Abstract
This article addresses a significant problem with transformative learning theory; namely, that it is increasingly being used to refer to almost any instance of learning. This article offers several points of clarity to resolve this problem. First, it portrays a subtle but important evolution in the way the theory has been used in the literature and, as a solution, positions transformative learning as an analytic metatheory. It then presents a typology of transformative learning outcomes as a conceptual tool scholars can use to describe learning phenomena. Finally, this article suggests a definition and criteria for transformative learning to provide parameters around the phenomena that the metatheory of transformative learning should address.
Transformative learning theory has played a prominent role in the literature of adult education for several decades. This popularity has brought with it both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, it has provided a detailed theoretical foundation for adult learning in a field that often is woefully lacking in theory (Chapman, 2005; Newman, 2012b). It has given us scholars something to chew on, to debate, and to frame a large portion of the research conducted in our field. It has sparked intriguing dialogue about the potential that adult education holds for making significant changes in people’s lives. Despite this popularity, and perhaps in some instances because of it, there are detractors who do not believe transformative learning theory is a useful tool for the work that should be going on in the field of adult education. Arguably, the most common and valid of these critiques is that the theory is used to refer to almost any kind of learning outcome and therefore has strayed from its theoretical foundations and no longer serves as a coherent theory. The purpose of this article is to address this concern and offer solutions for the future direction of transformative learning theory.
This article offers several points of clarity. It begins by discussing the significance of transformative learning theory and how its popularity has given rise to some critiques. It then portrays a subtle but important evolution of the way that transformative learning has been used in the literature and argues for a distinction in how terms are used. It demonstrates how the theory has been operating as a theory, a synthetic metatheory, and an analytic metatheory, and argues that a beneficial use of the theory going forward is as an analytic metatheory. Next, this article presents a typology of transformative learning outcomes. The typology demonstrates the wide range of learning outcomes that scholars have used in their portrayals of transformative learning in the literature. In compiling and organizing these outcomes, the typology serves the function of analytic metatheory by providing conceptual tools to aid scholars in their analysis and descriptions of transformative learning. Last, this article offers a definition for transformative learning and provides criteria to determine and justify whether learning experiences should be considered transformative learning.
The Importance of Transformative Learning Theory
The phenomenon of transformation is a topic of interest in a number of disciplines (e.g., transpersonal psychology, consciousness studies, religious studies, and so forth), but under the guise of transformative learning theory, it has been a focal point in adult education for several decades. There is a reason why transformative learning theory has enjoyed so much popularity in our discipline. For one, it “introduced intellectual rigor into a flagging field” (Newman, 2012b, p. 409). In adult education, we often look to other disciplines for theory with which to conduct our scholarly work, most especially psychology, sociology, history, and philosophy (Chapman, 2005). Addams and Lindeman provide some philosophical grounding specific to adult education, and Knowles brought a lot of attention to our field with his principles of andragogy. Nevertheless, Mezirow’s work provided a detailed theoretical foundation unparalleled in our field to explain and justify his theory. Not only is it a good, sound, and useful theory, it comes from one of us! In a rare occurrence, we did not borrow the theory from someone else; he spoke directly to educators of adults about a learning phenomenon. As an added bonus, the theory has begun to show up more and more in the literature of other disciplines, such as agriculture, archeology, religious studies, health care, critical media literacy, and spirituality (Taylor & Snyder, 2012), which is a healthy thing for our field in terms of visibility, credibility, and respect.
These benefits do not protect a theory from critique, and Mezirow invited and received plenty of them. A critique that has not shown up often in the literature but can be heard in hallway conversation at conferences and other academic settings is that the theory’s focus on individual change is anathema to many scholars in the field, that such a focus reeks of humanism as opposed to the more worthy goal of social change (Cunningham, 1992, 1993; Newman, 2012a, 2015). Obviously this critique assumes the premise of a hierarchy among orientations. More important, this critique is unjustified, even ironic. Transformative learning theory was originally developed specifically to address the learning involved in broad social change. As Amy Rose, Mezirow’s research assistant and program manager for the study that led to the development of the theory, says: As Mezirow came under attack for his cognitive emphasis and for his lack of attention to social issues, he veered away from his original premise. But for me, the point is that his work emerged from a social change paradigm. His starting point was “How do we effect social change” and what kind of individual change is demanded for social change to occur. Mezirow came to the individual through his interest in the social and not the other way around. . . . As a philosophic point, if you don’t believe that education has a value to effect change, then you probably shouldn’t be an educator. (Rose, 2015, p. 43)
Social structures indeed need to change, but profound learning at the individual level will be necessary along with those structural changes for substantive social change to occur. As education scholars, one role we can play is to provide insights into the profound learning that will need to be a part of such change, and transformative learning attempts to provide both a theoretical and empirical basis to do precisely that.
