Creativity as a Driver for Transformative Learning

Abstract

This exploratory study identifies aspects of pedagogical design and teaching practice that enabled creative capacities through the lens of the researcher’s lived experience. A guiding research question in this investigation follows: (a) What is the nature of the relationship between creative activity and transformative learning and (b) In what ways are they connected through the lived experience? To conduct this exploratory study, I adopted a dual role as researcher and student in the context of a PhD-level education course at a university in Ontario, Canada. A methodological approach that drew on elements of narrative, self-study, and autoethnography was applied. Data sources include (a) field notes, (b) teaching and learning materials, (c) an individual interview with the instructor, and (d) a focus group with the other four female students in the course. Participants of the study reported that their traditional perspectives of academia were shaped and changed in the context of the creative activities and interactions. Findings reveal how creative acts served as a catalyst for transforming the ways in which the instructor and the students in the course experienced knowledge making.

Keywords

adult learning personal transformation transformative pedagogy

This research study tells a story—and it’s mine, it’s yours, it’s theirs, and it’s ours. Sharing this story brings to life a series of events, of poignant nodal moments of my academic self as a learner and teacher embedded among the multiple perspectives and voices that belong to the collective retelling of lived experiences. I stretch beyond what I know to the experiences that have shaped how I have come to know and act in the world, which is at the heart of transformative learning (Baumgartner, 2001). Breathing life into a text involves assembling a collection of memories, personal histories, and anecdotal accounts that are endlessly complex and that, perhaps, can only ever be partial. Amid the complex intertwining of subconscious and conscious thoughts, I am reminded of the idea that transformation is more powerful than change and is etched in a holistic perspective that integrates the multiplicity of knowing, doing, and being as one (Cranton, 2006; Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008; Pink, 2006).

Literature Review

The literature surveyed has been selected to highlight creativity as a dynamic process that underpins a transformative experience of learning. At present, there is a lack of scholarly literature that directly connects creativity with transformative learning. This study aims to bridge that gap by presenting contemporary views of creativity that are related to adult-learning contexts wherein transformative learning is both widely theorized and practiced. Transformative learning makes meaning out of lived experiences. Through an ongoing process of critically and creatively questioning the norms of their perception, thinking, and action, learners become acutely aware of their habitual expectations (Cranton, 2006).

Over the last two decades, several modifications to Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning have been made to acknowledge the value of extra-rational processes—namely, intuitive, affective, imaginative, and artistic ways of knowing (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow & Taylor, 2009). In fact, it was Mezirow who repeatedly reminded his colleagues of the need to bring various perspectives together to build and elaborate on transformative learning theory (Cranton & Taylor, 2012; Mezirow, 2000). Cranton (2006) asserts that moving beyond the cognitive way of processing holds the most promise for expanding the theory of transformative learning.

My research aims to be part of this evolution of transformative learning theory in a higher education context. The emergence of creative capacities demands multiple modes of intelligence to work in an integrated manner, and as such, my research will model itself on a holistic approach to transformative learning (Fisher-Yoshida, Geller, & Schapiro, 2009; Pink, 2006; Robinson, 2001). In the last decade, an increasing number of scholars have advocated for initiating changes towards a more holistically based curriculum in postsecondary education (Duerr, Zajonc, & Dana, 2003; Moore, 2005). This study will attempt to show that pairing creativity with transformative learning has the capacity to transform the postsecondary course experience by including teaching and learning perspectives that bring dynamic, complex, holistic approaches into practice.

Robinson’s (2001) work on creativity in educational settings has paved the way for the examination of the phases involved in a creative learning process. He suggests that creative activity, an intimate interaction between concept and material, often facilitates the emergence of one’s idea(s). Robinson describes the combinatory components of control and freedom, conscious and unconscious thought, and intuition and rational analysis as integral to a dynamic understanding of creativity and learning as an embodied, multidimensional, multimodal experience. Further, he explains that relationships between components and phases in the creative process are worthy of note in an examination of the processes involved in creative learning. Robinson stresses three essential phases to the creative process: (a) the significance of finding a strong creative medium, (b) the importance of possessing the means and skills to be creative, and (c) the freedom to explore, express, and take risks. According to Robinson, “facilitating creative development is a sophisticated process that must balance learning skills with stimulating the imagination to explore new ideas” (p. 132).

Changes in patterns of thinking are inherent both to theories of creative learning and to transformative learning. Within each realm, there is a mutually agreed upon perspective of learning as intuitive, contextualized, and holistic (Craft, 2005; Daloz, 1986; Dirkx, 1998) and of the educational journey as connected, fluid, and recursive in nature (Baumgartner, 2001; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). Creative and interpretive acts of expression tap into a transformative experience, unleashing possibility by providing a means through which the subtleties of our underlying thinking can be provoked and realized (Hoggan, Simpson & Stuckey, 2009).

The views of creativity presented in this article represent the conceptual complexities of a process that involves shifting perspectives. Novel transformations require a flexibility of thinking, an openness regarding the new and improved, and an ability to adapt to the unexpected (Cropley, 2001). In a transformation-focused experience of creativity, students construct and create new knowledge in a manner that shifts the learning paradigm from traditionally passive to conceptually active (Pink, 2006). In addition to these characteristics of creativity, research has examined correlational constructs to further delineate creativity as a multidimensional construct.

