Collaborative,Comparative Inquiry and Transformative Cross-Cultural Adult Learning and Teaching

Abstract

Intentionally designing international perspectives into adult educator preparation programs is a step toward developing instructors’ social and instructional cache of understandings about learning, knowledge, and facilitative methodologies that transcend their own Western cultural influences. In a class offered through an MA in adult learning and teaching program at a large Southwestern university, students examined their personal perceptions about adult education and investigated adult learning and knowing in international settings. Through symbolic convergence and narrative analyses, the research found that the use of a collaborative, comparative inquiry framework indicated an initial Western educational metanarrative. Throughout the course, the framework also provided a cognitive and emotional scaffold to underpin the social nature of transformative learning and to inspire a global educational vision.

Keywords

collaborative inquiry cross-cultural adult education critical transformative learning comparative adult education symbolic convergence theory

Today, adult educators in the United States must develop a social and instructional cache of understandings about learning, knowledge, and facilitative methodologies that transcend their own Western cultural influences. This is required not only because of the diversity of their learners but also because knowledge is transforming through global intersections of society, the workplace, politics, economics, and lifelong learning. Asgharzadeh (2008) calls for educators to

empower students to examine their local conditionalities critically while aiming to acquire a global vision. It will encourage them to forge positive links between school and local community while identifying complex relationships emerging from conditions of globality, postcoloniality, and migrancy; that is to say, issues around diversity, hybridity, multiculturalism, multilingualism, and so on. (p. 336)

To start, American adult educators must first understand that their practices and beliefs are steeped in Western values and culture while recognizing other communities around the world adhere to cultural value systems that may influence ways of knowing and learning very differently.

Intentionally designing international perspectives into adult educator preparation programs is a step toward inspiring an expanded global educational vision. In a class offered through an MA in adult learning and teaching program at a large Southwestern university, students examined their personal perceptions about adult education and investigated adult learning and knowing in non-Western settings. The purpose of the present research study was to investigate the use of a reflexive collaborative, comparative inquiry framework, which involved personal and shared reflection on individual experiences and group research. As the instructor of the course, I was specifically interested in discovering and assessing the extent of the changes in the students’ perspectives and their intended future instructional choices through this collaborative learning approach. The research questions guiding the investigation were the following:

Research Question 1: How do adult educators in the United States perceive learning and knowing within their own pedagogical contexts?

Research Question 2: In what ways does using a collaborative, comparative inquiry framework influence transformative development of a globally minded educational perspective?

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Facilitating International Cross-Cultural Adult Learning

In this era of global interdependence, international cross-cultural perspectives must be incorporated into the work of adult educators (Henschke, 2005). There is currently a call for critical approaches to cross-cultural learning that work to expose the inequalities produced by ignorance, language- and ethno-centricity, and racism (Clover, 2006; Coryell, Clark, & Pomerantz, 2010; Lopes & Thomas, 2006). Often, critical analyses of language, texts, arts, and symbols underpin cultural and diversity learning experiences (Clover, 2006; Guy, 1999; Lee & Lutz, 2005). However, Brown, Cervero, and Johnson-Bailey (2000) posit that the adult education literature largely tends to suggest that “all teachers are the same, as if their cultural, ethnic, gender, and racial identity are irrelevant” (p. 275). Instead, adult educators need to identify their own positionalities and cultural lenses in their instruction (Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 1998; Tisdell, 1993). Baumgartner and Johnson-Bailey (2008) add that instructors of cross-cultural education must support learners’ emotional resilience and flexibility through positive intercultural exchanges, be aware of emotional roadblocks including the inability to regulate emotions that can contribute to poor rather than successful outcomes, and provide a safe space with sensitive dialogue that engages learner emotions effectively. Emotions including anxiety, embarrassment, and anger can become of a part of the learning experience—these are the same emotions often found in cross-cultural and transformative learning experiences (Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Brown et al., 2000).

Collaborative Inquiry

A collaborative inquiry (CI) approach includes a group of learners pursing their personal curiosities (questions) through collective action research. With the goal to improve practice, CI intentionally links learning with learner interest and must be personally and socially significant to buttress lifelong curiosities (Short & Burke, 2001). Research suggests that CI encourages educators to generate their own research questions, provides opportunities to conduct inquiries into learning and teaching, requires an exploration of the current literature, and supports instructors’ critical analysis of personal experiences, existing theory, and educational practices (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000; Drennon & Cervero, 2002; Lytle, Belzer, & Reunmann, 1993; Pataray-Ching & Roberson, 2002).

CI also assists in facilitating reflexive discourse and examination. Bray et al. (2000) describe CI as “a systematic process consisting of repeated episodes of reflection and action through which a group of peers strives to answer a question of importance to them” (p. 6). The learning processes are social and collaborative, and their investigations benefit not only the participants but may also inform the field as a whole (Drennon & Cervero, 2002; Kasl & Yorks, 2010). In addition, Alcántara, Hayes, and Yorks (2009) suggest that inquiry learning can generate educative experiences that are transformative if the inquiry process leads to changes in points of view or habits of mind.

Finally, CI has been used to foster learning and new understandings of cross-cultural interactions and racism while promoting behavioral changes and social action (European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness, 2002; Pritchard & Sanders, 2002). It facilitates learning about how to communicate across complex cultural difference in peer counseling (Smith, 2002) and to acknowledge the spirit in learning communities (Roberson, 2002). In the present study, CI was used to aid adult educators in embracing a globally informed education philosophy. By encouraging an exploration of education and knowing in non-Western communities through an inquiry lens, the goal of the course was buttressed by Pataray-Ching and Roberson’s (2002) call to make “changes and adjustments in [educators’] thinking, experimenting with tools in their environment, inventing new tools, and venturing further into their inquiries” (p. 500).

