Designing for Accessibility, Inclusivity, and Equity (AIE) in K-12 Experiential Learning

We begin this article with a confession. We both LOVE experiential learning! We also love that our passion for experiential learning (EL) is clearly shared in K-12 curricula in every province and territory across Canada. Experiential learning, from an in-class activity to a co-op placement, when done well can be an amazing and transformative learning experience for many students. Consequently, as researchers, educators, and practitioners, we spend a significant amount of time thinking about “what actually makes EL work well?” And “How can EL be better for all?” 

In reality, EL for some students can be exclusionary, inaccessible, and inequitable. In knowing there are potentially positive outcomes for all students through EL, how can we, as educators, purposefully design EL to be more equitable and consistent in its outcomes? Crucially, how can we structure this design process to become realistic and doable for educators like you and your colleagues, who are already quite stretched?  

Being Clear on what We Want our Students’ to Achieve through EL 

The first step is to any lesson planning is identifying the learning outcomes we want to achieve, and EL is no different. Common outcomes for EL include practicing a new skill like deep listening, grasping a complex concept like displacement, developing work habits, and exploring local careers. Through this step, outcomes that educators, students, school and/or community partners want to achieve through EL can be planned for. 

Next, as educators, we can consider five design factors – social and physical context, time and frequency, independence and responsibility, scaffolding, and theory-application sequence–that combine in a helpful framework for designing effective and inclusive EL (Hoessler & Godden, 2021). Importantly, these factors help to bring clarity to how we think about what kinds EL experiences our students are engaging in and how these can be optimized. By focusing on the five design factors, we can better understand and address some of the complexities of creating accessible, inclusive, and equitable EL opportunities for our students. Let’s look at each design factor in turn.  

Anticipating the Social and Physical Context: Where is the EL taking place? 

When we think about outcomes through the teaching and learning lens from the start, we immediately begin to plan how to reach those outcomes. In this planning we can begin by considering the social and physical context, specifically where the EL is taking place? Let’s consider two of our goals. If we are aiming for student to practice deep listening, we might consider the social contexts (e.g., peers vs. community members, age-mates vs. intergenerational interactions) that shape the potential learning. We can also consider the physical context (e.g., large group listening to an Elder, one-on-one listening in the classroom, home assignment to listen to a neighbour or family member).  

The specific social and physical context will vary, so identifying the one that works for your outcome and context is invaluable. Compare this activity and outcome to the goal of developing work habits through a co-operative education placement in a real-life workplace. By honing in on the physical context design factor, we can more clearly see the implications of geographic location that could be problematic for some of our students. We might also consider commutes, access to age-appropriate change rooms, desk availability, and variation in workplace physical spaces. For social context, we can consider if a student is the only student placed with a particular employer, will they be prepared for social norms such as eating out for expensive lunches, or what might be the impact on sense of belonging if exposed to jokes typically heard in the work environment but not in school. Importantly, these insights can help us predict which placement settings might be problematic for some of our students and prompt us to think about adaptations, pre-lessons, or alternatives. For example, students can be offered a choice of working in smaller or larger groups on a class-based project, and still be developing healthy work habits.  

Planning Time and Frequency: How Long and How Much?  

One of the challenges about EL opportunities is how widely the length and frequency varies. A one-hour guest visit in the classroom differs from a three-week weekly project in the community, or a co-operative education program lasting many hours per academic credit. Often educators are bound by pre-determined and regulated schedules, which can constrict the amount of flexibility students can be provided with. But even within such constrictions, focusing on the outcomes and design factors can reveal possibilities for flexibility or accommodation. For instance, negotiating a buffer within the attendance policy with an employer can result in the student successfully participating in their work placement (e.g., 2 sick/personal days), or building in a week of flexibility for the community project deadline in case of rain or a community member cancellation. 

Deciding on Level of Independence and Responsibility: Who can Support and Help? 

Most of us have seen an activity or class experiment where some students do not fully engage and let their peers do most of the task completion. In our goal of improving students’ grasp of a concept like displacements, we can identify the responsibilities and roles (bundles of responsibilities) needed to complete the experiment. Each team could have just enough people to complete the task, with each student having a distinct role. This could facilitate skills building such as team work. Clarity on the role, responsibilities, and how to perform them both helps students succeed and reinforces positive work habits. Similarly, for an external work placement, identifying and agreeing expectations around the level of independence (e.g., can the student decide on providing a customer with a refund) as well as expected responsibilities (e.g., monitoring baking temperature) and work habits (being on time, being where they are supposed to be, having equipment ready) are important for making the implicit norms explicit so students can succeed. Employers and educators’ expectations are also then more likely to be met.  

Knowing the expectations can also help to identify how far a student needs to travel between their current capacity and their expected capacity, and what scaffolding (next) is needed to support this journey.  

Lesson Planning to Scaffold Learning: How can we Support Individual Needs? 

