The Handbook of Transformative Learning

Theory, Research, and Practice

Edward W. Taylor, Patricia Cranton

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781118218938
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica per adulti

The Handbook of Transformative Learning

The leading resource for the field, this handbook provides a comprehensive and critical review of more than three decades of theory development, research, and practice in transformative learning. The starting place for understanding and fostering transformative learning, as well as diving deeper, the volume distinguishes transformative learning from other forms of learning, explores future perspectives, and is designed for scholars, students, and practitioners.

PRAISE FOR THE HANDBOOK OF TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING

"This book will be of inestimable value to students and scholars of learning irrespective of whether or not their emphasis is on transformative learning. It should find its way to the reference bookshelves of every academic library focusing on education, teaching, learning, or the care professions."
—PETER JARVIS, professor of continuing education, University of Surrey

"Can there be a coherent theory of transformative learning? Perhaps. This handbook goes a long way to answering this question by offering a kaleidoscope of perspectives, including non-Western, that consider the meaning and practice of transformative learning."
—SHAUNA BUTTERWICK, associate professor, University of British Columbia

"This handbook will be valuable and accessible to both scholars and practitioners who are new to the study of adult education and transformative learning and to more seasoned scholars who seek a sophisticated analysis of the state of transformative learning thirty years after Mezirow first shared his version of a then-fledgling theory of adult learning."
—JOVITA ROSS-GORDON, professor and program coordinator, MA in Adult Education, Texas State University

PART ONE

SETTING THE CONTEXT

CHAPTER ONE

Transformative Learning Theory

Seeking a More Unified Theory

Patricia Cranton and Edward W. Taylor

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the key issues in theory, practice, and research in transformative learning with a view of moving toward a more unified theory, one in which the current perspectives can be brought together under one theoretical umbrella. Currently, there is a diversity of theoretical perspectives, which brings a rich complexity to our understanding of transformation, but there is also a tendency to think in dualisms. For example, theorists and researchers write about rational or extrarational processes, a focus on individual change or a focus on social change, autonomous learning or relational learning. However, these perspectives, and many others that are presented in this volume, can coexist. It may be that for one person in one context, transformative learning is a rational endeavor; for that same person in another context, it could be emotional and intuitive; in some contexts, social change may need to precede individual change, and in another context, individual transformation drives social transformation, and so forth. The outcome is the same or similar—a deep shift in perspective, leading to more open, more permeable, and better-justified meaning perspectives (Mezirow, 1978)—but the ways of getting there can differ depending on the person or people and the context or situation. There are many examples in the chapters that follow—stories of individual change, organizational change, social change, and global change. A more unified theory allows us to continue to speak of transformative learning while maintaining the diversity of approaches that are so important to the complexity of the field of adult education.

In this chapter, first, we briefly set transformative learning in the general context of adult learning. We review the philosophical underpinnings of transformative learning theory and explore how these have led to the current dominant perspectives in the field. This takes us to the existing tensions and issues in the literature on transformative learning theory, research, and practice. We note how the diverse perspectives presented in this Handbook can point us toward a more unified theory.

THE CONTEXT: ADULT LEARNING

Over the decades since Lindemann's (1926) The Meaning of Adult Education was published, adult learning theory has evolved into a complex, multifaceted set of theoretical perspectives. Early adult educators (Moses Coady, Myles Horton, and Paulo Freire, for example) focused on emancipatory learning and achieving freedom from oppression, but when humanism became the prevailing philosophy underlying education in the 1960s, many theorists turned toward understanding individual learning processes.

