Struggling with definitions in transformative learning

One of my students recently wrote me and asked me about a defintion of the extra-rational perspective to transformative learning. Here is what I wrote in response.


You are always asking very good but difficult questions. They force me to think through these matters more. I appreciate that. One could write an entire paper or perhaps even a book on this question. But let me try to address it in the context of  your class and your learning in the program.

1. Transformative learning, as a concept, signifies a particular kind of learning that sets it apart even from learning that is personally meaningful. In education we hope and strive for all student learning to be personally meaningful. But that doesn't mean it is also transformative. Rather, personally meaningful learning can help add to our sense of self. It can result in learning that expands our current ways of seeing and understanding ourselves and our being in the world but doesn't fundamentally change it. Transformative learning implies a fundamental change in form, in the way or ways in which perceive, apprehend, and come to understand some aspect of our lives.

2. Mezirow initially conceptualized this process largely as a rational and reflective process, focused primarily around the experience of a disorienting dilemma, using critical reflection to sort through the assumptions that surface through this experience about how we see ourselves, our culture, and the nature of how we know. Critical reflection can result in the reworking of these assumptions, which can then lead to different ways of perceiving, apprehending, and understanding some aspect of ourselves or our world. A substantial reworking of these assumptions can result in a change in our frame of reference, habit of mind, or meaning perspective, and he refers to this process as transformative learning.

3. Research over the last 30 or so years has demonstrated that transformative learning is a complex process. This research has elaborated the importance of the social, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of transformative learning. Fostered in large part by the work of Robert Boyd at the University of Wisconsin, research into the emotional aspects of transformative learning have demonstrated an important role in the extra rational or the unconscious in transformative learning. Boyd referred to experiences which foster transformative learning as psychic dilemmas. That is, we experience emotionally that something is not right, an emotional tension around some aspect of our lives. This experience may be similar to Mezirow's notion of a disorienting dilemma but the psychic dilemma has the quality of being relatively autonomous, that is, it is experienced as a force within our lives that seems apart from our rational, ego-based awareness. It seems to have a life of its own and occupies a powerful role in our consciousness.

4. Boyd, myself, and others have argued that psychic dilemmas are not open to critical reflection and analysis. Rather, working with them requires imaginative processes. I have referred to one of these processes as the imaginal method. You work with the emotion-laden images that seem to be central to the experience. This might resemble reflection, because it involves becoming aware of certain images we hold in consciousness, writing about them, telling stories about them. But, in contrast to critical reflection, in this method we are seeking to have the images speak for themselves, to allow them a voice in our consciousness. This does not involve asking critical questions about our assumptions and our premises. Rather, it simply means providing the space and the means for these powerful images and experiences to further tell or elaborate their story.

5. This approach to transformative learning fosters or contributes to a deeper understanding our the self, of the different aspects of the self, of the powerful forces and dynamics that make up who we are. This is what is referred to as individuation, a further differentiation and integration of the different selves that make up who we are.

6. In reality, then, transformative learning reflects a combination of rational, reflective processes and extra-rational, emotion-based, and imaginative processes. In both cases it seems to be the focus is on how we think about ourselves and our being in the world. But a rational perspective assumes ego consciousness to be primarily in charge of this process. The extra-rational perspective credits the ego with being an important player but not the driver or the captain of the process. The driver of the transformative process rests within our unconscious and shares both personal and collective dimensions. These elements are autonomous elements within our psyche and are the primary shapers of how and what we experience as meaningful in our lives.

Virtual dialogue with a friend about transformative learning

A few weeks ago a friend wrote me with questions about transformative learning. I am pasting in parts of our virtual conversation, organized around some of her key questions.

1. If we are supporting the promotion of TL in adult education, which theoretical approach (Yours or Jack's [Mezirow]) would faculty identify and feel more comfortable with, and why?

There seems little question that Mezirow's theory is more dominant in the field. I have hunches as to why that is but no more than that. First, Mezirow first introduced his thinking on this in the mid-1970s, when I was still working in a clinical laboratory in Central Wisconsin. So he has been at it a while, and has several publications in mainstream adult education journals, as well as a couple books that have promoted this theory. I only started writing about transformative learning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it was not the sole focus of my work. I was also addressing issues of adult literacy education, workplace learning and spirituality of work. Boyd, who was my advisor and from which my own work is derived, did not publish as much as Mezirow and did not disseminate his work in mainstream adult education journals (with the exception of the piece he did with Gordy Myers in the late 1980s. Bob was trained as an educational psychologist and, while long associated with adult education, he was less active professionally in the field in the latter part of his career. His work was published in Small Group Research and by Routledge in an expensive book which did not receive widespread dissemination because of the price.

