The Transformational Learning Journey of a Novice ESL Teacher of Low-Literate Adults

Abstract

This article reports on one teacher’s journey, Nan’s, as she struggled to provide appropriate instruction to low-literate day laborers in an English as a second language (ESL) class for adult learners. In her efforts to do so, Nan became inspired to implement alternative pedagogy based on a culturally responsive approach that resonated strongly with her professed educational and social justice beliefs. As researcher-practitioners, we were interested in exploring Nan’s transformational journey during her graduate studies. The culturally responsive approach she was studying and attempting to implement is itself transformative in nature, providing an excellent opportunity to examine transformational learning both in the context of a novice ESL teacher and in the implementation of this approach. This case study provides important insights into how transformational learning theory sheds light on the struggles of one woman to achieve her twin goals of reaching a marginalized group of learners she cared deeply about and earning her master’s degree in Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Keywords

critical reflection transformative learning adult learning culturally responsive teaching

Increased attention is being paid to addressing the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse learners who are not being served adequately by prevailing pedagogical practices (Bigelow & Vinegradov, 2011; DeCapua & Marshall, 2011, 2016; Elson & Cole, 2015; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013; Peyton, 2011; Tarone, Bigelow, & Hansen, 2007). Culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2000, 2010) challenges educators to face this shortcoming by arguing that they must critically explore their students’ underlying cultural beliefs and assumptions as well as their own. This article reports on an exploratory study of the transformative learning that can occur among novice adult English as a second language (ESL) teachers, as they learn to teach and to address the needs of culturally and linguistically low-literate adult learners. Specifically, the goal was to examine the learning process of one teacher, Nan, as she confronted her own culturally influenced beliefs and assumptions about teaching and learning while struggling to provide appropriate instruction to low-literate adult ESL learners. In the first section, the conceptual framework employed is reviewed and discussed, as we sought to depict Nan’s learning journey: the 10 phases of Mezirow’s transformative learning, mentoring, and frames of reference. This is a qualitative study in which we conducted an analysis of Nan’s completed planning Checklists, journals, and our classroom observations of Nan, while she strove to implement a culturally responsive instructional approach specifically designed for these types of learners. Throughout our analysis, we made use of Mezirow’s 10 phases in seeking to characterize her learning journey. We hoped that, through this process, we could provide educators with insights into effectively teaching culturally and linguistically low-literate learners. The findings suggest that through the support of her mentor, Nan was able to shift her teaching to address the needs of her learners.

Nan began her graduate studies in Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), poised to become transformed by them. She was nearly 60 years old when she enrolled, her second attempt to earn this degree. Despite a prior attempt to achieve her goal of earning her master’s in TESOL, it was only after connecting with a different professor in a different program that Nan was able to do so. In this second program, Nan, inspired by a teacher who became her mentor, decided to study and implement an innovative culturally responsive instructional approach that resonated with her. This instructional approach, the Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm® (MALP®), was developed to address specifically the mismatch between school instruction and the needs and expectations of students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE; for detailed information about the approach, see DeCapua & Marshall, 2011, 2016; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013).

We report here on an investigation of how Nan progressed in her ability to foster learning among adults with significantly different frames of reference from her own. Nan provided an excellent opportunity to examine transformative learning in a novice ESL teacher and the implementation of a culturally responsive instructional approach. As researcher-practitioners, we were particularly interested in exploring Nan’s transformational journey because the approach itself is transformational in nature, requiring a major paradigm shift in teachers’ frames of reference and pedagogical practices. The questions we set out to answer were these: What did Nan’s learning look like as she learned to apply a culturally responsive instructional approach in her teaching? To what extent was it transformative? What changes in her frames of reference were evident as she struggled to meet the needs of this population of learners? What did this journey mean to Nan personally?

Our Conceptual Framework—Transformative Learning

Originally formulated by Mezirow (1978a, 1978b, 1991) and Mezirow and Associates (2000) and widely discussed and researched by others (e.g., Cranton, 2006; Kumi-Yeboah & James, 2012), transformative learning theory conceptualizes adult learning as a process leading to fundamental changes in frames of reference and habits of mind (King, 2004). As adult learners gain knowledge and information, they engage in critical examination and evaluation of their existing perspectives and opinions and undergo a process of personal, social, and professional change. They come to realize that their previous ways of knowing and doing must be adjusted, and they acquire new ways of understanding and behaving. However, with respect to adult women specifically, there is relatively little research about their transformational journeys. Some notable exceptions include work done by such researchers as Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986), Cranton and Wright (2008), English and Peters (2012), and Ettling and Guilian (2004), whose work on women and their transformational journeys indicates that women frequently face different obstacles to education than men, derived from a variety of sociohistorical and political factors. Factors identified as significant include discriminatory educational practices, the lack of mentors, and the historical primacy of familial obligations as a woman’s role (English & Peters, 2012; Pollack, 2013; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2004), all of which Nan herself had encountered.

Transformational learning theory has also been criticized as relying primarily on the cognitive and rational while de-emphasizing the spiritual, social, and emotional. Yet, it is the latter of these that are highly important to women (Baumgartner, 2012; Dirkx, 2008; Kitchenham, 2008; Taylor, 1997, 2007; but see Mälkki’s, 2010, challenge to this).

Another essential factor not well accounted for in transformational learning theory is the importance of strong mentoring relationships and the affective support they provide (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). Nevertheless, there are core elements of the theory that, in line with English and Peters (2012), are particularly valuable for understanding the transformation of women, particularly ones like Nan who follow nontraditional paths to earning advanced degrees.