Reflection in Learning and Teaching

Dewey (1933) suggested a reflexive process that begins with a problem and then moves through a set of steps to include reflection, thinking without action, a feeling of unease, development of a working hypothesis and data gathering, a proposed solution connected with reasoning and situational context, hypothesis testing and refinement, and, finally, postreflection. His work posits that thinking is necessarily separate from action but that the reflection on past experiences guides future decision making and behavior. Schon (1983) suggested that professional practitioners engage in two types of reflection: reflection on action and reflection in action. Reflection on action occurs when an educator retrospectively reflects on past experience/action. Reflection in action, alternatively, transpires during the action. Conceptualized as a conversation between the practitioner and the situation, the “situation talks back, the practitioner listens, and as he appreciates what he hears, he reframes the situation once again” (pp. 131-132). This reflection in action approach considers the conscious thinking during action that can change the course of the action and affect the outcome.

In his article about teacher reflection, Boody (2008) proposes that the fundamental question underpinning educator reflection is often “what is right here?” (p. 503). His research indicates that reflection occurs within a context in which the teacher has specific responsibilities to other humans—both as an educator and as a fellow human. Boody characterizes reflection as teacher change grounded in personal obligation, compassion, and love, which leads to a moral response. He further submits that “the way reflection shows itself most fully is . . . a change of self, leading to a change of how one is as a teacher with others” (p. 505) and resulting in committed participation, mutuality, and accountability.

Theoretical Framework: Critical Transformative Learning

Reflection is also key in what Mezirow (2000) terms transformative learning. Whether learning as a student or as a teacher, we know that people’s beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions—personal frames of reference—mediate their educational experiences (Merriam, 2004). But when frames of reference are shaken through new, sometimes unexpected incidents, a myriad of emotions can lead to critical assessment of those personal assumptions and understandings. Critical reflection on assumptions, or premise reflection, is not just thinking about an experience or about how to manage the experience; instead, it requires learners to reflect on “long-held, socially constructed assumptions, beliefs, and values about the experience or problem” (Merriam, 2004, p. 62). Mezirow (2000) proposes there may be multiple phases of learning involved in the transformation, and ultimately, through self-reflection, learners explore new roles, relationships, and actions. On transformation, a reinterpretation of one’s experiences leads to a new set of expectations.

Critical transformative learning suggests significant learning (transformation) is both individual and social and is dependent on the contexts of the learning environment (Brookfield, 2003). Learners reflect on the content and processes by which learning occurs and inspect the social and historical contexts and consequences underpinning their premises. The ultimate goal is to move from an unexamined way of thinking to a more scrutinized and critically reflective way (Merriam, 2004; Mezirow, 2000; Sork, 2007).

Mezirow (2000) proposed that adults develop “webs of affiliation within a shared life world. Human reality is intersubjective; our life histories and language are bound up with those of others” (p. 27). His focus for the theory was on individual benefits (autonomy and empowerment), but others indicate the need to study transformative learning theory with regard to communally oriented outcomes for improved social conditions. Merriam and Ntseane (2008), for example, posited that accounting for the cultural context of transformative learning better allows for spiritual and intellectual meaning-making at both the individual and the collective levels. With regard to transformative learning and cross-cultural education, Ziegahn’s (2005) work identified that transformations occurred through her students’ engagement in critical reflection that linked “cultural positions to inequity, embraced negative emotions, questioned prejudices, reframed underlying premises, and linked experiences to previously learned habits” (p. 39). However, the interaction between cultural influences on learning and transformative learning theory is still not well documented (Merriam & Ntseane, 2008; Taylor, 2007).

A New Graduate Adult Education Course

The program faculty identified a need for a new graduate course that helped students to examine their own personal perceptions about adult education and to expand those conceptions to include more international, culturally inclusive understandings and instructional methodologies. The objectives of the course were to discover how international perspectives on learning and knowing affect human development around the world and how the understanding of these different perspectives should influence and possibly transform our own educational beliefs and practices. Democratic classroom principles (Alfred, 2002) underpinned our interactions. As such, the students and I worked collaboratively in making decisions about what is to be learned and how learning and assessment should occur. We discussed the nature of a shared responsibility in collective knowledge co-construction and committed to sensitive dialogue. We also openly talked about the feelings that arise when learning about cultures and cultural practices that are very different from our own. Together, we decided that learning would focus on (a) how international perspectives on learning and knowing influence education around the world and (b) how the understanding of these different perspectives should influence and possibly transform our own educational beliefs and practices. We agreed to aspire to acknowledge and value all knowledge as it is communally defined—our own as well as those from other racial/ethnic/cultural communities.

The learners were invited to brainstorm questions that would direct their inquiries into non-Western ways of learning and knowing. The collaborative, comparative inquiry framework included the following six questions, which guided their learning throughout the semester:

What is Adult Education?

What is the purpose of Adult Education?

How does learning in adulthood occur?

What is knowledge and who owns it?

What is the role/responsibility of the instructor?

What is the role/responsibility of the learner?

