Kolb’s Learning Styles theory identifies four types of learners: converging, diverging, assimilating, and accommodating.
These styles are part of his Experiential Learning Cycle, which involves four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.
The cycle emphasizes learning through experience, reflection, conceptualization, and testing new ideas.
Key Takeaways
- The Learning Cycle: Kolb’s model emphasizes that learning involves a continuous cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation, rather than a linear progression.
- Experience: The theory posits that knowledge is created through the transformation of experiences, highlighting the importance of active engagement in learning.
- Learning Styles: Kolb identified four learning styles (Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating), recognizing that people have preferred ways of processing and internalizing information.
- Reflection: Reflective observation plays a vital role in the learning process, allowing individuals to analyze and make sense of their experiences.
- Active Application: Active experimentation allows learners to test and apply their newly formed concepts in real-world situations, reinforcing their understanding.
Kolb began developing his experiential learning model in the 1970s with Ron Fry (Kolb & Fry, 1975), publishing the Learning Style Inventory in 1976 to measure the four learning styles. He set out the full theory in his 1984 book, Experiential Learning.
Kolb’s experiential learning theory works on two levels: a four-stage learning cycle and four separate learning styles. Much of Kolb’s theory concerns the learner’s internal cognitive processes.
“Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38).
Kolb states that learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can be applied flexibly in a range of situations.
In Kolb’s theory, the impetus for the development of new concepts is provided by new experiences.
The Experiential Learning Cycle
Kolb’s experiential learning style theory is typically represented by a four-stage learning cycle in which the learner “touches all the bases”:
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Abstract Conceptualization – reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a modification of an existing abstract concept (the person has learned from their experience).
- 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.
Consider a child learning to ride a bicycle.
Concrete experience: the child climbs on, pushes off, wobbles, and topples onto the grass.
Reflective observation: picking themselves up, they notice a pattern: the bike fell whenever they slowed down.
Abstract conceptualization: they form a small rule.
Balance depends on forward momentum, and steering gently into a wobble corrects it.
Active experimentation: they get back on, pedal faster, and steer into each wobble instead of against it. They stay upright for several metres, and the cycle turns again.
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 completes all four stages of the model. No single stage works alone.
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.
Both emphasized the pivotal role of active engagement in learning.
The cycle’s structure itself comes from Kurt Lewin (1946). His action-research work modelled learning as a feedback loop: concrete experience, then observation and reflection, then the formation and testing of new concepts.
From Kolb’s perspective, knowledge emerges through a cyclical interplay between “doing” and “thinking.” This 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.
- Critically, Concrete Experience (CE) anchors learners in hands-on action or tangible participation, setting the stage for deeper reflection.
- Reflective Observation (RO) then prompts individuals to examine what happened and how it aligns – or conflicts – with their existing understanding of the world.
- 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.
- Finally, Active Experimentation (AE) puts these theories to the test in a real or simulated environment, letting learners adapt their concepts and generate fresh questions.
Kolb contends that no single stage of the cycle is sufficient for robust learning on its own.
Effective learners cycle through the stages 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 reflect more before they act, while others learn best by jumping in and adjusting along the way.
The key point: all four modes contribute something vital to lasting learning.
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.
The Processing and Perception Continuums
Whatever influences the choice of style, the preference itself comes from two pairs of variables — two separate “choices” every learner makes. Kolb drew these as crossing axes. Each axis has “conflicting” modes at either end.
A typical presentation names the east-west axis the Processing Continuum: how we approach a task. The north-south axis is the Perception Continuum: our emotional response, or how we think and feel about it.
Kolb believed we cannot perform both variables on a single axis at once (e.g., think and feel). Our learning style is a product of these two choices.
Kolb’s Learning Styles Matrix
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.
Still, everyone draws on every style to some extent. The right emphasis just depends on the situation and the learner’s own preference.
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 view situations from many angles.
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 matter more 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.
Identifying and Strengthening Lesser Preferred Learning Styles
Also, individuals can be helped to learn more effectively by identifying their lesser preferred learning styles. This rounds out their skills.
For instance, a predominantly hands-on learner might benefit from more reflective exercises or conceptual discussions. Someone who excels at theoretical understanding, in turn, 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.
Designing Activities for the Full Learning Cycle
Ideally, activities and material should draw on abilities from each stage of the experiential learning cycle. They should take 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.
Blending Theory with Real-Life Application
For educators, trainers, and students, this underscores the need to blend theoretical teaching with real-life application.
Where possible, encourage learners to “do” the process they’re studying: running an actual experiment, role-playing a conversation, or coding a small program. This yields more potent learning 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). This creates a spectrum along the “processing” dimension.