This study, firmly rooted in transformational learning theory, looks at three key components of the theory that, taken together, account for Nan’s transformation: (a) the 10 phases Mezirow describes as characterizing the process of transformative learning, (b) the preeminence of the mentoring relationship, and (c) shifting frames of reference.

Mezirow’s 10 Phases of Transformative Learning

While theories of transformational learning have evolved since initially conceived (Mezirow, 1978a, 1978b, 1985; see Kitchenham, 2008, for discussion), in essence, transformational learning consists of these 10 phases:

experiencing a disorienting dilemma;

examining one’s feelings of guilt or shame;

critically examining assumptions about the world;

recognizing that others have experienced what they are experiencing;

evaluating options for new roles, relationships, and actions;

developing a course of action;

acquiring the knowledge and skills for implementing new plans;

initial testing or trying of new roles;

building competence and skills for the new plans; and

reintegrating into one’s life based on new perspectives and understandings (Kitchenham, 2008).

Throughout our analysis, we make use of these 10 phases as we explore Nan’s learning journey. There is evidence to suggest that successful novice teachers, as they develop and refine their teaching, undergo, to varying degrees, these phases (Kumi-Yeboah & James, 2012; Snyder, 2012). During the course of becoming professional educators, novice teachers gradually shift their frames of reference, which embody cognitive, conative, and affective factors. Cognitive factors include mental processes of perception, judgment, and reasoning; conative factors are processes directed toward action or change such as volition, initiative, and decision-making, while affective factors encompass the broad range of emotions people experience. Furthermore, frames of reference have two dimensions: habits of mind and resulting points of view (Mezirow, 2009). Habits of mind are broad, abstract ways of thinking; points of view refer to how these habits manifest themselves, for example, a person’s expectations, attitudes, and behaviors.

Through learning itself, adults’ frames of reference are sometimes transformed. Novice teachers enter classrooms holding beliefs about teaching and learning developed in their teacher education courses. However, these beliefs are not always reflected in their actual classroom practices (Lidstone & Hollingsworth, 1992; Roehrig, Turner, Grover, Schneider, & Liu 2009), as was the case with Nan. There is often a mismatch between what they believe and what they do. As novices, they struggle with dual tasks: (1) delivering instruction and (2) continuing to learn on the job. This creates a constant tension between their actual teaching and how that teaching informs future instruction (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Strong support for these teachers is critical but not always there (Darling-Hammond, 2003), particularly for novice teachers in community-based organizations or CBOs (Smith, 2009).

We note that Nan, while very much a novice teacher of low-literate adult language learners, was not a novice in terms of life experiences. She was significantly older than most novice teachers who follow the common trajectory of high school, college, and graduate school. The pivotal moment in Nan’s decision to pursue her master’s in TESOL later in life came when she was volunteering to teach ESL to day laborers with limited literacy and formal education in a community organization. It was then that Nan recognized she needed training to better reach these notably different learners.

Mentoring Relationships

True mentors guide novice teachers in their transformational learning journeys by being emotionally available, invested, and able to offer constructive feedback (Daloz, 2012; Young, Bullough, Draper, Smith, & Erkison, 2005). For novice teachers, more substantive changes come about when they have mentors with whom they have a strong relationship and who provide insights to help them in their journey (Sleeter & Milner, 2011; Young et al., 2005). A safe, trusting, and empathetic relationship is central to the transformative learning process, especially for women (Cranton & Wright, 2008; Meyer, 2009) and, we suggest, even more so for those women who have experienced psychologically disorienting dilemmas.

Nan was a mature adult when she decided to pursue graduate studies in TESOL. Her first attempt to do so resulted in Phase 1, a devastating disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1978a, 1978b, 1985), stemming from a combination of unresponsive instructors and unsuitable pedagogies. This experience severely shook Nan’s confidence as a learner and led to her leaving the program. It was only later, after Nan located and connected with a professor at a different institution, that she felt emotionally strong enough to attempt pursuing this degree again as well as the strong mentoring relationship critical to her eventual success.

Frames of Reference

ESL pedagogy is generally geared toward learners with age appropriate literacy and academic preparation in their native language who are seeking to acquire proficiency in this new language (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; Peyton, 2011). Despite understanding the important role of cultural differences, the underlying assumption of educators is that language learners are prepared to engage in academic ways of thinking and school-based tasks based on literacy. The focus of ESL pedagogy is on developing English language proficiency. However, there are other English language learners who do not come prepared with a solid background in formal education. They have, for various reasons, experienced limited or interrupted schooling, that is, they have not had the opportunity to experience fully formal education relative to their age. These learners may have had to leave school early to work, to marry, or to help at home. They may have had to leave their homeland and been unable to attend school because of war, internal strife, natural disasters, economics, or other reasons. When they did attend school, the schools may have lacked resources, set curricula, and trained teachers. In short, these students encounter obstacles in learning that go far beyond language learning itself. To distinguish this population from other English language learners, these students with limited or interrupted formal education are referred to as SLIFE (DeCapua, Smathers, & Tang, 2009).

The first obstacle that SLIFE face is that they usually have little to no literacy skills, the sine qua non of school. Less obvious, but equally important, the second major obstacle SLIFE encounter is the vastly different ways of learning and thinking expected in formal educational settings than those to which they are accustomed (Cole, 2005; Paradise & Rogoff, 2009; Rogoff, 2003). SLIFE ways of thinking, learning, and frames of reference have been formed through real life and informal learning experiences rather than through formal education.