Also, this critique ignores important functions of the field of adult education in lieu of the single, albeit also important, function of promoting social justice. There will always be social systems in which we humans live, and likely any system will be in need of significant improvement. Therefore, the work of promoting social justice will always be important. However, in addition to critiquing and working to remedy unjust social systems, we also have a need to function with the daily demands of living. Life has to be lived, and living through adulthood brings with it many needs for learning. Adults need to learn in order to provide a living for themselves. They need to learn how to navigate difficult transitions inherent in new life situations. They need to learn new skills to respond to new demands. Living within social systems involves lifelong learning, and the field of adult education encompasses this as much as it does the critique of those social systems. To eschew any theory or work of adult educators because it does not focus exclusively on changing the social system creates a false dichotomy. Most of the literature surrounding transformative learning describes learning outcomes that serve to improve adults’ capacities for both types of endeavors: working for social justice and dealing effectively with the daily challenges of life.
Another reason for transformative learning’s popularity is that it seeks to explain and make sense of a phenomenon that is important to educators. We want to believe that education can bring about profound, positive change in people’s lives. We want our work to make a difference, and what better way to evaluate the difference we make than in the potential for learners to transform? However, our zeal to explore the transformative power of learning has led to another, very valid critique. Namely, transformative learning is used to refer to such a wide range of phenomena that, if taken too far, could cause it to lose any distinctive meaning (Brookfield, 2003; Newman, 2012a). The cause of this problem is that there are no established parameters around what transformative learning is and what it is not. Mezirow’s definition of transformative learning was explicit enough to provide parameters, but he did not insist on those parameters to other scholars who engaged him in the development of the theory. In so doing, Mezirow tacitly endorsed a wide range of learning experiences under the broad umbrella of transformative learning, and his definition ceased to provide parameters to the phenomenon addressed by the theory. The lack of clarity around transformative learning theory decreases its value and usefulness. If transformative learning is used to refer to everything, then it means nothing.
Transformative learning theory is an important and beneficial product of adult education scholarship. However, as scholars, we need to exercise and insist on greater care in the way it is used. The following sections propose some conceptual tools to provide structure for greater clarity about the theory and its uses.
Transformative Learning as an Analytic Metatheory
Mezirow (1978, 1991) positioned his work on transformative learning as an educational theory. He provided an explicit description of the learning phenomenon it addressed, as well as several concepts (e.g., domains of learning, habits of mind) to understand it and processes (e.g., disorienting dilemma, critical dialogue, critical self-reflection) that lead to it. As scholars applied different disciplinary perspectives to the theory, the term transformative learning evolved into two distinct usages. It was still used to refer to Mezirow’s theory of perspective transformation, but it also was used to refer to a more general phenomenon of people changing in dramatic ways.
An illustration of this divergence of meaning can be seen in Taylor’s (1998) categorization of the four approaches to transformative learning that were common during the first 20 years of its existence, which he termed the psychocritical, psychodevelopmental, psychoanalytic, and social emancipatory. Each of these approaches has its own distinctive description of the learning outcomes that are transformative and the processes that lead to those outcomes. The following descriptions of each approach provide a brief sketch of their respective learning outcomes and processes and thus demonstrate how transformative learning theory has been used to portray different phenomena.
