Thirty years ago, when Jack Mezirow (1978) first introduced a theory of
adult learning, it helped explain how adults changed the way they interpreted
their world. This theory of transformative learning is considered uniquely
adult—that is, grounded in human communication, where “learning is understood
as the process of using a 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). The transformative process is formed
and circumscribed by a frame of reference. Frames of reference are structures
of assumptions and expectations that frame an individual’s tacit points of view
and influence their thinking, beliefs, and actions. It is the revision of a frame of
reference in concert with reflection on experience that is addressed by the
theory of perspective transformation—a paradigmatic shift. A perspective
transformation leads to “a more fully developed (more functional) frame of
5
1
N
EW DIRECTIONS FOR ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION, no. 119, Fall 2008 © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ace.301
6
THIRD UPDATE ON ADULT LEARNING THEORY
reference . . . one that is more (a) inclusive, (b) differentiating, (c) permeable,
(d) critically reflective, and (e) integrative of experience” (Mezirow, 1996
,
p. 163). A perspective transformation often occurs either through a series of
cumulative transformed meaning schemes or as a result of an acute personal
or social crisis, for example, a natural disaster, the death of a significant other,
divorce, a debilitating accident, war, job loss, or retirement. These experiences
are often stressful and painful, and they can cause individuals to question the
very core of their existence (Mezirow, 1997). An example of a perspective
transformation is illustrated by Marie Claire, an American, who describes her
experience of moving to Switzerland for a number of years:
I was very sheltered before [moving]. I think it made me aware of the fact that
there are people who do things differently. There are different cultures. . . . I
tended to look at things a lot more basic. . . . People are the same all over the
world to a certain extent. You got to go to work. You got to do your daily job.
I tended not to be so narrow minded. . . . What I really thought about the
United States was how shallow, how provincial. . . . We didn’t know anything
about other countries, we were so isolated. We always thought we were the
best. I was starting to think that maybe we weren’t the best, because we are
missing out on so much. When you’re living in Europe you’re exposed to so
many different languages and cultures and so much history and beauty that
we miss out on here. We are isolated, so I started to think of my country as
not being number one anymore [Taylor, 1993, p. 179].
Central to Marie Claire’s transformation is her intercultural experience,
critical reflecting on her experience, and engaging in dialogue with others.
Her experience of learning to adjust to living in Switzerland becomes the
gist for critical reflection: “[Shared] learning experiences establish a common
base from which each learner constructs meaning through personal reflection
and group discussion. . . . The meanings that learners attach to their
experiences may be subjected to critical scrutiny” (Tennant, 1991, p. 197).
Critical scrutiny, or more specifically critical reflection, is seen as conscious
and explicit reassessment of the consequence and origin of our meaning
structures. It “is a process by which we attempt to justify our beliefs, either
by rationally examining assumptions, often in response to intuitively
becoming aware that something is wrong with the result of our thought, or
challenging its validity through discourse with others of differing viewpoints
and arriving at the best informed judgment” (Mezirow, 1995, p. 46).
Marie Claire’s discourse with others in the host culture was the medium
through which transformation was promoted and developed. However, in
contrast to everyday discussions, this kind of discourse is used “when we
have reason to question the comprehensibility, truth, appropriateness (in
relation to norms), or authenticity (in relation to feelings) of what is being
asserted” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 77). Through multiple interactions with others,
Marie Claire questioned her deeply held assumptions about her own culture
in relationship to the host culture.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
T
RANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY 7
Since the early 1980s, this learning theory has spawned a number of
alternative theoretical conceptions and a treasure chest of research about
both the basic assumptions of transformative learning and the fostering of
transformative learning in the classroom. The next section discusses emerging
conceptions of transformative learning, followed by related research on
the practice of transformative learning.
