Capturing Transformative Moments in a Participatory Values-Based Event

Abstract

The theory of transformative learning (TL) has been criticized secondhand for its lack of clarity in capturing and explaining in detail the processes undergone by learners who are going through TL experiences and their link to learning outcomes. Using a case study design, and carefully synthesized TL processes (TLPs) from Mezirow’s TL theory, we present—moment by moment—the TLPs linked to outcomes identified among a group of teachers who participated in a values-based workshop. Participants were followed through interviews for over 72 weeks to trace the stability of their TL outcome. TL processes identified were compared to Mezirow’s 10 processes. The article discusses ontological transformations gained and offers fresh perspective to identifying TLPs that can be linked to outcomes.

Keywords

transformative learning critical reflection change

The transformative learning theory (TLT; Mezirow, 1978) has witnessed significant recognition and contribution to higher education since its emergence in late 20th century (Kloubert, 2019). The theory that evolved from the seminal works of Jack Mezirow—on the learning experiences of adult re-entry women coming back to school after some hiatus—provides explanations to how adult learners learn by critically reflecting on and transforming their uncritically held assumptions and perspectives (Mezirow, 2000). Although other approaches to transformative learning (TL) like Dirkx’s (2006) extrarational approach to TLT has also emerged recently, Mezirow’s approach to TL has relatively remained significant and more widely used approach by scholars working on TLT (Taylor, 2008).

Despite significant improvements in the TLT, only a little light has been shed on learning processes experienced by learners going through transformation (Taylor, 2008; Taylor & Snyder, 2012), and much remains to be done on what adult educators ought to do in order to teach for change (Eschenbacher, 2018). This gap in clarity on specific TL processes (TLPs) has lent the theory to a certain stockiness that has often been criticized by scholars (Newman, 2012). Some scholars suggested that the stockiness may be due to the lack of research to better understand TLP (Hoggan & Cranton, 2015; Nogueiras et al., 2018). To this end, Hoggan (2019) suggested more research in varying lenses and approaches that could provide useful entry point in better understanding of TL outcomes (TLO) and processes. Also, Malkki (2020) noted that while it is important and necessary to ground scholarly work in existing research on TLT topics, it is as important to cross-fertilize, or “cross-question,” TL across different circles of research. These suggest that the theory that introduces explanations on how adult learners develop more discriminating meaning perspective by refining existing uncritically assimilated meaning perspectives needs in itself to be subjected to the transformation process.

Some studies have been advanced in efforts to study TLP. Nogueiras et al. (2018) gave rich insights into TLPs that learners going through emotional therapy experience in their counseling journey. While the study identified emotions reported in the single case studied, it did not provide for the specific processes that the learners encountered which contributed to the transformations reported. The study also suggested the need for a follow-up on learners after experiencing events capable of triggering transformational learning processes to check whether the learning outcomes initially reported are retained over a longer period. This call coincides with the position of Hoggan (2016) who suggested indicators of TLO to include depth, breadth, and stability.

In this article, we present a fresh perspective on TLP linked to TLO. The study investigates the TLPs experienced by a group of teachers who took part in a values-based event called the WeValue InSitu and their link to TLO. We transcribed records of the event processes and postevent interviews and analyzed them for TLPs as they happen for the participants. We also tracked the relative stability of the learning outcomes gained by the participants over time.

TLP

Learning process involves all forms of learning activities ranging from picking up of stimulus through perception and interpretation to actual behavioral activities or objectification (Mezirow, 1991) of the meaning interpreted for the stimulus picked. Early psychologists (Piaget, 1954) opined that learning process can happen in two different ways—assimilation or accommodation. In assimilation, the learner absorbs new experiences (stimulus) and adds same to pre-existing knowledge. This type of learning is synonymous to incremental or informative learning (Kegan, 2000). In accommodation, the learner absorbs new experience and carry out some complex analytical (cognitive, affective, and conative) processing which may or may not result in rearrangement/reconstruction of pre-existing meaning structures. This second type of learning points to TL. In TLT, learning is defined as the process of using prior interpretation to construe new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience that will act as a guide for immediate and future actions (Mezirow, 2000). This definition positions learning as an activity that involves altering an existing perspective used in making meaning. It could also be described as altering a way of making meaning and replacing them with new ones that will be called upon for further meaning-making (MM; praxis) or for actions.

Mezirow (2000) identified 10 TLPs developed from his foundational work of re-entry women in 1978—disorienting dilemma, self-examination, critical reflection on assumptions, recognition of dissatisfaction, exploration of alternatives, plan for action, acquisition of new knowledge, experimentation with roles, building confidence, and reintegration based on new perspective. However, scholars differ on which of the processes are actually involved in TLP and which of the specific processes most impact transformations (Taylor, 2008). Some researchers argued that not all the processes listed in Mezirow’s TLT are needed to achieve TLO. For example, Nerstrom (2014) identified four processes for TL to include having experiences, making assumptions, challenging perspectives, and experiencing TL. Early criticism of Mezirow’s processes (Boyd & Meyers, 1988; Newman, 2012) suggested that Mezirow’s processes were overly rational while others believed that the list was not substantial in capturing learning experiences undergone by learners experiencing TL (Dirkx, 2006; Nerstrom, 2014). The processes developed by Mezirow though useful in the development of TLT but have not sufficiently explained—moment by moment—the learning processes that learners go through in their experiences and events leading to TL.