Psychocritical Approach
Mezirow’s description of transformative learning, which has been termed the psychocritical approach (Taylor, 1998), begins with the conception that people have habits of mind, “a set of assumptions—broad, generalized, orienting predispositions that act as a filter for interpreting the meaning of experience” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 17), that dictate how they make meaning of the world and their experiences. Mezirow (2000) used the term perspective transformation to refer to the process of “becoming critically aware of one’s own tacit assumptions and expectations and those of others and assessing their relevance for making an interpretation” (p. 4). For him, this type of learning resulted in changes to one’s habitual mechanisms for making meaning, and the changes he described were not merely different but better, which he defined as more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, reflective, and self-directed.
Mezirow also carefully articulated the process that leads to these outcomes. When experiences contradict people’s mental frameworks for understanding themselves and the world, an experience Mezirow (2000) coined a “disorienting dilemma” (p. 22), they may embark on a process of introspection and change. He described a process of critical dialogue and critical self-reflection as means of uncovering and critically assessing tacit assumptions. Mezirow proposed his now-famous stages that a person follows, albeit iteratively and with variation, during the transformation process.
Psychoanalytical Approach
The psychoanalytic approach stems from the work of analytic psychologist Carl Jung and focuses on the expansion of one’s ego consciousness. The “establishment and elaboration of a conscious relationship with one’s unconscious” (Dirkx, 2012, p. 120) allows the ego to become more aware of the unconscious and its powerful influence. The transformative outcomes described by this approach include an increased integration of one’s inner and outer worlds, a more whole person, greater self-awareness, and greater authenticity.
The processes that lead to these outcomes are different than those described by Mezirow, which is to be expected since the learning outcomes are so different. Whereas Mezirow described a 10-phase process that is intimately connected with critical dialogue with other people, the psychoanalytic approach emphasizes noncritical introspective processes, such as being present with oneself and paying attention to messages from one’s unconscious that emerge through emotions, dreams, and fantasies.
Psychodevelopmental Approach
The psychodevelopmental approach to transformative learning defines transformative outcomes as an increase in cognitive capacity. The exact form this increased capacity takes depends on the model of development a particular scholar is using. Kegan (2000), for instance, applied his model of cognitive development to transformative learning theory. In his model, development involves a refinement of one’s sense of self, a differentiation between subject (a part of oneself) and object (what one perceives as separate from oneself).
The process that promotes this type of development involves simultaneously feeling validated that one’s current developmental level is legitimate and understandable while also being challenged by life experiences or peer mentors. Kegan claimed that for learning outcomes to be deemed transformative, they would necessarily involve a powerful shift in the way someone makes sense of, or knows, the world. This shift is brought about by the differentiation between what used to be part of a person’s subject and what that person is now able to perceive as an object. This refinement of self constitutes development in Kegan’s model and thus describes his view of transformative learning outcomes.
Social Emancipatory Approach
Building on the work of Paulo Freire, scholars who approach transformative learning from the social emancipatory perspective refer to transformative outcomes that involve the development of critical consciousness whereby people perceive themselves as active subjects in the world rather than passive objects to be acted on by unfair social practices, norms, and institutions. To be an active subject involves constantly reflecting and acting to make the world a more equitable place. The processes Freire advocated included a shift in authority from educators to students. He argued for a problem-posing education, whereby learners analyze problematic social, economic, and political situations and create their own solutions to address them. The purpose is to demythologize reality and help learners develop perspectives, skills, and the confidence necessary to actively participate in shaping their world rather than passively accepting current social structures and practices.
Analytic Metatheory
The differences between these approaches are not simply a matter of disciplinary semantics; they describe different, although partially overlapping, ways that people can change. The trajectory of approaches to transformative learning continues to expand, as evidenced by the four additional approaches that Taylor (2007) added 9 years after his 1998 report: neurobiological, cultural–spiritual, race-centric, and planetary. This ever-increasing diversity of approaches is not necessarily a good or bad thing. However, it does exacerbate the problem of clarity. Without established parameters to delimit the range of phenomena that the theory addresses, it can be used to refer to anything.