Educators are usually very familiar with the concept of scaffolding, knowing that it helps students to build their confidence and skills. But EL opportunities are not always explicit in identifying what scaffolding is available and how this relates to what individual students need. When engaging in an EL opportunity outside of the classroom, students are dependent on external partners, as well as educators, as they navigate the EL learning space. By considering the level of independence and responsibility expected of students by you the teacher, your EL partner, and by students themselves, the outcomes can be contextualized and a plan for necessary support can be developed. When there are clearly anticipated levels of support, students know who to turn to, their learning can be scaffolded, partners can plan ahead for mentorship, and we everyone’s chance at success is improved. A well-planned workplace mentorship can help students understand what is expected of them, provide valuable information and insights into new work routines (Munby et al., 2009), and help students feel valued in their work placement. 

Theory-Application Sequence: When are Students Doing What?  

Consider the goal of learning a skill like deep listening. A lesson could start with a definition or a story, and then provide the opportunity to practice and try (theory then application). The lesson could alternatively give the experience of being deeply listened to or observing a deep listening conversation that students then learn the labels for the parts (application, then theory), or students could learn an element, then observe and practice that element before learning and practicing a second element (iterative). Similarly, a complex concept like displacement or work habits could be talked about before experiencing, experienced before unpacking, or a bit of each interspersed by alternating in-class learning and experiential moments. Consider what will work best for your intended outcomes, your students, and your context. 

Improving Equity 

One of the challenges we (Lorraine and Carolyn) have been working on is the difficulty with providing accessible and equitable opportunities to thrive in EL. Our Equity OBEL Cube (Godden & Hoessler, 2024 article) invites educators to consider the impacts of dimensions of diversity (e.g., rural vs. urban, socioeconomic status, gender) of learners on their access, sense of belonging and thriving for each of these five design factors.  

We ask the question: how might students along a dimension (e.g., social economic status) likely vary in ___ (access, sense of belonging or thriving) in their experience of the _____ (e.g., social and physical context) of the ____ EL opportunity? For example, how might students along the socioeconomic status dimension vary in their sense of belonging in their experience of the social context (e.g., norms, expectations, ways of participating) of a community fundraising project EL opportunity? 

Further questions to consider for designing equitable EL include: 

1. What are our aims for our learners (e.g., build skills, concepts like viscosity, workplace norms)? 
2. What level of independence would achieve the outcomes? Who will be mentoring and scaffolding?  
3. What is needed for a physical setup (e.g., step-stools, supplies)? What location? 
4. What is needed for a social context to achieve the outcomes?  
5. What timing (frequency, duration) would be sufficient for learning? What sequencing of lessons about the topic would help increase learning and make it a more effective experience? 
6. What would make it a better experience and a better chance of thriving and learning for all of your students? Consider dimensions of diversity impacted (e.g., access to a mentor during school hours)? 

Summary 

EL provides valuable opportunities for hands-on, relational, and emotionally connected learning, enabling students to deepen their understanding of concepts, develop work habits, practice skills, and explore careers and their communities. The power of EL comes from bringing theory and application together in ways that strengthen students’ understanding of themselves and their world. 

So, when the next suggestion of EL comes along, consider the goals (outcomes), context (social and physical), roles (independence and responsibilities), timing (length and frequency), learning support needed (scaffolding) and sequence (theory then application or vice versa). Recognize that sometimes it is a 10-minute planning reflection, a minor modification, or requires a bit more clarity. Focus on what is feasible and reasonable to aim for, and confidently leverage your knowledge of design factors and intended outcomes to help make EL better for all. 

References 

Godden, L., & Hoessler, C. (2024). (Re)Designing for equity, access, and inclusion in  

work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue on Equity, Inclusion and Access 25(1), 37—50. 

Hoessler, C., & Godden, L. (2021). Outcomes-based experiential learning (OBEL)  

framework. Higher Education and Beyond Publishing 

Munby, H., Hutchinson, N.L., Chin, P. (2009). Workplace learning: Metacognitive  

strategies for learning in the knowledge economy. In: Maclean, R., Wilson, D. (eds) International handbook of education for the changing world of work. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5281-1_119 

Meet the Expert(s)

Dr. Lorraine Godden

Researcher, Ironwood Consulting

Dr. Lorraine Godden is an educational researcher who teaches at Douglas College and Yorkville University, and leads a skills development program at Carleton University. Lorraine has a PhD in Educational Policy, M.Ed. in Leadership and Policy Studies (both Queen’s University), is a Qualified Teacher and a Certified Career Development Professional.

Read More

Dr. Carolyn Hoessler

Senior Specialist and Educational Program Designer, Higher Education & Beyond, University of Saskatchewan

Carolyn Hoessler, PhD CE PMP, is a credentialed evaluator with the Canadian Evaluation Society and the founder of Higher Education and Beyond. Having led and consulted on over 100 educational, evaluation or program improvement projects, success is rooted in collaboratively facilitating a deep understanding of the principles at play and navigating complex systems.

Read More