Transformative learning attempts to capture “what the learner does, feels, [and] experiences” (Fisher-Yoshida et al., 2009, p. 7) in a variety of settings and educational contexts, including “life experiences, formal and informal education, human resources and training, faculty development programs, distance education, co-operative extension, workplace, professional development, and community settings” (Mezirow & Taylor, 2009, p. 4). In the classroom and beyond, learners have numerous experiences that can synergistically lead to transformative learning (King, 2009), providing students with opportunities to explore new answers and perspectives. Ultimately, transformative learning is about changing students’ fundamental perspectives: “Transformative learning shapes people. They are different afterward, in ways both they and others recognize” (Clark, 1993, p. 47).

Transformational activity is, essentially, a process of making; making can be defined as one way of thinking and knowing (Ellsworth, 2006). May (1975) connects creativity to the particular mode of expression that resides in the making, noting that “creativity is basically the process of making: of bringing into being” (p. 40). Contemporary themes and theories of creativity reveal the inherent complexities of a synergistic expression of experience that presupposes the transformation of one’s understanding. Creative activity manifests in the changes made to relational and active ways of being in the world. We come to understand creativity as part of a continual process of extending consciousness in ways that enable us to receive openness towards ourselves and others in engaged acts of making, therein lies the power for transformation (Ellsworth, 2006; Gardner & Kelly, 2008).

Method

I completed an exploratory study as a graduate student enrolled in a contemporary curriculum theory course at a university located in Ontario, Canada. This study drew on elements of autoethnography, self-study, and narrative in order to showcase the range of experiences in which creativity catalyzed transformative learning (Hamilton, Smith, & Worthington, 2008). Each of the methodological approaches enabled a more sophisticated examination with a cultural context research design aimed at capturing the collective experience from multiple participant perspectives (autoethnography), saturated with stories (narrative), which aimed to highlight the practiced enhancement of my individual educational experience (self-study). I gained ethics clearance to conduct this study, completed in the winter of 2011. The self-study later informed a larger dissertation study.

Over a period of 12 weeks, I collected field notes based on classroom activities, conversations, and interactions. In addition, I generated a series of reflections, narratives, and artistic representations (paintings and collages) throughout the term as an alternative expression of my changing ideas. In addition, I conducted discussions with my professor and the five other female students in the class following the course end. For the purposes of this article, data gathered from my classmates will be labelled as P1–P5, the instructor data as I, and data from my field notes and reflective work as M. Specifically, I sought to answer the following research questions: (a) What is the nature of the relationship between creative activity and transformative learning and (b) In what ways are they connected through the lived experience?

Framing the Findings

For the purposes of reporting insights gained from this experience in the contemporary curriculum theory course, I used Pink’s (2006) aptitudes—story, symphony, and meaning—as a guiding framework to organize my ideas and experiences. Using these conceptual aptitudes in relation to my contextualized classroom experiences, I conducted an analysis of my experience as a graduate student in the contemporary curriculum theory course. Pink proposes nonlinear, intuitive, holistic approaches to learning as the key to professional achievement and personal satisfaction in adulthood. He dedicates a chapter for each of the aptitudes he describes as “high concept” and “high touch” abilities necessary for the conceptual age, as each aptitude relates to the components and processes involved in creative learning (Pink, 2006). Pink uses the term high concept to describe one’s ability to “create artistic and emotional beauty, to detect patterns and opportunities, to craft a satisfying narrative, and to combine seemingly unrelated ideas into a novel invention” (p. 51). According to Pink, high touch involves the ability “to empathize, to understand the subtleties of human interaction, to find joys in one’s self and to elicit it in others, and to stretch beyond the quotidian, in pursuit of purpose and meaning” (p. 52). Pink’s ideas ring true with the conceptual ideas brought forth by my experiences in the course and, as such, provide an exemplary micro- and macrostructure that aligns aspects of the aptitudes with the essence of the course dynamic.

The tone of teaching played a vital role in setting up the space for pedagogical thoughtfulness and playfulness. The instructor began discussions, which she labelled “mini lessons,” (I) with enthusiasm, continued with an improvisational preparedness and followed through with a sensitivity and attunement to the students and the situations that ensued (van Manen, 2002). These mini lessons were developed on the idea of “enabling constraints” (Davis et al., 2008, p. 193). The instructor mindfully planned the context and conditions for each session, so that “all of the possibilities in this particular situation might come forward or could come forward potentially” (I). She sensed the significance of those moments of teaching and learning that were evoked through the carefully selected questions and activities. In the instructor’s attempt to “create connections among people” (I), she would find ways to “get people working together to learn something, do something” (I). It was in these acts of making and doing where the “group [became] more powerful than the individual” (I). Additionally, a playfully light attitude supported an air of creativity and encouraged a sensibility regarding the challenging rigour of graduate work. The instructor’s warmth, gentle smile, and witty spirit invited the students to openly engage in artful and fun-loving ways that encouraged a true rendering of each individual’s nature and a “genuine engagement and transformation for other people and their pieces” (I).