In fairness to the scholars who use these approaches, they usually do describe significant changes in the way that people make meaning of their experiences and thus hold the potential to be experienced as transformative by the learner. Nevertheless, as the preceding descriptions demonstrate, each approach describes a markedly different phenomenon in terms of learning outcomes and the processes that lead to them. More important, the more they veer from Mezirow’s conception of transformative learning, the less they can justify that they are using his theory. Herein lies a dilemma. Should transformative learning be restricted to refer to the relatively narrow range of phenomena that fits within Mezirow’s definition or should it continue to be used for any significant, transformative change? Even Mezirow did not seem to advocate the former, as he routinely invited disparate perspectives to expand on his work. The latter route is problematic, as the theoretical underpinnings of each approach are very different.
This dilemma may be resolved if we exercise greater discrimination about how terms are used and become explicit about the type of theory that transformative learning is. In his careful and elaborate elucidation, Mezirow’s theory of perspective transformation is a theory. However, in broadening the scope of his theory and opening it to other perspectives, Mezirow set the stage for transformative learning to operate as a metatheory rather than a specific theory. The term transformative learning should not be used to refer to both his specific theory and as a metatheory. For the sake of clarity and consistency, we should return to using the term perspective transformation to refer to Mezirow’s theory, and use transformative learning to refer to the broader range of similar phenomena. Used this way, transformative learning would operate explicitly as a metatheory.
A metatheory is an overarching paradigm relative to a particular phenomenon or range of phenomena. As Aldrige, Kuby, and Strevy (1992) described, it is “the umbrella under which several theories of development or learning are classified together based on their commonalities regarding human nature” (p. 683). There are two types of metatheory in the social sciences: synthetic metatheory sorts underlying theories into categories; analytic metatheory seeks to provide categorizations of components that are common among all the underlying theories (Wallace, 1992). Taylor’s (1998, 2007) categorization of approaches to transformative learning is an example of synthetic metatheory, as it sorts theories into categories (Wallace, 1992). Synthetic metatheory has been helpful in organizing and making sense of the research literature.
Analytic metatheory assumes that there is a common phenomenon or a range of related phenomena that the theory attempts to explain that is independent of specific disciplinary perspectives. The analytic work of metatheory entails providing conceptual tools that function as a common vocabulary that cuts across disciplinary perspectives so that the diversity of perspectives can work together to inform an overall understanding of the phenomena. Consistent with the role of metatheory, the creation of a common vocabulary makes it easier to include discourses from other fields and disciplines.
As a beginning for these conceptual tools, we need a definition of transformative learning that is broad enough to encompass the wide variety of learning experiences that can be considered transformative and yet still provides parameters that delimit the range of phenomena that the metatheory addresses. Preparatory to creating this definition, this article first turns to the literature to better understand the range of phenomena that has historically been described under the auspices of transformative learning.
Typology
The typology of transformative outcomes presented in this section emanated from an extensive literature review; details of the methods and findings can be found at Hoggan (2015). Even though this article is not a presentation of the literature review, a brief overview is necessary to provide a context for the findings that form the basis of the typology.
Over the course of 2013 to 2015, the author and two doctoral students engaged in a literature review process to explore and articulate the wide variety of learning outcomes that have been published in the literature on transformative learning. Although there are journals in disciplines peripheral to adult education (e.g., human resource development, adult literacy) that have published articles on transformative learning, and the theory is increasingly being published by scholars in Europe, we limited the scope of this review to the three journals that have published the most articles on transformative learning: Journal of Transformative Education, Adult Education Quarterly, and Adult Learning. Our intent was to focus on the diversity of ways that transformative outcomes were described within the specific literature base in which the theory has largely been developed before venturing out into the ways that literature from other disciplines and countries have used the theory. Another parameter we set for our data was to limit it to articles published between 2003 and 2014, as we felt that time frame was sufficiently long and late enough in the evolution of the theory to represent the wide uses of the theory. The search yielded 206 articles.
We then employed a content analysis methodology (Gerbic & Stacey, 2005; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to conduct a systematic, qualitative analysis of the text in terms of the learning outcomes that the authors were describing as transformative. Because of this detailed approach to articulating learning outcomes, we coded the descriptions of transformative learning in each article as multiple types of outcomes. To further explain the coding process, an example is illustrative. Following is a partial description of transformative outcomes provided by O’Sullivan, Morrell, and O’Connor (2002): “Transformative learning involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and permanently alters our ways of being in the world” (p. xvii). In our coding, we extrapolated the following initial codes.