Method

Development of TLP Tool

It is noteworthy to mention that our objective is not to develop yet another transformational learning process(es) but to develop a tool within the framework of TLT which can be objectively used to identify and describe the learning processes experienced by participants in the values-based event. Hence, we focused on synthesizing distinct learning processes as described in the literature and use the same to analyze data for TLPs.

To develop the TLP tool used in our analysis, we started by reviewing the literature on the concept of TLP. First, we decided on the broad literature of TL in which to search for theoretical descriptions of TLP. Then, we began the search by inputting the words “Transformative learning process*” in “topic” search option of “Web of Science” and “Scopus.” We used these two search engines because we believe that they contain valid research repository of articles and books written on TLP. We used asterisk symbol at the end of the last word “process” because we wanted the search engines to return all suffixes for TLP such as “TL process” or “TL processes.” Quotation mark was also used to ensure that search results are limited to documents that discussed TLP as a compound noun. We searched documents between 1970 and 2020 because we believe that conversations in the literature of TL and TLP as conceptualized by contemporary theorists on TL started from early 1970s (Mezirow, 1978). All document types in the core collection of Web of Science and Scopus were used in the search because we believe that there may be important descriptions on TLP written in various sources such as journal articles, review, book or book chapter, conference paper, conference proceedings, conference review, letter, editorial, note, short survey, business article or press, erratum, and date paper. Search in Web of Science and Scopus yielded an output of 61 and 82 documents, respectively.

To identify specific journals and documents to begin our review on conversations in TLP, using VOSviewer and BiBlex (Version 1.6.15) in a bibliographic analysis, we carried out citation analysis and bibliographic coupling analysis using the search output from both search engines to find out which document(s) has most citation and citation relations and networks on the concept of TLP illustrated in Figures 1 –4. This was done in order to identify and start the review with documents that have most citation and strongest citation network relationship (as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 5) with other articles on the concept of TLP such as Taylor (1994), Gebauer et al. (2012), Brown (2006), and Gray (2006).

Figure 1.

Journals that publish most articles on transformative learning process (1970–2020). Note. VOSviewer citation analysis using Scopus output (unit of analysis: journals).

Figure 2.

Most cited articles on transformative learning process (TLP; 1970–2020). Note. Figures 1 and 2 show the bibliographic citation analysis result from Scopus and Web of Science on journal that has published most articles on TLP and authors who have been cited most on TLP, respectively. The citation values for all items in both Figures 1 and 2 were divided by a common denominator (10) for better representation.

Figure 3.

Citation analysis output (unit of analysis = journals). Note. The size of a node denotes the number of transformative learning process articles in a journal. Colors denote relative year of publication for the articles.

Figure 4.

VOSviewer item density visualization of journals of transformative learning process (TLP). Note. Thickness of yellow color shows journals with higher concentration of articles on TLP.

Figure 5.

Bibliographic coupling networks (unit of analysis = articles). Note. Bibliographic coupling analysis visualization using Web of Science output for articles with at least one citation link to other articles. Thicker lines denote stronger network with other articles while the size of a node denotes the relative number of citations for each article.

Figure 6 shows a graphical representation of Transformative learning process developed by the authors. Meaning Schemes (MS) which do not undergo transformation are assimilated through incremental learning. Unsuccesfully appropriated or rejected MS are subjected to transformative learning process.

Figure 6.

Transformative learning processes (Dykes TLP).

Furthermore, using snowballing technique (Naderifar et al., 2017), we expanded our review to include documents that were cited in the identified articles as foundational texts upon which those articles had described their conceptualizations of TLP. Consequently, we focused our review on articles and books that adopted Mezirow’s theory on TLT. This was done in order to avoid ambiguity and parallel interpretations of the concept of TLP. Also, our review revealed that most articles written on TLP adopted Mezirow’s theory compared to other perspectives on TLP.

Then, we operationalized the meaning of TLP to include learning processes describing distinct significant learning experiences that learners experience in the learning process leading to transformational learning outcomes. Using latent content coding (Babbie, 2009), in a content analysis technique (Bruce, 2007), we coded all descriptions of TLP found in identified articles and books on TLP. Latent coding was used in order to improve the validity of codes to be included in nodes of TLPs observed from sampled articles (Babbie, 2009). After series of deep reading, we immediately repeated the coding process to ensure that no code denoting TLP according to Mezirow’s theory of TL was left out.