Alternative Conceptions of Transformative Learning
The ubiquitous acceptance of Mezirow’s psychocritical view of transformative
learning theory has often led to an uncontested assumption that there
is a singular conception of transformative learning, overshadowing a growing
presence of other theoretical conceptions. Even though efforts have been
made in the past to make sense of varied perspectives (for example, Dirkx,
1998; Taylor, 1998), their numbers were limited and contributions to transformative
learning not fully appreciated. At present, it can be argued that
there are a variety of alternative conceptions of transformative learning theory
that refer to similar ideas and address factors often overlooked in the
dominant theory of transformation (Mezirow’s), such as the role of spirituality,
positionality, emancipatory learning, and neurobiology. The exciting
part of this diversity of theoretical perspectives is that it has the potential
to offer a more diverse interpretation of transformative learning and have
significant implications for practice.
To bring the reader up to date, in the previous edition of this volume
(Merriam, 2001), there were three alternative perspectives discussed in
contrast to Mezirow’s psychocritical perspective of transformative learning:
psychoanalytic, psychodevelopmental, and social emancipatory. A
psychoanalytic
view
of transformative learning is seen as a process of individuation,
a lifelong journey of coming to understand oneself through reflecting on the
psychic structures (ego, shadow, persona, collective unconscious, and so
on) that make up an individual’s identity. Individuation involves discovery
of new talents, a sense of empowerment and confidence, a deeper understanding
of one’s inner self, and a greater sense of self-responsibility (Boyd
and Meyers, 1988; Cranton, 2000; Dirkx, 2000). A
psychodevelopmental
view of transformative learning is a view across the lifespan, reflecting continuous,
incremental, and progressive growth. Central to this view of
transformation is epistemological change (change in how we make meaning),
not just change in behavioral repertoire or quantity of knowledge. In addition,
there is appreciation for the role of relationships, personal contextual influences,
and holistic ways of knowing in transformative learning, that have
been often overlooked in Mezirow’s rational emphasis on transformation
(Daloz, 1986; Kegan, 1994).
In the latter two perspectives, including Mezirow’s psychocritical view,
the unit of analysis is the individual, with little consideration given to the
role of context and social change in the transformative experience.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
8
THIRD UPDATE ON ADULT LEARNING THEORY
On the other hand, a third alternative perspective, a
social-emancipatory
view, in a small way starts to address these concerns. Rooted primarily in
the work of Freire (1984), this perspective is about developing an “ontological
vocation” (p. 12), a theory of existence that views people as subjects,
not objects, who are constantly reflecting and acting on the transformation
of their world so it can become a more equitable place for all to live. Its goal
is social transformation by demythicizing reality, where the oppressed
develop a critical consciousness (that is, conscientization).
Three teaching approaches are central to fostering emancipatory transformative
learning (Freire and Macedo, 1995). First is the centrality of critical
reflection, with the purpose of rediscovering power and helping learners
develop an awareness of agency to transform society and their own reality.
Second, a liberating approach to teaching couched in “acts of cognition not
in the transferal of information” (p. 67) is a “problem-posing” (p. 70) and
dialogical methodology. Third is a horizontal student-teacher relationship
where the teacher works as a political agent and on an equal footing with
students.
In addition to the previously discussed views, four additional views of
transformative learning (neurobiological, cultural-spiritual, race-centric,
planetary) have lately emerged in the field. Most recent is the
neurobiological
perspective of transformative learning (Janik, 2005). This “brain-based”
theory was discovered by clinicians using medical imaging techniques to
study brain functions of patients who were recovering from psychological
trauma. What these researchers determined was that a neurobiological
transformation is seen as invoking “the parasympathetic branch of the autonomic
nervous system, and the hypothalamic-pituitary pitocin secreting
endocrine system to alter learning during periods of search and discovery”
(Janik, 2007, p. 12). In simpler terms, the findings suggest that the brain
structure actually changes during the learning process. These findings in
turn bring into question traditional models of learning (behaviorism, cognitivism,
constructivism) and instead offer a distinctive neurobiological,
physically based pathway to transformative learning. From this perspective,
learning is seen as “volitional, curiosity-based, discovery-driven, and
mentor-assisted” and most effective at higher cognitive levels (Janik, 2005,
p. 144). Furthermore, a neurobiological approach suggests that transformative
learning (1) requires discomfort prior to discovery; (2) is rooted in students’
experiences, needs, and interests; (3) is strengthened by emotive, sensory,
and kinesthetic experiences; (4) appreciates differences in learning between
males and females, and (5) demands that educators acquire an understanding
of a unique discourse and knowledge base of neurobiological systems.
