What do we mean by learning that is transformative?

When I facilitate a workshop or deliver a lesson in a peace education course I designed, I want to create as many opportunities as possible for my students to learn in a manner that transforms them. What I mean by this is that they have experiences that are life significant, that they can point to later in life as one of those experiences that impacted their life’s trajectory¹.

“… the general purpose of peace education … is to promote the development of an authentic planetary consciousness … This transformational imperative must … be at the centre of peace education.”

Betty reardon

“Transformative” as an adjective has been bandied about too much; so much so that it has lost some of its meaning. I believe it important for a peace education program or curriculum design intended to educate for peace to have clarity as to what it is we want our learners to form towards or transform into. We need to make explicit this part of our hidden curriculum to ensure not only strong design, but also authoritative delivery of the peace education program. I share below two end goals that have and continue to inform my praxis:

“The ultimate goal of peace education is the formation of responsible, committed, and caring citizens who have integrated the values into everyday life and acquired the skills to advocate for them.”

Betty reardon

Mezirow is the founding scholar of transformative learning theory:

“The transformed learner becomes more inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective and integrative of experience.”

Jack Mezirow

Once we have clarity as to the desired end, we need to consider what transformative learning processes and outcomes we want to encourage. The former will inform our pedagogical choices; and the latter (in a formal learning space setting) can inform the learning assignments that we ask our learners to engage with because they are observables that can be measured.

A comprehensive transformative learning framework that I have found most useful was developed by Stuckey, Taylor and Cranton. They propose three processes for transformative learning to occur: rational, beyond rational and social critique. Reviewing the literature, they have identified the following learning outcomes as transformative: deeper understanding of self, greater openness to different perspectives, a positive shift in worldview, and acting differently.

I am particularly interested in the 15 sub-processes that make up the four stated in the previous paragraph because they inform the learning activities that I invite my learners to engage with. For example, one of the rational sub-processes to initiate a transformative inquiry is by inviting learners in an experiential learning activity to confront a disorienting dilemma i.e. a situation that challenges their already formed assumptions about how the world functions. The various beyond rational sub-processes remind us of the importance of engaging imagination, emotion, intuition, memory and faith as ways of knowing. The social critique sub-processes flesh out the emancipatory type of learning that I mentioned a few reflections back; necessary for effective peace education.

When designing a peace education syllabus, the transformative outcomes serve as guideposts for my thinking. How do I want my learners to act after the program? What different perspectives do they need to be exposed to? How will they engage with unfamiliar and unacceptable views so as to expand their horizon? And what core self-beliefs does the group need to engage with to be able to engage with all the above in healthy and helpful ways?

Readers already familiar with transformative learning theory will know that it was developed in the field of adult education. Working primarily with youth (late teens to early thirties), it has been my experience that transformative learning theory is not limited to andragogy. I have found Selman’s work on the development of inter-personal understanding² from childhood to adolescence to be particularly relevant for thinking about the intersection of youth education, transformative learning and peace education. Selman proposes that by the age of twelve, we have already formed meaning-perspectives that underlie interactions between individuals and groups. Thus, formed meaning-perspectives of adolescents are ready for transformation if they are not already “inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective and integrative of experience”.

I encourage my readers to complete the transformative learning online survey (https://sites.psu.edu/transformativelearning/) overseen by Stuckey and Taylor. Completing it, and receiving our survey results, encourages better understanding of what we need to incorporate into our peace education programs so as to have transformative learning opportunities for our learners. It does not hurt of course to engage with the suggested readings below. Ha!³

Suggested readings:

Fleming, T., Kokkos, A. & Finnegan, F. (Eds.) (2019), European Perspectives on Transformation Theory.

La Rosée, A., Fuhr, T., & Taylor, E. W. (Eds.). (2017). Transformative Learning Meets Bildung: An International Exchange.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning (1st ed).

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.

Mezirow, J & Taylor, E.W. (Eds.) (2011). Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education.

Oppenheimer, L. (2011). Contributions of Developmental Psychology to Peace Education. In G. Salomon & E. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook on Peace Education.

O’Sullivan, E., Morrell, A., & O’Connor, M. A. (Eds.) (2002). Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: Essays on Theory and Praxis.

Reardon, B. A. (1988). Comprehensive Peace Education: Educating for Global Responsibility.

Stuckey, H. L., Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). Developing a Survey of Transformative Learning Outcomes and Processes Based on Theoretical Principles. Journal of Transformative Education, 11(4), 211–228.