Formal education and literacy, the cornerstones of instruction, shape the frames of reference of formally educated persons around the world (Grigorenko, 2007). This instruction is predicated on abstract modes of thinking (Flynn, 2007; Robinson, 2011). By not having been able to engage fully in formal education and not having developed strong literacy and academic ways of viewing and understanding the world, SLIFE approach learning with different frames of reference than those of their teachers who are both products of and conveyors of formal education. Although SLIFE have rich funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005), these are rarely acknowledged or honored by either the formal educational system or most pedagogical practices (Crumpton & Gregory, 2011; Lukes, 2013). Because of their vastly different prior learning and life experiences, SLIFE require alternative pedagogical approaches and strategies, as has been amply demonstrated in the research (e.g., Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011; Elson & Cole, 2015; Hos, 2014; Tarone et al., 2007; Watson, 2011).

MALP® (DeCapua & Marshall, 2011, 2016; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013) is an instructional approach developed expressly as an alternative pedagogy for SLIFE and became the focus of Nan’s graduate studies. This approach is grounded in culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2000, 2010), which requires that educators reassess their frames of reference to reach linguistically and culturally diverse learners with methods that align with their backgrounds. MALP® challenges teachers to question their own assumptions and beliefs about learning and teaching, so that they can deliver culturally appropriate instruction to SLIFE. The process of implementing MALP® is in and of itself transformative for teachers because becoming truly culturally responsive entails becoming explicitly aware of, and subsequently changing, one’s frames of reference. As the name indicates, the process must be a mutually adaptive one, one that entails a dynamic interplay of perspectives on learning. This process is inherently challenging because it requires understanding, examining, and accommodating both the ways of learning and priorities of formal education and those of SLIFE.

Method

Setting and Participants

The ESL literacy class examined here was offered by a CBO in an urban/suburban setting in the New York City metropolitan area. The CBO serves recent immigrants to the area, primarily from Central America and Mexico. This CBO provides educational services and assistance in gaining access to infrastructure support services, such as housing and employment. Recently, it also became a job site, connecting contractors with workers. After meeting with the director, we received permission to observe Nan and her class for research purposes.

The class lasted for 8 weeks, running nonconsecutively due to holidays and weather, from December 2012 to February 2013. This is a time of year when day laborers have limited work opportunities and are better able to attend. Classes met weekly for 2 hours Because they were primarily day laborers, the number of learners participating in any given class fluctuated between 2 and 10, depending on whether or not they had work that day. The learners ranged in age from 19 to 58, some newly arrived, others in the United States for years. Most had had only 2 or 3 years of formal education.

Case Study Participant

For quite some time, Nan had studied and was interested in practicing nontraditional pedagogy (e.g., Freire, 1994). Through her coursework in her second master’s program, Nan learned about MALP®, which resonated deeply with her. Because of her own working-class background, Nan was committed to making a difference in the lives of struggling immigrants. She was eager to implement MALP®, which has been showing initial success in transitioning SLIFE in secondary schools and adult education programs in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York (DeCapua & Marshall, 2015; Marshall, DeCapua, & Antonlini, 2010), and Pennsylvania (Elson & Cole, 2015), although the results remain largely unpublished to date.

Nan chose to implement this approach during her TESOL field experience in a CBO near her home. She was determined to find the best ways to deliver ESL and literacy instruction to SLIFE. From her own observations, Nan had seen how most instruction was based on ESL practices not effective with this population, leaving them disengaged and alienated. Early on, Nan indicated her interest in participating in a research project, an opportunity for her professor and one of the authors.

Data Collection

Data were collected via qualitative methods, employing a case study approach. This case study approach allowed for in-depth analysis leading to an understanding of the phases of the transformative learning and an appreciation of its recursive nature. Furthermore, it permitted the identification of the feelings, thought processes, and experiences that were key influences in Nan’s journey (Creswell, 2011; Merriam, 2009). In determining the relevant data to collect, we focused specifically on exploring Nan’s development as a teacher in her implementation of the MALP® approach. The data collection tools consisted of MALP® Checklists, reflective journaling, and classroom observations. We independently read Nan’s journals and completed Checklists, conferring subsequently on our findings as well as on their classroom observation notes.

MALP® Checklist

The Teacher Planning Checklist^© was developed by DeCapua and Marshall (2011; Appendix A) for use in conjunction with MALP® implementation. This Checklist mirrors the elements of the approach, so that users of the Checklist can indicate which of the elements they are incorporating and describe how they are doing so. The Checklist is used in planning instruction for reflection on lessons and for observation by coaches and administrators. Here we used completed Checklists to systematically collect data on Nan’s transformational journey, both from her point of view and from ours. A total of 10 Checklists were completed, 7 by Nan and 3 by us. Over the course of the project, Nan completed the seven Checklists both to plan lessons and to reflect on them. We used Checklists to guide our three observations, note-taking, and subsequent debriefing. Using Checklists made Nan’s changes concrete, linked them directly to the elements of the approach, and permitted a detailed comparison and contrast of Nan’s analysis with ours.

Journaling

Critical self-reflection is an essential component of transformational learning, predicated on the belief that change occurs when adult learners reevaluate their assumptions, beliefs, and ways of thinking and doing (Mezirow, 1978b, 1991; Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Journaling that contributes to critical reflection as part of the transformative learning experience, along with this strong mentoring relationship, also supports transformative learning (Forest, 2009).

