How Transformative Learning Informs Transformative Inquiry

Under Review please do not cite 1

Nurturing Peacemakers, Healers, Restorers, Storytellers, and Lovers: How Transformative

Learning Informs Transformative Inquiry among Pre-service Teachers

Lisa J. Starr [email protected]

Doctoral candidate Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Phone: 250-210-2059

Michele T.D. Tanaka [email protected]

Assistant Professor Faculty of Education Phone: 250.853.3953

University of Victoria PO Box 3010 STN CSC Victoria BC V8W 3N4

Canada Fax: 250.472.4641

Word Count: 6573


Abstract

This paper highlights aspects from the field of transformative learning that inform our approach

to Transformative Inquiry (TI), a research approach designed to increase pre-service teachers’

capacity to negotiate the complexities of today’s diverse classrooms. Based in concepts of

relational accountability, ecological awareness, and soul work, TI creates space to examine the

vexing issues, ideas and complexities born out of direct experience in the classroom and related

to the classroom. TI is heavily influenced by transformative learning theory where learning is

synonymous with the capacity for change not only in what we know but also in how we know it.

Through TI, pre-service teachers are able to take ownership of their own development as a

teacher and how that development intersects with how they position themselves in the world.

Connections are made with the work of transformative learning theorists such as Cranton, Dirkx,

Mezirow, O’Sullivan and Taylor.


Nurturing Peacemakers, Healers, Restorers, Storytellers, and Lovers: How Transformative

Learning Informs Transformative Inquiry among Pre-service Teachers

The current educational system in Canada is broken. We begin through this simple yet

bold statement with the intention of positioning ourselves as purveyors of change and advocates

for transformative practice. As teacher educators, we open this can of worms within a system

that has long been obsessed with a technical-scientific-industrial worldview (O’Sullivan,

Morrell, & O`Connor, 2002). In this standards-based, accountability climate education is plagued

by the concept of efficiency, of being productive with minimum waste and effort (Stein, 2002).

This means that learners (which includes teachers) must be capable, competent, effective and

able to meet what the curriculum mandates; lesson plans must be detailed, unit plans equally so,

assessment must line up with learning outcomes. While none of these practices are harmful in

and of themselves, we ask, is this all teacher training has to offer?

In our experience as educators, we have found that this mechanistic philosophy

frequently informs teacher education and in large part goes unquestioned by pre-service teachers;

not out of a lack of concern or recognition, rather a lack of genuine opportunity to consider what

education is about and what matters. Teacher inquiry can be a useful means for pre-service and,

potentially in-service teachers, to address these nagging concerns as well as to develop and

evolve their own practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). More specifically we advocate

Transformative Inquiry (TI) as a process aimed at increasing pre-service teachers’ capacity to

negotiate the complexities of today’s diverse classrooms (Tanaka, in press; Tanaka, Abra, Tse &

Archer, in press). TI is characterized by a motivation to uncover and examine that which the

individual values most, that which resides in the personal domain - questions that haunt us and


gnaw at our gut (Tanaka, Nicholson & Farish, in press). TI creates space to examine the vexing

issues, ideas and complexities born out of direct experience in the classroom and related to the

classroom (Antunes, 2004) but that do not dwell in the neat boxes of understanding that schools

promote.

When teachers step out from behind the façade of consistency, certainty, and coherence

that has taken on almost sacred importance in modern pedagogies, even for a moment,

they may initiate productive forms of confusion that can bring into empathetic inquiry the

myth at the core of modern reason. This is a form of transformative inquiry capable of

reconstituting teaching as a craft for facilitating human encounters with a knowing

reality, an eloquent reality, a good reality. (Davison, 2008, p.53)

This paper highlights aspects from the field of transformative learning that inform our

approach to TI and to explain the importance of TI in the preparation of pre-service educators.

We wish to note that our intention is not to provide answers wrapped in shiny bows drawn from

critique and dichotomization. Rather, by employing a relational lens where we acknowledge that

being~doing~knowing involves interrelated connections, affiliations and overlaps (Stanger,

Tanaka, Starr, & Tse, in press; Thayer-Bacon, 2003; Wilson, 2008) we will contribute some

clarity to the murkiness of what it means to become a teacher and the important role of

transformation within that complexity.

Locating Ourselves

The basis for this paper is grounded in our work within the teacher education program at

the University of Victoria, in British Columbia, Canada. As instructors, we are engaged in a

research project examining the experience of pre-service teachers enrolled in a professional


studies course that is a requirement for the elementary and middle years bachelor of education

and post degree certification in the Faculty of Education. In the course, each student explores

issues about which they are personally and professionally passionate in order for one to emerge

as a relevant inquiry topic. They then investigate the topic reflexively (to understand how

personal beliefs, values and attitudes might interact) and relationally (within larger educational

and socio-cultural contexts).

Both the TI research project and the course employ a phenomenological narrative

methodology (Thomas & Polio, 2002) that examines the personal practical knowledge of

teachers (pre-service, instructors and expert mentors) through listening carefully to the richness

of their stories (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Funded by the Social Science and Humanities

Research Council of Canada, the project data include recorded mentor sessions, student course

work (including student generated images), and focus groups, with over 114 participants to date.