Conflict can arise when a person who leans toward real-time experimentation works with someone who prefers a watchful, contemplative approach.
This is not a flaw. Far from undermining the model, the tension can be a valuable teaching tool: it encourages collaboration and dialogue between different learning preferences.
For instance, in a group project, an “Accommodator” (actively practicing and diving in) may feel frustrated by a “Diverger” (watching and reflecting). The Diverger just wants more time to weigh options.
The Diverger, in turn, can offer a broader perspective and creative ideas that stop the group rushing into a solution that misses important nuances.
In this way, the diversity of learning preferences can spark deeper, more robust learning — provided that both “doers” and “watchers” are encouraged to appreciate each other’s strengths.
Critical Evaluation
Strengths of Kolb’s Model
Before the criticisms below, it is worth noting what has kept Kolb’s cycle in use for four decades.
- Practical framework: The cycle gives a durable structure for designing learning, used in higher education, clinical training, management development, coaching, and outdoor education.
- Central place for reflection: Requiring all four stages warns against experience with no reflection, or theory that is never tested in practice.
- Developmental use of styles: Used to help learners strengthen their least-used modes, the style framework supports adaptability without needing the discredited “matching” claim to be true.
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.
- Aim: Pashler et al. (2008) tested the “meshing hypothesis” — the claim that instruction works best when its mode (visual, verbal, hands-on) matches a learner’s diagnosed style.
- Method: They reviewed studies that first classified learners by style, then randomly assigned them across two or more teaching methods. The predicted signature was a “crossover”: each style group learning best from a different method.
- Results: Only a handful of published studies met this design, and the very few that did produced evidence against the meshing hypothesis rather than for it.
- Conclusion: Pashler et al. found no adequate evidence for tailoring instruction to a learner’s style. The claim is now widely regarded as a “neuromyth” — a persistent belief about learning with no solid scientific backing.
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.
This cuts to the model’s core. If stable, universal styles are conceptually flawed, that undermines confidence in Kolb’s model as a whole. It may prompt critics to favour flexible strategies over 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. They note that “concrete” or “active” activities vary considerably depending on whether the learner is actually doing something or merely reading about it.
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 miss moments where a shift in approach could help. For example, moving from hands-on experimentation to reflective observation.
This rigid mindset can stifle innovation and personal growth. Learners may not realize they can, and perhaps should, change how they learn depending on the task.
Recognizing that learning is adaptable encourages more holistic teaching strategies. Students are guided to strengthen less-preferred modes, building a broader skill set for the long term.
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), first developed for military strategy.
Ryder and Downs (2022) argue that reflective models like Kolb’s can be too static and “outdated” in fast-paced, unpredictable environments. Speed matters more than order. The OODA loop instead emphasizes continuous reassessment and re-entry into different stages at varying speeds.
Jarvis’s (2004) expanded model proposes multiple potential “routes.”
Some routes involve no learning at all, and the physical, cultural, and social environment can fundamentally reshape the experiential process.
Bergsteiner et al. (2010) specifically advocate recasting Kolb’s cycle with correct graphic syntax and clearer distinctions between “concrete” and “abstract.” They suggest certain kinds of learning might even warrant an entirely separate cycle for passive or 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.
Contemporary Research
Since 2015, research has moved in two directions.
The first confirms that the matching hypothesis still lacks support, and that belief in learning styles remains stubbornly common among teachers despite the evidence.
Newton and Miah (2017) reviewed the higher-education literature and found learning-styles claims still widespread, the classic “neuromyth” pattern.
It persists because it feels true.
Studies simply do not back it up. The lesson for teaching: let the content drive the method, not the learner’s supposed style.
The cycle itself tells a different story.
Educators now use it to structure simulation-based and virtual-reality training in medicine, nursing, and aviation, pairing a realistic concrete experience with a structured debrief.
Work by Schenck and Cruickshank (2015) has also explored updating the model in light of neuroscience.
The pattern is consistent.
The four-stage cycle remains a robust, generative tool for designing learning, even as the style typology built on top of it has been largely discredited.
References
Anderson, V. (1988). Cultural learning and Kolb’s cycle (as 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370903534355
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
Holman, D., Pavlica, K., & Thorpe, R. (1997). Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in management education: The contribution of social constructionism and activity theory. Management Learning, 28(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507697282003
Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. Croom Helm.
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). Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (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, 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566
Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education — Is the learning styles “myth” important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507697282002
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100703
Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Experiential education in the age of neuroscience. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825914547153
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200304
Further Reading
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology, where she contributes accessible content on psychological topics. She is also an autistic PhD student at the University of Birmingham, researching autistic camouflaging in higher education.
Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol)
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD, is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.