To check for stability of codes synthesized, we carried out a qualitative reliability test of temporal stability (Nworgu, 2015) by coding for TLP(s) 3 weeks after the first coding exercise using the same latent coding process with the documents identified. Similar outcome from the second coding process denoted that the coding process is relatively reliable. Finally, we summarized our synthesis from the latent coding into the revised TLP tool used in analyzing data. The list of TLP identified is given below:

MM Process

Imaging

Picking up of cues and imaginary image (IM) called stimulus (external or internal) by sense organs or in the mind.

Casting

This stage involves projecting the cues and imaginary IM(s) picked by the sense organ on the mind for loading.

Loading

Loading (Mezirow, 1991, p. 19) involves typification and projection of qualities and features or symbolic model (SM), IMs, and habits of expectations (HE) from existing frames of reference onto the imaginary IM casted on the mind for interpretation (Mezirow, 1991, p. 21; symbolic models consist of meaning structures from existing frames of reference picked from childhood through socialization). In other words, loading entails filtering the imaginary IM casted on the mind with meaning structures (SMs, imaginary IMs, HE) from one or more frames of reference. Usually in MM, SMs/meaning structures are loaded from various frames of references. This is what O’Sullivan (1999) referred to as bringing the whole self into the MM process.

Interpretation

Interpretation involves construing meaning based on the meaning structures that was casted on the mind. Interpretation could involve schematizing (making an association within a frame of reference) and appropriating meaning (accepting an interpretation of meaning loaded from the existing frame of reference as our own; Mezirow, 1991, p. 11). Construing meaning could be through scanning or through construal. Scanning involves differentiating, imagining, comparing, and intuiting. Construal involves presentational construal (mainly dealing with the perception of physical objects) and prepositional construal (cognition of abstract concepts). Here, we may not necessarily describe to ourselves what we construe (Heron, 1988).

Objectification

Meanings construed are objectified using language. This stage involves the use of signs, voice, gestures cues, or symbols to make explicit the meaning construed after interpretation.

TL Process: An Attempt to Resolve an Unsuccessful Interpretation or a Problematic Frame of Reference

Conflict/disorienting dilemma

If interpretation is hindered and/incomplete, comprehension will be hindered as a result of disparity or inability of existing meaning structures from the frames of reference providing interpretations for the learner to appropriate loaded SMs for meaningful interpretation (Mezirow, 2000). This is called problem posing (Mezirow, 1991). The SM is thus rejected and will be subjected to further analysis (reflection). Mezirow (1991, p. 26) noted that this is most potent when it involves a dilemma pertaining to our view of ourselves rather than a mere puzzle imposed from outside. Mezirow (2000) referred to this as a problematic frame and that resolving this problematic frame of reference results in a transformation in the learning process.

Critical/premise reflection

The SM is subjected to critical reflection. Reflection involves an imaginative act of association and juxtaposition of two or more frames of references assessing their validity for appropriation. Loder (1981) referred to this as “bisociation”—“two habitually incompatible frames of reference conversing, usually with surprising suddenness to compose a meaningful Unity.” Mezirow (1990) identified two kinds of reflection and three levels of reflection which could be employed in resolving conflict for transformative purposes on a frame of reference. The kinds are objective reframing/reflection (reflection involving other people) and subjective reframing/reflection (reflection within oneself). Levels involve content reflection, process reflection, and premise reflection. Content and process reflection do not give rise to TL (Mezirow, 1990). However, premise reflection allows the learner to critically reflect on the premises and assumptions of the meaning structures (SMs) provided by the frames of reference for interpretation. The result of this reflection can be a reconstruction/transformation of the meaning structure—(assumptions, beliefs, and expectations) that forms parts of the learners’ frame of reference from where interpretation is construed, making it more robust for further interpretation or revalidation of the existing meaning structure leading to the elaboration of the frame of reference.

Release and openness

This stage involves a release of the energy invested in the conflict and critical reflection accompanied by an openness of the knower to themselves as conscious of being conscious and to the contextual situation (Loder, 1981). Kegan (2000) described this as making the unconscious conscious or taking from the subjective self (things that have us in MM process) to the objective self (the things that we have in the MM process). At this stage, the learner becomes aware and conscious of the critical reflection that had been taking place at the tacit level and exerts conscious effort to rectify the problem.

Exploration of options

In event that there is more than one consideration in transforming a meaning perspective or meaning scheme, the learner will assess various options or different meaning schemes under critical reflection and make a judgment (for subjective reframing) or adopt a validated meaning scheme through consensus (for objective reframing). In some occasions, the two will happen whereby the former will precede the later.

Building confidence

This involves trying out the new meaning scheme or meaning perspective in the reinterpretation of the meaning structure casted on the mind. Successful reinterpretation leads to embedding and reintegration of the transformed meaning scheme while unsuccessful reinterpretation will lead to further analysis or repetition of the transformation process.

Reintegration

Successful attempts in reinterpretation and exerting the will to act using the transformed meaning scheme. In instrumental learning, this involves carrying out physical tasks using the new/transformed meaning perspective.