The transcribed texts of these lived experiences are analyzed using a dialogic team process where

the diverse group of researchers (including instructors of the course, past students and outsiders)

enter “humbly into the life world” (p.7) of each participant to gain understanding of the holistic

nature, as well as the specificity of each participant (Thomas & Pollio, 2002). This

phenomenological approach requires nuanced interpretations of the data through developing a

research approach that is sensitive to the subtle undertones of experience and language (van

Manen, 1990/1997). This research applies a reflexive technique where attention is turned onto

the researcher as an integral part of the social phenomenon being studied (Ahern, 1999).

Researcher assumptions are carefully described and acknowledged in order to make “visible and

audible the complicated interconnections between the topic of the writer’s gaze, and her ideas,

values and beliefs, as well as the feelings she attaches to each of these” (Chambers, 2004, p. 2).


Researcher knowledge is considered as a valuable source of data (Oberg, 1989), yet to provide

veracity this knowledge is recursively examined and contextualized for relational accountability

within the broader context of researchers, scholars, practitioners, artists, and thinkers who also

engage with the topic (Chambers, 2004; Wilson, 2008).

One of the purposes of the TI project is to expand the understanding of personalized

learning and the unique relationship cultivated between inquiry and the inquirer. In order to

address the complexities of classroom practice, pre-service teachers benefit from thinking like

researchers and developing an inquiry approach to their practice (Clark & Erickson, 2003;

Fitchman-Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009; Kalmbach Phillips & Carr, 2006). An inquiry

approach tasks teachers with being reflective practitioners: instructors who ponder their teaching

skills and practice and reflect on how these affect their students’ learning (Dewey, 1933; Schön,

1983). A TI approach builds on the necessity of being a reflective practitioner but goes further to

emphasize reflexivity. Being reflexive means that one does not simply look back and contemplate

but considers her contribution to the construction of meanings and the reinterpretation of her

actions in light of newly constructed meaning (Willig, 2001). Moreover, one is able to amend

misinterpretations in what he believes and how he acts; to be reflexive requires analysis of that

which founded those beliefs and actions (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000) and a degree of

action based on those findings. Brookfield (2003) suggests that individuals must be willing to

“identify assumptions they hold dear that are actually destroying their sense of well-being and

serving the interests of others, that is, hegemonic assumptions”(p.127). We agree; teachers need

to know what they believe in, and be able to think carefully about the interwoven eco-socio-

political issues they face in the classroom (Sassi & Thomas, 2008; Tanaka, 2006). Engaging in

TI creates opportunities to investigate and interrogate what it means to be a teacher today.


A Purpose of Education

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the

younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it

becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and

creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their

world. (Freire, 1970, p. 34)

Before proceeding we are compelled to provide our interpretation of the purpose of

education, or more accurately, a purpose of education. We locate ourselves in a postmodern

perspective advocated by Richardson (2003) where “a multitude of approaches to knowing and

telling exist side by side” (p.507). Further, this perspective allows for doubt and a degree of

skepticism that “any method or theory, discourse or genre, tradition or novelty” (p.507) can be

considered universal or authoritative. Our research approach is built upon honouring the

researcher and participant contributions to the creation of meaning and knowledge without

advancing one or the other as paramount. In posing the question, what is the purpose of

education, we are struck by the sheer enormity of it and its potential for generating debate.

Nonetheless, we believe that it is an essential starting point. While this paper focuses on the role

of transformative learning in the preparation of pre-service teachers as they engage in TI, we

acknowledge and advance that questioning the purpose of education underpins our thinking in

profound ways and resides in the heart of what we do. Throughout this paper you will find our

beliefs inextricably woven into the fabric of what we believe education strives towards, or

perhaps dreams of becoming and how the preparation of pre-service educators contributes to that

vision.


Education has closely identified with the structural model born out of industrialization

(O’Sullivan et.al., 2002; Slattery, 1995/2006). In this sense the purpose of education is equally

mechanistic where responsibility for effective training to “meet the demands of the field, shop,

conveyance, trade and home” (p.11) fell squarely on the shoulders of education and even went so

far as to describe schools as factories where the child was the raw material and the finished

product was the graduation of that student (Callahan, 1961). The factory metaphor is not

uncommon; education in general does not seem to have veered far from that original course.

Lisa, one of the authors, recalls a recent trip to her daughter’s school:

I stepped inside and was greeted by a contemporary open-concept, visually appealing school where light streamed in from the incredible number of windows, images of local wildlife motifs adorned the walls and floors, and each classroom had a spectacular view of the ocean. Visually, this school was a far cry from the long narrow, prison-like hallways that I remembered from my own school experience. In fact, being in the building as the light shone through the windows was almost inspiring. But sadly, appearances can be just that. When my daughter came home, unpacked her school bag to reveal worksheet after worksheet, I was disappointingly reminded that we have not escaped the factory floor. When she told me they are not allowed to talk during lunch, I wondered why conversations weren’t allowed. When she told me everything she knew about ice, which they were studying, but had yet to actually touch a simple piece of ice in the course of the unit, of course I couldn’t help but question what exactly education is for.

Lisa’s memory evokes concerns around how we teach children to learn through wondering,

dialogue and experiential learning. It reminds us that the purposes of both teacher education and

schools are intimately and inextricably linked.

We understand that there are many views of what the purpose of education is, some

closely aligned with the previous vignette, others less so. We also recognize that for the scope of

this paper, exploring the myriad of educational purposes far exceeds what we have the space and

energy to pursue. Be that as it may, we wish to make clear that for us, education is very much

about “caring for self, for intimate others, for strangers and global others, for the natural world


and its nonhuman creatures, for the human-made world, and for ideas” (Noddings, 1995, p. 675).