A
cultural-spiritual view of transformative learning (see Brooks, 2000;
Tisdell, 2003) is concerned with the “connections between individuals and
social structures . . . and notions of intersecting positionalities” (Tisdell, 2005,
p. 256). This perspective focuses on how learners construct knowledge
(narratives) as part of the transformative learning experience. In particular,
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
T
RANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY 9
it appreciates a culturally relevant and spiritually grounded approach to transformative
pedagogy. Its goal is to foster a narrative transformation—engaging
storytelling on a personal and social level through group inquiry. Crosscultural
relationships are also encouraged, along with developing spiritual
awareness. The teacher’s role is that of a 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.
A
race-centric view of transformative learning puts people of African
descent, most often black women, at the center, where they are the subjects
of the transformative experience. As a non-Eurocentric orientation of transformative
learning (Williams, 2003), it is in the early stages of theoretical
development where race is the predominant unit of analysis with an emphasis
on the social-political dimensions of learning. Like Freire’s emancipatory
perspective, the vocabulary associated with transformative learning is often
not used: “Traditionally, African people have had systems of education that
were transformative. Rites of passage and rituals are among the many forms
Africans have created to nurture the consciousness of every member of
society into a greater connection with the Self, the Community, and the
Universe ” (p. 463). It is a conception of transformative learning that is culturally
bounded, oppositional, and nonindividualistic. Essential to this view
is engaging the polyrhythmic realities—“the students’ lived experience
within a sociocultural, political, and historical context” (Sheared, 1994,
p. 36). In addition, there are three key concepts in fostering transformative
learning: promoting inclusion (giving voice to the historically silenced),
promoting empowerment (not self-actualization but belongingness and
equity as a cultural member), and learning to negotiate effectively between
and across cultures. Fostering transformative learning is seen as a deliberate
and conscious strategy in employing a political framework (consciousness
raising, activism, fostering a safe learning environment) with the
expectation that it “may be necessary for one to undergo some form of selfreflection
and transformation in order to teach transformation” (Johnson-
Bailey and Alfred, 2006, p. 55). This conception of transformative learning
has the potential to address some of the concerns raised by Brookfield
(2003) by foregrounding the interest of black students, instead of as the
“other” or as an alternative view.
A
planetary view of transformative learning takes in the totality of life’s
context beyond the individual and addresses fundamental issues in the field
of education as a whole (O’Sullivan, 1999). The goal of transformative education
from this perspective is reorganization of the whole system (political,
social, educational). It is creating a new story from one that is
dysfunctional and rooted in technical-industrial values of Western Eurocentric
culture, which gives little appreciation to the natural, or to an integral
worldview. This view recognizes the interconnectedness among
universe, planet, natural environment, human community, and personal
world. Most significant is recognizing the individual not just from a
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
10
THIRD UPDATE ON ADULT LEARNING THEORY
social-political dimension but also from an ecological and planetary one.
Transformation is not only about how we view our human counterparts; it
explores how we, as humans, relate with the physical world.
Key differences exist among the various views of transformative learning.
