Abstract
In this issue of the Journal of Transformative Education (TE), we are fortunate to have articles that pair around several themes: 1) core processes of transformative learning, 2) sustainability, 3) contemplative pedagogy, and 4) outside-the-classroom learning experiences in higher education. These themes are relatively common in the TE literature, and seeing articles side-by-side addressing these themes allows insight into common ways that they are treated in the literature, as well as differences in how these particular scholars approach them. In the following, I introduce these themes and their corresponding articles, and then I briefly situate them in the larger body of TE literature.
We begin with two articles that interrogate learning processes that are ubiquitous in the transformative learning literature: reflection and discourse. First is: “Teaching and Learning Democracy as a Way of Life: Making Critical Self-Reflection a Pedagogic Strategy” by Markus Holdo. This essay on reflection addresses Mezirow’s theory of perspective transformation in its intention as a driver of larger social change. Drawing on Dewey, Mezirow argued that our social structures and discourses shape how people experience and conceptualize the world, and how they understand their role in it to be—and individual and collective reflection was considered essential for people to examine those structures and discourses and thereby participate democratically in the constant improvement of the world. Holdo turns reflection onto itself, arguing that the way we reflect is not universally given, but rather is itself shaped by social, political, economic, and cultural conditions, each of which also needs to be reflected upon. This relational understanding of transformation makes explicit that the processes we use in the transformation process inevitably shape and lead to its outcomes, and those processes can never be objective nor static; we need to reflect on how we reflect.
In “Tentacular Classrooms: Feminist Pedagogy for Thinking and Sensing,” Jennifer Elise Branlat, Juan Velasquez, and Ingvil Hellstrant address the second key process, discourse, through the concept of “tentacular” dialogue practices. This metaphor, gleaned from feminist scholarship, refers to tentacles as “fleshy, sensory tools for understanding one’s environment,” and likens it to classroom practices that allow for and even promote messy discussions, where the focus is on engaging with a multitude of perspectives, a thinking-with between instructor and students that allows for unlearning and for co-production of new knowledge. Using two illustrative examples from their own classroom experiences, the authors demonstrate nicely what it means to invite and engage with multiplicity, even with the discomfort and silences brought about by disagreement. The path to unlearning deeply engrained social norms and to developing more complex understandings requires a willingness to allow the tentacles of disparate ideas and experiences to slither their way into otherwise inaccessible spaces.
I am struck by the way that these articles call into question some of our taken-for-granted assumptions about good practice. As Holdo points out, reflection is often taken as a given, as an objective pedagogy that allows insight into one’s thinking. And, adult education scholars have argued that reflection can take many forms, with significant results (e.g., Kuk & Holst, 2018; Michelson, 1996), Holdo weaves this insight into Mezirow’s theory, although the article stops short of fully explicating how a learner’s or educator’s social, political, economic, and cultural conditions might specifically shape the reflection process. This is an interesting area for further theory development. And, the pedagogy advocated for in Branlat et al.’s article is, to my mind, particularly brave. Whereas other voices in our field argue that educators of adults should silence mainstream voices so that the marginalized or new voices can be better heard (Baptiste, 2008; Brookfield & Holst, 2011), these authors seem to be saying the opposite, that the educational experience should be open to disparate voices, even those that are uncomfortable in their mainstream-ness or conservative-ness. If we believe our arguments are more sound, then we should let them stand against counter-arguments. Even so, because of the educator’s position of power, mainstream/conservative views will not really get a fair hearing; it is certainly not an ideal speech situation in a Habermasian sense. Nevertheless, only in so doing, Branlat et al. argue, can we help students engage with “troublesome unlearning.” I would add that we teach as much through our ways of teaching as we do with the selected content, and the forbidding of perspectives, as long as they are within the horizon of humanity (Hoggan-Kloubert & Hoggan, 2022), does not develop critical or dialogical capacities in our students, but rather teaches them that our chosen perspectives require ideological conformity, that indoctrination is necessary for their success (Baptiste, 2008; Brookfield & Holst, 2011). The courage and trust in process of a tentacular classroom is refreshing.
Our second theme addresses transformative education for sustainability. In “Beyond Western and Indigenous Perspectives on Sustainability: Politicizing Sustainability with the Zapatista Rebellious Education,” Lea Maison explores radically new forms of self-governance, education, and a “strong sustainability paradigm,” using the Zapatista movement as an example. Maison explains that, arising in response to the 1994 signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Zapatista movement explicitly connects the economic and political, seeking to implement a radically anti-capitalistic social system, arguing that capitalism is inherently anti-democratic. They strive to both preserve Indigenous heritages, while also being self-critical of those traditions and evolving in response to the current needs of their communities. Humans’ connection with nature permeates the worldview and therefore also the educational practices. Maison argues that the movement “actualizes ancient cosmovision through critical political thought, placing autonomy, self-determination and reflexivity at the centre.” Rather than simply critiquing modern capitalism and its ruinous effects on the environment, Maison showcases an example of what an alternative social system, with all its inevitable flaws, might look like.
Also addressing sustainability is “We Learned the Language of the Tree: Ecovillages as Spaces of Place-based Transformed Learning” by Siri Pisters, Hilkka Vihinen, Elisabete Figueiredo, and Arjen Wals. Connecting transformative learning with transgressive learning, they advocate for an ecological consciousness characterized by interdependence and a relational understanding of the world. And, arguing for local solutions to complex problems, they present eco-villages as an example of place-based sustainability initiatives. Using interviews and photovoice research methods, the authors analyze examples from Finland and Portugal using a “place-based approach” to transformative learning (PBTL) framework. This framework has four dimensions (connection to place, compassionate connection, creativity, and transgression). Intersecting these dimensions are two axes (community, disruption) that are characterized by episodes of disruption while also providing stability within one’s immediate environment and social structure. Their analysis explores how the structure of a community can lead to transgressive creative practices that “facilitate political-economic re-positioning towards dominant markets and technology.”