We started by answering these questions within the students’ own perspectives (individually, then collectively) to initiate the learning within the experiences of the learners themselves (hooks, 1994). The process included each student writing a personal response to the individual questions on adhesive-notes. Then, they affixed their answers onto posters displaying separate inquiry questions. Subsequently, the students discussed their combined responses to the questions, taking notes on the posters to establish a collaborative understanding of the group’s perspectives as a whole for each question. This important first step required students to inspect their own perceptions as a baseline for continued learning.

Successively for each new cultural perspective unit, students prepared for class by reading texts that were assigned. For each unit, a small group of students conducted further research to identify videos, conduct interviews, and often invite guest speakers to the class. They then presented their findings and engaged the class in activities that focused on discussing how religion, colonial occupation, history, tradition, and global economic/political forces influence the teaching, learning, educational purposes, and philosophies within the specific community. At the end of the unit, the whole group reflected on answering the inquiry framework questions (individually and then collectively as described above) from that particular culture’s viewpoint. Outside of class, learners then individually responded to guided prompts in their written reflection journals. Figure 1 offers a graphical representation of the learning process, with general schedule timelines, for each unit under study.

Figure 1.

Collective, comparative inquiry framework model.

Cultural perspective units included Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, U.S. Native American indigenous knowledge, Buddhism, the Maori, Latin American perspectives, and African indigenous knowledge. These particular non-Western perspectives were defined by Merriam and her associates in their 2007 book, Non-Western Perspectives on Learning and Knowing. Learning resources included this text, journal articles by international education scholars, documentaries and films, guest speakers, personal interviews, and Internet news sources.

Assessment focused on group research presentations, individual and group research papers, and three personal journal reflections in which the learners engaged in both free reflection and guided reflection prompts (the inquiry framework). In the final reflection paper, students wrote about their concluding perspectives on the framework questions.

Method

Data Collection

The study began the semester after the course ended. I contacted the 10 students who were in the course via email to explain the study and request consent to use their assignments and in-class work as data in the investigation. Table 1 provides a demographic context of the participants. Pseudonyms are used in this report.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Information.

Pseudonym	Ethnicity	Graduate Major	Interest in Working with Adults	Years in Program
Allen	White	Adult Education (AE)	Instructional test preparation (SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc.)	2+
Davie	African (international student from sub-Saharan Africa)	AE	Community college instruction	1
Marisol	Latina	AE	Adult community education	1.5
Michael	White	AE	Medical education	1
Nellie	White	AE	Corporate training	2
Serena	Latina	AE	Adult community education	1.5
Catherine	White	Instructional Technology (IT)	Nurse education	2+
Letty	Latina	IT	Teacher professional development	2
Marco	Latino	IT	Teacher professional development	2
Victoria	White	IT	Teacher professional development	1.5

All students agreed to participate. Data were gathered from two sources: group inquiry reflection activities on each cultural unit that occurred in class and individual journal reflection papers. Data from the in-class activities included adhesive-note responses individual participants submitted about each inquiry framework question throughout the semester and the additional whole-group notes that were recorded on the posters. In total, there were 10 CI framework reflections created—one at the beginning to establish the group’s baseline perspectives, eight conducted after each unit of study, and a final collection that asked the participants to compare their concluding responses with their initial answers. In addition, 85 pages of the learners’ individual reflection papers completed the data set.

Data Analysis

The first iteration of the analysis involved a thematic constant-comparison approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I read and reread through the artifacts and individual reflection assignments to get an overall sense of the data. Then, I grouped responses given chronologically, by question, to begin identifying the patterns of the group over time. I listed codes (specific language, word choice, and phrases) and then grouped them into categories and subcategories across the inquiry framework questions, which then developed into themes. By comparing the codes across the data, I found that the participants were consistent in their beliefs about what education is and what their roles should be.

The use of an additional analytical framework, symbolic convergence theory (Bormann, 1985), then became invaluable. Symbolic convergence theory can be used to analyze the shared meaning that groups of people construct within their cultural understanding. The collective fantasy metanarratives, as Bormann defines them, pertain to shared interpretations of experiences that fulfill a group’s psychological need. These fantasy metanarratives may be positively or negatively regarded, depending on the shared perspective of a group or community. In addition, fantasy metanarratives are often created by group members in authentic events and have been reported in historical works, the media, narratives, and oral histories. This analysis method “has always indicated that consciousness-creating, -raising, and—sustaining is a conscious, open, interactive process, directly observable in the rhetoric which, in turn, is wholly explainable and produces reliable predictions of human behavior” (Bormann, Cragan, & Shields, 2003, p. 369). The adoption of this theory offered an additional lens through which to understand the foregrounding experiences of educators in this country. This lens, which was established as a general theory of communication, allowed me to analyze the narrative aspects in the data that described how educators engaged in the co-construction of a shared consciousness. It is this consciousness that serves to explain particular actions and mediates meaning of an otherwise ambiguous social world.

The method includes three steps (Bormann, 1985). The first step is to discover what and how meaning is communicatively shared in the group. The second step is to identify the “effects such group consciousnesses have in terms of meanings, motives, and communication within the group” (p. 129) that characterize the fantasy. And the third step is to determine why and when the group shares the fantasy.

I also paid close attention to the positionalities the participants embodied in their reflections—as learners and as educators. By examining their dual positions, the analysis helped to identify their preliminary educator metanarrative and resultant subthemes through which these participants made sense of education, epistemology, and learning.