Adult learning has been described consistently as a process that is different from children's learning since Malcolm Knowles (1975, 1980) made that distinction. In the 1970s and 1980s, adult learning was described as voluntary (individuals choose to become involved), self-directed, experiential, and collaborative. Adults “going back to school” were thought to be anxious and lacking in self-esteem based on their earlier childhood experiences in education. Brundage and MacKeracher (1980) provide a good example of the early efforts to define principles of adult learning. During that time, adult learning was seen to be a cognitive process that led to the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Early writings on transformative learning reflected this general trend (for example, see Mezirow, 1981). Instructional design and program planning models focused on setting objectives, finding appropriate learning strategies, and objective assessment of the learning. Knowles (1980) advocated that the learner be involved in making instructional design decisions, but aside from that, the process did not deviate much from instructional design in any other setting.

Things began to change after the publication of Brookfield's (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. He critiqued the automaton approach to meeting learner needs and discussed the political dimensions of selfdirected learning (Brookfield, 1993). Attention returned to the social context of adult learning and to learning that goes beyond cognitive processes. As Merriam (2008) points out, adult learning theory began to draw on situated cognition theory, feminist theory, critical social theory, and postmodern theory. Adult learning is now described in relation to embodied learning, the emotions, spirituality, relational learning, arts-based learning, and storytelling. Non-Western perspectives, which reject Western dichotomies such as mind-body and emotion-reason, are contributing to an interest in holistic approaches to understanding adult learning (Merriam & Sek Kim, 2008).

The evolution of transformative learning theory has paralleled and been strongly influenced by the development of adult learning theory in general. As Gunnlaugson (2008) suggests, we are now in the “second wave” of theory development in the field of transformative learning; that is, we are moving toward the integration of the various factions of the theory and into a more holistic perspective.

TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY: PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS

The first comprehensive presentation of transformative learning theory was Mezirow's (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. This book was preceded by a companion volume of more practical strategies for fostering transformative learning, Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood (Mezirow & Associates, 1990). Both of these books drew on diverse disciplines—including developmental and cognitive psychology, psychotherapy, sociology, and philosophy—to come to an understanding of how adults learn, transform, and develop. Mezirow (1991, p. xiv) explained that transformative learning theory “does not derive from a systematic extension of an existing intellectual theory or tradition”; rather, it is an integration of his earlier research and concepts and theories from a wide array of disciplines. Transformative learning theory is based on constructivist assumptions, and the roots of the theory lie in humanism and critical social theory. In this section, we review the constructivist, humanist, and critical social theory assumptions underpinning transformative learning theory.

Constructivist Assumptions

Mezirow (1991) was explicit in saying that constructivist assumptions underlie his theory. He wrote about his “conviction that meaning exists within ourselves rather than in external forms such as books and that personal meanings that we attribute to our experience are acquired and validated through human interaction and experience” (p. xiv). Transformative learning theory is based on the notion that we interpret our experiences in our own way, and that how we see the world is a result of our perceptions of our experiences.

Transformative learning is a process of examining, questioning, and revising those perceptions. If we were to take the philosophical perspective that there are universal truths and constructs that are independent of our knowledge of them, then the goal of education would be to find those truths. Instead, argued Mezirow in 1991, we develop habitual expectations based on past experiences. We expect things to be as they were before. Or, put another way, we uncritically assimilate perspectives from our social world, community, and culture. Those perspectives include distortions, stereotypes, and prejudices. They guide our decision making and our actions until we encounter a situation that is not congruent with our expectation. At that point, we may reject the discrepant perspective or enter into a process that could lead to a transformed perspective.

Humanist Assumptions

Humanism is founded on notions of freedom and autonomy. Human beings are seen to be capable of making personal choices within the constraints imposed by heredity, personal history, and environment (Elias & Merriam, 2004). Humanist principles stress the importance of the individual and specific human needs. Among the major assumptions underlying humanism are the following:

• Human nature is inherently good.
• Individuals are free and autonomous, thus they are capable of making major personal choices.
• Human potential for growth and development is virtually unlimited.
• Self-concept plays an important role in growth and development.
• Individuals have an urge toward self-actualization.
• Reality is defined by each person.
• Individuals have responsibility to both themselves and to others (Elias & Merriam, 2004).