Shift in basic premises of thought
Shift in feelings
Shift in actions
Shift in consciousness
Altered ways of being in the world
Coding was done in this manner in a purposeful attempt to do the work of analytic metatheory. Had we simply coded the entirety of this learning outcome as “planetary approach” as Taylor (2007) did, we would have been providing a categorization of the literature, which is a function of synthetic metatheory. Instead, we chose to analyze each description of transformative outcomes in terms of the distinct ways that the learner changes. That way, learning outcomes can be discussed between scholars of different disciplines or approaches to the theory using a common vocabulary, or set of conceptual tools, based on the phenomena rather than discipline-specific jargon. This creation of conceptual tools that is capable of describing, analyzing, and understanding a phenomenon independent of a particular disciplinary lens is the function of analytic metatheory.
It should be noted that the purpose of this literature review was to document the wide variety of learning outcomes that scholars in the field have described as being the result of transformative learning. We, the research team, knew from the outset that the outcomes conveyed in the literature extended far beyond what Mezirow used in his definition; hence the criticism cited above that transformative learning is being used to refer to an ever-widening array of learning outcomes. Nevertheless, we thought there would be value in describing the ways that people can change, according to this literature base, and that the difference between what should and should not be considered transformative would likely be a factor of the extent of the change rather than the type of change. Said differently, in most instances of learning, one’s worldview assumptions change, but that does not mean that all those instances qualify as transformative learning. The purpose of this review was to document the ways people change and provide insight into the parameters that we as scholars should put in place to distinguish instances of transformative learning.
The review yielded 1,023 coded excerpts, thus averaging 4.97 coded excerpts per article. When an article had multiple excerpts with the same code(s), we counted it as a single excerpt so as not to skew the results simply because of repetition within an article. After iterative processes of adjusting codes and returning to the data to verify whether our coding choices seemed to align with the intent of the authors, our final data fit within 28 distinct codes, which we further organized into six broad categories of transformative learning outcomes. The broad categories represent changes in (a) Worldview, (b) Self, (c) Epistemology, (d) Ontology, (e) Behavior, and (f) Capacity.
These broader categories and the individual codes or subcategories under them form the beginnings of a typology of transformative learning outcomes that can operate as a common vocabulary that scholars can use to discuss learning outcomes independent of disciplinary perspectives. The following subsections briefly describe the broad categories and subcategories.
Worldview
A change in worldview refers to significant changes in the way the learner understands the world and how it works. It is a mental model similar to concepts such as schema and paradigm. Changes in worldview took several forms as depicted in the following subcategories.
Assumptions, beliefs, attitudes, expectations
Not surprisingly, the most common code within Worldview aligns very closely with Mezirow’s (2000) description of “a set of assumptions—broad, generalized, orienting predispositions that act as a filter for interpreting the meaning of experience” (p. 17). These assumptions encompass the way a person thinks the world works, as well as how it should work, and is thus also often described as expectations and values.
Ways of interpreting experience
Another way that changes in Worldview was described was as active process of making meaning of one’s experiences. Some scholars emphasized the tacit meaning making of experiences on a moment-to-moment basis, whereas others wrote about interpreting past experiences differently.
More comprehensive or complex worldview
This subcategory described transformative outcomes in terms of a person’s Worldview not merely changing, but becoming more comprehensive or complex. This depiction is similar to Mezirow’s (2000) description of meaning structures becoming more inclusive.
New awareness/new understandings
Changes in Worldview were sometimes described in terms of becoming aware of something new. In some ways, this depiction seems counterintuitive, as one of the distinctive features of transformative learning is that it is not just additive knowledge. Presumably, the new awareness or understandings would make a significant impact on the learner’s entire worldview. Some examples include becoming aware of the existence of social, economic, and political contradictions in society or the role power, privilege, and oppression play in people’s lives.
Self
This category refers to any of a number of ways that learners experience a significant shift in their sense of self. The following subcategories represent the range of depictions to changes in Self found in our review.