Such efforts towards this as a purpose of education promote a passion and engagement that does

not currently characterize typical education, as we know it. Environmental educator David Orr

(1994/2004) recommends that the very nature of the educational process should be carefully

examined in order to attend to what he calls “the problem of education rather than the problems

in education” (p. 5). He advocates that educators attempt to answer the simple, yet at the same

time highly complicated question, “What is education for?” (p. 7).

The plain fact is that the planet does not need more "successful" people. But it does

desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every

shape and form. It needs people who live well in their places. It needs people of moral

courage willing to join the fight to make the world habitable and humane. And these

needs have little to do with success as our culture has defined it. (p. 4)

Through TI, we are able to support Nodding and Orr’s broader purpose of education, to

live and care well for others, the planet, and ourselves. Further, our focus resonates with what

Cajete (1999) identifies as the three most important questions for modern educators: How do we

learn to take care of the planet? How do we learn to live together? And, how do we care for our

souls? Grounding ourselves in a purpose of education based on humanity and care, we proceed

with an explanation of how transformative learning theory illuminates TI.

The Importance of Transformation

The concept of TI is strongly tied to the underlying principles inherent to the field of

transformative learning. Use of the term transformation requires explanation and perhaps

justification in relation to pre-service teacher education. Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas,


Smith, Dutton, and Kleiner (2000) posit that learning is less about amassing facts and figures or

even constructing knowledge and more about transformation of spirit and mind. Based on

Senge’s idea, traditional notions of knowledge construction that are predominantly cognitive in

nature are expanded to include emotions, feelings, habits and thoughts (Li, 2002). Learning then

becomes synonymous with the capacity for change. “Deep learning takes place when new skills

and capabilities, new awareness and sensibilities, and new attitudes and beliefs reinforce each

other” (Li, 2002, p. 402). According to Clark (1993) a critical feature of transformational

learning is the deep change in how individuals see themselves and their world. Further, Kegan

(2000) suggests that through the process of engaging in transformative learning we don’t simply

add to what we already know, but we profoundly alter how we know. This capacity for internal

change is significant in our work with pre-service teachers as they grapple with who they are

becoming as teachers; we want to empower them with the capacity for and belief in change as

fundamental to their practice as teachers.

Kegan’s idea that transformation ultimately changes how we know, speaks to

transformation occurring on an intuitive level. In the preparation of pre-service teachers, there is

significant emphasis on cognitive knowing as seen in the requirements for detailed, logical unit

plans that yield equally meticulous, linear lesson plans. In our view, transformation as a learning

process is rarely analytical; instead it is very much an embodied, spiritual, social, soulful

journey. By using soul, Kessler (2001) draws attention to the inner life of schools, the depth of

human experience and “students’ longings for something more than an ordinary, material,

fragmented existence” (p. x). Though we acknowledge transformation can occur in many forms

in many ways, the soul as a site for deep learning is an important, often neglected place for pre-

service teachers (Tanaka, in press).


Our commitment to transformation runs deep in large part because of our experience as

mentors of TI (to date we have worked one-on-one with well over 400 student between us). We

have seen pre-service teachers engage in powerful learning that breaks down binaries,

deconstructs the archetypal teacher as transmitter and addresses the role of privilege; TI has

cracked open the tough exterior plaster that surrounds stale, antiquated notions of teaching to

reveal light, possibility and hope. Through transformation, the pre-service teachers we work with

are more engaged in their own learning as well as the lives of students; they care because they

are connected. In that we have born witness to the success of transformation in the development

of teachers, we feel compelled and somewhat obligated to ground these beliefs in order for these

experiences to be shared and built upon by scholars and learners other than ourselves.

How Transformative Learning Informs TI

Mezirow (1975) is widely credited with the original theory from which many scholars

have built upon to conceptualize the field of transformative learning. In his early work, Mezirow

(1975) described ten phases of personal transformation: experiencing a disorienting dilemma;

undergoing self-examination; conducting a critical assessment of internalized assumptions and

feeling a sense of alienation from traditional social expectations; relating discontent to the

similar experiences of others-recognizing that the problem is shared; exploring options for new

ways of acting; building competence and self-confidence in new roles; planning a course of

action; acquiring the knowledge and skills for implementing a new course of action; trying out

new roles and assessing them; and reintegrating into society with the new perspective. In his later

work, Mezirow (1994) added a step between eight and nine “renegotiating relationships and

negotiating new relationships” (p. 224). In 2000, Mezirow expanded the process to include

attending to frames of reference, the inclinations and deep rooted sense of rules that we use to


interpret experience (Cranton, 2006). Mezirow developed his own work further by recognize the

disorienting dilemma as being less the result of a single event to more of a cumulative effect.