These two articles represent a growing trend in the literature of transformative education that addresses the question of what is required for ecological sustainability. O’Sullivan (1999) is arguably the originator of this planetary approach to transformative learning (Taylor, 2008), but many scholars have taken up this task (e.g., Lange, forthcoming). Questioning taken-for-granted norms, such as that democracy and capitalism are somehow necessary for each other, or that neoliberal capitalism has a monopolistic claim on the values of autonomy and self-determination, the articles in this issue illustrate forms of radical education that, rather than being dogmatic in their ideology, are radically democratic and polycentric.
The third theme in this issue is contemplative pedagogy. In “Revisiting the Nature of Transformative Learning Experiences in Contemplative Higher Education,” Olen Gunnlaugson, Renata Cueto de Souza, Steven Zhao, Allen Yee, Charles Scott, and Heesoon Bai describe how a contemplative educational experience for graduate students was designed and carried out at their university. The purpose of such a design is to promote a “journey of enacted wisdom” for students rather than higher education simply promoting knowledge acquisition. Important in this article is that contemplative elements are not taught as content but rather are infused throughout the entire pedagogical design. By studying, reflecting on, and inquiring into the curricular content, it is hoped their student experience (rather than learn about) the transformative power of intersubjective awareness. “We note here that teachers are the lessons.” The authors believe that the student experience provides the beginnings and possibilities for deep ontological changes, to a more relational self-understanding that in turn allows for greater possibilities for collective transformation.
Also on this theme is “Humanistic Mindfulness: A Bridge Between Traditional and Modern Mindfulness in Schools” by Yael Malin. In this essay, Malin describes how contemporary implementation of mindfulness in the West is disconnected from the Eastern ethical and introspective values that are at its root, and which are the source of potential personal and social transformation. Tracing the Buddhist roots of mindfulness, and how it moved from East to West, this article is an exploration into how mindfulness in Western education might become more true to its real purposes. Whereas mindfulness in education, exemplified by programs and activities outside the main curriculum, exists within an overall program of measurement and assessment, mindfulness as education would be integrated throughout the entire learning process. Malin proposes that a humanistic education, paired with main ideas of Buddhism, can be brought together to form a Humanistic Mindfulness. This integration of Eastern thought into Western teaching, she argues, holds the potential for transformation.
These articles demonstrate, similar to those described above, that effective teaching is brought about through the pedagogies employed much more than through the content chosen; our actions speak much louder than words. I see this message in Malin when she argues that to insert mindfulness practices into an educational structure that operates, by design, in contrast to the values of mindfulness is neither effective nor consistent. Gunnlaugson et al. are explicit about this, showing how they infused contemplative pedagogies throughout their entire program. They did not just talk about these practices or include them in a class or two. Rather, they chose processes that they felt were beneficial and that held long-term transformative possibilities (see Hoggan & Kloubert, 2020), and they enacted those processes. There were other processes that they could have chosen (e.g., critical reflection, critical thinking, dialogue across difference, perspective taking), and these would also be justifiable choices, but what I especially applaud is that they selected a signature process for their program and committed to it, such that the core learning processes would shape the student experience throughout the program.
The fourth theme in this issue are outside-the-classroom practices to promote important learning for higher education students. To begin, “Creating Transformative Interdisciplinary Learning Opportunities for College Students” by Kerry-Ann Dompierre reports on an interdisciplinary learning experience (IDE). Bringing together faculty and students from across a large public college, this IDE was designed to provide students with experiences promoting whole person learning. Choosing homelessness as an important community issue that students could learn about, the program engaged with multiple perspectives and encouraged students to make connections between their individual experiences and the larger socio-political context. In so doing, this program sought to engage students in action. Student learning outcomes from this experience were: authentic engagement, transcending perspectives, collective responsibility, and cultivating curiosity, which the authors argue can move students towards civic engagement on complex social issues.
Also addressing this theme is “Co-creating a Transformative Learning Environment Through the Student-Supervisor Relationship: Results of a Social Work Field Placement Duo-ethnography” by Kimberly Calderwood and Larissa Rizzo. This article highlights the important role of the student-supervisor relationship, arguing that it holds the potential for (transformative) learning (TL) far beyond the assigned tasks of the field placement program. Also, they challenge the notion that a disorienting dilemma is necessary for TL. Rather, their experience was that the development of a professional identity as a social worker was the main impetus for TL. Examining their own experiences as the student and supervisor, the authors offer a model for the attributes that contributed to the possibility for TL: being Trustworthy, Respectful, Engaging, Caring, and Humble (TRECH), arguing that the creation of learning experiences in a student-supervisor relationship should focus not so much on what to do but rather on how to be.
These two articles highlight action as integral to the transformation process, whether that is in working with the local community to address homelessness or the close working relationship between supervisor and student in a social work field placement. Most scholarship on transformative education takes as a given that action must somehow be involved in the process, but the extent to which action is the primary driver of transformative learning or the ways that action plays a role in the process is relatively untheorized. As a case in point, Mezirow’s 10 phases include planning action (step 6) and then actively trying on new social roles (step 8), but he never really explored these steps. Hodge (2014) addresses this role of action explicitly, using the lens of communities of practice and describing transformative learning as an “inter-practice” phenomenon; overall, however, this area could use further exploration. Articles such as these by Dompierre and by Calderwood and Rizzo provide important empirical and theoretical steps forward in this area.