Acknowledgement: Immeasurable thanks to Dr. Chad Hoggan for his excellent insights into my work.
The Good, the Bad, and the Other
The ongoing development of
Transformative Learning (TL) theory includes an ever-growing array of
perspectives. This is a testament to the
power of the theory’s underlying concepts and the potential for both broad and
specific applicability. The theory was
originally conceived as a normative – or prescriptive – framework that hinted
at social action and a movement toward democratic education. Over time, the range of voices within the TL
community has grown to encompass ideas that do not necessarily fit with these
earlier normative underpinnings. This
paper highlights two lenses – descriptive and prescriptive – and recommends an
explicit identification of the lens being used by authors going forward so that
future research and theory development might proceed in a way that is more
intentional and transparent.
transformative learning; perspective transformation; adult development;
Jack Mezirow (1991), the foundational theorist of TL, has used
terms like permeable, inclusive, and discriminating to
describe perspective transformations. In
fact, these terms have become criteria against which transformations are judged
to be either a bona-fide Transformative Learning Experience or another sort of
generic transformation not encompassed by Mezirow’s conception of TL. In short, this area of research, depending on
the author, could be labeled as a normative framework.
While this paper does not take issue with normative theories, the
subjectivity inherent in the theories can pose a challenge to researchers
attempting to analyze and describe transformations in an adult learning
context, and to readers who may or may not be clear about an author’s
intentions. An analysis of Mezirow’s
writings demonstrates both normative and non-normative perspectives. When stripped of the normative descriptors
and outcomes associated with Mezirow’s ideation of perspective transformations,
a non-normative or descriptive framework
emerges that at once both transcends and unifies the diverse views. Chad Hoggan (2016) also noted this. This lens compliments the normative lens
(hereafter referred to as prescriptive) commonly associated with TL,
most notably Mezirow’s description of perspective transformations.
Donovan et al. (2007), explicitly refer to TL as a “descriptive
theory” (p. 3); but unfortunately they do not support their contention beyond
simply stating it. Mezirow, on the other
hand, went to great lengths to craft TL as a normative theory of adult
learning. Paradoxically, he has been criticized for being both too prescriptive
and not prescriptive enough, as will be discussed later in this paper.
The tenets of Transformative Learning Theory, Critical Theory, and
Social Constructivism support the notion that practitioners should identify and
divulge their own biases and assumptions.
Without the tools and language that might help facilitate the expression
of these biases and assumptions, the epistemological underpinnings of the
arguments – and the theories upon which they depend – are undermined. This can lead to specious arguments, and at
its worst can support a continuation or even support of the hegemonic
assumptions that these theories claim to challenge. This paper proposes a set of criteria, in the
form of these two categories, or lenses, by which researchers can conduct their
own work and critique the work of others.
It is hoped that a more explicit use of these lenses applied to future
inquiry and theory development will result in enhanced deliberateness of
intent, more transparency in assumptions, and greater clarity of structure in
Anchors of Transformative Learning Theory
Transformative Learning (Mezirow, 1991, 2000; Dirkx, 2000, 2001) is
a cornerstone theory in the area of adult learning and education. It serves as the foundation for several other
branches of theory and exists on a continuum of educational theories that both
describe the journeys of adults, and serve as a roadmap and framework for
practitioners who work with adults (Kegan, 2000; Drago-Severson, 2004b). Its significance can be measured not only by
the number of authors and works that it has influenced in the years since it’s
introduction, but also in terms of its impact on those individuals who have
used the theory in practice to facilitate perspective transformations and the
adults who have experienced the transformation.
Whether one uses the theory to describe a phenomenon or to facilitate
individual development, the importance and impact of TL theory on the field of
adult education cannot be overstated.
Jack Mezirow’s conceptualization of Transformative Learning Theory
took shape three decades ago when he sought to describe the experiences of
women returning to college:
learning refers to the process by which we transform our taken-for-granted
frames of reference…to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open,
emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs
and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action. (Mezirow and Associates, 2000, pp. 7-8)
Here Mezirow uses words like inclusive, discriminating,
open, and true to describe perspective transformations, which are
all highly subjective terms. In
addressing such subjectivity, it is easy to become mired in the dichotomy
between a rational view – in which some objective truth rules norms – and a
relativistic view that allows for any and all perspectives to be taken with
equal weight. This paper agrees with van
der Veen (2007), who suggests seeking a balance here by defining rationality as
“an interplay of instrumental and normative rationality” (p. 35) as “Productive
discussions are neither served by drastic exclusion nor by a “radical rejection
of enlightenment” (p. 35).