Analyzing for TLP in the Values-Based Event

The WeValue InSitu event was facilitated by trained WeValue expert who had overseen numerous such events for over 8years. The event, designed to help a group critically reflect on and clarify what is valuable to them, consists of contextualization stage in which participants introduce who they are as a group, photo elicitation stage in which participants choose pictures that resonate with them about their values and explain their meaning to the group, crystallization stage in which participants critically discuss from “trigger statement booklet” values they accept as group, and finally, they develop a framework using the value statements collectively accepted during crystallization (Burford et al., 2016). The event was carried out in Europe. Participants consisted of three teachers who have worked together for 3 years. The teachers develop and create related collections of educative works depicting unique meaning for target audience, predominantly university students.

Participants were given consent forms which they filled, signed, and voluntarily accepted to participate in the event which lasted for over 3 hr. The first response was immediate feedback from the participants which focused on how they feel about the event processes. Further interviews were conducted with the participants 1week, 5weeks, 36weeks, and 72weeks after the event. The interview responses were analyzed using Hoggan’s (2016) analytical tool to identify TLOs experienced by the participants. We assumed that participants already have some pre-existing knowledge (some pre-existing meaning structures) about topics discussed. This satisfies the principle of continuity emphasized by Dewey (1938) in Hoggan et al. (2017) that there is a connection and interaction between one’s past, present, and future experiences. This also informed the chronological presentation of the learning experiences identified within an infinite continuum of the group’s learning experiences about the topic(s) discussed. The learning processes represented capture only the TL experiences identified within the periods observed for the participants. After this, we analyzed the same transcripts for Mezirow’s (1991) TLPs over time and traced developments and discussions leading to the TLO identified. This was done to check whether the transformational learning processes identified using the synthesized learning processes will be similar to the TLP identified when analyzed using an established criterion of Mezirow’s TLP.

To analyze for TLP, first, established significant TLO in the WeValue event was identified by analyzing transcripts which were transcribed verbatim from the event and the postevent interviews. Then, we carried out deep reading to trace excerpts in the transcripts where discussions that led to the identified TLO had started. After these, we carefully analyzed the transcripts to trace the “TL pathway” (TLP_tw) to the origin of conversations that relate to the identified TLO. By TLP_tw, we mean all conversations leading from the point where the TLO was first identified for a participant backward up until the point where conversations leading to the TLO started. All excerpts of conversations up to the stage where the TL outcome was clearly identified in the values-based event were considered in the TLP_tw.

Then, using latent content analysis (Babbie, 2009), we opened coding using the TLPs developed from literature to carefully identify learning processes occurring across the transcript of TLP_tw. Themes were iteratively cross-checked for adjustment, and a repeat of analysis was done to ensure no further theme was left unidentified. Results of the analyses were shown in Boxes 1–16 in Figure 7. The TLPs identified were then used to carefully cross-check themes and identify where each process is being undertaken or not. The event was chronologically traced along the TL processes for flow and to check whether the processes identified were sequentially present in the transcript or not.

Figure 7.

The TL pathway (TLP_tw) in the Teachers’ WeValue InSitu. Note. Clips from chronological flow of the TLP_tw. Conversations in the teachers’ WeValue event.

Figure 8 shows the learning processes identified with respect to the time in which the learning processes were identified.

Figure 8.

Chronological presentation of the learning processes identified among participants.

Finally, we coded using Mezirow’s TLP to generate themes of learning processes happening through the TLP_tw identified. A direct qualitative comparison of the results from the learning processes against the themes from Mezirow’s processes was done with the aim of searching for commonalities between the established Mezirow’s TLPs and the TLPs identified in the present study using the developed TLP.

Validity

The validity of studies measuring TL has been called into question by researchers. According to Taylor (2000), one problem bedeviling progress in TLT has been the lack of validity and reliability in measuring TL. Validity is defined as the ability of a study to accurately measure what it purports to measure (Messick, 1995). Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) identified three distinct types of validity—content-related validity focusing on the correct representation of variables measured, criterion-related validity focusing on the close relationship of trait measured to a criterion, and construct-related validity focusing on the meaningful measure of some well-defined characteristic.

Content validity was ensured in the TLP tool development by using documents with high citation relations and networks from the results of the bibliographic citation and coupling analysis done using VOSviewer and BiBlex softwares. This ensured that the TLP concept reviewed for synthesis was the TLP concepts used by scholars who have written on the concept of TLP. Criterion-related validity was tested in the study by using Mezirow’s (1991) TLPs to analyze the same TLP_tw which was analyzed using the synthesized TLP tool. Similar findings indicate good congruence with Mezirow’s criterion TLPs.

Findings

Moment-by-Moment Analysis of Conversations in the TLP_tw of the Teachers’ WeValue InSitu

In this section, we present moment by moment, the analysis of the TLPs identified amongst the participants in the event. At the beginning of the event, the participants were asked to describe who they are as a group and what they do. The participants first described themselves as an academic group that promotes academic and commercial interests through art. This represents their initial meaning perspective on how they describe and view themselves in relation to what they do—“constellation” (Stein, 1998, p. 43).

