. C., & Rasey, M. (1952). Education and the nature of man. New York: Harper Bros.Knapp, C. E. (1992). Lasting lessons: A teacher’s guide to reflecting on experience. Charleston, WV:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: previous research

and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learningand cognitive styles, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Accessed February 11, 2008 fromhttp://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/experiential-learning-theory.pdf.

Kuh, G. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American EducationalResearch Journal, 30(2), 277–304.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Marton, F., Dall’alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational

Research, 19(3), 277–300.Simpson, D. J., Jackson, M. J. B., & Aycock, J. C. (2005). John Dewey and the art of teaching: Toward

reflective and imaginative practice. London: Sage Publications.Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Tang, K. W. T. (2001). The influence of teacher education on conceptions of teaching and learning. In J.

B. Biggs & D. A. Watkins (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogicalperspectives. Hong Kong: CERC and ACER Publication.

Tang, K. W. T. (2003). The meaning of learning and the meaning of teaching. International Journal ofLearning, 10, 1421–1430.

123

http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/lwl/QF/pdf/Quality_LWL_Experience_eng_Aug2004.pdf

http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/lwl/QF/pdf/Quality_LWL_Experience_eng_Aug2004.pdf

http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/experiential-learning-theory.pdf

Reflective learning on study tours

Documents

Transcript of Reflective learning on study tours