Findings

Story

Story can be described as moving beyond argument. Pink (2006) uses the idea of story to represent the essence of communication and self-understanding in the form of a compelling narrative. During the contemporary curriculum theory course, I experienced this aptitude through generative narratives that evolved from an intense, at times painful, and often-uncomfortable exploration of self. As I probed further and delved deeper, there was a “willingness to let go of where [I] was at and move on” (M).

The process pedagogy at work in this class afforded me an opportunity to delineate the transformational nature of my learning through a variety of keyword writing exercises, performed both during and after my reflections of the course. Keyword exercises were completed once a week for the first 6 weeks. All students in the class were expected to complete the course readings, and from these readings select a keyword or phrase that would inspire a written piece, which would be read out loud to one another each week. Keywords were not graded. Instead, after being read aloud, they were discussed, deconstructed at times, examined through particular theoretical lenses, and put back together following student and instructor constructive feedback, both verbal and written in nature.

During the first class, we were asked to prepare our first keywords and to share them with one another. Still new to the concepts and people in the class, the nervous and unsure feeling stirring inside of me was heightened. As we each went around the table and read our prepared papers aloud, the shakiness in my voice was carried out on the surface of shallow gasps. I read my passage and made it through the assigned task, barely though, and I intuitively knew that there needed to be more of something. Afterwards my professor gently nudged me to rewrite for the following week. I took on the challenge, preparing two keyword exercises for the second week of class. Without a doubt, this was one of the most significant academic challenges that I faced in the course, and perhaps in my PhD program. Exploring the gamut of emotions humanly possible that week at my writing desk provided me with a backdrop for what would emerge from these new works—something exciting, meaningful, and deeply personal.

Intuitive, imaginative, and affective processes in recognizing, naming, and noticing details from our classroom experiences became a central part of the process of writing, reading, and telling stories (Dirkx, 2000). Every week, we read and reflected on poignant literary texts that purposefully threaded the themes and theories of contemporary curriculum. And we shared our stories, read aloud for all to hear. We provided constructive feedback for one another: an analysis that married theory with praxis spun in a web of complex educational issues, questions, and dilemmas. In this case, it was the power of communal participation and the interaction with transformative text that helped to facilitate and contribute to my perspective transformation (Taylor, 2006). One of my classmates spoke to the embedded complexity of change that lived in the classroom space in her suggestion that “we were learning to build theory from within rather than reiterate theory from without…and that was huge and there was transformation” (P1). A safe, open, and trusting classroom environment that allowed for participation, collaboration, exploration, critical reflection, and feedback supported a tone of perspective transformation and enabled me to write from the deepest reaches of my experience (Baumgartner, 2001). These pedagogical conditions were all in place and played an integral role in fostering transformative learning as story in the classroom.

A significant part of the challenge of keyword writing was navigating the balance between the freedom to create and the accompanying limitations to satisfy explicit and implicit expectations. Several other students in the class described the act of shared writing as the “most transformative activity” (P2) and at times “extremely personal” (P3). One student noted that these writing exercises changed the dynamic of the class, which was created by “a vagueness in the environment…so not only did the group become trusting of one another but I think that the idea that came across was that you needed to trust yourself” (P2). Another student noted the changing dynamic, stating “It’s shifting responsibility from the instructor to the learner, where it’s being guided but it’s so organic and it’s so dependent on what you do with that” (P4).

At times, the ambiguity felt in this liminal space created moments that were described by the group as “highly emotional like a rawness that always felt quite vulnerable…from a place that we have to dig deeper into ourselves rather than into our brains” (P5) and in many cases as “frustrating, confusing, complicated, awkward, overwhelming, enraging” as well as “eye-opening, new, sincere, surprising, and thrilling” (P1–P5). These acts of keyword writing transformed perspectives about the potential possibilities for academic work through the gracious sharing of a finessed piece of writing.

The instructor and the students espoused the view that this particular classroom dynamic, which at times “felt like a women’s writing group” (P5), maintained “a wonderful synergy in the way that things moved, it almost had its own waves” (P1). All were in consensus, including the instructor, that the experience “might not have been the same had you planted one other person” (P1). Keyword writing contributed to the dynamic movement towards a transformative experience for most of the students, highlighted by the following captivating image:

For me, the process [of keyword writing] was very sensory. I don’t even have a lot of language around that but it was just a feeling of being surrounded, of being comforted, of being exposed all of the gamut of emotions and feeling as though you were being pulled, although gently, towards the same place. (P1)

For several of the participants and for myself, the transformative experience was holistic in nature and drew on sensory, intuitive, emotional, and physical ways of knowing.

Keywords were connected to the course readings and were selectively grounded in topics of interest, personal choice, and preference: Multitudinous questions of teaching and learning that I cared deeply about were explored through inspired written response. The instructor’s expectation for the keyword exercise was that it would “create balance among the voices rather than having one or two voices dominate…you push people and watch what happens, you push them both quietly and individually with your response to keywords.” One student described the generative process involved in developing a keyword. She explained:

The act of individual reading that we then shared and that it could be highly interpretive in terms of its structure, form, or connection to what we had been doing was a “wow” factor every time that we met because of the ways in which we had all interpreted…we had all made webbed connections that came to a centrepoint. You could not have planned the connections that came up in our discussions or in our writing. (P1)

The instructor also spoke about this deep-seated connection that arose, which she described as “a group response rather than an individual response.” Once the keyword writing portion was complete (about halfway through the course), the instructor pointed out the influence that this group process had in setting the tone and dynamic for the remainder of the term. She noted:

When it starts to extend beyond just talking about the writing and the ideas and people start to become personally invested in each other that says to me that they’re paying attention to the bodily presence and the life experience of the people not just what their minds are doing…. I noticed this physical connection in that room and that was very palpable.