After the contextualization stage, the facilitator afterwards introduced the photo elicitation stage where the participants choose photos from a large display of photos and explain to other participants the photo descriptions in relation to their values. This was followed by the crystallization session where the participants guided by a trained facilitator reflectively discuss on their shared values in relation with what is important to them as a group.

Description of conversations that took place in the clip labelled Box 1i–1vi: MM

Participant A had picked ( imaging ) the question thrown to the group by the facilitator. The question (sound/stimulus) sends imaginary IMs ( casting ) of the task “who you three are together”…“What you do with each other” in his mind prompting an articulation of meaning structures that will provide interpretation to the IM casted on the mind.

Then, meaning schemes from his existing frames of references related to the imaginary IM casted on the mind were quickly called into action ( typification) to be projected on the imaginary IM casted on the mind through a process called loading.

The loaded imaginary IM in the mind then went through interpretation after which (if successful) the participant vocalized the interpretation—as response—for the meaning of the task—“what they do together as a group” ( objectification ) as “We’re sort of a strategic group to promote what we’re doing, sort of to an academic and commercial environment.”

Hence, this response is an established meaning perspective through which the participants view themselves and had described themselves in terms of who they are and what they do as a group. Participant A here described the group as a group of teachers that produces contents for academic and commercial purposes. In this description, the participants had never perceived their artwork as a contribution to improving humanity but had seen their work as an academic and commercial work. This is referred to by Mezirow as an established frame of reference. In this context, the frame from which the participants see themselves as a group.

Learning processes observed: Imaging, casting, loading, interpretation, and objectification, collectively referred to as MM

After initial rounds of objectification by participants on their individual roles in the group, the participants started appropriating some aspects of meaning perspectives offered by other participants while rejecting some. As discussions continued, participants appropriate some aspects of the meaning perspectives objectified by other participants with regards to the meaning of who they are together while rejecting some aspects of the meaning perspectives which sets in conflict/disorienting dilemma.

Description of conversations that took place in the clip labelled Box 2–4.

Probing from facilitator and end of photo elicitation stage (early stages of transformation process)

C agreed with B to some extend adding her extended interpretation to the meanings of the statement inferred to her. Also, was A who went on to give different ways that they conceive the statement.

As participants discover that some of their objectified meaning perspectives were not discriminating enough to offer good interpretation acceptable to all participants with respect to what they do as a group, this led to conflict in their interpretations of who they are as a group and subsequently to critical discourse. At this stage, it was clear to the participants that some of the interpretations that they had given for the meaning of their work are problematic and unacceptable to others. Discourse to resolve this problematic frame would later prove to be the transformation in learning experienced by the group.

The group went into critical discourse drawing from their individual meaning perspectives about what they do. As they share experiences, participants became more aware of some of their tacitly held meaning schemes about what they do. Kegan (2000) referred to this process as “making the unconscious to become conscious” or taking from “what have us” to “what we have”—from “subject” to “object” (p. 53).

Some meaning perspectives offered by some of the participants resulted in bringing to their consciousness the problematic frame that the participants had taken for granted which led to the reflective discourse in an attempt to resolve this problematic frame. Some meaning schemes were jettisoned while some were objectified and validated through discourse (Mezirow, 2000).

Description of conversations that took place in the clip labelled Box 5–6.

Disorienting dilemma followed by critical assessment on assumptions for participants

As A and C had rejected full appropriation of meaning schemes given by B, which resulted into conflict or a problematic frame/scheme (subtle disorienting dilemma) for the participants, discourse ensued in an attempt to resolve the problematic frame of reference .

As discussions went on, we observed attempt by participants in appropriating some meaning schemes which were objectified by others. However, the transformation of these meaning schemes failed to be integrated into their habit of mind which sets the participants to further critical assessment of their assumptions and discussion.

Description of conversations that took place in the clip labelled Box 7–12.

Discuss, exploration of options, and testing meaning schemes to build confidence

Participant B is appropriating some of the new meaning schemes offered by other participant but also reject some of the meaning schemes discussed which left the problematic frame unresolved.

This occurred as a result of their inability to successfully reinterpret meaning using existing meaning perspective that was initially undergoing some kind of transformation through discourse.

The problematic frame led the participants to further reflection and critical discuss. The participants were visibly questioning their assumptions in what they believed that they were doing.

The group continued to objectively reframe their assumptions seeking a common ground. After several attempts for consensus had failed, the participants decided to keep the discussion aside and discuss other issues. We refer to this as packing of the TLP_tw. The participants later came back to the conversation and would quickly reach a consensus leading to successful appropriation and testing of the transformed meaning scheme.

Description of conversations that took place in the clip labelled Box 13–15.