Beginning with the goal of transformation, one of the most fundamental differences
is that of personal or emancipatory transformation (self-actualization
to planetary consciousness). Related to this difference is the emphasis on
individual or social change. Those views that are more rooted in the individual
(psychocritical, psychoanalytic, psychodevelopmental, neurobiological)
give little attention to context and social change and their relationship to
transformation. Where the individual and society are seen as one and the
same (emancipatory, race-centric, cultural-spiritual), transformative learning
is as much about social change as individual transformation. Another
difference is the role of culture in transformative learning. The more psychologically
centered models (psychoanalytic, psychodevelopmental,
psychocritical, neurobiological) tend to reflect a more universal view of
learning, with little appreciation for the role of social or cultural differences.
On the other hand, those views that recognize difference (social emancipatory,
culturally relevant narrative, race-centric, and planetary) place much
greater emphasis on positionality (where one’s “position” is relative to race,
class, gender, sexual orientation) and its relationship to both the process
and the practice of transformative learning.
New Insights from Research and Implications
for Practice
Along with emerging alternative perspectives on transformative learning
theory, research continues to flourish as to the nature of transformative
learning. In my recent critical review of research (Taylor, 2007), a number
of findings have implications as to the process of transformative learning
and how it can be fostered in the classroom. Even though most research
continues to be situated in higher education settings, the focus has shifted
somewhat away from the possibility of a transformation in relationship to a
particular life event, toward greater interest in factors that shape the transformative
experience (critical reflection, holistic approaches, and relationships).
To begin with the construct “perspective transformation,” as previously
discussed, it has been found to be an enduring and irreversible process
(Courtenay, Merriam, and Reeves, 1998). In addition, research further substantiates
the relationship between action and perspective transformation
(MacLeod, Parkin, Pullon, and Robertson, 2003). For example, Lange
(2004) found a transformation in fostering citizen action toward a sustainable
society to be more than an epistemological change in worldview; it also
involved an ontological shift, reflective of a need to act on the new perspective.
These studies along with others suggest that it is important for
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
T
RANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY 11
educators to create opportunities for learners within and outside the classroom
to act on new insights in the process of transformative learning. Without
experiences to test and explore new perspectives, it is unlikely learners
will fully transform.
Second, there are new insights about critical reflection and its significance
to transformative learning. In particular, they shed light on the nature
of reflection, factors that influence reflection, indicators of reflection, joint
reflection through peer dialogue, and factors that help explain nonreflection.
For example, recognizing levels of reflection using categories developed
by Mezirow (content, process, premise), Kreber (2004) concluded that
when learning, in this case about teaching, teachers may need at times to
begin with premise reflection—that is, being more concerned with
why they
teach than with how or what they teach. Premise reflection involves critically
“questioning our presuppositions underlying our knowledge” (p. 31).
In addition, critical reflection seems to be a developmental process,
rooted in experience. It begins to give credence to Merriam’s position (2004)
that “mature cognitive development is foundational to engaging in critical
reflection and rational discourse necessary for transformative learning”
(p. 65). For educators, these findings suggest the importance of engaging
learners in classroom practices that assist in the development of critical reflection
through use of reflective journaling, classroom dialogue, and critical
questioning. Furthermore, it also means recognizing that becoming more
reflective is a developmental process requiring time and continuous practice.
Third, research further substantiates the importance of a holistic
approach to transformative learning in addition to the often-emphasized use
of rational discourse and critical reflection. A holistic approach recognizes
the role of feelings, other ways of knowing (intuition, somatic), and the role
of relationships with others in the process of transformative learning. Dirkx
(2006) suggests it is “about inviting ‘the whole person’ into the classroom
environment, we mean the person in fullness of being: as an affective, intuitive,
thinking, physical, spiritual self” (p. 46). By engaging the affective, it
provides “an opportunity, for establishing a dialogue with those unconscious
aspects of ourselves seeking expression through various images, feelings, and
behaviors within the learning setting” (Dirkx, 2006, p. 22). For practitioners
this means actively dialoguing about the feelings of learners, in concert with
reason, when fostering transformative learning.
Other holistic approaches include the importance of relationships with
others in fostering transformative learning. Types of relationship found to
be most significant for transformation are love relationships (enhanced selfimage,
friendship), memory relationships (former or deceased individuals),
and imaginative relationships (inner-dialogue, meditation; Carter, 2002).