These humanist assumptions are inherent in transformative learning theory. If we could not make the assumptions that people can make choices, have the potential for growth and development, and define their own reality, transformative learning could not be described as it is described. What is problematic here is that the assumptions are rooted in a Western perspective; this may contribute to the challenges theorists encounter when transporting transformative learning theory into non-Western perspectives or attempting to integrate the two (Wang & King, 2008).

Humanist psychologists Maslow (1970) and Rogers (1969) had a strong influence on adult education in general and also specifically on Mezirow's conceptualization of transformative learning. Maslow's concept of self-actualization includes, among others, the characteristics of acceptance of self and others, and having peak experiences that lead to personal transformation. Rogers, known for his client-centered therapy, inspired Knowles's (1975) development of self-directed learning as a central concept in andragogy.

Critical Social Theory Assumptions

Critical social theory originated in the Frankfurt School of Critical Social Theory, especially from the work of Max Horkheimer. The goal of critical social theory is to critique and change society as a whole rather than explain or describe it. Brookfield (2005) gives three core assumptions of critical theory related to how the world is organized:

1. That apparently open, Western democracies are actually highly unequal societies in which economic inequity, racism, and class discrimination are empirical realities

2. That the way this state of affairs is reproduced and seems to be normal, natural, and inevitable (thereby heading off potential challenges to the system) is through the dissemination of dominant ideology

3. That critical theory attempts to understand this state of affairs as a necessary prelude to changing it (p. viii)

The dominant ideology in a society includes the beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives that people use to make sense of their experiences. If a part of the dominant ideology is, for example, capitalism, then it makes sense to center one's life on the acquisition of wealth and materials. In this way the dominant ideology perpetuates itself—it is seen to be the normal way to think and act, and it is seen to work in our best interests. Challenging and breaking through this cycle is the work of critical theorists.

At the center of transformative learning theory is the notion that we uncritically assimilate our values, beliefs, and assumptions from our family, community, and culture. In other words, we adopt the dominant ideology as the normal and natural way to think and act. When we are able to recognize that these beliefs are oppressive and not in our best interests, we can enter into a transformative learning process. Although early critiques of Mezirow's theory focused on his failure to address social change (Collard & Law, 1989) and his neglect of power issues (Hart, 1990), a careful reading of Mezirow's (1991) presentation of the theory reveals that he did pay attention to these issues, even though he was primarily interested in the perspective of the individual engaged in transformative learning.

Dominant Perspectives on Transformative Learning Theory

Transformative learning scholars have categorized the dominant perspectives on transformative learning in a variety of ways. Transformative learning is described as cognitive and rational, as imaginative and intuitive, as spiritual, as related to individuation, as relational, and as relating to social change, to name just a few of the most common perspectives. Each of these perspectives is described in this Handbook; the overlap between them and the fragile nature of the boundaries that have been artificially set up to distinguish between them becomes apparent.

Examining the philosophical assumptions underlying the dominant perspectives on transformative learning illuminates how these perspectives may simply be the result of scholars examining different facets of the same thing. It is our hope that this volume will help readers see the whole elephant.

Mezirow (1991) is explicit in describing transformative learning theory as being based on constructivist assumptions. Meaning is constructed through experience and our perceptions of those experiences, and future experiences are seen through the lens of the perspectives developed from past experiences. Learning occurs when an alternative perspective calls into question a previously held, perhaps uncritically assimilated perspective. Mezirow sees this as a rational process, but others suggest otherwise. This, however, does not negate the constructivist underpinnings of the theory. An imaginative and intuitive approach to learning or a spiritual approach to learning also relies on the construction of meaning from experience. The actual process involved in the construction of meaning may be different, but meaning is still constructed; it does not exist as an absolute truth outside of the self.

Dirkx (2001) and others who propose an extrarational (imaginative, intuitive, individuated, depth psychology) approach to transformative learning are easily associated ...