Return from packing, testing of meaning schemes, and building confidence

The participants’ return to continue discourse on the meaning scheme. C asks a question testing the meaning scheme that they had been discussing on for reinterpretation. A offers interpretation in clarification to the question asked by C. We observed testing and building confidence on the new meaning scheme undergoing transformation. Also, we observed attempts for interpretations using the new meaning scheme showing a shift in the group’s self-identity is occurring for the participants. They fine-tune the meaning scheme for more inclusive and discriminating interpretations of their meaning perspective on their identity as a team.

After, cycles of critical assessment and reinterpretation for confidence and reintegration, the participants reached a consensus. The final statement agreed by the participants shows a significant change in their frame of reference for who they are as a group shown at the beginning of the TLP_tw. This suggests a transformed meaning perspective about “who they are as a group.” The evidence of the transformed frame was observed from 6-week interview response from participant B shown in Box 16 in Figure 7.

Box 16. Postevent interview: Confirmation and reintegration of new meaning perspective in describing who they are.

Evidence of application of the transformed meaning perspective from the event during interview. The initial meaning perspective seen at the beginning of the conversation had been replaced with a new meaning perspective.

The first postworkshop interview carried out 1 week after the workshop show that the change observed during the immediate feedback response had become more embedded and widened. In the postinterview response, we observed praxis, the use of already reintegrated new meaning perspective to make new meanings of who they are as a group.

Participant B:

…we came up with this phrase, which I think we all sort of agreed with…this idea of wanting to contribute towards achieving…I mean I’m going to read [we’re a group that want] ‘to contribute towards achieving a holistic approach to a fair and balanced society,’ and that is correct and we, we all believe that—that there was this deep purpose to A’s art and why each of us was engaged in supporting this work….

Qualitative Comparism of the Synthesized TLP With Mezirow TLP

In this section, we compared themes from the synthesized TLP to Mezirow’s (2000) TLP identified in the study. Qualitative comparison shows that not all 10 but most of the TLPs given by Mezirow (2000) were identified in the study. This is in agreement with Mezirow’s (2000) position that his TL processes are neither linear nor must all of the processes be present in a TL experience.

Although most processes in Mezirow’s TLPs were similar to our synthesized TLPs, however, unlike Mezirow’s processes, the synthesized TLPs started with a five-step MM process (imaging, casting, loading, interpretation, and objectification) that resulted in construal of meaning objectified (vocalized) as the participants meaning perspective of who they are as a group. This vocalized meaning scheme of who they are was later transformed as shown in Figure 7.

In Mezirow’s TLPs on the other hand, this process could be seen as part of self-examination. Although the Mezirow’s processes start with disorienting dilemma, we observed that our process rather started by establishing the problematic frame of the participants on who they are as a group. This proved useful on why we could see a clear link and path between the initial meaning perspective, the TLPs, and the TLO identified. Also, unlike Mezirow’s processes, the synthesized TLPs clearly show how participants met a problematic frame which was later resolved using discourse. Table 1 shows learning processes given by Mezirow which were also identified in our Transformative Learning Processes.

Table 1.

Comparison of Identified TLP With the Mezirow’s TLP.

Mezirow’s Processes	Synthesized Processes
Self-examination	Imaging, casting, loading, interpretation, and objectification (MM processes)
Disorienting dilemma	Conflict
Critical assessment on assumption	Critical assessment on assumptions and discourse
Exploration of options	Exploration of options
Recognition that discontent is shared	Openness and release
Building confidence	Building confidence
Reintegration^a	Reintegration

Note. TLP = transformative learning process.

The italicized texts are the learning processes identified by the authors which slightly differ from the learning processes given by the theorists: Mezirow.

^a Taken from 6-week postevent interview.

Discussion

The major findings from the study are summarized under the following headings: Link Between a Problematic Frame and TLO, Fresh Perspective to the TLP approach, Periodic Measure for TLO Stability, and Promoting Transformation.

Link Between a Problematic Frame and TLO

The study presents how an identified TLO can be empirically linked to the learning processes that culminated to the TLO in which the TLPs were clearly identified. This finding is useful in response to the problem of establishing a link between disorienting dilemma and learning outcomes in order to substantiate the learning processes found in-between (Eschenbacher, 2018). We observe that identifying the initial frame was important as it enabled us to be able to find a direct link and pathway of discourse between the problematic frame and transformed perspective. Probing and challenging questions suggested by both the facilitator and other participants helped to reflectively engage the tacit dispositions and assumptions of the participants as they attempted to provide responses. The participants shared relatively from their assumptions on who they had believed that they were before the event and quickly realized that their individual assumptions about who they are had not been a common assumption among them. The reflective discussion that ensued was carefully facilitated by the experienced facilitator who maintained very minimal intervention. The participants failed on many occasions to reach a consensus before deciding to “pack” discussion on that topic. On returning to the topic after discussing other topics, the participants finally found a common ground and agree on a common interpretation of who they are as a group leading to ontological transformation in their meaning perspective about who they are.