The process pedagogy of keyword writing led to many moments of critical self-reflection, wherein nuanced transformations were evidenced in the shift of an expression of ideas on the printed page that accessed new and previously inaccessible ways of thinking and being in an academic context. Keyword writing exercises provided me with a portal for new and meaningful interpretations of my experiences through daily musings, an ongoing ritual of dialogue within the collective context, and an opportunity to act on these revisions, all of which are considered central tenets for inviting transformative learning to occur (Cranton, 2006). Cranton notes that an environment of challenge enables students to articulate assumptions and to become more open to alternatives, which are key pedagogical conditions necessary for fostering transformative learning. Developing an ability to transmit self-understanding to others and to discover ways to mediate experience with “a language that takes our emotions seriously and gives them real weight in our lives encourages us to think and be and act differently” (O’Reilley, 1993, p. 59).

Much of the writing in this course was an attempt to represent the experience of consciousness and to share it with people. In the first 6 weeks of keyword writing, we were constantly engaged in the creation of a vicarious experience that could aptly be described as a sensory-oriented “remembered present” (I), drawn to witness the phenomenon in our mind’s eye. The profound influences of this process are revealed in the following stream of consciousness piece, which I wrote just a few weeks into the keyword writing sessions, in response to my experiences of the course:

Writing creatively is a struggle at times. When I think too concretely about infusing a creative spirit through metaphor, poetic, and lyric line, it becomes debilitating. There have been several periods of writer’s block that I have experienced since the beginning of this course. When this happens, I continue to look at the questions that interest me, always coming back to what my passion is and how I can represent that understanding. As [the instructor] says, it’s about finding my centre of gravity.

Finding a centre of gravity was a term that the instructor often used to convey the pursuit of grounded and focused writing. As I became more conscious about finding my centre of gravity in a process of curriculum theorizing, aspects of creativity as a classroom condition emerged. The conditions and methods that invited creativity in the keyword exercises included (a) free exploration of ideas; (b) experimentation in making connections between theoretical concepts, as I drew associations and disparate relationships together in prose; and (c) honouring of the holistic self in balance with the collective spirit. Another excerpt from the journal, written as I reflected on the classroom activity, revealed these insights:

Don’t overthink your ideas. Be present to absorb your feelings, the essence of the lived experience. There is a different type of sharing here. It is supportive and encouraging, but it is also constructive and critical. We explore the writing in a variety of ways that allow for everyone to be part of the feedback process, which has enabled an exposure and variety of ideas on one very specific topic or idea. It generates a personal and a collective feel all at once, which has forced me to think about ways to develop my writing and my ideas with clarity, direction, a centre of gravity in a showing, not telling; a representation rather than a report. (M)

The next section features two short examples of keyword writings. The first one is from the first class session. After reading it aloud, it was suggested that I make a second attempt at coming up with a writing piece that had a centre of gravity. Still a little unsure, but slightly more informed, having listened to the instructor’s ideas and suggestions about keyword writing, I opted to rewrite the first keyword while writing the second keyword in the same week. It was an intense couple of days, but well worth it. I gradually began to reveal my centre of gravity with creative conceptualizations of the theoretical and practical ideas that were bouncing around in my brain and in my body. The example below is an excerpt from the first keyword that I wrote based on a phrase from the reading: “Curriculum theory must begin at home but it must work on behalf of everyone” (Chambers, 1999, p. 148).

The development of an identity that is uniquely Canadian necessitates the understanding of a distinction from both our European and American counterparts and begs the question, “What does Canadian curriculum look like?” Canada’s pluralistic society foregrounds the players, places, and practices necessary for the cultivation and intentional direction of the values and ideals that are situated in a context intended for change. Curricular change resonates by way of including the voices of past, present, and future and is transformed through means of a generative, creative process that fuses, mixes, juxtaposes, interprets, blurs, and explores emerging, eclectic, embodied cultural acts. Moreover, an understanding of our diversity will lead us to ways of actively sharing and honouring one another’s histories whilst prompting us collectively to pass on conceptions of Canadian heritage with integrity. (M)

When I read this first excerpt, now I think to myself—dull and undeniably uninspired. This process made me more cognizant of writing from a place that honours personal interests and experience through a conscious attempt to draw on an array of intuitive and emotive qualities from my writing palette.

A second piece of writing is excerpted from the keyword exercises portion of my midterm paper. In this excerpt, I write about expanding the space of what is possible, a notion central to complexity thinking that involves an openness to possibility as a teacher and as a learner. In this case, my writing had become less general, distanced, and clinical than in previous exercises. The excerpt below reveals a shift, a transformation in the ways and the extent to which I expressed myself creatively through a process of writing. My perception of myself as a writer has been changed in the process and has played an integral role in the shaping of my identity as an artist and as an academic.