Educators hoping to go beyond the linear nature of his conceptualizing and its emphasis

on cognitive processes have expanded Mezirow’s seminal efforts. Tisdell (2001) writes about a

university course session where her students revealed personal stories that lead to significant

shifts in their understanding of, in this case, race relations, concluding:

I do not think it is possible to have a transformational experience by merely “critically

reflecting” on experience. Further, an overreliance on rationality can prevent a

transformational learning experience from happening. I do not think that participants in

the critical incidence would have had a transformational experience only by critically

reflecting or rationally thinking about our experience. The affective component – the

sharing of our vulnerability – along with the critical analysis was what made the

experience transformational. I would argue, contrary to Mezirow, that affective

involvement and expression is also a necessary condition for transformational learning to

happen.” (p. 160)

In particular we gravitate towards the work of Cranton (2006; 2009), Dirkx (1997; 1998;

2001), O’Sullivan (2002) and Taylor (2008) as being fundamental to TI. Cranton (2006) offers a

definition from which we begin. Transformative learning is “a deep shift in beliefs and

assumptions about self, others, and the world around us that occurs through critical reflection,

relational learning, and intuition” (p. 95). Cranton`s work is built upon what she refers to as five

perspectives of transformative learning, cognitive, extrarational, relational, social change and

ecological. These five aspects provide a comprehensive view of transformative learning theory


that we use to structure our discussion here. In the end, we focus primarily on the latter three

perspectives (relational, social change, and ecological) as being most useful to our approach with

TI.

Cognitive and extrarational viewpoints

In the cognitive perspective, Cranton suggests that individuals develop meaning from

direct and indirect experience and validate it through dialogue where beliefs, assumptions and

values are interrogated. Individuals utilize a structured approach by initially formulating a

question, through which exploration of the questions motivates individuals to revise

perspectives. Such an approach requires a rational form of critical reflection where questioning

content, process, and premises of beliefs and assumptions are featured. While we often

encourage the formation of a question to begin the TI journey, meaningful questions come from

a deeper place that is neither exclusively rational nor solely cognitive.

Dirkx (1998) while agreeing that the concentration on rational thought and reflection are

central to a process of transformative learning also criticizes such an approach as potentially

limiting because it does not acknowledge or incorporate the emotional, spiritual or imaginative.

As a result of ignoring these, engaging in transformation becomes a fractured process incapable

of generating understanding of the whole. The extrarational perspective features an expanding

consciousness and the recognition of personal, emotional, spiritual, and imaginative ways of

knowing (Cranton, 2009). Through such a perspective, transformation becomes more focused on

a holistic process where “we become aware of and consider the psychic structures of anima,

animus, ego, shadow, and the collective unconscious“(p.97).


Reflection, dialogue and structure are embedded within the cognitive and extrarational

and while we agree that these are present as one engages in TI, the cognitive and extrarational

perspectives lack attention to transformative learning as a relational process where emotional,

spiritual and embodied ways of knowing are not merely acknowledged but embraced, explored

and acted upon as we live and care well in relationship and collaboration with others, the planet,

and ourselves. Though we consider the cognitive and extrarational perspectives useful in

explaining the evolution of TI, neither fully addresses the social nature of transformative learning

or the importance of spirituality or soul. In our experience as facilitators of TI, we have been

witness to powerful transformation that resides well outside of what we consider a traditionally

rational or reflective process. As such we turn to those perspectives that indomitably influence

TI.

Relational transformative learning and TI.

Collaborative learning is the focus of the relational perspective. According to Cranton

(2009), the relational perspective requires that knowledge is created through “story-telling,

sharing experiences, careful listening to each other’s points of view, and a drawing out of each

person’s thoughts and feelings” (p. 97). Similarly, Dirkx (1997) suggests that Mythos reflects a

facet of knowing that we can see in symbols, images, stories, and myths. Embedded in this

collaborative approach is the necessity of “non-judgmental acceptance” (Cranton, 2009, p.102).

Belenky and Stanton (2000) highlight the role of gender in relational knowing where women are

characterized as relational knowers who learn by “caring, connecting and nurturing”. The authors

categorize women as a hybrid of silenced, received, subjective, separate, connected and

constructivist knowers. Belenky and Stanton also suggest that in earlier conceptions of

transformative learning theory, separate knowing, understanding generated analytically by


building more defensible knowledge through logic, rationality and reasoning, was central to

transformative learning. Alternatively, when we consider connected knowing, judgement is

suspended, and “empathy, imagination and story-telling as tools for entering into another’s frame

of mind” (p. 87). Such a view is more holistic in nature than its analytic predecessors. Through a

less gendered lens, O’Sullivan (2002) has also established a relational foundation for

transformative learning.

Transformative learning involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in basic premises

of thought, feelings and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and

permanently alters our way of being in the world. This shift includes our understanding

of ourselves and our self-locations and our relationships with other humans and with the

natural world. It also involves our understanding of relations of power in interlocking

structures of class, race and gender, our body awareness, our visions of alternative

approaches to living, and our sense of possibilities for social justice, peace and personal

joy. (Transformative Learning Centre, 2004)

Though the process of TI is personal it is not individual because we are all part of a

greater whole from which we cannot be extricated (Aluli-Meyer, 2008; O’Sullivan, 2003;

Thayer-Bacon, 2003; Wilson, 2008). Taylor (2008) draws on the work of Tisdell (2003) to

describe this perspective as a cultural-spiritual view where connections and intersections are key

to forming knowledge and meaning in the process of the transformative learning. Featured is

narrative storytelling, cross cultural relationships and spiritual awareness. Of note is the role of

the mentor as collaborator with “a relational emphasis on group inquiry and narrative reasoning,

which assist the learner in sharing stories of experience and revising new stories in the process”

(p. 9).


Within the context of the TI course, we consciously develop relationships between

mentor and mentee that disrupt the “power over” situation typical in many university classrooms.

The instructor becomes a facilitator who draws on intuitive wisdom to assist and shape but does

not mandate or prescribe as the pre-service teacher decides how to move forward with her or his

particular inquiry. Mentors suggest movement towards relational accountability (Wilson, 2008)

where we are reciprocal, respectful and responsible to each other, all living beings and ourselves.