Fresh Perspective to the TLP Approach

The study provided fresh perspective in the study of TLPs. The processes synthesized and used in analyzing for the TLPs observed in the study enabled the researchers to be able to identify baseline with respect to what exactly is being transformed in a TLP. Previous studies had premised the start of TLP on triggering/disorienting dilemma. While we recognize this, we suggest that it is necessary to identify the problematic frame that usually leads to disorienting dilemma.

In the dialogue between Mezirow and Dirkx facilitated by Cranton (Dirkx et at., 2006), both scholars agreed that transformation process is about transforming a “frame of reference”—a description for uncritically held assumptions usually picked from agents of socialization like culture, primary caregivers, authority figures, and/or norms (Mezirow, 1991). These assumptions that had been uncritically assimilated usually delimit our scope of interpretations for our various life experiences as they provide us with interpretations used to construe meanings for experiences that we encounter. When we encounter experiences in which these uncritically assimilated assumptions could not provide adequate interpretations for construing meaning for them, the frame of reference becomes problematic and conflict/disorienting dilemma sets in. Efforts to resolve this dilemma can result in transforming the assumptions that had failed to provide interpretation for that experience. The scholars, however, diverged on specific processes playing a significant role in transformation. While Mezirow had advocated for significant rational influence in the transformation process, Dirkx suggested extrarational influence pointing to the influence of the “inner world,” emotions, and the “soul” in the TLP. Our argument in this context is that before an ensuing transformation process starts, there is an already existing frame of reference which when exposed to transformative experience sets into motion the transformative process. If this initial frame of reference is not/cannot be identified, it will be very difficult to pinpoint what actually gets transformed—the entire self or some part of the entire self. Our contribution provides some clarity on this by presenting how an identified problematic frame can undergo transformation leading to an identified TLO.

Periodic Measure for TLO

Significant in our findings also was the impact of periodic measures to check the stability of the learning outcomes gained by participants over a relatively long period of time. After the WeValue InSitu, the first response taken as immediate feedback shows relatively weaker signs of TLO gained. However, there were clear indications that the workshop had triggered reflections that the participants carried on after the event. We discovered also that the spectrum of change and impact described by the participants emanating from the workshop widened over time, and the new sense of identity accepted by the participants continued to broaden with subsequent interview responses. For instance, in the fourth interview, responding to the question on how they feel with regards to the experiences that they had during the event, Participant A reported:

Yeah, I think we came out of the meeting elated. I mean, we were all inspired, and we felt like a team…and it [the event] helped us critique our ideas on who we are and what we do as a team. I remember vividly that our direction and focus has completely changed since then.

This indicates that the participants had gone on using their changed frame of reference on who they are from praxis as they had initially stated in the earlier interviews to concrete actions with the transformed perspective.

Eschenbacher (2018) pointed out that one of the limitations of TL studies is focusing on transformative processes during a relatively short time frame, which precludes the follow-up of a change that typically takes a longer period to stabilize. In our study, we followed up participants through periodic interviews to check the progression or regression of the learning initially gained over 72 weeks. We note that the study illustrated both the TLOs and the changes experienced due to the greater level of detail provided through the long periodic interviews. This observation satisfies the position of Hoggan (2016) on the stability of TLOs.

Promoting Transformation

Providing clear and practical evidence of how a problematic frame is resolved had been a contested issue in TLT. This issue had invited many criticisms for the theory (Newman, 2012). Findings from the study provided clear evidence on how the learners’ problematic frame of reference was transformed. This also suggests how TL differs from other kinds of learning like good learning (Newman, 2014). Specific processes identified using the synthesized TLP tool provided clarity on how the learners moved along the learning continuum towards TLOs.

Although the scope of this study did not consider which aspects of the TLPs contributed most in the transformation leading to TLOs, it presents the learning processes that contributed towards achieving the TLO identified. Since the goal of adult education is to produce self-authoring learners which incidentally is one of the outcomes of TL (Mezirow, 1991), identifying and promoting the specific process(es) that can contribute most in a TLP will provide a useful way to promoting this goal of adult education.

Conclusion

Our study provided contribution to the problem of dearth of empirical research on TLP. Direct link of learning processes between identified problematic frame of reference and resulting TLO was clearly identified showing how the frame was transformed. Findings from the study show that identifying the problematic frame at the beginning of the TLP_tw proved helpful in tracing the link to the TLO identified. It also helped us to identify what exactly was transformed. The TLP tool used in the study which was synthesized from TL literature helped us to trace moment by moment the learning processes that the participants went through before arriving at the TLO. Repeated measurement using interviews at various intervals over a long period of time also proved very useful way of establishing the stability of TLO gained by learners. The analytical tool used for detailed moment-by-moment analysis of the TLPs encountered by learners could be used by other researchers to investigate which aspects of TLP contribute more and catalyze most in a TLP. We recommend further study to investigate multiple cases that could provide insights on commonalities to the themes of TLP. Also, further study on longer repeated measures could be useful in providing response to what happens to a TLO gained by learners over a longer period with respect to irreversibility of TLO and further transformations on a transformed frame of reference.