Finally, I returned to analyze each student’s personal reflection assignments to detect individual development. Through an empathically grounded narrative analysis approach (Josselson, 1995), I was intentionally searching for the places in their reflections where the participants were most clearly in dialogue with themselves. It is in these dialogic “moments of crisis [that] represent nodes of change in which the individual becomes other than he or she was” (p. 37). Unsurprisingly, investigations of educational practices into unfamiliar communities often disturbed their preconceived notions about the specific cultural groups and about learning, knowledge, and the nature/purpose of education. By analyzing the tensions and flow of their intrapersonal and collective dialogues, I found that the participants’ descriptions of emotions and practices from their prior lived experiences, within the class group interactions, and in their workplace became the basis of insights into individual and collective change and the nature of their development of a transformed educational vision. Member checks were then employed to clarify and buttress the analysis.

Findings

Analysis revealed insights into how collective, comparative inquiry approaches in the study of international education practices can influence instructors’ epistemological and practical perspectives on education. The overarching themes suggested the activities led to critical transformations on perspectives (premises) about education and culture and ultimately provided insight about the nature of perspective transformation that can occur in classroom settings. Provided here are the findings, by research question.

How Do Educators in the United States Perceive Learning and Knowing Within Their Own Contexts?

The inquiry framework questions provided a structure first to examine the learners’ own ways of thinking about knowledge, learning, teaching, and the purpose of education. Each wrote out his/her personal perceptions and then learned about their classmates’ perspectives through dialogue. This first step activated prior knowledge and established a baseline on which to begin a similar investigation into diverse international communities. Through the exchange of perspectives, the participants shared personal educational experiences to support their views. The whole group reflection activities data were analyzed to answer this first research question.

Participants characterized adult education as primarily a cognitive endeavor by the individual learner. Learning was “internal to the learner” to gain “personal fulfillment.” Initial beliefs about the purpose of adult education centered on “preparing individuals for a more meaningful and successful life” and to “increase knowledge and skills.” The central unit of focus was the individual—for both the learner and the instructor.

The majority of responses also suggested that learning occurs in “formal/semiformal contexts” to “acquire knowledge” primarily “through lectures, relevant activities, and hard work.” Knowledge was seen as “tools that will (help adults to) be successful in academia and society,” and described as “subjects and methods.” The “owners of knowledge,” however, were exclusively “experts and teachers.” One participant suggested, “A student must know that there is a demarcation between learner and teacher,” indicating an austere hierarchical relationship in the learning process.

Initial perspectives on the role of instructors indicated that teachers should provide “resources and lecturing,” be a “facilitator and problem solver/manager,” and “provide a broader framework for the learner.” The role of adult learners, on the other hand, was “to find meaning in life, (which is) different for everyone,” “to learn as much as possible in a lifetime (because) the smartest one wins,” and to be “open to other perspectives, [and] able to use the knowledge of others to compose a logical argument.” The focus on the individual’s experience and benefits of learning and knowing were evident in the participants’ use of the singular noun as is illustrated by the use of “one,” “the student,” “the teacher,” as well as in these phrases that were placed throughout the group reflections: benefits were “internal to the learner,” to gain “personal fulfillment,” and “the smartest one wins.”

The participants’ perspectives on the inquiry framework indicated a Western educator metanarrative that values individualist cultural norms and educational practices. This ethnocentric perspective is in line with what Delgado Bernal (2002) describes as American democratic ideals that include “meritocracy, objectivity, and individuality” (p. 111). Additionally, jingoistic beliefs assembled around a certain “right way to teach” and “appropriate way to learn.” The knowledgeable were those who were formally educated and were working within education systems; accountability rested on both the individual learner and the individual teacher. Moreover, there emerged a sense of finality to learning, education, and knowledge in this metanarrative. Knowledge and meaning were to be acquired from “experts” and used as “tools” for personal self-advancement. The purpose of education was to obtain knowledge—the ultimate outcome/prize of learning. Knowledge emerged as a conclusive possession to be used for personal gain.

In What Ways Does Using a Collaborative, Comparative Inquiry Framework Influence Transformative Development of a Globally Minded Educational Perspective?

The use of the six questions throughout the semester provided a focused, guided, and systematic comparative framework that students used as a cognitive scaffold. The opportunity to engage in the rational discourse processes Mezirow (2000) described were found necessary in their collective reexaminations of previous assumptions and perspectives as well as in collectively constructing new understandings. Figure 2 illustrates the nature of the dialogic processes embedded in the inquiry framework approach.

Figure 2.

Expanded collaborative, comparative inquiry framework model.

This expanded model provides insight into the discursive learning experience. The center of the model includes the six inquiry questions that were consistently used in each culture under study. After the learners researched a particular cultural group, they presented their research methods, sources, and findings. The classroom dialogue, in turn, required safety, trust, and reflexive decision making as they engaged in the inquiry and ultimately responded to the framework’s questions. Because the learners ultimately had to endeavor to answer the questions through the lens of each cultural community, the group participated in consensus-building dialogue, which required sensitive interactions when contending with epistemological differences—both among participants and between the Western educator metanarrative and the cultural knowledge underpinnings of the researched community.

Learning about new ways of understanding is rarely easy or comfortable. At times, the participants’ personal religious, cultural, ethnic, and social positionalities conflicted with that of the communities they were studying. These disorienting experiences shook their confidence and clarity. For example, in initial discussions on the educational practices of Islam, some became quiet, processing new information internally. Others presented U.S. and world media sources and personal accounts of negative incidents with Muslims (including military deployment in the Middle East) that they believed supported their original (and stereotypical) premises. Initial conversations questioned the academic literature, suspicious of author bias. However, an Imam guest speaker, participant interviews with Muslims, and documentaries from reputable public media sources and informational YouTube postings subsequently provided new viewpoints and developed new learner perspectives.