Journaling provides a vehicle for such reflection (Cranton, 2006; King, 2004) and allows a novice teacher such as Nan to examine her frames of reference with attendant habits of mind and points of view (Brookfield, 2004). This practice helped Nan the teacher to examine her instruction through the lens of MALP® and encouraged Nan the learner to consider how her teaching practices impacted her students’ learning experiences and learning environment. It provided a rationale for adjustments she made to better address their needs. Journaling also served as an important data collection tool permitting us to follow Nan’s transformational learning process. During the 8-week project, Nan journaled regularly, posting in a weekly blog shared with her classmates and professors.

Observations and debriefings

We observed Nan on three occasions, once early in the 8-week period, once at the midpoint, and once near the end. After each observation, we immediately debriefed with Nan and supported her in analyzing her teaching. Using Checklists, we addressed growth and issues that arose during the class.

Following Nan’s Transformational Learning Process

This was a qualitative case study of Nan’s learning journey, as she strove to learn to teach adult SLIFE through implementing MALP®. As Nan began her journey, she was, despite her commitment to nontraditional pedagogies (e.g., Freire, 1994), unconsciously encumbered by frames of reference of teaching and learning formed within the paradigm of Western-style formal education (Grierson, 2010; Osterling & Webb, 2011).

Nan’s Voice

Although well-meaning and well-intentioned, I understood little about immigrants’ cultures…It was astonishing to learn about the differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures. I was also surprised to discover that reading maps, organizing data in rubrics, and writing from left to right from the top of the page down, were not skills that everyone possessed. Understanding those facts made the MALP® approach make sense. The next question was: How hard would it be to implement? I realized there would be challenges involved in teaching from a MALP® perspective rather than from a more traditional approach. As a person determined to serve adult immigrants, I was willing to undergo the challenge of developing my teaching along the lines of MALP® for the benefit of my students.

Evident in this reflection from her journal, Nan struggled to understand different habits of mind. It was at this time that she realized that implementing MALP® would be challenging and personally transforming. As noted previously, frames of reference are based on deeply embedded and generally subconscious assumptions. Adapting to new behaviors and ways of thinking challenges not only learners but also, and equally, their teacher (Coryell, 2013). Teachers must be receptive and open to alternatives for the transformational journey to take place.

Observed Classes

First class visit

The first observation took place during Nan’s initial weeks of teaching. Debriefing with us after class resulted in Nan’s realization that, as in the first three phases of the transformational learning process, she faced a disorienting dilemma, had negative feelings about it and her ability to solve it, and, subsequently, confronted those feelings. The dilemma was that the students were not responding as Nan had hoped. They largely remained passive despite her attempts to make the learning relevant and engaging. Nan chided herself for not succeeding and it was only in the debriefing that she realized what had gone wrong. She was, in fact, using teacher-centered methodology.

There was little interaction among learners and the paradigm of formal education was in evidence. For one, Nan was engaging primarily in question–answer exchanges where she posed a question, called on a student to respond, usually someone raising a hand, and responded with an evaluation such as “good,” “nice,” or “that’s right.” This type of exchange, often referred to as initiation–response–evaluation (IRE), is one of the most common types of discourse found in the traditional classroom where the teacher is the “sage on the stage” (King, 1993) and learners have minimal opportunities for active participation. In terms of classroom tasks, Nan was asking the learners to do traditional textbook exercises, such as fill in the blank. To assess their mastery, Nan assigned worksheets for them to complete individually. Techniques such as these had the effect of her running her classroom at odds with the elements of MALP®, thereby impeding her implementation of the approach. Although Nan was completing Checklists and critically reflecting on her classes through journaling, she was having trouble seeing which traditional pedagogical practices she was using that did not align with MALP® and that were not culturally responsive, leading to her failure to engage her learners effectively.

Nan’s Voice

After the first 3 weeks of class, I was feeling unhappy with my teacher-centered classroom and feeling powerless to change it. I wasn’t adding anything new, and I noticed how uptight, formal and “teachery” I had been. I was extremely frustrated when I started my first graduate program by how the teachers didn’t respect us and their teaching wasn’t relevant to us and really traditional teacher-fronted. So now I find I’m doing the same.

Despite her yearnings to implement the instructional approach and use culturally responsive teaching practices for SLIFE, Nan unconsciously returned to taking control of the classroom using common teacher-fronted practices. MALP® requires a profound consciousness of frames of reference in order to be truly culturally responsive teaching. Nan’s unconscious behaviors, in stark contrast to her professed beliefs, reinforced how assumptions about learning and teaching are deeply embedded both psychologically and cognitively (Cole, 2005; Cranton, 2006; Mezirow & Associates, 2000). Nan, like many novice teachers, was basing her pedagogical practice on her own learning experiences, that is, on how she herself had been taught (Borg, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Pringle, 2006). Transformational learning, however, only occurs upon letting go and reformulating one’s frames of reference and attendant habits of mind and points of view. This is consistent with transformative learning theory where individuals experience a critical assessment of assumptions (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22).

Nan’s Voice

I felt unable to make the class more learner-centered because I felt I couldn’t adequately coach activities. I then decided to reframe “what wasn’t working” and not make it about the students.

We see here Phase 1, experiencing a disorienting dilemma, as well as Phase 6, developing a course of action (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22). Nan was unsettled by how poorly her class was going. She realized she was replicating the mistakes that the professors in her first master’s in education program had made in not being culturally responsive to learner needs and interests. With our help she developed a new course of action, so that she could move to Phase 8, initial testing or trying of new roles (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22). Specifically, Nan in her journey towards becoming a more capable, more confident teacher of SLIFE needed to (a) move away from teacher-centered to learner-centered interactions, (b) connect more explicitly the oral with the written, and (c) avoid assuming these learners would know how to engage in decontextualized school-based tasks.

