Joshua Meyer

Mapping the Landscape of Experiential Education

Introduction

Mapping the landscape of experiential education. Mapping experiential education landscapes to improve practice. This paper reviews definitions, compares models, and applies a framework for pedagogical insights & institutional programming.

Abstract

This concept paper proposes a way of mapping instructional landscapes to improve the practice of experiential programming. It begins by reviewing how experiential education has been defined including requests from that literature base for better definitional clarity. It then reviews a recent initiative commissioned by the Society for Experiential Education to update its institutional definition. Heinrich and Green’s (2025) prototypes, which are the products of that process, are presented and discussed. This article then examines a recently published definitional model (Meyer, 2024), compares that model to Heinrich and Green’s prototypes, and applies Meyer’s model to analyze two, hypothetical, high-impact teaching practice scenarios with the goal of mapping the definitional features of each scenario. This approach provides direction for validating a framework of definitional features, and it also enables Meyer’s model to be critically examined. Thus, this paper addresses Heinrich and Green’s (2025) call to action as it offers a conceptual and pedagogical entry point into experiential education (Prototype 1) that also provides useful insight for institutional stakeholders (Prototype 2).

Review

This concept paper, "Mapping the Landscape of Experiential Education," addresses a critical and persistent challenge within the field: the need for greater definitional clarity in experiential education (EE). By proposing a systematic approach to map instructional landscapes, the authors aim to significantly improve the practice of experiential programming. The paper's timely engagement with recent initiatives, particularly the Society for Experiential Education's efforts to update its institutional definition and the emerging work of Heinrich and Green (2025) and Meyer (2024), positions it as a highly relevant and potentially impactful contribution to the literature. A key strength of this work lies in its multi-faceted approach to tackling definitional ambiguity. The authors begin with a thorough review of existing EE definitions and the associated calls for greater precision, setting a strong foundation. This is followed by a detailed presentation and discussion of Heinrich and Green’s (2025) prototypes, which are then critically compared against Meyer’s (2024) recently published definitional model. The application of Meyer’s model to analyze two hypothetical, high-impact teaching scenarios is particularly innovative, moving beyond theoretical discussion to demonstrate practical utility in mapping definitional features. This methodological rigor not only provides direction for validating a robust framework of definitional features but also enables a critical examination of Meyer’s model itself, directly responding to the field's call for action. By offering both a conceptual and pedagogical entry point into experiential education (Prototype 1) and useful insights for institutional stakeholders (Prototype 2), this paper effectively bridges theoretical development with practical application. Its proposed mapping approach, while conceptual, lays essential groundwork for future empirical validation of definitional frameworks in EE. This paper is highly commendable for its thoughtful engagement with contemporary debates in experiential education, its systematic approach to conceptual clarification, and its explicit aim to enhance pedagogical practice. It represents a significant step forward in understanding and structuring the complex landscape of experiential learning and is poised to be an important resource for researchers, practitioners, and institutional leaders alike.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.