Self-in-relation
The most common depiction of changes to Self involved a learner’s sense of being situated in the world. Most commonly, scholars described an overall change in the way learners related to other people or the world or experiencing a shift in their identifications or self-locations. Some scholars wrote of a change in relationships.
Empowerment—responsibility
Another way that scholars depicted changes to Self was in learners’ increased sense of empowerment or responsibility. Although a general sense of self-efficacy is included in this category, most scholars specifically wrote about learners gaining greater mastery over themselves or feeling enabled to engage consciously in the world, including but not limited to the concept of critical consciousness. Often intertwined with this sense of empowerment was a heightened sense of social accountability and responsibility.
Identity—view of self
Some articles described transformative outcomes involving Self in terms of a shift in identity. Some scholars wrote of shifting or reimagining identity in a general way, whereas others were specific about the aspect of identity that was affected, such as racial or cultural identity or being freed from the illusion of self.
Self-knowledge
Most commonly, changes in self-knowledge revolved around learners’ strengths, limitations, motivations, and so forth. Many authors wrote in terms of authenticity, by which people come to know themselves more fully and are thereby able to find a greater congruence between their actions and who they truly are.
Personal narratives
Some articles described changes in the stories, narratives, and metaphors that learners use to form a coherent explanation of their lives. When these narratives change, it profoundly affects how people understand themselves and make sense of their lives.
Meaning—purpose
Another change described was a shift in the perceived meaning and purpose of the learner’s life. Sometimes these descriptions assumed that a purpose existed, and the learner needed to become aware of it. In other articles, it was described as finding a new purpose or passion outside of themselves.
Personality change
Finally, a few articles mentioned a change in personality as a transformative outcome. In these instances, no further description of what this type of change entailed was provided.
Epistemology
Epistemology refers to a person’s “beliefs about the definition of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, how knowledge is evaluated, where knowledge resides, and how knowing occurs” (Hofer, 2002, p. 4). The concept as used in the literature on transformative learning is similar except that it refers primarily to the way people construct and evaluate knowledge in their day-to-day living, their ways of knowing, rather than how they explicitly define it. The following subcategories represent the range of depictions to changes in Epistemology found in our review.
More discriminating
One way that epistemological change was presented was as learners engaging in critical assessments of knowledge rather than passive acceptance of existing knowledge or culturally accepted norms. This depiction is similar to Mezirow’s conception of epistemological habits of mind that are more discriminating.
Utilizing extrarational ways of knowing
Some scholars emphasized ways of knowing that are not strictly driven by logical thinking processes. Examples include contemplative, spiritual, intuitive, somatic or embodied, emotional, holistic, imaginative, empathetic, artistic, reflective, or simply multiple ways of knowing. Transformative outcomes include learners incorporating these ways of knowing into their epistemological repertoire or acknowledging and valuing them more.
More open
Another way scholars described epistemic change was developing more open ways of knowing. Following Mezirow’s example, many articles simply used the descriptions “open” or “more open” without adding their own description. Often, scholars said this outcome makes people more likely to engage in future transformative learning experiences because they do not cling as tightly to their current ways of making meaning.
Ontology
In this typology, Ontology refers to the way a person exists in the world. It concerns the deeply established mental and emotional inclinations that affect the overall quality and tone of one’s existence. Ontological change was described in three ways in the literature.
Affective experience of life
One way ontological change was described was in the way people emotionally perceive their experiences. Scholars wrote of transformative learning outcomes affecting emotions, feelings, the quality of life, and learning to live with joy. When these habitual elements of one’s lived experience change, the result is transformative. This form of transformative learning outcome mirrors Yorks and Kasl’s (2006) definition of transformative learning that included the way a person affectively experiences the world.
Ways of being
This subcategory refers to changes in habitual tendencies and dispositions. The emphasis for this type of change is that it affects the whole lived experience rather than merely cognitive structures. Whereas some descriptions simply refer to changes in ways of being, others are more specific, such as living more fully in the moment with greater equanimity (Byrnes, 2012), and having a more “creative and engaging way of being in the world” (Chin, 2006, p. 40).
Attributes
The development or increase of particular attributes was another ontological learning outcome described in the literature. Many different attributes were mentioned, such as generosity, compassion, empathy, hopefulness, determination, integrity, vulnerability, and trust.