Nan’s Voice

At my next class, seven new students greeted me as I unrolled my butcher paper and got out the painter’s tape. I noted how much they smiled as I asked them to help me put up the first scroll. When the paper was up, I introduced myself to the first person on my right, and then asked him to introduce himself to the next person, using only hand gestures. I noticed that everyone observed what I was doing and was able to participate to some degree. I purposely kept quiet when there was a little stumbling and watched how these men helped each other with the introductions.

After everyone finished, I brought out my student attendance book and showed the cover to the class. “Does anyone know where this picture is from?” Instead of being teachery, I was impish and playful. They looked interested and one person guessed Africa. “It could be,” I said, “but this is from Guatemala,” which elicited lots of smiles.

Second class visit

This second visit took place midway through the course. By now, Nan had had time to process the previous debriefing and explore the instructional approach in greater depth with her professor/mentor.

In alignment with Mezirow’s phases, Nan, after experiencing a disorienting dilemma (lack of learners engagement and reverting to traditional pedagogical practices), examined her feelings of frustration and guilt and reexplored her assumptions and behaviors. Nan subsequently evaluated new options and modified her instruction. Here we see how emotions, traditionally de-emphasized in transformational learning theory (Baumgartner, 2012; Dirkx, 2008) played an instrumental role (English & Irving, 2007; English & Peters, 2012; hooks, 2001) in Nan’s motivation to transform her teaching practices. To illustrate, in the second visit, we observed how Nan worked with her learners to develop curriculum based on their experiences and needs. She created a chart with the headings “name, home country, first language, job, family.” The learners’ task was to enter their own information under each heading. She modeled the task by filling in information about herself and then working together with the learners to complete the chart with their information, first orally and then in writing. On her MALP® Checklist, Nan indicated that this was immediately relevant and promoted interconnectedness because the learners were providing information about themselves and learning more about each other. Nan also noted that the activity allowed her to combine the oral and the written naturally. Finally, Nan described on the Checklist how she had scaffolded an unfamiliar academic way of thinking, classifying, by using language and content familiar to the learners. The learners had never seen a table with their classmates’ information grouped in this way, which gave them practice in the school-based, decontextualized task of placing information into rows and columns. Later, the class used this table as a springboard for data analysis, another unfamiliar academic way of thinking.

In the subsequent debriefing of the researcher’s and Nan’s completed Checklists, there were many areas of agreement. She was truly undergoing transformational learning resulting in transformative learning outcomes. Nevertheless, there were some elements of the instructional approach that Nan had still not successfully incorporated; thus she had not yet completed her transformative learning journey.

For one, IRE exchanges and teacher talk still dominated much of the classroom discourse. For example, when a learner provided personal information in response to a question posed by Nan, she would frequently respond to that learner by delivering extended information about herself. On the one hand, this could be seen as promoting interconnectedness between the teacher and learners; on the other hand, this type of interaction was an extended IRE exchange in which Nan dominated class interactions and used language well beyond what the learners were able to comprehend.

Second, although Nan believed that she was making explicit connections between the oral and written modes, an essential literacy practice for low-literate learners, she herself, rather than the learners, did most of the reading and repeating. In many instances, the researcher saw learners sitting silently and watching Nan rather than actively participating or even being able to follow her.

Third, the back-and-forth movement between the oral and written that Nan noted as “natural” was quite laborious because the learners were not familiar with her expectations, the instructions, or the task.

While there was evidence of her traveling through different phases of transformational learning, Nan still needed to continue especially working on Phase 9, building competence and skills (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22). As is the case for many novice teachers, Nan was familiar with best pedagogical practices and strategies from her graduate course work. In addition, she was dedicated to being culturally responsive using the MALP® instructional approach. Her difficulty lay in moving from theory to practice; classroom application remained partial. Nonetheless, we were able to note progress in Nan’s journey.

Third class visit

Nan’s Voice

I had never had a mentor before and was surprised by the level of connection and support. My mentor helped me reassess what I was doing in the classroom, what worked and what needed to change. I’d expected to put everything I’d learned into practice immediately, but she helped me see that wasn’t the case and she seemed genuinely excited to witness and contribute to my learning process.

On the third visit, the researcher noted many changes had taken place. Nan had begun to see how to engage the learners. Following the stages of transformational learning, she had developed a plan of action once she realized the need for major changes. For example, Nan had brought in a box of tools to start conversations about the work the learners were interested in or capable of doing. She collaborated with the learners to create a chart indicating different types of jobs and the tools that could be used for them, which formed the basis for various class activities focusing on school-based decontextualized tasks. Nan continually worked on changing her frames of reference to better understand and implement culturally responsive pedagogical practices.

The debriefing in this visit included a discussion of how her teaching had changed and how that had impacted learner behaviors. Following Phase 8, initial testing or trying of new roles (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22), Nan had been trying a new role as a facilitator, the “guide on the side” (King, 1993), to give learners room to take more of an active role in their learning. She still gravitated to her original frames of reference but was now able to see the difference when she did make the shift.

Discussion

Using Checklists, Nans’ journals, and classroom observations, we explored Nan’s journey from her starting point as a formally educated learner and novice ESL teacher to her emergence as a culturally responsive educator of SLIFE who succeeded in changing her frames of reference.

