SIMULATION

Kayes et al. / DEVELOPING

& GAMING / TEAMS
September
USING
2005 THE KTLE 10.1177/1046878105279013

Developing teams using the

Kolb Team Learning Experience

Anna B. Kayes
D. Christopher Kayes
The George Washington University
David A. Kolb
Case Western Reserve University

This article shows how the Kolb Team Learning Experience (KTLE) simulation has been used by teams to
enhance learning. The KTLE includes seven modules: (a) introduction, (b) team purpose, (c) team member-
ship, (d) team roles, (e) team process, (f) team context, and (g) team action. Each of these modules takes a
team through the process of team learning: creating, planning, deciding, and acting (or, in technical terms,
diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating). The authors describe the simulation and provide
examples from teams that have engaged in it.

KEYWORDS: experiential learning in teams; Kolb Team Learning Experience; KTLE; team context;
team development; team effectiveness; team membership; team process; team purpose;
team roles; team action; teamwork; team learning

The Kolb Team Learning Experience (KTLE) is a structured way to help teams
develop the essential competencies necessary for team learning. The KTLE includes
seven modules: (a) introduction, (b) team purpose, (c) team membership, (d) team
roles, (e) team process, (f) team context, and (g) team action. Since developing the
KTLE, we have used it with nearly 100 teams. In this article, we discuss each module
and provide examples from teams we have facilitated, as well as observations from
other facilitators.
In a previous article, we explained how experiential learning theory may contribute
to team learning (Kolb, 1984). This article broadens the understanding of how the sim-
ulation can help teams solve problems and applies experiential learning theory to edu-
cation and workplace settings.
Teams may choose to work through the entire simulation workbook in sequential
order, or they may choose to emphasize one or more modules of the workbook. Work-
ing through the entire workbook sequentially is particularly helpful for teams that are
newly formed or have complex tasks to complete; it provides a comprehensive pro-
gram to improve team learning. Other teams may choose to customize the experience
and emphasize one or more modules based on their needs and circumstances. The
KTLE facilitator guide provides a brief assessment to help teams identify which
aspects of team learning they need to focus on in the simulation. The KTLE facilitator
SIMULATION & GAMING, Vol. 36 No. 3, September 2005 355-363
DOI: 10.1177/1046878105279013
© 2005 Sage Publications
355
356 SIMULATION & GAMING / September 2005

guide also provides teams with supplementary resources beyond the seven-module
KTLE if they need to devote additional time to a unique set of problems.
The entire program takes 6 or more hours. Each module includes an energizing
team experience. Each module contains questions that are the basis for conversation
and for individual reflection. These questions facilitate both the individual process of
reflection and the group process of learning. The structured nature of the team learning
experience provides a ready-to-use format for improving team learning in educational
settings, professional development, and employee training. This article describes each
module in order; the forthcoming facilitator guide includes a more comprehensive
description of the simulation as well as practical tips for facilitators.

Module 1: Introduction to teams

The introductory module outlines the content of the KTLE, reviewing the work-
book and the materials needed to complete each module. In addition, the session
briefly reviews experiential learning theory, explaining key terms such as learning
style, learning cycle, and learning adaptability (Kolb, 1999a, 1999b). The module also
introduces the concept of “learning space,” which is a recent development in under-
standing experiential learning.
An energizing exercise introduces the concepts of the book. The exercise, known as
CRAZY COFFEE BEANERY, requires the team to develop a new coffee flavor and
market it to various customers. For new teams, the exercise allows members to interact
for the first time, complete a short, time-bound project, and begin to engage in the pro-
cess of team learning. For intact teams, the exercise allows members to energize their
team process by being creative and navigating the learning cycle.
Through CRAZY COFFEE BEANERY, we have been introduced to a number of
exciting coffee flavors, some of which are highly imaginative and resourceful. Turtle
coffee and strawberry-mango frozen coffee are some examples. Once the teams com-
plete the exercise, which takes about 20 minutes, they address two sets of questions.
Questions for conversation help the team understand its learning process by discussing
what just transpired. Indeed, many teams report having fun, but deeper insights also
emerge about the patterns of individual participation in the team, which team members
took on various leadership or other roles, and which phases of the learning cycle the
team ignored or followed. Questions for individual reflection require team members to
think through their participation in the team’s process and learn about themselves.
One group had a conversation about its team processes and expressed the follow-
ing: “As a team, we used all four stages of the learning cycle, creating, planning, decid-
ing, and acting, to some degree. But we spent most of our time in planning and organiz-
ing.” In terms of individual reflection, one member of this team reflected, “I felt my
main contribution to the team was helping our group organize to achieve our goal.”
A second important purpose of the introductory module is to help establish a cul-
ture of trust on the team. Teams do this by identifying some basic duties and interde-
pendencies and then talking about how the team members can develop shared values
 Kayes et al. / DEVELOPING TEAMS USING THE KTLE 357

and trust. This exercise further develops the team’s ability to form trusting relation-
ships with one another.
A student team that emphasized this development of trust articulated norms in the
form of a team contract. One norm they detailed was, “We need to count on one
another to follow through on our promises. We will not promise something to each
other unless we can pull it off. As things change, we will renegotiate our promises.”
Team members signed the contract, retaining one copy and giving another copy to the
student team facilitator. They reviewed these contracts as they progressed through the
remaining modules and added additional norms as the need surfaced.
Following the introductory module, teams examine why they were formed.

