The Educator's Role in the Transformative Learning Process

BECOMING A TRANSFORMATIVE EDUCATOR

Becoming a Transformative Educator

Jonathan West

EDUS 660, Research Methods in Education

Dr. H. Whitehurst, Fall 2010

Due: December 7, 2010


Introduction

Making meaning of our daily life is probably one of the distinguishing characteristics of

being human. From the early records of cave paintings onwards, there is a plethora of examples

of the continued efforts of humankind striving to better understand and adapt to the changing

world around us. One of the driving forces of adults seeking to understand their world more fully

involves “how to navigate and act on our own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather

than those we have uncritically assimilated from others (Mezirow, J., & Associates, 2000, p. 8).

Developing beliefs that are more reliable, examining and confirming their dependability, and

making informed decisions are a basic part of the adult learning process. It is transformative

learning theory that explains this learning process of constructing new and modified

understandings of the meaning of an experience in the world (Taylor, E., 2008).

Review of literature

Transformative learning theory has come to prominence in the last 30 years primarily due

to the work of Jack Mezirow (2000, 1997). Mezirow’s study of perspective transformation of

women re-entering college in 1978 provided the foundations for his later publishing works on

transformative learning theory in 1991 and 2000 (Taylor, E., 1998 & 2008). The theory of

transformative learning is regarded as constructivist in nature and distinctively adult. It is based

in human communication, where “learning is understood as a process of using prior

interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in

order to guide future action” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 162).

Transformative learning is the process of bringing about change in a frame of reference

(Mezirow, 1997). Examples of frames of reference are concepts, values, associations, feelings,

and conditioned responses acquired by an adult that define their world. They are the structures of


assumptions and expectations that set our direction of action. When opportunities allow,

transformative learners move toward “a frame of reference that is more inclusive, discriminating,

self-reflective, and integrative of experience” (Mezirow, 1997, p.5).

Frames of reference transform through “critical reflection on the assumptions on which

our interpretations, beliefs, and habits of mind or points of view are based” (Mezirow, 1997, p.

7). Critical reflection can occur when we hear an alternative point of view or self-assess our own

beliefs or ideas. It is through this reflection we question the reliability or truthfulness of

assumptions and beliefs based on prior experience. Mezirow suggests reflection is the process of

integrating present observations and past experience by which we change our minds. The

transformation process can start from a traumatic event or it can be an incremental process, an

accrual of slight modifications in our frames of reference. Mezirow considers that anything that

moves the individual towards a more integrated meaning perspective that is inclusive and open to

other viewpoints contribute to an adult’s development. He also suggests that the practice of

transformative learning is essential to adult development and includes the most significant

learning in adulthood (Taylor, E., 1998).

Mezirow’s psychocritical perspective is the dominant view of transformative learning.

There have been numerous studies that support Mezirow’s view and confirm the basic principles

and steps Mezirow contends are a part of the transformative learning process. However, there are

a significant number of studies that promote alternate views of transformative learning. Two

alternative views are the psychoanalytical view that views learning as a process of individuation

reflecting on psychic structures and the psychodevelpomental view that considers transformation

across the lifespan in incremental and progressive growth. Taylor (2008) lists four other views of

transformative learning that have recently emerged (neurobiological, race-centric, cultural-


spiritual, and planetary). These views include intuition, insight, relationships, personality,

spirituality, and emotion.

There are several studies examining Mezirow’s model of perspective transformation

(Taylor, E., 1997, 2008). Cranton (2002) explores the implications of teaching using

transformative learning theory and identifies seven facets as a guide to help prepare a learning

environment to encourage transformation: an activating event, critical self-reflection, being open

to alternative viewpoints, engaging in discourse, revising assumptions and perspectives, and

acting on revisions. Edward Taylor (2006) suggests four areas of challenge needing further

discussion and research relative to teaching for transformation: the transformative educator, the

transformative classroom environment, the transformative text, and the transformative learner.

Cranton (2002) suggests that particular teaching strategies cannot assure transformative learning.