In the comparison of Nan’s Checklist and journals versus our observation notes and completed Checklists, we found that there was a consistent mismatch between what Nan thought she was doing and what she was actually doing, a common problem, particularly among novice teachers (Lidstone & Hollingsworth, 1992; Roehrig et al., 2009). While her teaching gradually incorporated more and more culturally responsive pedagogy for SLIFE, Nan had difficulties in making the transition to fully incorporating MALP®. Transformational learning and the changing of one’s frames of reference are never an easy process (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). It can be argued that her difficulties in doing so lay in the challenge of making the shift away from the assumptions of formal education. It proved elusive for Nan to realize what assumptions she was making until something was not working out as planned or until we drew her attention to them. Although there was certainly the issue of learners’ language proficiency, in many cases, it was Nan’s not realizing that her own frames of reference regarding teaching and learning were themselves hindering student learning and ultimate success in the program.

The immediate feedback after the classroom observations was an important factor in Nan’s transformational learning process in that it occurred in the context of her teaching and in her dual role as both teacher and learner. In line with Phase 5, evaluating options for new roles, relationships, and actions (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22), the debriefing sessions provided Nan with specific informational—and at times corrective, feedback—and more conceptual or restructured understandings. The immediacy of this feedback enabled her to reflect on class roles and relationships without a time delay, which can alter memories of what truly occurred. Furthermore, in line with Phase 6, developing a course of action (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 22), holding substantive debriefing sessions immediately allowed Nan time to reflect and rethink her teaching before her next class.

Nan’s gradual transformation was evident in her journals and debriefing discussions with us. Nan persistently reflected on her personal and professional growth and worked at becoming more conscious of her frames of reference in order to change her classroom practices. The observable changes in her instructional delivery demonstrated that she had, in fact, changed from traditional ESL practices grounded in formal education to culturally responsive teaching that enabled diverse, nontraditional learners to participate and achieve in the classroom.

Nan’s journey illustrates how transformative learning does not happen spontaneously but is heavily influenced by relationships with others (English & Peters, 2012; Taylor & Snyder, 2012), in Nan’s case her relationship with her professor/mentor. This close, supportive mentoring relationship was crucial to someone like Nan who had not had access to traditional pathways for participation in higher education and who had experienced a psychologically disorienting dilemma in her first attempt at a master’s in TESOL (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). The fact that Nan’s mentor was female was significant since women are more likely to learn through strong, warm, nurturing, empathetic, and supportive relationships with other women (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). This strong relationship with a female academic is what Nan experienced during in her second master’s program, which was what she did not have in her first attempt to earn her master’s in TESOL. Moreover, in line with research on mentoring relationships, Nan’s continued openness to feedback, both positive and negative, and willingness to take risks in the classroom were a result of the supportive relationship with her mentor (Schwille, 2008; Young et al., 2005). In addition, this relationship enhanced the ability of both researchers to gain insights into Nan’s transformational process while implementing MALP®. In Mezirow’s words, we encouraged Nan by being both “facilitator[s] and provacteur[s]” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 11, emphasis in original).

Although it has been argued that transformative learning is just good learning (Newman, 2012), Nan’s journey went well beyond this characterization. Through her studies, teaching, and mentor experience, Nan developed a new identity as a professional educator able to serve a marginalized population in her community. Her journey was not merely a matter of her acquiring skills, knowledge, and understanding but much more. For Nan, it was truly a journey of cognitive, conative, and affective factors in which she experienced much anxiety and frustration that called into question her own identity. However, by her journey’s end, Nan had regained her confidence as a successful learner, resulting in her ability to grow professionally and personally from her teaching experiences. In the spirit of Mezirow (1978b, 1981, 1991, 2009) and Mezirow and Associates (2000), Nan’s study and implementation of a culturally responsive instructional approach for SLIFE can be understood in terms of fundamentally changing who she was. During her journey, Nan was forced—and forced herself—to articulate and question her assumptions about teaching and learning. This led to her experiencing a deep structural shift in her frames of reference. Her struggles to implement MALP® deeply challenged her understanding of the world, helped her to realize conflicting worldviews and frames of reference, and allowed her to build the skills and develop the comprehensive strategies to reach learners she knew were not being adequately served.

Nan’s Voice

When I started teaching, I trusted my intuition, and I thought that that was enough. I identified with my students, because I’m an adult learner, too, and I knew what it was like to put work and family ahead of education. I also knew my students were motivated to learn like I was, but access to education is not fairly distributed. My way of learning was different than the mainstream, too, and I didn’t succeed in the typical classroom.

My mentor, and the MALP® instructional approach bridged the chasm between me and the identity I imagined for myself, a teacher serving marginalized populations. It was harder than I thought it would be, because I had to relinquish parts of myself in order to form a new one. The obstacles I overcame parallel the conflicts my students face. Together, we overcome the barriers that deny access to those who reside outside the dominant culture, because we are all capable of transformation, with the right conditions. My education as a MALP®-trained teacher transformed me, and transformed my relationship with my students.

The intent here was to examine how Nan began a process of personal and professional change during a specified time frame. A transformative learning journey typically takes a longer period of time than that described here and is seldom epochal. It is most often a process occurring over time and with much looping, twisting, halting, and regrouping (Kumi-Yeboah & James, 2012; Mezirow, 1985; Taylor, 2000). This 8-week period may appear relatively short, but the actual journey and mentoring relationship spanned Nan’s entire 2 years of graduate work and beyond.