In addition to the typologies of relationships Eisen (2001) identified a “peer
dynamic” among successful peer-learning partnerships on the part of
community college teachers. This dynamic reflected a number of essential
relational qualities: nonhierarchical status, nonevaluative feedback, voluntary
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
12
THIRD UPDATE ON ADULT LEARNING THEORY
participation, partner selection, authenticity, and establishment of mutual
goals.
Fourth, there has been an interest in the lack of transformation among
some individuals and barriers that discourage and inhibit transformation.
The lack of change seems to be explained by a variety of factors. For example,
in a study that explored how learners made meaning of their life histories
via dialogue in an online graduate course on adult development,
researchers found a lack of critical reflection among learners because “group
members did not ask critical questions of one another or challenge each
other’s assumptions. This lack of critique may have truncated the group
process prematurely” (Ziegler, Paulus, and Woodside, 2006, p. 315).
Another explanation for nonreflective learning is shown through learning
preferences in the use of reflective journaling (Chimera, 2006). Some learners
who were classified as nonreflectors when their journals were analyzed
were found to prefer talking about issues rather than writing them in a journal.
Some did not see it as necessary to write their thoughts down and therefore
did not see a need for journal writing. This lack of change on the
individual level should remind educators that it is important to take time to
know students as individuals, recognizing their preferences, and engaging
a variety of approaches in fostering transformative learning.
Identifying barriers that inhibit transformative learning can also help
explain a lack of change among students. Examples of barriers are rules and
sanctions imposed on welfare women returning to work in a family empowerment
project (Christopher, Dunnagan, Duncan, and Paul, 2001); the
downside of cohort experiences, where there is often an unequal distribution
of group responsibilities and emphasis on task completion instead
of reflective dialogue (Scribner and Donaldson, 2001); and rigid role
assignments (Taylor, 2003).
A response to learner resistance and barriers to transformative learning
is for educators to develop awareness of learner readiness for change. Recent
research reveals that it is important to appreciate the role of life experience
among learners and become more aware of learners who are susceptible to
or who desire change. For example, life experience has been found to be
particularly significant in online settings (Cragg, Plotnikoff, Hugo, and
Casey, 2001; Ziegahn, 2001). Greater life experience seems to constitute a
“deeper well” from which to draw and react to discussion that emerged
among online participants.
Final Thoughts
Transformative learning theory continues to be a growing area of study
of adult learning and has significant implications for the practice of teaching
adults. The growth is so significant that it seems to have replaced andragogy
as the dominant educational philosophy of adult education, offering teaching
practices grounded in empirical research and supported by sound theoretical
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
T
RANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY 13
assumptions. Also, as previously discussed, there is the emerging presence
of alternative conceptions of transformative learning, challenging scholars
and educators to look beyond transformative learning as defined by
Mezirow. These alternative perspectives offer fresh insights and encourage
greater research in the area of transformative learning.
Despite the growth in understanding transformative learning, there is
still much not known about the practice of transformative learning in the
classroom. One area in particular is the student’s role in fostering transformative
learning. What are the student’s responsibilities in relationship to the
transformative educator? Second, there is a need to understand the peripheral
consequences of fostering transformative learning in the classroom. For
example, how does a student’s transformation affect peers in the classroom,
the teacher, the educational institution, and other individuals who play a
significant role in the life of the student? Furthermore, there is little known
about the impact of fostering transformative learning on learner outcomes
(grades, test scores). Definitive support is needed if educators are going to
recognize fostering transformative learning as a worthwhile teaching
approach with adult learners.
Finally, the growing body of research and alternative perspectives
should remind educators that fostering transformative learning is much
more than implementing a series of instructional strategies with adult learners.
Transformative learning is first and foremost about educating from a
particular worldview, a particular educational philosophy. It is also not an
easy way to teach. Wearing the title, or moniker, of a transformative educator
“should not be taken lightly or without considerable personal reflection.