On the worn rug, there are brightly crafted boxes laid out in various parts of the room. I have laid them there for them. Awaiting their arrival, I pace about taking deep breaths in an attempt to avoid passing out from a mixed feeling of sporadic surges of adrenalin and nerves, that trickle down into the deep, bottomless pit that has dug its way into my stomach on account of another missed breakfast on yet another rushed morning before school. Still, after years of teaching this material and feeling a groove with so many students in my classes, I once again come face to face with the exhilarating thrill of the unknown, and consider the as-yet unimagined possibilities for creative work in the classroom. I do believe that this learning and teaching experience will be different than any other I’ve had before, a new group of students, with diverse backgrounds, interests, issues, questions, ideas, and insights; their own learning selves. And I recognize that I am different than before, informed and molded by past, present, and future possibilities that swirl and twirl in relation to my inspired utopia of creative space courtesy of the aleatoric works of Cage, Schafer, Ives, and Riley, reminding me that no two performances are the same. (M)

Symphony

Symphony is the ability to put together disparate pieces or elements. According to Pink (2006), “it is the capacity to synthesize rather than analyze; to see relationships between seemingly unrelated fields; to detect broad patterns rather than to deliver specific answers; and to invent something new by combining elements nobody else thought to pair” (p. 130). These creative acts are the signature of a holistic type of thinking that required seeing the bigger picture. In each and every class, we were given ample opportunities to develop this aptitude through interactions involving critical reflection, consciousness-raising, and experiential, arts-based experiences that can best be characterized as transformative (Cranton, 2006). The reflection below reveals the barriers that kept me from realizing my capabilities. I wrote in a frenzied state:

Yesterday in class I felt really anxious. Well, that seems like an understatement of sorts, since I recognize that mere text will not be able to catch the complexity, depth, and sophisticated range of emotions that I have experienced as I am challenged to my limits. I know that there is an internal piece of me that is plagued with self-doubt and that part of me has persisted. Uncertainty about the value of what I believe and think is at the root of this confidence issue.…I feel like an imposter in the academic world, as though I have fooled everyone and been lucky to get as far as I have without people finding out that I am not worthy of participating or contributing to the “complicated conversation” (Pinar, 1994). (M)

This journal excerpt reveals transformation in action in the context of a class presentation. This assignment cultivated my creative capacities, as it afforded me both a measure of artistic freedom and an opportunity to put some of the ideas from the complicated conversations into pedagogical practice. I reflected in my journal on the creatively driven challenge that transformed my impressions of myself as a contributing academic:

I decided to rise to the challenge of overcoming my academic imposter syndrome by not letting my inner dialogue, at least the disparaging chatter, get in the way. This required overcoming my anxiety and insecurities regarding my self-descriptions as an inadequate academic. I drew from Elizabeth Ellsworth’s book Places of Learning: Media, Architecture, and Pedagogy. These presentations were based on books that we chose and we were given much freedom to convey the sound bytes of the literary work. I presented on a chosen literary work and creatively pulled together key ideas and examples from several artistic domains, which allowed me to flourish. (M)

This experience of presenting for the class demanded that I act on my thinking in a way that was congruent with my transformed assumptions and perspectives on “expanding the space of what is possible”—a notion inspired by readings, discourse, and modelled instruction in the classroom context (Cranton, 2002; Davis et al., 2008, p. 21). According to Pink (2006), creativity generally involves crossing the boundaries of domains. This activity fit Pink’s criterion as it centred on making connections and seeing relationships across boundaries. For me, finding ways to expand the space of what was possible was, by far, the most transformational episode in this course context. There was an opportunity to be pragmatic, to enact my changed perspectives in the building of competence and self-confidence, which led to “making choices and acting on these new understandings” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 167). The engagement with activities that were interesting, the unscripted moments that evolved, and the space for those interactions to take place were all part of an intentional, flexible, and complex pedagogy that engendered this ethereal experience.

After completing the presentations, we shared written formative feedback regarding our work. The comments that I received from my instructor and my classmates confirmed my transformational experience and affirmed that “educators must invite and support unintentional, involuntary experiences” (Ellsworth, 2006, p. 26). Formative feedback provided helps to bring the created experience to life. My instructor noted:

I very much enjoyed your presentation and your use of activities as a way of examining the key ideas in Ellsworth’s book. You gave us a good overview of her main thesis at the start and an illustration of the kinds of places she discusses in her book. Your notes about the book are also helpful. The activities were so well chosen and I think that everyone learned important things through that work. At the very least, it was deeply satisfying. I did not realize that you usually script your lessons so fully, so I appreciate the level of risk you have taken in choosing to present the material in this way. I so appreciate your thoughtful approach to the ideas, you willingness to try hard things, and your intelligent responses to the challenges before. (I)

These comments validated the attempt I made to have the creative activities embody the salient themes of the book. Thoughtful pedagogy came about because I knew the topic inside and out and was ready to free myself from my detailed notes and be fully present in the moments of possibility. It was comfortable and uncomfortable; it stretched and molded. I was pulled apart and put back together again, and I think that my classmates and instructor were as well. I tried to make space for all the things that I wanted the class to take from the book, and I was able to lead them through it with confidence and ease. There were hands-on activities that embodied the learning and much exposure to other ways of looking and experiencing. I felt as curious and as interested as they all seemed in their engagement with arts-based activities. One of my classmates noted, “I can feel it, like we are all exploring together…You are doing what the instructor does…bringing us into something so we feel the learning” (P1). Teaching is making, a creative activity. This creative process is at least as important as the ideas to be learned (Ellsworth, 2006). The transformation that took place in me is wrapped up in the symphonic sentiment of synthesizing creative elements into a cohesive whole in action and thought (Cranton, 2002).