As Nan continued her academic and professional endeavors, she persisted in assessing her beliefs, assumptions, and ways of thinking and doing. She completed another year of graduate study, a semester of student teaching, and a semester as an adjunct instructor. Throughout, Nan continued the critical reflection to the end of becoming a more successful teacher, in line with the research that positively correlates such actions with transformative learning outcomes (Brock, 2010). Furthermore, as she has often reiterated over the years (personal communication), her long transformational journey took place in large part because of the positive, supporting relationship with her professor/mentor.

Nan’s Voice

Today I live and breathe MALP® inside and outside the classroom. I am a confident and passionate speaker at conferences, sharing my journey as a MALP® teacher with ESL and adult learner educators. And I imagine writing more about transformative learning as it pertains to one white working-class woman.

Future Directions

This qualitative study examined the journey of only one participant. In the future, it would be valuable to explore the transformative learning of multiple novice teachers who choose to implement MALP® or another instructional approach with SLIFE. Such research should also be conducted in different settings, which might include more structured adult education programs, as well as public or private secondary school classrooms with this population. It would also be valuable to explore the dispositions of novice teachers (Shiveley & Misco, 2010) of SLIFE and their ability to move through the 10 phases of transformative learning. Another area of research could focus on the role of mentoring and coaching in transformational learning, while implementing culturally responsive teaching with SLIFE or other struggling English language learners. While research has been conducted on mentoring and coaching and novice teachers (e.g., Schwille, 2008; Young et al., 2005), to date there is little research addressing this particular area. In short, there remains much to explore to better understand the transformative learning journey of novice ESL teachers, especially those working with this type of struggling language learner who has significant gaps in schooling and limited literacy.

Footnotes

Appendix A

MALP® Teacher Planning Checklist^©

A. Accept Conditions for Learning

A1. I am making this lesson/project immediately relevant to my students.□ Explain:

A2. I am helping students develop and maintain interconnectedness.□ Explain:

B. Combine Processes for Learning

B1. I am incorporating both shared responsibility and individual accountability.□ Explain:

B2. I am scaffolding the written word through oral interaction. □ Explain:

C. Focus on New Activities for Learning

C1. I am focusing on tasks requiring academic ways of thinking.□ Explain:

C2. I am making these tasks accessible with familiar language and content.□ Explain:

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to Neighbors Link, Stamford, CT, for allowing us in to observe Nan’s classes. Special thanks are also due to Dr. John Dirkx for his help and guidance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Baumgartner

L. M.

(2012). Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning from 1975 to present. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), Handbook of transformative learning (pp. 99–115). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Belenky

Clinchy

Goldberger

Tarule

(1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Belenky

Stanton

(2000). Inequality, development and connected knowing. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 71–102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

Bigelow

Tarone

(2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38, 689–700.

Bigelow

Vinogradov

(2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 120–136.

Borg

(2011). The impact of in-service education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370–380.

Brock

(2010). Measuring the importance of precursor steps to transformative learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 122–142.

Brookfield

(2004). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cole

(2005). Cultural and historical perspectives on the developmental consequences of education. Human Development, 48, 195–216.

10.

Coryell

(2013). Collaborative comparative inquiry and transformative cross-cultural adult learning and teaching: A Western educator metanarrative and inspiring a global vision. Adult Education Quarterly, 63, 299–320.

11.

Cranton

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

12.

Cranton

Wright

(2008). The transformative educator as learning companion. Journal of Transformative Education, 6, 33–47.

13.

Creswell

(2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). White Plains, NY: Pearson.

14.

Crumpton

Gregory

(2011). “I’m not learning”: The role of academic relevancy for low-achieving students. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 42–53.

15.

Daloz

L. A.

(2012). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Darling-Hammond

(2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60, 6–13.

17.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

DeCapua

Marshall

H. W.

(2011). Breaking new ground: Teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education in U.S. secondary schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

19.

DeCapua

Marshall

H. W.

(2015). Implementing a mutually adaptive learning paradigm in a community-based adult ESL literacy class. In Santos

Whiteside

(Eds.), Low educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the Ninth LESLLA Symposium (pp. 151–171). City College of San Francisco, CA: Lulu.

20.

DeCapua

Marshall

H. W.

(2016). Reframing the conversation about students with limited or interrupted formal education: From achievement gap to cultural dissonance. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 356–370.

21.

DeCapua

Smathers

Tang

(2009). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted schooling: A guide for educators. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

22.

Dirkx

(2008). The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 120, 7–18.

23.

Elson

Cole

(2015). Implementing the mutually adaptive learning paradigm in the LESLLA classroom. In van de Craats

Kurvers

van Hout

(Eds.), Adult literacy, second language and cognition (pp. 199–216). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Center for Language Studies.

24.

English

L. M.

Irving

(2007). A review of the Canadian literature on gender and learning. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 20, 16–31.

25.

English

L. M.

Peters

(2012). Transformative learning in nonprofit organizations: A feminist interpretive inquiry. Adult Education Quarterly, 62, 102–119.

26.

Ettling

Guilian

(2004). Midwifing transformative change. In O’Sullivan

Taylor

(Eds.), Learning toward and ecological consciousness: Selected transformative practices (pp. 115–131). New York, NY: Palgrave.

27.

Feiman-Nemser

(2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.

28.

Flynn

(2007). What is intelligence? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Forest

(2009). Transformative development in U.S. women living in poverty. Proceedings of the Eighth International Transformative Learning Conference. Bermuda: College of Bermuda.

30.

Freire

(1994). Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Continuum.

31.

Gay

(2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116.

32.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.