I also think that Mezirow's theory, which makes use of cognitive theory and related frameworks, is more accessible to most people (of course, it is clean – black and white). My work (and Bob's) is grounded in Jungian and post-Jungian thought, which takes some study to become familiar with the ideas and concepts. I spent several semesters in grad school focusing on depth psychology theory, as well as doing extensive study of my own. I think Mezirow's theory is also quite complex (believe me, I reviewed the manuscript draft of his 1991 book for Jossey-Bass), but I don't think many people really study his theory in depth either. But the ideas are nonetheless appropriated by lots of people and carelessly used. 
 

I realize Mezirow has focused, to a greater extent than you, on transformative learning...but, it may be possible that you underestimate your contribution. You, and others, have forced him to consider more holistic approaches to teaching adults. And, as time has passed he seems more and more (based on my readings) open to the emotional aspects of teaching and learning. If he is not open to them...at least he acknowledges, in his own writings, the diversity of thought that exists in the study of transformative learning. He literally names you as a person who has infused emotions and intuition into the theory.

Mezirow's ideas are great, but they are very black and white, which does not represent the emotional complexities of adult students, or the dynamic relationship between students and teachers. He also avoids elements of the unknown. An equation about humans must include room for what is unknown, or not completely understood. You add the unknown...the possibility of a process beyond our perceptions, or control. You make his theory complete and possible...at least in my mind. 
 

2. And, if we promote TL in the classroom, especially a more emotionally-based approach, are we - as faculty - qualified to deal with the deep emotional experiences of students? How much is too much? What are the ethical issues related to promoting highly charged emotional experiences in the classroom? And, if so few people can actually have TL experiences, as defined by Jack, do the risks outweigh the benefits?

Somehow we in teaching have come to view and understand our work and our role as largely dealing with the heads of students and not the hearts. I can't tell you how often in my career I have been challenged by emotional issues that students bring to me, and that is saying nothing of the day to day ways in which their study and work is embedded in emotional-related issues. I don't think a lot of faculty are very competent as teachers, or at least they don't start out that way. They may be good lecturers or transmitters of information but they seldom demonstrate a high level of expertise in the complex tasks of teaching. Teaching in higher education is seen by and large as a matter of subject matter expertise and not pedagogical expertise. But as we work with students and advise them, we begin to see just how incredibly difficult it is to help individuals and groups learn. It is a messy and complex process in which the persons of both the teacher and the learner are deeply implicated.

So the short answer to your question is we can't avoid dealing with emotional issues with our students. Deep and meaningful learning is emotional, affective, powerful stuff. Those of us who work with professional development of teachers in higher and adult education need to be paying more attention to the qualifications necessary to foster more integrated and holistic approaches to learning.

I completely agree with you in this area. I guess I would go one step farther and say that it is perhaps unethical to know and accept our inability to understand and nurture the “whole” student, and his/her experiences. I have been teaching for four years at the university, and what I have come to understand is how unqualified I am to teach, especially adults. When I walk away from a class feeling like I fell short, it does not feel good. I have my moments in the class where I feel like something meaningful happened, but I haven’t quite figured out how to “package” that experience and repeat it. I ask myself all the time if I should be teaching. When I started, I was given a room number and a textbook (one week before class started). In four years, nobody at the university has talked to me about my teaching or classroom experiences.

How much is too much?

Not an easy answer. But our teaching and our fostering of learning among our students should always be grounded in the subject. It is the subject that brings us together. When emotional issues start becoming disconnected from the subject, then I think it is a signal that we have traversed into the realm in which counseling and perhaps therapy is needed. This is not our role. But I just completed a committee meeting today with one of my students and it was quite apparent to me that, in her presentation and discussion, she was giving voice to a host of personal issues that were and are evoked by her proposed study. I think it is my job to help her become aware of these issues and learn to work with them in a way that is constructive for her research and for her personal well being.

I don't promote highly charged emotional issues in the classroom or in learning for that matter. But deep and engaged learning is, by definition, a powerfully affective process. And when you are learning in groups and engaged in authentic and meaningful learning, you are going to encounter powerful emotional group dynamics. It is unavoidable. It comes with the territory. We as teachers need to be trained to address these issues. And it starts by first being willing to do our own shadow work. So I see manifestation of emotionally-laden issues as inherent to the processes of deep, engaged learning.

I agree here as well. But, this ability to manage emotion in the classroom, so the learning experience is healthy for all students, is not covered in a graduate education program. I know you understand this….I guess the question is, should we have some written guidelines for ethical issues in adult education. Part of which might include specialized training in human dynamics and maintaining a healthy learning environment. Successful higher education might require a certain level of maturity and wisdom that only comes from time and experience in the classroom.

Do the risks outweigh the benefits?

I suppose it depends on your vision of education and of adult learning. Learning for me is all about deepening my understanding of myself and my being in the world. Learning to help others learn requires of me a deep sense of self-knowledge. To me, there is no other way. But others don't feel the same way.

I agree with you…this is the maturity and wisdom I am referring to above.