Meaning

The poet is occupied with frontiers of consciousness beyond which words fail, though meanings still exist. (T. S. Eliot; Class 3, part of PowerPoint slide)

Meaning is an attribute based on a desire for and effort to be part of moments that are achieved by pursuing significant desires, such as purpose, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment. Pink (2006) argues that these components are central to creating a meaningful experience that will help restore a balance in personhood in a thoughtful pursuit to philosophically charged, existential questions. In the context of the transformative classroom, my cumulative and collective experiences can be deemed as meaningful as they contributed to a greater degree of self-awareness. Circular iterations of action and reflection in this course have unearthed and brought to the surface underlying, deep-seeded topics that carry meaning connected to the core of who I am, what I care about deeply, and extend beyond goal-making to encompass purposeful pursuits in every facet of my lyric and narrative content of my life. Meaning as an attribute is exemplified in the following passage, which details the events from the third class of this course.

From the van Manen reading assigned, the instructor posed this guiding question to begin her mini lesson: How do you understand the pedagogical relationship? Our instructor continued on to speak about poetry and literature as a way to elucidate meaning about the pedagogical relation and to further clarify the intent of keyword writing. She explained that van Manen used poetry and literature in his teaching and extended this to encompass examples of deeply understood phenomenon. In a plea to make connections explicit, our instructor suggested that the literature should not just stand on its own. Instead, she challenged us to consider the following—What does van Manen’s work mean for teaching and learning? What do we understand?

After giving some space for our responses that included concerns about how to find the language to explain these types of moments and how to “show instead of tell,” our instructor explicated the process a little further: “Take some aspects of those works that you’ve read, like novellas, and thread them through your work.” Additionally, she talked about capturing the “qualia of consciousness,” which generated further conversation about the ways in which we effectively convey our subjective experience of being conscious by bringing perceptual shapings and experiences to bear to “bring us there.” Drawing on the week’s reading of works by Britzman, Dissanayake, Hemingway, and Zwicky, we drew out specific ideas and examples of how this artistic form got us as close as possible to the quality of consciousness.

In developing our keyword writing, our instructor provided a way for our thinking to take shape in the broader context of academic research and writing. The basis of her argument was “phenomenology brings the lyric and the narrative together in a powerful pairing that forms a hermeneutic phenomenology framework.” This argument was developed in the nuanced exercises that were introduced to heighten our awareness of the literary devices employed in the various works that we examined. She pointed out that “the narrative is the telling (and then and then and then) and the lyric is being (and this and this and this).” Further to that, our instructor explained, this lyrical work demands that we “be here, feel this, opening us up to that experience as a way of paying attention to the affectiveness of something, which is like phenomenology, and is what makes it ‘special’ in a reference to Dissanyake’s work.” To experience the narrative and lyric in tandem, the instructor had us examine a transcript from one of her research projects. Topics that came up as a way to extend and expand our conceptions of scholarly work included the following ideas: (a) the importance of body language and context so that you feel that it’s real and like you’re in the scene, (b) creating layers of feelings through affective dimensions in the writing, and (c) developing a rhythm of the language through the pairing of transcript with poems and short stories. The overarching message that our instructor left with me shifted the ways in which I use the knowledge that I had and previously reported thoughts became represented thoughts. Reverberating in my mind her words from this class: “Where is that voice?…the voice of confidence that’s changing your thinking…there is a sense of transformation that comes out of that voice.” What I think the instructor accomplished so exquisitely here, pedagogically speaking, was to create a lived experience of the qualia of pedagogical relation.

In the final class together, we workshopped our term papers collectively. We were each given 20 min to share with the group and to present ideas from a prepared document that reflected our thinking to date in a manner that best helped us think through the concepts of our work. We were asked to address the group with a way to listen by framing their experience up front. In our hermeneutic circle, we spent time in facilitating a process of writing that started with a story, a phenomenon, or an art piece and journeyed through a process of interpretation, cycling back through a theoretical orientation, to prepare for eventual spirals that would venture down into the depths of iteration. The instructor discussed this deliberate process of interpreting using different elements: personal, theories, and juxtapositions, so it is different as you layer on sophisticated meaning each time. During this process, transformations were incremental and consciously chosen amongst the students. There were repeated invitations to know and to respond in slow, reflective, and rhythmic ways to small moments through compassionate communication, along with the gentle reminders to find the centre of gravity as a collective response ability.