33.

González

Moll

Amanti

(2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

Grierson

(2010). Changing conceptions of effective teacher education: The journey of a novice teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 6, 3–15.

35.

Grigorenko

(2007). Hitting, missing, and in between: A typology of the impact of western education on the non-western world. Comparative Education, 43, 165–186.

36.

hooks

(2001). All about love: New visions. New York, NY: Perennial.

37.

Hos

(2014). Caring is not enough: Teachers’ enactment of ethical care for adolescent students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) in a newcomer classroom. Education and Urban Society, 48, 1–25.

38.

King

(1993, Winter). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. Teaching, 41, 30–35.

39.

King

K. P.

(2004). Both sides now: Examining transformative learning and professional development of educators. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 155–174.

40.

Kitchenham

(2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of Transformative Learning Theory, 6, 104–123.

41.

Kumi-Yeboah

James

(2012). Transformational teaching experience of a novice teacher: A narrative of an award-winning teacher. Adult Learning, 23, 170–177.

42.

Lidstone

Hollingsworth

(1992). A longitudinal study of cognitive change in beginning teachers: Two patterns of learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 19, 39–57.

43.

Lukes

(2013). Pushouts, shutouts, and holdouts: Educational experiences of Latino immigrant young adults in New York City. Urban Education, 49, 806–834.

44.

Mälkki

(2010). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning: Theorizing the challenges to reflection. Journal of Transformative Education, 8, 42–62.

45.

Marshall

H. W.

DeCapua

(2013). Making the transition to classroom success: Culturally responsive teaching for struggling language learners. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

46.

Marshall

H. W.

DeCapua

Antolini

(2010). Engaging English language learners with limited or interrupted formal education. Educator’s Voice, 3, 56–65.

47.

Marsick

Watkins

(2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25–34.

48.

Merriam

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49.

Meyer

(2009). Promoting personal empowerment with women in East Harlem through journaling and coaching. In Mezirow

Taylor

E. W.

& Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 216–226). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

50.

Mezirow

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

51.

Mezirow

(1978b). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100–110.

52.

Mezirow

(1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32, 3–23.

53.

Mezirow

(1985). A critical theory of self-directed learning. In Brookfield

(Ed.), Self-directed learning: From theory to practice (pp. 7–30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Mezirow

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

55.

Mezirow

(1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

56.

Mezirow

(2009). An overview on transformative learning. In Illeris

(Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 90–130). New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Mezirow

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

58.

Newman

(2012). Calling transformative learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts. Adult Education Quarterly, 58, 284–298.

59.

Osterling

J. P.

Webb

(2011). On becoming a bilingual teacher: A transformative process for preservice and novice teachers. Journal of Transformative Education, 7, 267–293.

60.

Paradise

Rogoff

(2009). Side by side: Learning by observing and pitching in cultural practices in support of learning. Ethos, 37, 102–138.

61.

Peyton

J. K.

(2011). Understanding adult learners as multilingual/multicultural individuals: Practical and research implications. Proceedings of the 7th LESLLA Symposium, 135–156. Retrieved from http://lesllaportal.airprojects.org/Proceedings.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=313

62.

Pollack

(2013, 10 3). Why are there still so few women in science? The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html

63.

Pringle

R. M.

(2006). Preservice teachers’ exploration of children’s alternative conceptions: Cornerstone for planning to teach science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 291–307.

64.

Robinson

(2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. New York, NY: John Wiley.

65.

Roehrig

Turner

Grove

Schneider

Liu

(2009). Degree of alignment between beginning teachers’ practices and beliefs about effective classroom practice. Teacher Educator, 44, 164–187.

66.

Rogoff

(2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

67.

Schwille

(2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal of Education, 115, 139–168.

68.

Shiveley

Misco

(2010). “But how do I know about their attitudes and beliefs?”: A four-step process for integrating and assessing dispositions in teacher education. The Clearing House, 83, 9–14.

69.

Sleeter

Milner

R. M.

, IV. (2011). Researcher successful efforts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In Ball

Tyson

(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81–103). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

70.

Smith

(2009). The great dilemma of improving teacher quality in adult learning and literacy. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 4, 67–74.

71.

Snyder

(2012). Finding the “royal road” to learning to teach: Listening to novice teacher voices in order to improve the effectiveness of teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 33–53.

72.

Tarone

Bigelow

Hansen

(2007). The impact of alphbetic print literacy level on oral second language acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.theliteracyinstitute.org/projects/pdf/LESLLAResearch6.pdf

73.

Taylor

E. W.

(1997). Building upon the theoretical debate: A critical review of the empirical studies of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 34–59.

74.

Taylor

E. W.

(2000). Fostering Mezierow’s transformative learning theory in the adult education classroom: A critical review. Canadian Journal of the Study of Adult Education, 14, 1–28.

75.

Taylor

E. W.

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173–191.

76.

Taylor

E. W.

Snyder

M. J.

(2012). A critical review of research on transformative learning theory, 2006-2010. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), Handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 37–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

77.

Ward

Wolf-Wendel

(2004). Academic motherhood. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 233–257.

78.

Watson

(2011). Cautionary tales of LESLLA students in the high school classroom. In Vinogradov

Bigelow

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Low Educated Second Language and Literacy Acquisition (pp. 203–234). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

79.

Young

J. R.

Bullough

R. V.

Draper

R. J.

Smith

L. K.

Erikson

L. B.

(2005). Novice teacher growth and personal models of mentoring: Choosing compassion over inquiry. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13, 169–188.