Limitations of the Study

Except accounts given by those interviewed as they had observed from the behavior of other participants over time, our data had relied on retrospective accounts from the participants.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Felix Okechukwu Dike

References

Babbie

(2009). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN-13:978-0-495-59842-8.

Boyd

R. D.

Mayers

J. G.

(1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7, 261–284.

Brown

K. M.

(2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly , 42, 700–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06290650

Bruce

L. B.

(2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

Burford

Hoover

Stapleton

Harder

(2016). An unexpected means of embedding ethics in organizations: Preliminary findings from values-based evaluations. Sustainability, 8(7), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070612

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764

Dirkx

J. M.

(2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A jungian perspective on emotion and transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.204

Dirkx

J. M.

Mezirow

Cranton

(2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context and process of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344606287503

Eschenbacher

(2018). Drawing lines and crossing borders: Transformation theory and Richard Rorty’s philosophy. Journal of Transformative Education, 17(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618805960

10.

Gebauer

Worch

Truffer

(2012). Absorptive capacity, learning processes and combinative capabilities as determinants of strategic innovation. European Management Journal, 30, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.10.004

11.

Gray

D. E.

(2006). Executive coaching: Towards a dynamic alliance of psychotherapy and transformative learning processes. Management Learning, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606070221

12.

Heron

(1988). Validity in cooperative inquiry. In Reason

(Ed.), Human inquiry in action: Developments in new paradigm research (pp. 40–59). Sage.

13.

Hoggan

(2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66, 57–75.

14.

Hoggan

(2019). Foxes and hedgehogs: The value of transformation (and any other) theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 17(4), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344619870334

15.

Hoggan

Cranton

(2015). Promoting transformative learning through reading fiction. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614561864

16.

Hoggan

Malkki

Finnegan

(2017). Developing the theory of perspective transformation: Continuity, intersubjectivity, and emancipatory praxis. Adult Education Quarterly, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713616674076

17.

Kegan

(2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In Mezirow

(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35–70). Jossey-Bass.

18.

Kloubert

(2019). Promoting perspective transformation in post-totalitarian societies. Journal of Transformative Education, 18(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344619876274

19.

Loder

(1981). The transforming moment: Understanding convictional experience. Harper & Row.

20.

Malkki

(2020). Spaces of care and multiple voices. Journal of Transformative Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344619890702

21.

Messick

(1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychology, 50, 741–749.

22.

Mezirow

(1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171367802800202

23.

Mezirow

(1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass.

24.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

25.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspective on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). Jossey-Bass.

26.

Naderifar

Goli

Ghaljael

(2017). Snawball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670

27.

Nerstrom

(2014). An emerging model for transformative learning. Adult Education Research Conference. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3329&context=aerc

28.

Newman

(2012). Calling transformative learning into question: Some mutinous thoughts. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610392768

29.

Newman

(2014). Transformative learning: Mutious thoughts revisited. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(4), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614543173

30.

Nogueiras

Iborra

Kunnen

S. E.

(2018). Experiencing transformative learning in a counseling masters’ course: A process-oriented case study with a focus on the emotional experience. Journal of Transformative Education, 17(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618774022

31.

Nworgu

B. G.

(2015). Educational measurement & evaluation: Theory and practice. University Trust Publishers.

32.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Daniel

L. G.

Collins

K. M.

(2009). A meta-validation model for assessing the score-validity of student teaching evaluations. Quality & Quantity, 43, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9112-4

33.

O’Sullivan

(1999). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. Zed Books.

34.

Piaget

(1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.

35.

Stein

(1998). Situated learning in adult education. http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-3/adult-education.html

36.

Taylor

E. W.

(1994). Intercultural competence: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(3), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400303

37.

Taylor

E. W.

(2000). Research in transformative learning. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 285–328). Jossey-Bass.

38.

Taylor

E. W.

(2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 119, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301

39.

Taylor

E. W.

Snyder

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

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning theory: Research, theory and practice (pp. 37–55). Jossey-Bass.

Capturing Transformative Moments in a Participatory Values-Based Event

Abstract

Keywords

TLP

Method

Development of TLP Tool

MM Process

Imaging

Casting

Loading

Interpretation

Objectification

TL Process: An Attempt to Resolve an Unsuccessful Interpretation or a Problematic Frame of Reference

Conflict/disorienting dilemma

Critical/premise reflection

Release and openness

Exploration of options

Building confidence

Reintegration

Analyzing for TLP in the Values-Based Event

Validity

Findings

Moment-by-Moment Analysis of Conversations in the TLPtw of the Teachers’ WeValue InSitu

Qualitative Comparism of the Synthesized TLP With Mezirow TLP

Discussion

Link Between a Problematic Frame and TLO

Fresh Perspective to the TLP Approach

Periodic Measure for TLO

Promoting Transformation

Conclusion

Limitations of the Study

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References

Moment-by-Moment Analysis of Conversations in the TLP_tw of the Teachers’ WeValue InSitu