Module 2: Team purpose

The KTLE offers a detailed process for identifying a team’s common purpose or
direction and the purpose of the individual team members. Whereas team purpose is
the “why” associated with a team’s existence, goals are the “how.” The purpose mod-
ule not only sets the tone for determining the reason the team exists but also serves as a
structured method for determining the team’s specific goals.
One team that participated in the KTLE was a committee of local government exec-
utives from different jurisdictions; the committee’s charge was to study and make rec-
ommendations on a cross-district program. Although collaboration across these juris-
dictions was necessary, it often became stifled by diverging interests. Defining their
purpose helped the team members understand both their commonly shared goals and
situations where conflict would be likely. The team deliberated well past the allotted
time of 55 minutes; however, in the end, they agreed on a core purpose: “to solve prob-
lems for our local communities by working together across districts.”
Another setting involved students. One team of undergraduate business students
stated that their purpose was “to prepare for a future job in management and learn team
skills.” Their specific goals were to “ensure our team has mutual respect, get high
marks (As), ensure everyone participates, and learn how to work together as a team.”
Once team members have a shared understanding of why the team exists and what
goals they need to accomplish, they move to the third module, team membership,
where they learn about the makeup of their team.

Module 3: Team membership

The membership module provides insight into the learning skill preferences of
individual team members. This module introduces the team learning space (see Fig-
ure 1). About the size of a standard flip-chart sheet, the space depicts the primary
aspects of team learning: creating, planning, deciding, and acting. Those familiar with
experiential learning theory and learning styles know these quadrants better by
their more technical terms: diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating.
358 SIMULATION & GAMING / September 2005

FIGURE 1: The Team Learning Space

The learning space also depicts the corresponding dimensions of learning—concrete

experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation—as well as the 12 corresponding learning skills.
Through the learning space, team members can see their own preferences for learn-
ing in relation to preferences of other team members, preferences of the team as a
whole, and the tasks to be accomplished. This visual representation of learning prefer-
ences serves to prompt conversation and recognition of similarities and differences
that were not otherwise apparent. This module also describes common interaction pat-
terns and conflict potential between learning styles. Once team members assess their
relative position on the space, they converse about interpersonal interaction patterns
among team members.
One team that had examined members’ strengths and interaction challenges noted,
“Now we understand when we get those two [creating types] together why they are
both incredibly imaginative and generate really good ideas for our team, but at the
same time are often unfocused and have difficulty making decisions when it is just the
two of them.” Members on this team discussed their interpersonal interactions using
learning style types as a template to assess both strengths and challenges of various
styles.
 Kayes et al. / DEVELOPING TEAMS USING THE KTLE 359

One team observed that they faced challenges stemming from the similarities in
learning styles across team members. All team members fell into either the planning or
the deciding spaces. They stated, “Since we share similar learning styles, we are likely
to focus on the same ideas and do not see different approaches to problems.” The indi-
vidual reflection is designed to help team members understand their role on the team
and how each person can help the team accomplish its purpose and goals. One team
member observed that he could contribute by being “practical in the use of ideas and
theories” because the team had such a strong pull toward abstract learning.
Once a team has explored team membership based on individual learning styles and
the overall team learning profile, they learn about team roles. These roles describe how
each team member’s skills and abilities can contribute to the overall team effort.

Module 4: Team roles

The roles module is designed to help teams divide the labor based on the 12 learning
skills outlined by experiential learning theory. In the last module, individuals identi-
fied their top three skill preferences and mapped them on the team learning space. In
this module, the teams use specially designed team member cards, which are placed
directly on the team learning board. Teams are then able to identify which roles on the
team must be developed or taken on by specific members.
One team member reflected on her limitations in light of the 12 team learning skills
defined by the learning space. She stated, “I hope to learn to make decisions under
pressure and handle stress. I’d be least comfortable taking on a leadership role because
I don’t have much confidence in my understanding of the project we face.” In the ques-
tions for team conversation, the team observed, “Our team members were a little bot-
tom heavy, meaning we are all on the lower, more abstract side, so we will have to com-
pensate by being more concrete in our actions.”
The roles module focuses exclusively on the internal functions and positions that
team members occupy. The team has not yet factored in the external environment.
Module 5 offers teams a strategic glimpse at the greater organizational system in
which they operate, complete with resources and demands.