An argument put forth in an article, a story told by a class member, or a challenging statement in

a lecture can just as likely kindle critical self-reflection as a carefully fashioned exercise. The

environment of challenge is a key factor that underpins teaching for transformation. In addition,

while it is important to combine challenge with support, safety, and empowerment of the learner

at the core, it is a challenge of assumptions, perspectives, and belief that leads us to question

ourselves. Kathleen Taylor (2006) discusses the findings of research on brain function and the

role of emotion in the learning process and considers the implications for educators seeking to

create a transformative learning environment. Neurobiological research indicates the need for

safe and empathic relationships in order to accomplish the neural reorganization needed in the

higher level thinking involved in the transformative process.

Several studies have included the role of the educator in transformative learning. In his

critical review of the empirical research on transformative learning, Taylor (2007)notes that the


most significant changed he found since a similar review he published in 1998 was the greater

attention given to the practice of fostering transformative learning in a workshop setting or

higher education classroom.

King (2004) examined transformative learning and the professional development of

educators that explored both sides of the teaching-learning experience. While investigating

learners’ experiences, it also explored educators’ teaching experiences and viewpoints. In

particular, King investigated educators’ views regarding transformative learning influences,

learners’ experiences, barriers, and instructor and organizational responsibilities. King found

that the support and challenge offered by the professor, discussions, personal reflections,

readings, journals, and class activities to be key elements of the transformative process. She

suggested that building learning activities to incorporate critical evaluation, reflective practice,

and contemplation could be a “seedbed of perspective transformation” (p.165). In his research

with prison educators, Woods (2010) asked educators what they perceived to be their role in

inmate students transformative experiences and the strategies they used to facilitate

transformation. He found that the sense of service, love, and humor to be emergent strategies and

modeling, mentoring, and counseling to be key roles in the transformative process. In her three-

year study conducted with twenty-two higher education faculty members Cranton (2006) found

authenticity to be an important quality or attribute for educators to support transformation.

The purpose of this research was to examine further the role of the educator in the

transformative learning process. Key questions asked in the research were, what is the

educator’s role in the transformative learning process, what can an educator do to create

opportunities for transformation, and how can an educator contribute to an environment that

encourages transformation.


Methodology

This is a qualitative study of the attitudes, qualities, and methods of effective

transformative educators. Grounded theory methods were used for collecting, coding, and

analyzing the data. The focus of the problem questioned what happened over time that

contributed to the participants becoming effective transformative educators. In grounded theory

data are derived through an inductive process by studying the phenomenon it represented. It is

then confirmed through organized data collection and analysis of the data. This involves a

constant switching back and forth between data collection and analysis (McMillan, 2010). The

aim is to discover the emergent theory implicit in the data.

Specifically, data were collected through in-depth interviews with participants. Initial

interviews were conducted in person and follow up interviews conducted via telephone.

Following the first two interviews, a detailed data analysis was conducted to examine the

relevance of the initial questions and corresponding data and the approach of the interviewer.

The interviewer then received coaching from an experienced researcher in qualitative studies.

Adjustments were made and sub-questions added. All interviews were recorded and then

analyzed. In addition, following each interview the researcher recorded detailed field notes on an

assessment of the interview that included all impressions and feelings. Following the initial

interviews, data were analyzed for defining categories and as a basis for additional data

collection.

Triangulation, member checking, and peer debriefing were used as the criteria to provide

credibility in the study. Digital audio recording of the interviews allowed member checking of

the data. Further reliability was established by peer debriefing, depth of detail of field notes, and

continuous cross-checking of the data.


It was hoped that the interview with transformative educators and subsequent data

analysis would provide insight for future practice of transformative learning such as key

planning or actions an educator could incorporate. An additional area of interest sought were

focus areas for development such as skills, attitudes, or behaviors.

The advantages to conducting in depth interviews were the opportunity for the

participants to reflect on their own experience in becoming a transformative educator. Each

educator would likely know best the essential factors that contributed towards his or her own

development into an educator with transformative intentions. Observer bias was reduced by

abundant use of details. Details of conversations were used to highlight and illustrate key

patterns and interpretations. Verbatim language was used as much as possible.