Although the rewards may be great for both the teacher and the learner,
it demands a great deal of work, skill, and courage” (Taylor, 2006, p. 92). It
means asking yourself, Am I willing to transform in the process of helping
my students transform? This means taking the position that without developing
a deeper awareness of our own frames of reference and how they
shape practice, there is little likelihood that we can foster change in others.
References
Boyd, R. D., and Meyers, J. G. “Transformative Education.”
International Journal of
Lifelong Education,
1988, 7, 261–284.
Brookfield, S. “Racializing the Adult Education.”
Harvard Educational Review, 2003, 73,
497–523.
Brooks, A. “Cultures of Transformation.” In A. L. Wilson and E. R. Hayes (eds.),
Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education
. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Carter, T. J. “The Importance of Talk to Midcareer Women’s Development: A Collaborative
Inquiry.”
Journal of Business Communication, 2002, 39, 55–91.
Chimera, K. D. “The Use of Reflective Journals in the Promotion of Reflection and Learning
in Post-Registration Nursing Students.”
Nurse Education Today, 2006, 27, 192–202.
Christopher, S., Dunnagan, T., Duncan, S. F., and Paul, L. “Education for Self-Support:
Evaluating Outcomes Using Transformative Learning Theory.”
Family Relations, 2001,
50
, 134–142.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
14
THIRD UPDATE ON ADULT LEARNING THEORY
Courtenay, B., Merriam, S. B., and Reeves, P. M. “The Centrality of Meaning-Making in
Transformational Learning: How HIV-Positive Adults Make Sense of Their Lives.”
Adult Education Quarterly,
1998, 48, 65–84.
Cragg, C. E., Plotnikoff, R. C., Hugo, K., and Casey, A. “Perspective Transformation
in RN-to-BSN Distance Education.”
Journal of Nursing Education, 2001, 40(7),
317–322.
Cranton, P. “Individual Differences and Transformative Learning.” In J. Mezirow and
Associates (eds.),
Learning as Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Daloz, L.
Effective Teaching and Mentoring: Realizing the Transformational Power of Adult
Learning Experiences
. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
Dirkx, J. “Transformative Learning Theory in the Practice of Adult Education: An
Overview.”
PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 1998, 7, 1–14.
Dirkx, J. “Transformative Learning and the Journey of Individuation.”
ERIC Digests,
2000, no. 223. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED448305.)
Dirkx, J. M. (2006). “Engaging Emotions in Adult Learning: A Jungian Perspective on
Emotion and Transformative Learning.” In E. W. Taylor (ed.),
Teaching for Change.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 109. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 2006.
Eisen, M. J. “Peer-Based Professional Development Viewed Through the Lens of Transformative
Learning.”
Holistic Nursing Practice, 2001, 16, 30–42.
Freire, P.
Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1984.
Freire, P., and Macedo, D. P. “A Dialogue: Culture, Language, Race.”
Harvard Educational
Review,
1995, 65, 377–402.
Janik, D. S.
Unlock the Genius Within. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Education,
2005.
Janik, D. S. “What Every Language Teacher Should Know About the Brain and How
It Affects Teaching.” Paper presented at Wikipedia 2007 Conference on Foreign
Language Pedagogy, University of Helsinki, Finland, 2007.
Johnson-Bailey, J., and Alfred, M. “Transformational Teaching and the Practices of Black
Women Adult Educators.” In E. W. Taylor (ed.),
Fostering Transformative Learning in
the Classroom: Challenges and Innovations.
New Directions in Adult and Continuing
Education, no 109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Kegan, R.
In over Our Heads. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Kreber, C. “An Analysis of Two Models of Reflection and Their Implications for Educational
Development.”
International Journal for Academic Development, 2004, 9,
29–49.
Lange, E. “Transformative and Restorative Learning: A Vital Dialectic for Sustainable
Societies.”