In addition, since Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism (among others) use meditation in their educational practices, a guest expert introduced the philosophy behind meditation and the research on its effects on learning. The guest also taught the class meditation instruction. At first, some students resisted this exercise. Some said they felt silly; others indicated they were uncomfortable meditating. Findings suggested that learning activities steeped in spiritual belief systems that were focused on the human mind, or involved devotion to multiple deities, were alien and uncomfortable to some of the Christian participants. During these disorienting times, the agreed-upon discussion norms were essential. It took patience, a trusting space, and sustained engaged dialogue for learners to grapple with internal conflicts based on personal experiences, firmly anchored opinions, religious loyalties, and sometimes fear, anger, shame, and guilt (Mezirow, 2000). The discomfort felt along the way became an indication of a need to examine personal/collective beliefs and worldviews and how power structures and/or a Western lens may be underpinning their original premises.

At the end of each unit of study, the learners returned to the six inquiry questions. Their charge was to respond to the questions as an insider of the culture might, based on their research. Discussion participants worked to come to consensus about their assertions. Ultimately, the learners endeavored toward common understandings of each international community’s educational perspectives.

At the close of the semester, participants engaged in a final analysis of their original perspectives on learning and knowing, reflecting on their first group responses to the inquiry framework. Rather than responding from within a particular international cultural lens, this group examination required a discussion about how studying non-Western ways of knowing and learning may have influenced their personal understandings. The participants’ individual responses were articulated in a final written reflection exercise. The following section offers the findings related to the participants’ collective transformative experiences and learning outcomes.

Forming a new educator narrative

Final reflection exercises provided insight into the ways in which the participants evaluated their new perspectives. Their contemplations illustrated the comparative CI processes and what was meaningful in their developing understandings. Catherine suggested that the course structure helped in “understanding and accepting the similarities and differences of other cultures and their beliefs [by] fostering a common ground on which to establish and build a rapport between individuals.” In addition, Serena suggested,

[The] group presentations, research, and guest speakers have expanded my knowledge and appreciation of Adult Education, [helped me] build my Adult Education philosophy and theories of learning and teaching, and given me a renewed perspective on Adult Education from a global view with a focus on gender roles, class and culture.

By the end of the course, a new educator narrative emerged. Data revealed that the participants began to co-construct new understandings about the culturally bound epistemological relationships manifested within systems of learning, knowledge, and education. From a global perspective, no longer was knowledge viewed as a “tool” for individual success. In their whole group discussion, the participants came to understand that “knowledge belongs to everyone” and is “culturally constructed.” Learning became “community-oriented.” Adult education represented “a social function that prepares individuals for their adult lives—for the good of their community. It preserves culture and traditions and provides individuals with a sense of harmony, spirituality, integrity, and respect” (Marisol). Education was to facilitate responsible community engagement using communally held beliefs about character, wisdom, and social engagement. Individuals were not only to be accountable to themselves but also to the community, as illustrated in this assertion, “The learner is also responsible to improve the structure of the community. The learner acquires knowledge not only to satisfy their own intellectual curiosity . . . but also to help build character and morality for the family and community” (Marisol).

In addition, adult education was more culturally focused: “adult learning and teaching is central to the transmission and continuance of traditional culture” (Allen). And, the purpose of education transformed into that which “is to serve communities, preserve cultures, enhance personal and community knowledge, create change for good and sometimes for bad, define cultural identity, preserve and strengthen personal identity and ease the burden and stress of life itself” (Michael). By the end of the course, participants no longer discussed adult education without recognizing the compelling influences of cultural influences and positionality. Nor did they respond to the inquiry framework without discussing the multifarious nature of knowledge, meaning, belief systems, and lifelong learning.

Knowledge became not just the commodity of experts and academicians. Instead, as Marisol suggested, “Knowledge is a shared skill . . . and is equally shared amongst all members of the community.” The learners recognized that for knowledge to be shared, it had to be interactional, “holistic” (Allen) and was often a “spiritual journey” (Catherine). Indeed, the “journey” signifier was found across the data. Questions they had asked each other and of other cultures lead them to re-envision education. These concepts became parts of a process of being that encompassed not just skills but also spirituality, wisdom, cultural foundations, and ethics which were manifested as “deepening layers of meaning over a lifetime” (Catherine).

Moreover, rather than ascribing to a Western metanarrative that focused on jingoistic educative practices and mono-cultural valuation, the new co-constructed narrative was grounded in the expectation that learning and meaningful knowledge-engagement practices were interlinked with multiple ways of knowing and diverse cultural validations. We can see an amalgamation of previous and new perspectives—the continued presence of the individual’s development through education, yet also the inclusion of the social characteristics and community benefit of the educative journey. Their new perspectives embraced epistemological differences, instructional practices and cultural departures from their original Western educator metanarrative.