Module 5: Team context

The context module offers teams an opportunity to understand the different dimen-
sions of team context, participate in a team exercise to understand the situational
demands that the team faces, answer critical questions about the team’s context, and
reflect on questions individually to explore the nature of the team’s context. Specifi-
cally, this module examines the environment in which the team operates. This includes
the resources available to the team and the interrelationships the team has with other
individuals. The teams identify specific tasks that are critical to accomplishing their
goals, and then they match the skills and abilities of the team members to the tasks and
360 SIMULATION & GAMING / September 2005

plan for any additional resources (people, information, or support) that are not readily
available.
Noticing that they did not have a perfect match between context and skills, one team
recognized that certain members must develop skills in a different area and take the
lead at certain times. “We have two tasks that are interpersonal and we don’t have any-
one to take them. Bill will have to move up into the diverging space and take the lead
sometimes.” This exercise enabled the team to factor environmental and resource
demands into their planning process. Because each team member participated in the
analysis and the matching of resources and task demands, the team was better prepared
to plan for and execute shifting of roles, division of tasks, development of team mem-
bers, and assignment of responsibility.
Teams learn what resources they have, what demands they need to meet, and what
resources they need in the context module. The subsequent module offers teams the
prospect of learning how to create a process to allow members to work together, coor-
dinate activities, use their resources wisely, and ultimately, accomplish their goals.

Module 6: Team process

The team process module helps teams understand and navigate the four-stage team
learning cycle by reflecting on their team process to date. Intact teams generally iden-
tify a particular event or project for conversation, whereas newly formed teams gener-
ally discuss the task from the introductory module. Teams analyze their action in each
of the four stages of the team learning cycle: generating ideas, gathering information,
organizing information and implementing solutions. The teams then converse about
how they navigated the learning cycle, including moving from one stage of the cycle to
another, giving proper attention to each stage and whether they cycled through each
stage as a team.
Reflecting on their project work to date, one team observed, “We spent almost all of
our time in the implementation mode and almost no time in thinking through the dif-
ferent options.” As it is critical for team members to experience all stages of the learn-
ing cycle—as opposed to skipping those for which they might have an aversion or get-
ting stuck in those that they prefer—articulating this sentiment was key for this team to
understand its learning shortcomings. Effective teams analyze their process and take
corrective action where necessary. After their analysis, this team was able to take
action to better think through various options as they completed their project work.
Now that teams have learned about their processes and how to effectively analyze
and correct deficient processes, they learn about how to plan and assign accountability
and responsibility. The seventh module provides teams with the final section that pulls
the program together.
 Kayes et al. / DEVELOPING TEAMS USING THE KTLE 361

Module 7: Team action

In this integrative module, each team brings the pieces of the prior modules into a
coherent whole. The action planning module contains a grid where the team plans the
details of a project based on the four modes of learning. Tasks and roles identified in
Modules 4 and 5 are given deadlines. Potential road blocks to completion are noted,
and lead roles in completing the task are assigned to individual team members. In addi-
tion, teams develop tentative measures of success to determine when the group has
successfully completed the task and to use as a benchmark. This module has been suc-
cessful in both integrating the prior learning from the KTLE and in providing today’s
action-oriented organization with a practical tool to improve team functioning on a
specific project.
We’ve identified certain patterns in the action plans based on our observation of
teams. Scheduling conflicts are inevitable. This problem may occur because most of
the participating teams have been cross-functional; team members come together
from different parts of an organization and do not share interdependencies beyond the
project itself. Many times, like the government employees we mentioned earlier, team
members do not even work for the same organization, which is true of our graduate
students who have used this book. Measures of success also prove difficult because
many of the tasks faced by our team are ill-structured, meaning that it is difficult to
define success beyond the simple measures of meeting deadlines, creating little stress,
or meeting some qualitative quality standard. How teams use the action planning sec-
tion appears to be related to the team’s make-up. For example, some teams follow the
detailed template and diligently fill in each cell, whereas other teams come up with a
general plan that does not follow the template exactly. We encourage teams to use the
action planning worksheet as a template to guide action planning rather than a rigid
guide.
The action planning module also serves as the final stop for learning directly from
the KTLE, although we believe that learning will continue beyond the confines of the
workbook. The closing reflections focus on key learning from individuals, the final
review of personal and team goals, and recognition of the learning cycle as a process to
meet those goals.
One team member reflected on her team experience and reiterated her need to
become more reflective in her orientation to the team project. She hoped to learn to do
this by taking an active role in gathering and analyzing data for the team. She recog-
nized that her preference for action would be a potential obstacle but made a commit-
ment to reflect because it would help the team build trust in her.