One of the key disadvantages of the study was that observations of the educators in

practice were not included or perspectives of learners who had experienced transformation. It is

possible that factors that contribute to effective transformative learning were present in practice

without the educators being cognizant.

Population

The population studied was transformative educators in the field of adult learning and

education. The author used snowball sampling to select the participants purposive sampling to

select a single educator who practices transformative learning. The first participant was a

professor of higher education and an instructor in the author’s MEd. program. The first

participant then gave referrals to three other transformative educators personally known to her,

who then further provided referrals to a total of twenty-two educators that espoused

transformative intentions. Eighteen of the educators were from higher education, thirteen of these

from institutions in the U.S., two from Canada, two from Australia, and one from the Nepal. Of


the eighteen participants from higher education, five of these were from community colleges and

the rest from four-year institutions. Four of the educators were in the field of human resource

development, two of these from the U.S., one from Australia, and one from the U.K. Sixty

percent of the participants in the study were female and forty percent male. There was some

degree of cultural diversity as indicated above. The racial composition included fifteen

Caucasian, three African-Amerian, one African, two Asian-American, and one East Asian.

It is possible that due to the participants being composed of educators aspiring to

transformative learning practices the interviews were biased. This is a regular dilemma of

qualitative studies. To control for this threat the sample included as a diverse group of educators

from a wide range of higher educational settings. The interviewer also sought to distinguish

experience from opinion and asked clarifying questions during the interviews or follow up

interviews to do the same. Further control was conducted during the data analysis to ensure

credibility and reliability.

Data Analysis

The researchers used extensive, searching, and open-ended individual interviews with

transformative educators to collect data. The interviews were in-depth and unstructured and

sought the educator’s views on their role in the process of transformative learning. The list of

interview questions was distributed three days prior to the interview, by either mail or email.

Initial interviews were conducted in person and then immediately analyzed seeking emerging

categories and subcategories. During the interview, the researcher asked the participants to share

their experiences of transformative learning. The participants were engaged in dialog and

encourage to go into more depth using comments such as “could you tell me more about…” The

following questions were determined from a review of literature involving previous studies:


What is the educator’s role in the transformative learning process?

What can an educator do to create opportunities for transformation?

How can an educator contribute to an environment that encourages transformation?

Were there any contextual elements or environmental factors that contributed to or

served as a catalyst to the transformative learning?

Were there any precursors or signs of readiness for a transformative experience?

Is there anything else you would like to share regarding your experience as an

educator in the transformative learning process? (Reed, 2010)

Following each interview, the interviewer took a half an hour to record detailed field

notes of their impression of the interview which included the comfort and attitude of the

interviewee. Subsequent interviews (some conducted via telephone) compared new information

to emerging themes in order to form propositions and hypotheses of the role of the educator in

the process of transformative learning. A total of twenty-two educators were interviewed for the

study. The categories were coded describing central views with causal and contextual conditions,

resultant actions, and conclusions. The free open source qualitative analysis software was used to

assist in the data analysis. An analysis of the categories and themes was conducted comparing

the relationship between similar codes and how resolution was determined (see Appendix A). A

table (see Appendix B) was created with the key themes that emerged and included detailed

quotes relating to respective themes. Selective coding was then used to write a story integrating

the codes that were established. The propositions and theory about the role of the educator in

transformative learning were developed using constant comparison. Theoretical sampling was

used to test aspects of the theory (McMillan, 2010).


Reliability of the interview was insured by digital recording of each interview, literal

transcriptions, abundant use of details, detailed field notes of the inductive data analysis process,

member crosschecking, and verbatim use of educator’s words as much as possible. Internal

validity was obtained through detailed field notes, verbatim language, peer crosschecking of

categories, subcategories and subsequent coding to determine if the data were plausible. While

researcher bias is a significant threat in the interview and data analysis process, the open-ended

interview process, verbatim language, and crosschecking helped to minimize the effect. The

translatability of the resulting theory is limited due to the inherently weak generalizability of

qualitative research designs. However, the resulting propositions and theory may prove useful in

helping aspiring transformative educators better understand their role in the process of

transformative learning.