They also identified a broadened concept of multiculturalism. The city in which the participants lived primarily consists of two racial/ethnic groups (Hispanics/Latinos and Whites). This describes the cultural positionality of most of the participants, as well. As such, the learning interactions were influenced, at least initially, with a focus on a bicultural and dichotomous view of reality. However, the comparative study of multiple international perspectives assisted many of the participants to broaden their gazes. For example, Marisol shared,

I have gained a deeper understanding of multiculturalism. . . . I considered myself to have a deep understanding of multiculturalism . . . the American mainstream White/Anglo population and Hispanic/Latino ethnic group. I viewed multiculturalism through a bi-cultural frame of mind. I have now expanded my view of multiculturalism. . . . I have changed by being more sensitive to other cultures. I have learned to respect other ethnicities and races and to appreciate the world for its diversity and cultural differences.

Through the study of international perspectives, participants came to notice the “others” who lived in their own community, as well as to venture outside the local context. Victoria concluded,

I find this [study] to be important for all levels of teaching professionals . . . for future stability and creating a healthy global (international, national and local) view, educators must encourage good communication, incorporation and inclusion of cultures, norms and values (worldwide) for [all] citizens.

The data also revealed perspective transformations specifically connected with the critical comparison between Western and non-Western ways of knowing and learning. Davie, the African participant, offered, “I [now] question why for so long Western cultures have been giving a false image of non-Western cultures.” He also queried why Western knowledge construction methods were so often considered the “absolute truth, marking non-Western value systems as non-scientific and inferior.” Similarly, Letty asserted she learned “not [to] judge others’ practices based our Western standards.”

The participants unilaterally indicated that the study of multiple international contexts was essential in broadening their initial premises. Nellie offered, “It is not the gain of any one particular view point that will help me in my teaching endeavor but rather the expansion my view/perspective has undergone since enrolling in this class.” Serena asserted that she built her “cultural competency skills. . . . I know that I will be a more effective and competent facilitator in adult education.” Correspondingly, Michael suggested,

These are ideas and experiences I will never forget. The [various] cultural aspects and educational practices . . . [they] have been stimulating for me and have given me new knowledge, new facts and a broader understanding of their cultures, educational practices and societies. These thoughts and beliefs have made a permanent impact on my adult educational career.

His thoughts capture the participants’ consensus regarding the transformative power of collective, comparative educational studies.

In addition, Nellie offered this passage describing her new perspectives on education. The best way to describe [my learning] would be to imagine an orchard of fruit trees. Each tree [culture/community] is magnificent and complex in its own way and offers nourishment and shade to those who choose to sit under it, yet, deep beneath the surface the roots of all the orchard’s trees are interwoven and overlapping. They are all seeking the same resources, with . . . soul, purpose, and intent of survival. Every culture perpetuates their way of life so as not to become extinct. . . . From this exploration I have come to truly grasp the concept of perspective and how, on the grand scale of life, every culture and individual is both insignificant and precious at the same time. I am quite humbled by my experiences from this class.

The new global educator narrative repositioned education into a continual process for cultural endurance and survival. Nellie affirms the soul indicating the expanded perception of learning and knowledge as spiritual, emotional, individual, and collective. While in the United States the separation of church and state often underpins epistemological, pedagogical, and curricular choices and classifies religious discourse as inappropriate in the classroom (Stenberg, 2006), non-Western cultures and their ways of learning and knowing unabashedly link the spiritual with educative practices. The new educator narrative found in this study values and embraces the multifarious religious/spiritual contexts present in adult learners’ lives.

Finally, participants indicated the power of CI for perspective transformation. A connective theme in the postcourse reflections indicated that learning was a collective “responsibility/duty to obtain and share knowledge within [the] group” (Catherine). Serena offered, “The structure and organization of the class provided an excellent, efficient and safe/comfortable environment to begin exploring various global perspectives on adult learning and knowing.” The process of collaborative comparative methods of inquiry, individual contemplation, dialogue, and collective perspective taking, with distinctive levels of reflective perception analysis throughout, created a unique space between individual transformation and social-educational change.

Adoption of new instructional practices/future actions based on transformed perspectives

Participants realized the value in adult learning through social functions, oral storytelling traditions, art and artifacts, family histories, daily interactions, and through the use of proverbs. When asked to reflect on how new perspectives would affect their instructional practices, the participants indicated action-oriented goals for change. Serena offered,

Developing my cultural competency skills has allowed me to reflect more closely on my ideas about adult education in other areas of the world. I have begun to realize the importance of praxis, gender roles, class, economy, race and religion and the influence they have on adult education in communities throughout the world.

The participants consistently stated their commitments to continued learning and critical evaluation of their own Western practices and belief systems. For example, Catherine offered,

When the dust from this semester settles, I will spend more time learning more about cultures and groups that are in the area, to better understand and appreciate their needs and learning styles. I hope to establish a stronger rapport with my students, to effectively teach and assess their understanding.

Participants also acknowledged they had much yet to learn about each of the communities they studied as well as many others. The participants recognized their need to learn more about themselves and the educational value systems present in cultural groups. For example, Marco understood, “Not only have I learned about the different values that cultures hold on education or knowledge, but I can now analyze my own values on education.” This excerpt from Victoria’s paper also helps illustrate this finding,

From an outsider’s perspective, I have to know and understand my own personal beliefs . . . not putting them aside, per se, but acknowledging that I have those perspectives and then trying to add a new schema to my repertoire of people of the world.

The participants’ transformed perspectives included specific future instructional and lifelong learning action plans. These plans comprised the use of additional instructional strategies, expanded use of a variety of research resources, and a commitment to continued study of different cultures and peoples. They recognized the power of face-to-face interactions with people of different cultural orientations, research literature, documentaries, and popular media as a means to continue their learning.