Summary and conclusion

In concluding our discussion on the application of experiential learning theory to

teams, we focus on a few of the practical issues associated with using the modules,
362 SIMULATION & GAMING / September 2005

including the value of the team learning space, issues concerning intact versus existing
teams, and the use of team facilitators in facilitating the modules in the KTLE.
First, the team learning space, as described above, provides a common visual for
team members to talk about team dynamics in an objective way. By viewing individual
location on the learning space and relationship to others, the team members begin to
see the entire picture of team learning and the learning cycle, not just their own individ-
ual strengths and weaknesses. This visual representation is key for teams and func-
tions very similarly to a map that might be used both to chart progress and to plan for
future progress.
The KTLE recognizes that teams have different learning needs depending on
whether they are newly formed teams or existing teams, educational, or corporate
teams. The KTLE is designed as a comprehensive team learning experience that can be
customized based on the needs of the team. The KTLE Facilitator’s Guide (Kayes,
Kayes, Kolb, & Kolb, 2004) includes a quick assessment designed to enable a team or
a team facilitator to determine which modules prove to be most valuable for the team.
For example, one intact team we worked with displayed low trust, even though their
overall performance was adequate. As facilitators, we decided to focus on identifying
ways to build trust in the team rather than to spend most of our time on action planning
or other modules. We identified a number of exercises to build team trust that is part of
the KTLE Facilitator’s Guide. In contrast, we worked with a team that displayed high
levels of trust and motivation but lacked the skills to come to consensus on its goals and
direction. Because this was a newly formed team, we spent the initial phases of our
work with the team working on goals and purpose, a minimum amount of time rein-
forcing the existing level of trust, and a significant amount of time on action planning
based on their goals. This showed us the benefits of the KTLE as a flexible tool to help
teams with their specific needs.
An important issue when using the KTLE rests on considering a trained facilitator
versus a “self study” team approach. Our experience suggests that, under some condi-
tions, a team with mature and experienced team members can work through the KTLE
without a trained facilitator aiding the team with each module. Thus, administration of
the KTLE in organizational training, executive and graduate education, and organiza-
tional development efforts may well be possible with no or limited facilitation. On the
other hand, when working with a team that has less experience working through com-
plex issues or may have been identified as having special issues, then the use of a
skilled facilitator is necessary. The need for a trained facilitator has been essential for
the successful use of the KTLE with less experienced groups, as we have found with
some of our undergraduate students. In either case, we believe a trained and skilled
facilitator can add value to the process by helping teams to identify strengths and
weakness that may not have been readily clear without the trained eye and communi-
cation skills of a facilitator.
Regardless of the team context or needs, the KTLE provides a comprehensive tool
to help teams learn to solve problems and work together to arrive at effective solutions.
This article outlines some of the benefits of using the KTLE as a means to build stron-
ger learning teams and shows how experiential learning theory applies to teams in
 Kayes et al. / DEVELOPING TEAMS USING THE KTLE 363

practice. The comprehensive approach to team learning provides a skills-based

approach to building teams based on learning style and experiential learning theory.

References

Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2004). The Kolb team learning experience: Improv-
ing team effectiveness through structured learning experiences. Boston: Hay Resources Direct.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1999a). Learning Style Inventory, version 3. Boston: TRG Hay/McBer Training Resources
Group.
Kolb, D. A. (1999b). Learning Style Inventory, version 3: Technical specifications. Boston: TRG Hay/
McBer Training Resources Group.

Anna B. Kayes is a visiting assistant professor of human resource management at The George Washington
University, School of Business. She received her EdD in human and organizational studies from The George
Washington University. Her research focuses on power and trust dynamics and how people learn from expe-
rience. She has more than 10 years of experience consulting in human resources. Her research has appeared
in Journal of Management Education and Journal of Managerial Psychology.

D. Christopher Kayes is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at The George Washington Uni-
versity, School of Business. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Case Western Reserve Uni-
versity. His research focuses on how experience is transformed into organizational knowledge. His research
has appeared in journals such as Human Relations, Academy of Management Learning and Development,
and Organizational Dynamics.

David A. Kolb is professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve University, Weatherhead
School of Management. He received his PhD in social psychology from Harvard University. He is best
known for his research on experiential learning and learning styles described in Experiential Learning:
Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. His current research focuses on team learning and
experiential learning in conversation.

ADDRESSES: ABK: The George Washington University, 2115 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052,
USA; fax: +1 202-994-4390; e-mail: aadams@gwu.edu. DCK: The George Washington
University, 2115 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA; telephone: +1 202-994-
4795; fax: +1 202-994-4390; e-mail: dckayes@gwu.edu. DAK: Case Western Reserve
University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7235, USA; telephone: +1 216-
368-2050; fax: +1 216-368-4785; e-mail: dak5@msn.com.