You also asked: One more thing....how can so much be written about learning, knowing, memory, and transformation without someone mentioning the physiological functions of the brain? Just curious. I think it would be interesting to get feedback from neurological/cognition on TL theory.

A few days ago I finished a book, titled. Wisdom of the Psyche: Depth Psychology after Neuroscience. I don't think it is entirely accurate that those of us working in transformative learning have not been paying attention to brain science. I know Ed Taylor presented a paper at AERC about 10 years ago on the interrelationship of brain science with transformative learning. It is a small but clearly present thread of scholarship in learning theory.

Thanks for the references…I will take a look at them. Just before I sent my last email, I had finished an article, in Discover Magazine, about brain function. It was very educational for me, but I had so many questions. I also realized a new area of my ignorance. I am interested in so many topics – there is just not enough time.

It might be interesting to just ask teachers, in higher education, how they manage emotion in the classroom. I have other ideas related to community education program design and development. The development process actually follows the phases of transformative learning. I know that my program work has impacted my life deeply…I wonder if this is true for other people who have developed community programs. OR, I have thought about focusing on teacher leadership and advocacy…in terms of their experiences developing, or participating in, meaningful community programs.

A day later, I wrote back in response to my friend....
In my own mind I have toyed repeatedly with the idea you present here about asking teachers in HE how they manage emotions in the classroom. I think this area is ripe for a critical incident study, a methodology which I think would be very good in illuminating the effective and ineffective methods used to address emotion-laden issues, and also perhaps beginning to develop a narrative of emotional learning. By doing this, we may develop a deeper understanding of how teachers perceive and interpret emotions within the classroom, and their role in facilitating and addressing their manifestation in teaching and learning. There is a small but growing body of literature on emotions in teaching and learning in higher education, a little more in adult education.

This weekend I started another book on Ignatian spirituality: What is Ignatian Spirituality? Am reading this book on my new Kindle, which is a little different in terms of spiritual readling. Am early into the reading, but wanted to share a couple ideas here related to the heart and transformative learning. We have seen a lot recently written about the heart in transformative learning but I wonder how thoughtful and critical we are being about the use of the idea of heart.

'"Heart' does not mean the emotions (though it includes our emotions). It refers to our inner orientation, the core of our being." And again, later in the book, the author states Ignatius had a "profound conversation while recuperating from his wounds, but it was not a conversion of the intellect or will...His conversion involved his deepest desires and commitments, that essential center of the personally in which man stands before God. His religious practice and intellectual understanding deepened over time, but it was his heart that was transformed."

"The goal (of Ignatian spiritual practice) is a response of the heart, which truly changes the whole person. "

As I continue to read about Ignatian spirituality, it strikes me how much of the language and concepts used parallel some of the ideas Jung explored in his own work.

Fooling around on the web this morning, I discovered a PDF titled, "Transformative Education in the Jesuit Tradition." Earlier this month I had ordered a book from Amazon.com titled, An Ignatian Spirituality Reader, edited by George Traub, a Jesuit Professor of Theology at Xavier University. This PDF provides what is essentially an overview to the philosophical orientation at Loyola University in Chicago. However, there is a section within this document that describes what is called the "Ignatian Methodology." Here transformative education is described as a method that aims at fostering a series of "internal transformations" on the part of the students and "how the go about understanding themselves vis-a-vis their own inclinations, passions, biases, and spontaneous reactions." The emphasis is on discernment.

The method stresses self-transcendence as an "antidote to self-immersion." Four steps are outlined: 1) Become attentive to what one is experiencing; 2) Reflect back on one's experiences and what has been evoked by way of questions that comes out of that experience' 3) Make a judgment as to what is or what one has come to know or not know; and 4) Determine the course of action called for by this judgment.

As I read this overview, it strikes me there is much overlap between what is discussed here in terms of the approach to learning and what is discussed as transformative learning in higher and adult education. It has the cognitive flavor and quality that is present in Mezirow's approach to transformative learning but the goal of self-knowing and self-transcendence that is more characteristic of Jung's approach to transformation.

Scientists apparently have discovered another planet three times the size of Earth, located about 40 some light years away, revolving around a single sun. They think it is a mass of water with a surface temperature of about 400 degrees F.

For some reason, this factoid made me think about the existence of a god, or whether we are just circumstances of historical fate. Seems to matter somehow but not sure in what way.

A journey in progress

Am beginning this blog to think aloud, so to speak, on matters of teaching and learning in higher and adult education. Lots of ideas are swirling around, emanating from lots of different sources, including students, my role as editor of the Journal of Transformative Education, and my own writing and research in this area. A blog seems like a good avenue to begin exploring some of these issues in more depth.

Part of what I have encountered in my role as editor is the question of scope - what is included and not included in the ideas of transformative learning and transformative education? Is transformative learning limited to adults or is such learning possible among, high school or even elementary students?