Instructional challenges

As in most education facilitation, there were instructional challenges. Initially the learners expected to depend on me to guide the discussions and validate conclusions. As such, I often needed to engage in “negative capability,” which Vella (2002) describes as an instructional strategy that situates the adult educator as one who is an available resource to the learners and also one who stays out of the way when necessary. I needed to remind participants often to return to the literature and other research resources for validation and to trust themselves in the collective dialogical engagement. Another challenge was in grading. To connect with democratic classroom principles and include students in the evaluation process, participants had opportunities to self-evaluate as well as engage in peer evaluations of group research and presentation processes. We agreed that individual reflection assignments would receive full points as long as there was evidence of thoughtful reflection on personal learning. The challenge is in trusting that learner reflections are genuine and not simply crafted to connect with the student’s perception of instructor expectations. In this study, the evidence of authentic reflection was consistent with my observations of classroom engagement and dialogue.

Discussion and Implications

The findings indicate that a comparative CI approach can provide a model of intentional design that facilitates transformative learning phases (Mezirow, 2000) and critical transformative learning outcomes (Brookfield, 2003). The shared inquiry processes used authentic problems and cyclical cognitive and holistic progressions and engaged learners in research, dialogue, and collective and individual reflection. As such, this research reiterates the need to broaden adult educator’s perspectives to value nonmajority voices and relational cross-cultural processes (Brookfield, 2003; Brown et al., 2000; Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 1998; Tisdell, 1993). Findings also build on previous scholars’ work while offering the field of adult education distinct recommendations for putting this call into action.

Specifically, this study affirms and extends critical transformative learning theory by emphasizing the importance of critical reflection when working toward transformative learning outcomes (Brookfield, 2003; Mezirow, 2000) and when working toward international cross-cultural meaning-making that is both individual and social (Merriam & Ntseane, 2008). By co-constructing an inquiry framework that would guide the course’s comparative investigations, participants first took ownership of the learning in ways that supported a critical analysis of their educational experiences and practices (Bray et al., 2000; Drennon & Cervero, 2002; Lytle, Belzer, & Reunmann, 1993; Pataray-Ching & Roberson, 2002).

The findings indicate that beginning the class with participants reflecting on their initial perspectives was crucial to the learning process. This occurred through the students individually and collectively answering framework questions vis-à-vis the acknowledgement of their own positionalities (Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; hooks, 1994; Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 1998) and those of colearners (Merriam & Ntseane, 2008). Initially, the participants ascribed to a Western educator metanarrative in which learning and knowledge were valued as possessions, acquired from experts, and used as a tool for personal success. This study offers new insights into critical transformations of ethnocentric beliefs and practices through the comparative CI process. Rather than engaging learners in conversation about difference, the reiterative comparative framework deepened the learning by providing a structured and continuous cycle of collective and individual inquiry-reflection. This structure of cyclical inquiry-reflection also offered the emotional support (Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008; Brown et al., 2000) necessary when facilitating learning through disorienting dilemmas in cross-cultural education (Baumgartner & Johnson-Bailey, 2008) and in developing educational worldview perspectives.

This study also further extends Ziegahn’s (2005) research on critical reflection and cultural difference learning by expanding the discussion of culture in adult education to include non-Western perspectives on knowing, learning, and teaching. In doing so, findings offer a method to work toward a “revision of beliefs about cultural difference through critical reflection on one’s personal culture, intercultural interactions, and life as a world citizen” (p. 62). The global educator narrative to which the participants in this study ultimately ascribed likewise reinforces the field of adult education’s mandate for extensive instructor self-reflection on positionality, fostering educative relationships across cultures, and working to understand the diverse cultural contexts of learners (Brookfield, 2006; Taylor, 2006).

I offer Sfard’s (1998) work to further ground the study’s pedagogical implications, which asserts that understanding knowledge as a product of learning and as a personal acquisition/ownership of a commodity and suggests a learning-as-acquisition metaphor may be in place. Within this metaphor, the individual learner becomes the possessor of knowledge materials. This metaphor fits the Western educator metanarrative found in this study, as well. Conversely, Sfard identified an alternative metaphor that corresponds with the participants’ transformed perspectives on learning, knowing, and education. A global educator narrative incorporates a learning-as-participation metaphor. Learning does not have an end-point (acquisition/possession), but instead is continual and situated in participative practice. In juxtaposition to the learning-as-acquisition metaphor, participation emphasizes knowing, partaking, and doing in a critical pedagogical journey (Stenberg, 2006).

Limitations of the study may include the specific demographics of the participants who identified as primarily White or of Hispanic/Latino(a) origin and the survey nature of the course (“We’ve only scratched the surface”). As well, there were not enough data to support specific analyses of how participants believed international perspectives affected human development around the world (as was an initial goal of the course). Indeed, we still have much to learn. The field of adult education needs further studies on critical transformative learning and cultural difference, on transformative learning in non-Western cultures, and on cultural influences on learning and knowing across international cultural communities. As well, studies on instructional strategies and educational approaches in developing a global educator vision for those who are in contact with intersecting global communities and yet are also confronting internal divisions and sectors are also warranted.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Previous conference presentations on components of this study:

Coryell, J. E. (2009). Critical transformational learning: Collective inquiry and inspiring a global educational vision. Paper presented at the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults, University of Cambridge, England.