As we model relational accountability in the mentor sessions, the students also practice this

aspect of TI with each other in thinking partner relationships with peers through various semi-

structured activities.

Social change transformative learning and TI.

The social change perspective sees transformative learning as being closely connected to

social justice and emancipation (Cranton, 2006). Liberation from oppression has Freirian roots in

its emphasis of the term conscientisation, or an awakening of consciousness based on a cycle or

cycles of reflection and action (Freire, 1970). More specifically, conscientisation occurs when

individuals “achieve a deepening awareness both of the socio-cultural reality which shapes their

lives and of their capacity to transform that reality” (Freire, 1970 as cited in Lloyd, 1972, p. 5).

Through the process of conscientisation, transformation includes not only change in an

individual’s way of seeing the world, but also structural change in the social world that provides

the context for the individual’s life. As a result, empowered learners act to transform their world

(Baumgartner, 2001). In a review of the work of bel hooks and Angela Davis, Brookfield (2003)

summarizes that the purpose of transformative education is to “help people uncover and

challenge dominant ideology and then learn how to organize social relations according to


noncapitalist logic" (p. 224). Scott (2003) helps clarify this when she says "transformation

includes structural changes in the psyches of persons and in the structures of society" (p. 281).

Embedded in these relationships is the importance of being mindful. Riley-Taylor (2002)

suggests mindfulness can be viewed as “an awareness of one's positioning within the "now" as a

site where action may be taken” (p.21); a particularly important place in the context of TI where

pre-service teachers seek to understand the complexity of modern schooling in order to become

active participants. By positioning ourselves in the now, we create the opportunity to shift our

perspective to understanding truth as being embedded in the nexus of relationships and it is that

relationality that serves as a foundation in the school experience.

Being fully present is the very heart of "the teaching presence." A teacher is expressing

this capacity when he or she is open to perceiving what is happening right now,

responsive to the needs of this moment, flexible enough to shift gears, prepared with the

repertoire, creativity, and imagination to invent a new approach in the moment, humble

and honest enough to simply pause and acknowledge if a new approach has not yet

arrived. (Riley-Taylor, 2002, p. 124)

We adapt Shawn Wilson’s (2010) suggestion of beingfulness as a more accurate word for this

important concept.

Ecological transformative learning and TI

Finally, Cranton discusses an ecological perspective; it is here we find that our work with TI

powerfully resonates because the notions of soul and spirituality that emphasize ”connectedness,

belongingness, identifications, well-being, love, compassion, peaceful coexistence with nature

and among groups” (p.123) are elevated in stature (Dei, 2002). An ecological perspective


includes individual, relational, social, and global perspectives on transformative learning. Clover

(2002) also describes ecological knowing as central to transformative learning because it is

“nurtured by, with, and through the ‘land,’ the life-world. It comes from age old traditions as

well as daily lived experiences in a changing world; it is a web of old and new knowledge”

(p.160). Taylor (2008) describes this as a planetary view where “transformation is not only about

how we view our human counterparts; it explores how we, as humans, relate with the physical

world” (p. 10). Included in those relations are imaginative and emotional ways of knowing

brought forward as valid sources of knowledge and catalysts for action and change.

Dirkx (1997) is a strong advocate for the link between spirituality and learning. In

Baumgartner (2001), the author sees Dirkx’s work as speaking to the important role of

imagination in facilitating learning through the soul where transformative learning goes beyond

the ego-based, rational approach that relies on words to communicate ideas to soul-based

learning that validates feelings and images. According to Baumgartner (2001), transformation is

directly connected to embodied experiences “that transcends rationality and gives depth, power,

mystery, and deep meaning to the connection between the self and the world” (p.50)

(Baumgartner, 2001). These experiences serve to nurture our emotional, spiritual and social

selves and serve to honour “the multifaceted dimensions of learning” (p.50). In turn, Dirkx

(2001) stresses that emotion is a powerful site for transformative learning that allows individuals

to establish a greater connection to the self as well as the social world. “Emotionally charged

images, evoked through the contexts of adult learning, provide the opportunity for a more

profound access to the world by inviting a deeper understanding of ourselves in relationship with

it” (p. 64)


For Dirkx (2001), emotions always refer to the self, providing us with a means for

developing self-knowledge. They are an integral part of how we interpret and make sense of the

day-to-day events in our lives and are from what most would consider rational. Through the

examination of our emotional or spiritual selves, we are able to reveal ourselves more fully

(Dirkx, 2001). Common conceptions of teaching and learning are built as cognitive processes

where reason, logic and rationality are considered paramount. In each cohort we have worked

with, we have come up against this obstacle. We have devoted hours of class time to creating

space for students to relieve themselves of their emotional baggage as they vent frustrations,

uncertainties, fears and challenges, both publicly and privately in class and in mentor sessions.

For example, students have introduced various topics or questions born out of frustration

with the program or with schools that wash over the class like a destructive rogue wave. As

instructors, we are learning to ride these out in deference to the powerful emotions that unleashed

the wave. In mentor sessions when we meet with students individually, there are times when the

discussion of their inquiry opens a floodgate of emotion. While the subject of their emotional

upsurge is rarely the inquiry topic itself, the powerful emotion connects the personal and

professional and therefore influences the other. Some might view these as one-time events that

must be overcome in order to move on to ‘real’ learning. We disagree; it is through these very

occasions, that many students have been able to find a connection to what matters most to them

both educationally and personally. Providing space for emotion has resulted in a bond of trust

amongst individuals that has been empowering and a stimulus for the powerful learning

advocated in transformation.