My transformation in writing in this course emerged through the reading of lines and in between the lines of keyword writing. The writing piece featured below marked a turning point for me: a distinct shift from theorizing about curriculum to the creation of a new theory of curriculum. My theoretical ideas became part of an integrated academic experience derived from a place of purpose and passion (Cranton, 2006). The writing process led me to my centre of gravity as a source for transformative learning; I opened my mind to freeing the restricted pieces that had been previously withheld to intuit what would ultimately resonate as my truth on emotive and spiritual levels. The writing example below reveals an authentic narrative that aims to capture and share my whole self (affective, intuitive, physical, and cognitive dimensions) within a scholarly oriented milieu:

Meandering melodies linger, linger, linger from stanza to stanza, and eventually settle or unsettle in reverberated dissonance in the openness of the room. Silence ensues at the emboldened fermata and we wait, engrossed in the pull of the pause. Eyes upon eyes, mesmerized by the cue of the baton, we inhale and transfer our subjective truths into the atmosphere, only to be caught up in a momentary reverie of mental images, a vibrant visceral portrait conjured up by the symphony of sound. Herein is shared understanding, a synergy exists amongst the singers that moves beyond text into the experience of art-making, which is essential to the development of deep understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment. The combination of these artistic elements serve as the basis for providing an ethereal experience, one in which the participants of the activity are acutely aware of their interconnectedness with the world. This perceptive awareness is revealed through the unspoken of the singing, the interrupted phrases of text that become clouded in the drifts between word and urge, affect and idea, consciousness and unconscious, only to emerge in the relation, the tension, and the understanding of the sight embedded insight.

When I sing, images flow freely into ideas in a complex interplay. Beyond the vocal mechanism itself, I have a voice. My voice is inextricably connected to who I am and is “a synecdoche for the expressive confidence that comes from recognizing that what one thinks and believes is worthy of attention” (Luce-Kapler, Catlin, Sumara, & Kocher, 2011, p. 162). The communally valued and validated activity of singing has led me to the understanding that I hear my own voice when I listen attentively to my own thought processes in a relational and personal dynamic. My desire to carry community within myself, to originate rather than conform, to create rather than comply are themes that resonate deeply. The true meaning of my words exist in nuanced bodily knowing, such as in the act of singing, and are intimately tied to the unspoken meaning of my life. It is in the art of communal experience that I uncover my intention for creating shared understandings from lived and imagined experiences that I care deeply about. These experiences develop from ideals of community, compassion, love, joy, and justice and build on a human capacity for creating abundant lives with a sense of belongingness to something larger than ourselves. (M)

In the contemporary curriculum theory course, transformative moments also resided in workshops in which we discussed our final papers at the duration of the course. At one point in this process, a classmate leaned over to me; in a confidential but candid tone, she gave me valuable feedback on my written work. She compared my writing to overaccessorizing in fashion, noting that it distracts by trying to say way too much all at once, often in run-on sentences, with an overload of complex ideas. I was truly relieved to hear this commentary, which came as a surprise to me. If this had been the same experience earlier on in my academic career, I would have received this news very differently. But with increased self-confidence and a sense of purpose that had been renewed in the “expressive ways of knowing that provided entry to an empathic field for learning-within-relationship” (Davis-Manigaulte, Yorks, & Kasl, 2006, p. 31), my response was dramatically transformed.

This time, I was truly grateful and understood that I was among peers who were incredibly sensitive, thoughtful, respectful, insightful, and supportive. Plus, I recognized that they were looking out for me. This was a feeling that was pure and true. They wanted to help, not to harm. That’s why it mattered and that’s why I cared just as much when it came to their work. The power of relationality transformed my perspective regarding the nature of academic endeavour through a process pedagogy that celebrated one another through shared work rather than focusing on insular competitive individuals and their product-driven results. Ellsworth (2006) points out that our relationship with each other and the outer world is “mutually transforming” (p. 7) and it is through these relationships that we have the potential to create and innovate.

Discussion

Connecting Creativity and Transformative Learning in the Classroom

The research question will now be revisited: What is the nature of the relationship between creative activity and transformative learning, and in what ways are they connected through the lived experience?

Creative acts and transformative learning embody strong cognitive and affective dimensions (Mezirow, 2012; Urban, 2002). An experience of transformation, which involves subjective reframing, is in itself a creative act; one wherein “all the sensitivity and responsiveness of the person participates in the invention, discovery, interpretation, and transformation of meaning” (Mezirow, 2012, p. 75). The relationship between theoretical constructs of creativity and transformative learning was brought to life in a series of meaningful interactions that encompassed critical discourse and reflection, storytelling, empathic relations, immersion in informal contexts, and collaborative knowledge in action.

“Ideally, higher education offers an invitation to think, to be, and to act in new and enhanced ways” (Kasworm & Bowles, 2012, p. 389). This figurative invite to engage in new and personally meaningful ways was the thematic thread that tied creative acts with transformative learning in this study. Classroom acts of creativity align with Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) definition of mini-c creativity, which conceptually ties an experience of transformative learning to the development of “novel and personally meaningful interpretation(s) of experiences, actions, and events” (p. 3). As students and teacher expand and broaden their meaning perspectives or frames of reference, creativity inherent in the learning process is explored. Kaufman and Beghetto describe the dynamic nature of the learning process involved in mini-c creativity. They state, “the category of mini-c creativity helps to broaden current conceptions of creativity by recognizing that intrapersonal insights and interpretations, which often live only within the person who created them, are still considered creative acts” (p. 4). Extending this concept further, the contemporary curriculum theory course offered opportunities to develop new tools, new outcomes, new relationships, new rules, new social practices, and new connections, which were forged through interactions with self, other, and the (academic) world (Ellsworth, 2006; Kleiman, 2008). It was, indeed, the meanings that were generated from an individual’s germ of an idea and which blossomed into an interpersonal web of common and unique lived experiences that provided a novel view into the dynamics of transformative learning in the 21st-century classroom.