Behavior
Change in behavior as a learning outcome was never the only learning outcome, but was considered essential for many scholars. It mirrors the emphasis on action that pervaded Mezirow’s (2000) conception of transformative learning, such as his “planning a course of action,” “implementing one’s plans,” “building competence,” and so forth (p. 22).
Actions consistent with new perspective
The most common description of behavior change emphasized actions that result from and are consistent with a new perspective. The reasoning is that for learning to be justified as transformational, it cannot be theoretical but must affect the way a person lives.
Social action
For many scholars, behavioral change resulting from transformative learning had to involve specific types of behaviors. Namely, it had to involve social activism. For these scholars, learning was transformative only if learners began to actively work to change social structures, promote democracy, or otherwise increase their involvement in meaningful social change.
Professional practices
One strand in the transformative learning literature described transformative outcomes that included the enactment of new professional practices. For some scholars, critical reflection and other processes common in the transformative learning literature should lead to critical examinations of and the resulting changes in their professional practices. Other scholars looked at workplace behaviors and argued that transformative learning should yield such changes as greater creativity, group behavior, or leadership.
Skills
For some authors, the development of new skills is a necessary learning outcome in order to put other transformative outcomes into practice and is thus integral to the overall transformative outcome. Scholars focused on social justice, for instance, wrote of the necessity of “discover(ing) how to participate in the transformation of their world” (Mayo, 2003, p. 42, citing Freire). To change social relations, learners need to know how they might be structured differently or how to go about organizing support to enact change.
Capacity
Capacity refers to developmental outcomes whereby learners experience systematic, qualitative changes in their abilities that allow for greater complexity in the way they see, interpret, and function in the world (Hoare, 2006). The focus of this category is the development of greater capabilities.
Cognitive development
One form in which increased Capacity was conceptualized was cognitive development, referred to variously as growth, development, or developmental stage. Transformative outcomes in this subcategory entailed progression to higher stages or levels according to a particular model of development.
Consciousness
Another way Capacity was described was as a shift, expansion, or cultivation of Consciousness. Transformative outcomes in this subcategory deal with development of higher levels of awareness. Typically, the awareness expands increasingly beyond oneself, such as “an ever-widening, ultimately ‘worldcentric’ understanding of and connection with reality” (Gunnlaugson, 2004, p. 317).
Spirituality
Some scholars wrote of increased Capacity in terms of spiritual development. In this context, spirituality refers to a sense of connection and intimacy with something greater than oneself. Authors wrote about developing a greater or deeper sense of connection, a metaphysical awakening, or progression along a spiritual continuum.
The typology as described and illustrated above (Figure 1) is not, and likely can never be stagnant. The subcategories, especially, will evolve as scholars articulate particular outcomes more clearly and as perspectives from additional disciplines and geographic locations contribute to the literature on transformative learning. Nevertheless, the broad categories provide a framework that should be stable and around which specific types of change can be structured.
Typology of transformative learning outcomes.
Moving Forward: Transformative Learning as a Metatheory
In light of the foregoing depiction of transformative learning outcomes portrayed in the literature, we need a clear definition of transformative learning that is capable of encompassing many types of change that people can experience. We also need parameters established to delimit what should and should not be considered transformative learning.
As described previously, transformative learning should be conceived as distinct from perspective transformation; it represents a metatheory under which individual theories aggregate. Scholars have been offering their own specific definitions of transformative learning grounded in their respective disciplinary perspectives, but the metatheory should have a single encompassing definition. The following definition is offered.
Transformative learning refers to processes that result in significant and irreversible changes in the way a person experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts with the world.
The descriptors “experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts” reflect the range of ways the transformative outcomes described in this study affect a person. Metaphorically, these descriptors can be represented by the heart, head, and hands. The first descriptor, experiences, refers to a person’s lived, felt experience. Conceptualizes refers to the way the person understands, makes sense of, and interprets the world and their experiences. The third descriptor, interacts, reflects the way transformation affects how a person acts, including the behaviors they choose to engage in as well as the way those behaviors are carried out.