Transformative learning transforming


Baumgartner (2001) summarizes the key features of transformative learning that have

emerged since the original work of Mezirow (1975). First, transformative learning is “more

individualistic, fluid and recursive” (p.19) and in transformative learning, feelings and emotions

are as significant as rational thought. As we briefly explained earlier, in our role as instructors in

the TI course, we have experienced the power that emotions play in informing TI as we have

grounded them in transformative learning. Second, the disorienting dilemma or triggering event

is more likely a series or accumulation of events that act as the impetus for the process of

transformative learning to begin (Stanger et al., in press). Based on our research we further this

notion by suggesting that opportunities to engage in transformational practice occur in the spaces

in between where the individual is able to dwell in the question (Tanaka, in press). Here we use

dwell in the same sense as Chambers (2004), “to be still with, to remain for a time with, to reside

with” (p. 11). It is an open-ended dwelling that has space for the possibility of what might be true

of another. We liken this to liminal spaces where transformation and change take place (Davis,

2008). Third, trust as a relational concept features strongly which is directly connected to an

individual’s readiness to change. Preliminary analysis of our data shows that pre-service teachers

who engage in meaningful transformation exhibit signs of resonance or a deeply powerful

emotional connection; individuals make meaning in the connections amongst elements of their

own identities. Whether it was addiction and teacher, math and multiple-ways of knowing, or

science and indigenous spirituality, the students most engaged in transformation were connecting

with the complexity of their identities as their inquiry path.

In addition to Baumgartner, Selby (2002) advances the concept of radical

interconnectedness as a more complete relational metaphor for transformative learning. In this

conception, a both/and approach rather than an either/or approach is a necessary feature of


transformation. In the TI data, we see constant evidence of the need to melt binary thinking in

order to embrace and explore the complexity of everyday educational life. Selby also suggests a

strong focus on inner journeying. Interiority allows the individual to experience empathetic,

embodied learning, spiritual learning and slow learning that resides in relational,

multidimensional ways of knowing. We often advocate the same inner journeying through TI

because it allows the individual to “clear the clutter of explicate reality; limit or stop thought,

bring together the physical, mental, and emotional aspects of our being; and can create awareness

of the oneness of everything” (p.87). Through participation in TI, individuals are challenged to

“recognize the other and the self and to see oneself in another” and the individual sees “processes

of domination and resistance, of inclusion and exclusion, and of marginalization and

socialization” (Davis, 2008, ¶5).

A further example of transformation relevant to our study is Kremer’s (1997) perspective,

transformative learning transforming. Kremer characterizes transformational learning as an

experience that “may lead to confusion and dark night experiences along the way”(p.7) but that

“ends in a place where all the threads can come together in a new weave…” (p.7). Many of the

pre-service teachers we work with make reference to the confusion and uncertainty associated

with having one’s mind boggled. The very nature of transformative learning is transforming

which makes the following characterization particularly poignant:

Transformational learning involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic

premise of thought, feelings, and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically

and permanently alters our way of being in the world. Such a shift involves our

understanding of ourselves and our self-locations; our relationships with other humans

and the natural world; our understandings of relations of power in interlocking structures


of class, race and gender; our body-awarenesses, our visions of alternative approaches to

living; and our sense of possibilities for social justice and peace and personal joy

(O’Sullivan, Morrell & O’Connor, 2002, p.11).

Transformative Inquiry and Pre-service Teachers

We have explicated how relational, social and ecological perspectives of transformative

learning inform TI. Our belief is that engaging in TI is vital in forming the foundations for pre-

service teacher’s pedagogical and philosophical identity. Individuals must explore and

investigate not only what matters to them but more importantly, why it matters. In our

experience, pre-service teachers leave teacher preparation programs with technical proficiency;

they can plan lessons and units, adeptly incorporating learning outcomes that feed into activities

that can then be assessed and reported on. However, those same teachers are far less prepared to

deal with the complex reality of teaching that presents itself each school day.

As a process, TI promotes “collaboration, participation, empowerment, accountability,

confidentiality, acknowledgement of obligations to the subject, transparency of goals, methods

and motives, benefits to the subject, and opportunity for subjects to present themselves in their

own voice" (Deal, 2006, p. 4). More importantly, engagement in TI promotes understanding of

the spirit or soul that lies at “heart of personal, scholarly, and organizational life and, therefore,

of change” (Anglin, 1996, p. 99). TI is our response to these educational demands because the

process allows students the opportunity to develop skills around facilitating deep change and to

appreciate their own capacity for transforming their practice. Through TI, pre-service teachers

are able to take ownership of their own development as a teacher and how that development

intersects with how they position themselves in the world. As a result, teachers enter into


schools as autonomous thinkers who act in “a collective, relational process” through

“constructive discourse in which participants deliberate about the reasons for their actions and

get insights from the meanings, experiences, and opinions expressed by others” (Shugurensky,

2002, p. 63). TI focuses on clarifying pre-service teachers’ purposes and beliefs cultivate their

compassion, critical awareness, or even enlightened wisdom (Li, 2002, p. 403).