Adult Education Quarterly, 2004, 54, 121–139.
MacLeod, R. D., Parkin, C., Pullon, S., and Robertson, G. “Early Clinical Exposure to
People Who Are Dying: Learning to Care at the End of Life.”
Medical Education, 2003,
37
, 51–58.
Merriam, S. B. (ed.).
The New Update of Adult Learning Theory. New Directions of Adult
and Continuing Education, no. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Merriam, S. B. “The Role of Cognitive Development in Mezirow’s Transformational
Learning Theory.”
Adult Education Quarterly, 2004, 55, 60–68.
Mezirow, J. “Perspective Transformation.”
Adult Education, 1978, 28, 100–110.
Mezirow, J.
Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1991.
Mezirow, J. “Transformation Theory of Adult Learning.” In M. R. Welton (ed.),
In
Defense of the Lifeworld
. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995.
Mezirow, J. “Contemporary Paradigms of Learning.”
Adult Education Quarterly, 1996,
46,
158–172.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace
T
RANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY 15
Mezirow, J. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” In P. Cranton (ed.),
Transformative
Learning in Action: Insights from Practice.
New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Mezirow, J., and Associates (eds.).
Learning as Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 2000.
O’Sullivan, E.
Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st Century. London:
Zed Books, 1999.
Scribner, J. P., and Donaldson, J. F. “The Dynamics of Group Learning in a Cohort:
From Nonlearning to Transformative Learning.”
Educational Administration Quarterly,
2001,
37, 605–638.
Sheared, V. “Giving Voice: An Inclusive Model of Instruction—A Womanist Perspective.”
In E. Hayes and S.A.J. Colin III (eds.),
Confronting Racism and Sexism in Adult
Education
. New Directions for Continuing Education, no. 61. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1994.
Taylor, E. W. (1993).
A Learning Model of Becoming Interculturally Competent: A Transformative
Process
. Unpublished dissertation, University of Georgia.
Taylor, E. W. “Transformative Learning: A Critical Review.”
ERIC Clearinghouse on
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education
(Information Series no. 374), 1998.
Taylor, E. W. “Attending Graduate School in Adult Education and the Impact on Teaching
Beliefs: A Longitudinal Study.”
Journal of Transformative Education, 2003, 1(4),
349–368.
Taylor, E. W. (ed). “The Challenge of Teaching for Change.” In E. W. Taylor (eds.),
Teaching for Change: Fostering Transformative Learning in the Classroom.
New Directions
in Adult and Continuing Education, no. 109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Taylor, E. W. “An Update of Transformative Learning Theory: A Critical Review of the
Empirical Research (1999–2005).”
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 2007,
26
(2), 173–191.
Tennant, M. C. “The Psychology of Adult Teaching and Learning.” In J. M. Peters and
P. Jarvis and Associate (eds.),
Adult Education: Evolution and Achievements in a Developing
Field of Study
. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Tisdell, E. J.
Exploring Spirituality and Culture in Adult and Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Tisdell, E. J. “Feminism.” In L. M. English (ed.),
International Encyclopedia of Adult
Education
. London: Palgrave, 2005.
Williams, S. H. “Black Mama Sauce: Integrating the Theatre of the Oppressed and Afrocentricity
in Transformative Learning
.” In C. A. Wiessner, S. R. Meyer, N. L. Pfhal,
and P. G. Neaman (eds.),
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Transformative
Learning
, 2003.
Ziegahn, L. “‘Talk’ About Culture Online: The Potential for Transformation.”
Distance
Education,
2001, 22, 114–150.
Ziegler, M. F., Paulus, T. M., and Woodside, M. “This Course Is Helpful Us All Arrive
at New Viewpoints, Isn’t It?”
Journal of Transformative Education, 2006, 4, 302–319.
E
DWARD W. TAYLOR is an associate professor in the adult education doctoral
program of the School of Behavioral Sciences and Education at Penn State
University-Harrisburg.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education • DOI: 10.1002/ace