Coryell, J. E. (2010, October). Collective inquiry and transformational cross-cultural adult learning and teaching. Paper presentation to the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education. Clearwater, FL.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Joellen E. Coryell is assistant professor of adult, professional, and community education at Texas State University. Her research focuses on international cross-cultural adult and higher education and the investment in the professional development of adult educators and educational leaders. Her work includes investigating adult study abroad, capacity-building in international education aid programs, adult second and foreign language acquisition, higher education internationalization, and graduate student research development.

References

Alcántara

Hayes

Yorks

(2009). Collaborative inquiry in action: Transformative learning through co-inquiry. In Mezirow

Taylor

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice (pp. 251-261). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Alfred

M. V.

(2002). The promise of sociocultural theory in democratizing adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 96, 3-13.

Asgharzadeh

(2008). The return of the subaltern: International education and politics of voice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 334-363.

Baumgartner

L. M.

Johnson-Bailey

(2008). Fostering awareness of diversity and multiculturalism in adult and higher education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 120, 45-53.

Boody

R. M.

(2008). Teacher reflection as teacher change, and teacher change as moral response. Education, 128, 498-506.

Bormann

E. G.

(1985). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128-138.

Bormann

E. G.

Cragan

J. G.

Shields

D. C.

(2003). Defending symbolic convergence theory from an imaginary Gunn. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89, 366-372.

Bray

Lee

Smith

L. L.

Yorks

(2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and making meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2003). Putting the critical back into critical pedagogy. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 111-119.

10.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2006). The skillful teacher (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Brown

A. H.

Cervero

R. M.

Johnson-Bailey

(2000). Making the invisible visible: Race, gender, and teaching in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 273-288.

12.

Clover

D. E.

(2006). Culture and antiracisms in adult education: An exploration of the contributions of arts-based learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 46-61.

13.

Coryell

J. E.

Clark

M. C.

Pomerantz

(2010). Cultural fantasy narratives and heritage language learning: A case study of adult, heritage learners of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 94, 453-469.

14.

Delgado Bernal

. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 105-126.

15.

Dewey

(1933). How we think: A reassessment of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In Boydston

J. A.

(Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953 (Vol. 8, pp. 105-352). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

16.

Drennon

Cervero

(2002). The politics of facilitation in practitioner inquiry groups. Adult Education Quarterly, 52, 193-209.

17.

European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness. (2002). A multiple group inquiry into Whiteness. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, 73-81.

18.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

19.

Guy

(1999). Culture as context for adult education: The need for culturally relevant adult education. In Guy

(Ed.), Providing culturally relevant adult education: A challenge for the twenty-first century (pp. 5-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Henschke

(2005). Reaching beyond the United States: Adventures in international adult education and human resource development. Adult Learning, 16(1/2), 23-24.

21.

hooks

(1994). Teaching to transgress—Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Johnson-Bailey

Cervero

R. M.

(1998). Power dynamics in teaching and learning practices: An examination of two adult education classrooms. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 48, 389-399.

23.

Josselson

(1995). Imagining the real: Empathy, narrative, and the dialogic self. In Josselson

Lieblich

(Eds.), Interpreting experience: The narrative study of lives (pp. 27-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Kasl

Yorks

(2010). “Whose inquiry is this anyway?” Money, power reports, and collaborative inquiry. Adult Education Quarterly, 60, 315-338.

25.

Lee

Lutz

(2005). Situating “race” and “racisms” in space, time and theory. Montreal, Canada: McGill University Press.

26.

Lopes

Thomas

(2006). Dancing on live embers: Challenging racism in organizations. Toronto, Canada: Between the Lines.

27.

Lytle

S. L.

Belzer

Reumann

(1993). Initiating practitioner inquiry. Washington, DC: National Center on Adult Literacy.

28.

Merriam

S. B.

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

29.

Merriam

S. B.

, & Associates (2007). Non-western perspectives on learning and knowing. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

30.

Merriam

S. B.

Ntseane

(2008). Transformational learning in Botswana: How culture shapes the process. Adult Education Quarterly, 58, 183-197.

31.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Mezirow

& Associates. (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Pataray-Ching

Roberson

(2002). Misconceptions about a curriculum-as-inquiry framework. Language Arts, 79, 498-505.

33.

Pritchard

Sanders

(2002). Weaving our stories as they weave us. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, 63-71.

34.

Roberson

W. W.

(2002). Midwife to a learning community: Spirit as co-inquirer. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, 43-51.

35.

Schon

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

36.

Sfard

(1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

37.

Short

Burke

(2001). Curriculum as inquiry. In Boran

Comber

(Eds.), Critiquing whole language and classroom inquiry (pp. 18-40). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

38.

Smith

L. L.

(2002). Using the power of collaborative inquiry: Community women learn and lead themselves. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 94, 23-32.

39.

Sork

(2007). A dangerous idea whose time has come? Prospects for a global core curriculum in adult education. Paper presented at the 37th Annual SCUTREA Conference Proceedings, Belfast, Ireland.

40.

Stenberg

S. J.

(2006). Liberation theology and liberatory pedagogies: Renewing the dialogue. College English, 68, 271-290.

41.

Taylor

(2006). Editor’s notes. In Taylor

(Ed.), Teaching for change: Fostering transformative learning in the classroom (New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 109, pp. 1-3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Taylor

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 175-191.

43.

Tisdell

(1993). Interlocking systems of power, privilege, and oppression in adult higher education classes. Adult Education Quarterly, 4, 203-226.

44.

Vella

(2002). Learning to listen. Learning to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Ziegahn

(2005). Critical reflection on cultural difference in the computer conference. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 39-64.