Transformative learning within our teacher education program becomes an integrative

process that is about dialogue and reflection embedded in community. In the course students

contemplate the personal and professional concerns about which they are passionate, and then

select an inquiry topic from among these. Their choices have been wide-ranging: e.g., formative

assessment; teacher stress reduction; kindness in the classroom; differentiated learning; and

clarifying the purpose of education. They then pursue their chosen topic through the formulation

of inquiry questions and the gathering of information from self-study, literature reviews,

classroom observations and conversations with colleagues, students and community members.

Underlying these experiences are some basic tenets.

• People transform through dialogue. Educational change demands that people change

– in their attitudes, values and beliefs. For this to occur, dialogue is essential. How

else will we know how or why to change? Through talking, reading, arguing, with

others, we begin to see our world differently (Isaacs, 1999; Vella, 2002).

• People transform through deep critical reflection. Teacher education programs must

consider carefully, and vigorously discuss curricular decisions while keeping in mind

a vision of how we want our world to be, from the perspectives of both ecological and

social health and wellbeing (Tanaka, in press). This is a circular process – or perhaps

more like a mobius strip that cycles back on itself – and requires affective


connections.

• Community plays an essential role in transformative learning. For transformation to

occur a learning community of practice (Wenger, 1998) must exist. Through a shared

repertoire of experiences, we construct meaning together about teaching and learning.

The tone of this learning community is set by the instructors and affects our learning

experience (van Manen, 1986).

As teachers and learners we believe in the power and value of transformation as a

teaching practice but recognize that belief does not always translate into action. Our commitment

to TI is our action; it is our contribution to preparing pre-service teachers to become the amazing

teachers that are needed in schools. We close with the words of those who have experienced the

value of TI first hand:

As a teacher I value the idea that learning is dynamic and constantly transforming the individual. Being involved in Transformative Inquiry reminded me the importance of keeping all doors open and never blocking off a path that may lead to another perspective. My inquiry has allowed me to follow a path with heart because my self-study collage reflects that I honour the fact that each student is an individual and holds a unique gift waiting to be unwrapped. (Course participant A)

I think that taking a Transformative Inquiry stance means that you are not only going to reflect on an issue, but you are willing to shift your attitudes, thoughts and perceptions around this particular issue. You must be consciously aware that you are examining this topic with the intent of transforming your behaviour to reflect what you have learned. I think it requires a very humble spirit and a desire to be the best teacher and person you can be. (Course participant B)


References

Ahern, K. (1999). Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qualitative Health Research, 9(3), 407-411.

Aluli-Meyer, M. (2008). Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and the triangulation

of meaning. In N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, & L.T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and

Indigenous methodologies (pp.217- 232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anglin, J. P. (1996). Beyond "eureka": The pursuit of transformative inquiry. In L. Heshusius, &

K. Ballard, (Eds.), From positivism to interpretivism and beyond: Tales of transformation

in educational and social research (pp.93-99). NY: Teachers College Press.

Antunes, D. (2004). The transformative approach. In A.F. Buono (Ed.), Creative consulting:

Innovative perspectives on management consulting (pp. 303-324).Charlotte, NC:

Information Age Publishing.

Baumgartner, L.M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. In S. Merriam (Ed.), The

new update on adult learning theory (pp. 15-24). New directions for continuing

education, no. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Belenky, M. F., & Stanton, A. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J.

Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a

theory in progress (pp. 71–103). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clarke, A. and Erickson, G. (2003). Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice.

New York, NY: Routledge.


Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L. & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action,

reflection, and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Brookfield, S. (2003). The praxis of transformative education: African-American feminist

conceptualizations. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(3), 212-226. doi:

10.1177/1541344603001003003

Cajete, G. (1999). A people's ecology: explorations in sustainable living. Santa Fe, NM: Clear

Light Publishers.

Callahan, R.E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have

shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago

Press.

Chambers, C. (2004) Research that matters: Finding a path with heart. Journal of the Canadian

Association for Curriculum Studies, 2(1), 1-19.

Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative

research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, M. C. (1993). Transformational learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), An Update on Learning

Theory: New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Clark, A., & Erickson,G. (2003).Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Clover, D. (2002). Toward transformative learning: Ecological perspectives for adult education.

In E.V. O’Sullivan,A. Morrell, & M.A. O’Connor (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries and


transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis (pp. 159-172). New York, NY:

Palgrave.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next

generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for

educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (2009). Transformative learning and AVE for social sustainability. In P. Willis, S.

McKenzie, & R. Harris (Eds.), Rethinking work and learning, technical and vocational

education and training: Issues, Concerns and prospects (pp. 93-105). New York, NY:

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8964-0 7

Davis, C.S. (2008). Liminal Perspective. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of

Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 485-486). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Davison, A. (2008). Myth in the practice of reason: The production of education and productive

confusion. In T. Leonard, & P. Willis (Eds.), Pedagogies of the Imagination, (pp. 53-63).

New York, NY: Springer.

Deal, C. (2006). Learning with conviction: Service learning, social documentary, and

transformative research. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information

Studies, 2(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/96p552fh

Dei, G.J.S. (2002). Spiritual knowledge and transformative learning. In E.V. O’Sullivan,A.

Morrell, & M.A. O’Connor (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries and transformative

learning: Essays on theory and praxis (pp. 121-133). New York, NY: Palgrave.


Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the

educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.

Dirkx, J. (1997). Nurturing soul in adult education. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning

in action: Insights from practice (pp. 79–87). New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J.M. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An

overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1-14. Retrieved from

http://www.iup.edu/assets/0/347/349/4951/4977/10251/AF0EAB12-C2CE-4D2C-B1A0-

59B795415437.pdf

Dirkx, J. (2001). The power of feelings: emotion, imagination, and the construction of meaning

in adult learning. In S. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (pp. 63–

72). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 89. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Fitchman-Dana,N., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator's guide to classroom

research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue: The act of thinking together. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Currency

Press.