Mezirow (2012) assists us in highlighting the important distinction made through one’s engagement with change. He explains, “an experience of perspective transformation moves beyond life being seen from a new perspective; rather, it is lived from that perspective” (Mezirow, 2012, p. 88). This graduate course sets the tone for transformative learning—many students indicated that they experienced an intellectual shift in perspective. However, for me, the experience of learning developed “a deep sense of enrichment, of becoming somehow brighter and better, more potent and alive” (Willis, 2012, p. 213). In my case, transformative learning was marked by a whole person change, and for my classmates, there was a collective energy as emerging scholars that generated new and alternative perspectives on what life and practice could look like.

Summary

The contemporary curriculum course allowed me to apply knowledge with a heightened awareness, often initiating a shift from my traditional ways of thinking about academic work to more inclusive, open, and discriminating patterns of creative thought and activity. My perspectives were broadened throughout the course: I became attuned to curricular frameworks that helped me to (a) organize my thinking and (b) to exist in a liminal space, leading me to a sophisticated conception of a lived curriculum. Taking notice of the many layers of my experienced reality through a lived curriculum, challenging my taken-for-granted assumptions and expectations, and making room for the affective responses to these positions were so unsettling, and thought-provoking all at once, that it has forever changed the way that I approach scholarly work. Exposing one’s vulnerabilities through a tolerance for ambiguity enabled creative engagement in a series of interpretive acts that involved generating, experimenting, collaborating, reflecting, and acting on novel ideas. Thus, the significance of this course experience rests not only in the exemplary vignettes of transformative learning but also in the unique and common pedagogical threads from the participant accounts that detail the interrelated and indeterminate lived experiences of human creativity that make it so.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Presented orally at the Jofre-Bruno Symposium on Education, Queen’s University, 2011.

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: I wish to acknowledge and thank the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding my doctoral research.

References

Baumgartner

L. M.

(2001). An update on transformational learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 15–24.

Beghetto

R. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79.

Chambers

(1999). A topography for Canadian curriculum theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 24, 137–150.

Clark

C. M.

(1993). Changing course: Initiating the transformative learning process. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, State College, PA.

Craft

(2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cranton

(2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 63–71.

Cranton

(2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton

Taylor

E. W.

(2012). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–20). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Cropley

(2001). Creativity in education and training: A guide for teachers and educators. London, England: Kogan Page.

10.

Daloz

(1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Davis

Sumara

Luce-Kapler

(2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

12.

Davis-Manigaulte

Yorks

Kasl

(2006). Expressive ways of knowing and transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 27–35.

13.

Dirkx

J. M.

(1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1–14.

14.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2000). After the burning bush: Transformative learning as imaginative engagement with everyday experience. In Weissner

Meyer

Fuller

(Eds.), Challenges of practice: Transformative learning in action (pp. 26–28). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Transformative Learning. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

15.

Duerr

Zajonc

Dana

(2003). Survey of transformative and spiritual dimensions of higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 177–211.

16.

Ellsworth

(2006). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Fisher-Yoshida

Geller

K. D.

Schapiro

S. A.

(2009). Innovations in transformative learning: Space, culture, & the arts. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

18.

Gardner

Kelly

(2008). Narrating transformative learning in education. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

19.

Hamilton

M. L.

Smith

Worthington

(2008). Fitting the methodology with the research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 4, 17–28.

20.

Hoggan

Simpson

Stuckey

(Eds.). (2009). Creative expression in transformative learning: Tools and techniques for educators of adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

21.

Kasworm

C. E.

Bowles

T. A.

(2012). The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), Fostering transformative learning in higher education settings (pp. 388–407). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

22.

Kaufman

J. C.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.

23.

King

(2009). Evolving research of transformative learning: Based on the learning activities survey. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

24.

Kleiman

(2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 209–217.

25.

Luce-Kapler

Catlin

Sumara

Kocher

(2011). Voicing consciousness: The mind in writing. Changing English, 18, 161–172.

26.

May

(1975). The courage to create. New York, NY: Norton.

27.

Mezirow

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

28.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Mezirow

(2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 73–95). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

30.

Mezirow

Taylor

E. W.

(2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Moore

(2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3, 76–91.

32.

O’Reilley

M. R.

(1993). The peaceable classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

33.

Pinar

William F.

(1994). Autobiography, politics, and sexuality. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

34.

Pink

D. H.

(2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers rule the future. New York, NY: Penguin.

35.

Robinson

(2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford, England: Capstone.

36.

Taylor

E. W.

(Ed). (2006). Teaching for change: Fostering transformative learning in the classroom (New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

Urban

K. K.

(2002). The general and special case: Development and nurturing of creativity. Keynote address at the 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, August 12–16, Bangkok, Thailand.

38.

van Manen

(2002). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy. London, Canada: Althouse Press.

39.

Willis

(2012). An existential approach to transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 212–227). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.