This article was originally published June 5, 2018 in the Journal of Transformative Learning.

—

Introduction

Transformational learning is a theory that has been, as it is with all ardent theories, analyzed, tested, critiqued, revised, embraced, and (by some) written off. After nearly four decades since its earliest iteration (Mezirow, 1978), the theory has proven itself to be worthy of constant discussion. The theory has been the subject of twelve international conferences (Transformative Learning Network, 2016), and in 2003 spawned the inception of The Journal of Transformative Education, a quarterly publication of scholarly and peer-reviewed articles (Markos & McWhinney, 2003).

John Mezirow, a key founder of the modern theory, has noted that the theoretical and practical implications of his work have been addressed by more than a dozen books, hundreds of scholarly papers and presentations, and more than 150 dissertations (Mezirow, 2006). Given the volume of literature and discussion around transformational learning theory, one may assume the theory is well-defined and articulated in a consistent, universal way. While some have concluded that decades of critical thought around transformational learning have produced a “definitive framework for describing how adults learn best” (Kitchenham, 2008), this paper argues otherwise.

The purpose of this essay is threefold: (1) assess the current state of academic thought, (2) report trends in recent critical literature, and (3) offer suggestions to advance the scholarly discussion. Before unpacking the problems that lead to this dissent and surveying current trends in recent critical literature, it may be helpful to review the historical development of transformational learning theory, with a focus on John Mezirow’s work, which remains the most widely recognized and engaged articulation.

Summary of Thought

In 1978, John Mezirow conducted a study of women returning to postsecondary study or the workplace after an extended time away from either environment. His aim was to “identify factors that characteristically impede or facilitate” (1978, p. 6) women’s progress in re-entry programs. The study provided evidence that the conditions which caused the societal and personal suppression of women were being eroded through a “development of consciousness” (Illeris, 2014, p. 148). Mezirow concluded that organizations that successfully sponsored re-entry programs for women had experienced “personal transformation” (1978).

Mezirow’s original study has been paralleled to the work of Paulo Freire, who worked to help illiterate Brazilians, as well as Oskar Negt’s work relating to German industrial workers (Illeris, 2014, p. 149). These scholars laid the initial framework for transformational learning, focusing on cognitive processes of learning.

Over time, through many revisions and in response to scholarly engagement, Mezirow came to define transformational learning as the transformation of learners’ meaning perspectives, frames of reference, and habits of mind (2006). For two decades, Mezirow’s theory was almost exclusively explained through cognitive terminology, with “critical self-reflection” being the crux of transformation (Kitchenham, 2008, p. 108). It was not until 2000 that Mezirow revised his theory to acknowledge the importance of affective, emotional, and social factors influencing transformational learning (Mezirow, 2000; Kitchenham, 2008, p. 110).

Also in 2000, Robert Kegan posed his crucial question: “What forms transformation?” which is to say, “What is actually the target area of transformative learning?” (Illeris, 2014). This question sparked overwhelming critical thought and discourse regarding what transformational learning is, what its target is, how it happens, and how it can be implemented in academic, workplace, and social environments.

The “In-Between” Problem

Mezirow has made an invaluable contribution to adult learning theory. Most agree that his work catalyzed a theory of learning that can have profound societal impacts. However, transformational learning remains one of the least consistently defined and explained learning theories.

The origins of the theory, the problems it seeks to remediate, and its intended outcomes are identifiable. But the “in-between”—the bridge between theoretical conclusions and practical implementation—is somewhat oblique. While transformational learning is observable, current literature is often focused on defining it rather than articulating a repeatable process for implementation in various contexts. This is precisely what is required to turn observable transformation into repeatable transformation.

Trends in Recent Criticism

How have recent critical articles sought to fill the gap between theoretical conclusions and practical implementation? The four trends identified below represent the most consistent arguments found in critical literature.

Trend One: Alternative Conceptions of Theoretical Framework

Mezirow himself revised his theory multiple times (1981, 1991, 2000, 2006, 2009; Kitchenham, 2008). His theory, traditionally described as “psycho-critical” (Taylor, 2008), is largely based on cognitive critical-reflection. However, scholars have identified at least seven other conceptions of transformational learning, including psycho-analytic, psycho-developmental, social-emancipatory, neurobiological, cultural-spiritual, race-centric, and planetary perspectives (Taylor, 2008).

Trend Two: Pondering the “Kegan” Question

Scholars continue to grapple with Kegan’s question: What is the target of transformational learning? Despite decades of work, there remains no clear and immediately understandable definition distinguishing transformative from non-transformative learning (Illeris, 2014).

Trend Three: The Rise of “Identity” Language

In an effort to answer Kegan’s question, scholars have increasingly used “identity” as the target of transformational learning (Merriam, 2004; Taylor, 2008; Poutiatine & Conners, 2012). Identity has been defined as a psychosocial concept—how an individual understands themselves and their place in the world.

Trend Four: An Absence of Practical Implementation Strategies

Nearly all of the literature surveyed lacks a thorough discussion of how practitioners might promote or implement transformational learning. The focus remains on defining transformational learning rather than making it repeatable in workplace or educational settings.

A Suggested Way Forward

To close the gap between theory and practice, this paper suggests further research in three areas:

1. Problem-Based Learning – Aligning with Mezirow’s concept of a “disorienting dilemma,” transformation may be framed as a solution to an identified problem.

2. Story-Formed Learning – Compelling narratives may serve as a catalyst for transformational shifts.

3. Connectedness – Transformation may be driven by an individual’s sense of connection to external entities, such as communities, philosophies, or causes.

Recent literature has made great strides in developing transformational learning theory. While gaps remain, they are narrowing. Continued research and practical experimentation will be necessary to close the divide between theory and practice.

Onward.

—

References

Dix, M. (2015). The cognitive spectrum of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 14(2), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344615621951

Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(2), 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614548423

Kegan, R. (2000). What ‘‘form’’ transforms? In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678

Kokkos, A., Kasl, E., Markos, L., Marsick, V. J., Sheared, V., Taylor, E. W., & Yorks, L. (2015). Celebrating 40 years of Transformative Learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(4), 290-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344615606539

Malkki, K. (2010). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning: Theorizing the challenges to reflection. Journal of Transformative Education, 8(1), 42-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344611403315

Markos, L., & McWhinney, W. (2003). Editors’ perspectives: Auspice. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252099

Merriam, S. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 60-68.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2006). An overview of transformative learning. In P. Sutherland & J. Crowther (Eds.), Lifelong learning: Concepts and contexts. London, England: Routledge.

Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow, E. W. Taylor & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Newman, M. (2010). Calling transformative learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(1), 36-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610392768

Poutiatine, M. I., & Conners, D. A. (2012). The role of identity in transformational learning, teaching, and leading. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2012(130), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20018

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301

Transformational Learning Network - Past Conferences. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://transformativelearning.ning.com/page/past-conferences