Kalmbach Philips, D., & Carr,K. (2006). Becoming a teacher through action research: Process,

context, and self-study. Florence KN: Taylor & Francis.


Kegan, R. (2000). What ‘form’ transforms?: A constructive-developmental perspective on

transformational learning.” In J. Mezirow and Associates (eds.), Learning as

Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress (pp.42-62). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Kessler, R. (2001). Soul of students, soul of teachers: Welcoming the inner life to school. In L.

Lantieri (Ed.), Schools with spirit: Nurturing the inner lives of children and teachers

(pp.107-131) Boston, MA: Beacon Press

Kremer, J. (1997). Transforming learning transforming. ReVision, 20(1), 7-15.

Li, M. (2002). Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers design thinking

and systems thinking. Systemic Practice and Action research, 15(5), 385-410.

Lloyd, A.S. (1972). Freire, conscientization, and adult education. Adult Education Quarterly,

23(3), 3-20. doi: 10.1177/074171367202300101

Mezirow, J. (1975). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in

community colleges. New York, NY: Center for adult education, Teachers college,

Columbia University.

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(4),

222-232.

Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching Themes of Care. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 675-679.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405432 .

O’Sullivan, E.V., Morrell, A., & O’Connor, M.A. (2002). Expanding the boundaries and

transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis. New York, NY: Palgrave.


O’Sullivan, E. (2003). Bringing a perspective of transformative learning to globalized

consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(4), 326-330.

Oberg, A. (1989). Writing a good qualitative research report. Prepared for SSHRC-CSSE

Workshop Surviving Manuscript Review. Hamilton ON, May1987 (revised 1989).

Orr, D. W. (1994/2004). Earth in Mind, Washington, DC, Island Press.

Richardson, L. (2003). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.)

Collecting and Interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 499-541). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Riley-Taylor, E. (2002). Ecology, spirituality, and education. New York: Peter Lang.

Sassi, K. and E. Thomas. (2008). “Walking the Talk: Privilege and Race in a 9th Grade

Classroom During a Native American Unit” English Journal, 97(6), 25-31.

Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Scott, S. (2003). The social construction of transformation. Journal of Transformative Education,

1(3), 264-284.

Selby, D. (2002). The signature of the whole: Radical interconnectedness and its implications for

global and environmental education. In E.V. O’Sullivan,A. Morrell, & M.A. O’Connor

(Eds.), Expanding the boundaries and transformative learning: Essays on theory and

praxis (pp. 77-93). New York, NY: Palgrave.


Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., and Kleiner, A. (2000).

Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone

Who Cares About Education, Currency. New York, NY: Corwin Press.

Shugurensky, D. (2002). Transformative learning as transformative politics: The pedagogical

dimensions of participatory democracy and social action. In O’Sullivan, E., Morrell, A. &

O’Conner, M. (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of transformative learning (pp.59-76).

New York: Palgrave.

Slattery, P. (1995/2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York, NY:

Garland Publishing, Inc.

Stanger, N.R.G., Tanaka, M.T., Starr, L.J., & Tse, V.V. (2012). Winter Counts as transformative

inquiry: The role of creative imagery as an expression of adaptive change. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Stein, J.G. (2002). The cult of efficiency. Toronto, ON: Anasazi Press.

Tanaka, M. T. (2012). Transformative inquiry in teacher education: Evoking the soul of what

matters. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Tanaka, M.T. Abra, M., Tse, V.V. & Archer, E. (2012). Students becoming teachers:

Negotiating our way through Transformative Inquiry. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Tanaka, M.T., Nicholson, D.J., & Farish, M.L. (2011). Committed to transformative Inquiry:

Three teacher educators’ entry points into the mentoring role. Manuscript submitted for

publication.


Tanaka, M. (2006). Curriculum conversations: Developing a child honouring pedagogy with pre

service teachers. Thinking Classroom: A Journal of the International Reading Association,

7(4), 35-41.

Taylor, E. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 119, 5-15.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ace.301

Thayer-Bacon, B.J. (2003). Relational “(e)pistemologies”. New York, NY: Peter Lang

Publishing.

Thomas, S.P., & Pollio, H.R. (2002). Listening to patients: A phenomenological approach to

nursing research and practice. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Tisdell, E. J. (2001). The politics of positionality: Teaching for social change in higher

education. In R.M. Cervero, & A.L. Wilson (Eds.) Power in practice: Adult education

and the struggle for knowledge and power in society (pp. 145-163). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Transformative Learning Centre. (2004). The transformative learning centre. Retrieved from

http://tlc.oise.utoronto.ca/About.html

van Manen, M. (1990/1997). Phenomenological pedagogy and the question of meaning. In D.

Vandenberg (Ed.), Phenomenology & education discourse (pp.39-64). Johannesburg, SA:

Heinemann.


van Manen, M. (1986). The tone of teaching. Toronto, ON: Scholastic. Vella, J. (2002). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and

method. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Retrieved from http://mcgraw-

hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335205356.pdf

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is Ceremony. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Wilson, S. (2010). Public lecture on indigenous research. University of Victoria, BC. April 19.

Date post:	11-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

How Transformative Learning Informs Transformative Inquiry

Documents