The criteria for learning outcomes to qualify as transformative require further elucidation, as just any change in one’s Worldview or Epistemology, for example, is not sufficient to call it a transformation. Three aspects of a learning outcome should be considered: depth, breadth, and relative stability.
Depth refers to the impact of a change, or the degree to which it affects any particular type of outcome (e.g., worldview, self, epistemology). A minor change in the way a person experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts with the world is difficult to justify as being transformative. Breadth refers to the number of contexts in which a change is manifest. Learning is often contextual. When learning outcomes are restricted to only one context of a person’s life, then regardless of how impactful the learning is for that context, it should not qualify as transformative.
The third criterion is relative stability. The very concept of transformation implies that a permanent change has occurred; it is irreversible. Two caveats to this notion of irreversibility are important. First, regardless of how a person learns new ways of experiencing, conceptualizing, and interacting with the world, former ways are not miraculously forgotten. Old habits remain in our repertoire of meaning-making processes and may resurface from time to time, especially as they are prompted by context or stress. Also, a person may likely experience future changes; transformation does not mean a person will never change again. Nevertheless, the criterion of relative stability emphasizes that a temporary change is inadequate to be considered transformative.
The following example illustrates how these criteria should be used to justify whether a learning experience should be considered transformative learning. If scholars were reporting on a course that taught adults how analyze social situations through the lens of critical race theory, an Epistemology, and wanted to justify that the learning was transformative for the students, they would need to do more than simply demonstrate how students were able to use a critical race epistemology in class. In order for it to be considered transformative learning, the scholars would need to describe how the learning outcomes had sufficient depth, breadth, and relative stability. For depth, they might demonstrate how students had not just learned the new epistemology but had since used it habitually in their day-to-day thinking or that it at least now forms a regular part of their repertoire of epistemologies. For breadth, an indication might be that students use the new epistemology outside of the classroom context: at home, at work, when watching a movie, and so forth, thus demonstrating that the learning had a pervasive impact on many contexts of their lives. And for relative stability, scholars might document how students continued to use their new epistemology after the course was concluded. Showing depth, breadth, and relative stability could be approached in additional ways, but to use transformative learning theory with clarity entails making an effort to explicitly demonstrate how and why the learning was truly transformative.
Transformative learning outcomes are likely best represented as a cluster of specific outcomes. Indeed, this is the whole point of the typology: to promote clarity and explicitness in describing the learning outcomes we claim are transformative. Using the typology to represent Mezirow’s description of perspective transformation might look like the model in Figure 2.
Typology applied to Mezirow’s description of transformative learning outcomes.
Only at this point, when we have clarity around the transformative outcomes, does it make sense to talk about the learning processes that lead to those outcomes. Continuing with the example of Mezirow, to illustrate the transformational nature of a particular learning experience, the typology and criteria combine to create a tool for use by the researcher (Figure 3).
Typology and criteria as an analytic tool.
There are no clear demarcation lines in life and certainly not in phenomena of such complexity as transformative learning. It would be simplistic to conceive of learning in a binary fashion as either transformative or not transformative. Nevertheless, scholars should take care to justify why and the extent to which learning is transformative.
Mezirow’s theoretical elucidation remains a valuable contribution to the field and to our understanding of the transformational potential of learning; it is not diminished by the diverse perspectives that have contributed to the conversation around his theory. Nevertheless, conceptualizing transformative learning as a metatheory more accurately conveys the research literature that has evolved around Mezirow’s original theory of perspective transformation. By being explicit about transformative learning’s role as a metatheory, we can be more intentional in using a common vocabulary when incorporating diverse perspectives into an overall understanding of transformational phenomena. Furthermore, by exercising clarity about learning outcomes, we become better able to link learning processes to the specific outcomes they promote.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the exceptional contribution of Lauren Pellegrino and Jenica Davidson for their contribution to the analysis of the literature.
Author’s Note
This article is based on a presentation given at the Adult Education Research Conference on May 20, 2015 in Manhattan, Kansas. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Laboratory for Analytic Sciences and/or any agency or entity of the U.S. Government.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based on work supported in whole or in part with funding from the Laboratory for Analytic Sciences.