Delimitations

The strengths of the research design in this study are that the sample of participants is

practicing transformative educators. Considering the integral part of transformative theory that

critical reflection and critical self-reflection play, the selected educators were aware of many of

the steps and factors in their own process of becoming a transformative educator. As a result

exceptionally detailed and rich narratives were the rule rather than the exception in the study.

Other strengths of the study are the recording of interviews, crosschecking of data by fellow

researchers, and peer debriefing. The peer debriefing allowed for an independent review of the

data analysis.

There are several threats to internal validity in the study. Researcher bias in the interview

process could have influenced participants with the researcher’s interests or beliefs, thus leading

to implausible results and skewed data. A second threat is the inaccurate transcription and


categorization and coding of data also resulting in implausible themes and propositions and

therefore an invalid theory. Researcher bias was controlled through abundant use of detail,

crosschecking and peer debriefing. Inaccurate data was controlled through the recording and

verbatim transcription of each interview as well as crosschecking, detailed field notes, and

verbatim language.

There are several barriers that threaten the study. One significant barrier could be subject

effects in that the educators’ selected held extremely divergent views of transformative learning

theory and practice. While Mezirow’s psychocritical theory is considered the dominant view,

Taylor (2008) suggests that there are up to eight different views of transformative learning

proposed in the literature. It is possible that this study included educators with sufficiently

divergent views on the nature of transformative learning and the educator’s role therein that

resulted in invalid data collection, inaccurate data analysis, and therefore implausible

conclusions. Data analysis and crosschecking indicated several key areas of theory that could be

applied to transformative educators in general and additional sub-categories relating to the

differing views. While there is sufficient evidence in the data collected to support the

propositions of the general theory of the role of the transformative educator, there may be

inadequate data to support the proposed sub-theories. Further studies would be needed to confirm

the general theory and explore the propositions of the sub-theories.

Another barrier to the study is the fact that there is no previous research found in the

literature that attempts to create a theory about the role of the educator in transformative

learning. As a result, there is no similar data analysis or resulting elements of theory to build

upon. This may result in an immature and inconclusive outcomes.


The study of the role of the educator in the transformative learning process could be

improved in several ways. One way to improve the study would be to include the observation of

transformative educators in action over time in the setting of a classroom or learning event.

Including 2-3 observations using detailed field notes of each educator would provide an addition

data to check internal validity. Another way to improve the study would be to include interviews

with students and learners in classes and learning events of the transformative educators to

determine their views on the role of the educator in their own process of transformation. These

additional sources of data would expand the source of rich data and provide an opportunity for

triangulation, where the results from the different data collection methods could be compared to

see if a similar conclusion is reached.


References

Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 93, 63-71.

Cranton, P. (2006). Fostering authentic relationships in the transformative classroom. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 5-13.

King, K. (2004). Both Sides Now: Examining Transformative Learning and Professional

Development of Educators. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 155-174.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

Mezirow, J., and Associates (Eds.). (2000). Learning as Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Taylor, E. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review. Center

on Education and Training for Employment, Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 423 427).

Taylor, E. (2006). The challenge of teaching for change. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 109, 91-95.

Taylor, E. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical

research (199-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26:2, 173-191. DOI:

10.1080/02601370701219475

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

Education, 119, 5-15.

Taylor, K. (2006). Brain Function and Adult Learning: Implications for Practice. New Directions

for Adult and Continuing Education, 110, p.71-85. DOI: 10.1002/ace.221


Woods, R.. Synchronicity and transformation in the experience of prison educators. Ph.D.

dissertation, Walden University, United States -- Minnesota. AAT 3422688.

Date post:	29-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jonathan-h-west
View:	266 times
Download:	3 times

The Educator's Role in the Transformative Learning Process

Documents