TL can occur
across two domains of learning initially proposed by Habermas: instrumental—learning to solve problems by manipulating things and people,
what others mean when they communicate (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p.
10). Habermas also suggests additional
domains, one of which he terms normative learning, which is related to
learning the expectations of behavior based on shared values. By carving out this normative space, Habermas
implies that there are, conversely, non-normative types of learning as
Mezirow suggests that a perspective transformation stemsfrom
a disorienting dilemma, involves deliberate rational reflection, and implies a
linear process. He defines a meaning
perspective – or frame of reference –
as a “framework of assumptions” that affects how we perceive and experience the
world around us (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 16). Drago-Severson (2004a) similarly describes
transformation as “a gradual, sequential, and incremental process” (p.
Mezirow has also been critiqued for his structured ideation of the
transformation process. One of the most
significant critiques in this regard comes from Dirkx (2000, 2001, 2006), who
in turn draws on the work of Boyd and Myers (1988) and brings a Jungian
perspective to the theory. He proposes
that TL has a strong affective element and that transformations can stem from
everyday normal occurrences. Dirkx, who assumed
a Jungian view, acknowledges the complexities of the human psyche, which is
perhaps the key difference between Mezirow’s view of TL and his own.
Dirkx (2001) also suggests that the process of transformation is
convoluted and not so easily captured by such conceptual models. He also emphasizes the role of emotion and
imagination in transformations, suggesting that “by approaching emotionally
charged experiences imaginatively rather then [sic] merely conceptually,
learners locate and construct…deep meaning, value and quality in the
relationship between the text and their own life experiences” (p. 70). In short, Dirkx notes that different people
undergo and experience transformative learning in different ways. Before defining these new lenses, a look at
some of the existing lenses applied to TL may be helpful.
In addition to the models proposed by Mezirow
and Dirkx, the ever-expanding literature on Transformative Learning (TL)
encompasses a number of other constructions.
To help sort them out, Dirkx (1998) suggests four lenses: a cognitive rational lens (Mezirow,
1991, 2000); a social justice/emancipatory lens (Freire, 2000); a developmental
lens (Daloz, 1986, 1999; Kegan, 1982, 1994); and a spiritual lens
(Dirkx, 1991, 1998; Healy, 2000).
Yorks and Kasl (2006) propose yet another lens in the form of a wholistic taxonomy, which considers,
among other things, expressive ways of knowing and the role of emotion as it
relates to TL.
Taylor (in Cranton, 2006), on the other hand, provides two
lenses: individual and sociocultural,
based on what he refers to as the locus of learning. The individual lens encompasses
psychocritical, psychodevelopmental, and psychoanalytical perspectives, and the
sociocultural encompasses social-emancipatory, cultural-spiritual,
race-centric, and planetary perspectives.
Definitions of these terms can be found in the literature and are beyond
the scope of this paper, but what is most important to note here is the variety
of lenses applied to TL.
The literature still ignores the tension between normative and
non-normative aspects of TL and consequently demands additional structures to
guide inquiry and give voice to those seeking to expand the theory. Regardless of the lenses currently used,
however, TL began as a normative theory of adult education.
The Normative Roots of Transformative Learning
Linking socio-political streams of theory with streams of thought
in adult education, Mezirow constructed the framework of his theory of
Transformative Learning (Brookfield, 2005).
As mentioned previously, Mezirow (1991) also drew from Habermas and
extended Habermas’ concern with communicative action to perspective
transformation, which in turn expanded Mezirow’s own theoretical conceptions of
Mezirow (2000) makes one of his most explicit references to social
action in stating that adult educators “are committed to efforts to create a
more equal set of enabling conditions in our society, to the ideal of social
justice” (p. 27). He also suggests, as
does Freire that “adult educators are never neutral…they are cultural
activists” (Bell et al., 1990; p. 30).
He goes on to say: “Adult educators…create opportunities and foster
norms supporting freer, fuller participation in discourse and in democratic
social and political life” (p. 30). Both
he and Freire warn, as will be seen later, educators against indoctrinating
students, but these comments nonetheless indicate normative sensibilities.
Freire (1990), who spent many years working with and advocating for
laborers in South America, similarly suggests that conscientization—a term that Mezirow (2000) refers to
as “subjective reframing” (p. 23) or a reframing of one’s own assumptions
related to power dynamics and sociocultural situation (i.e., oppression)—is
attained through an educational process designed to elicit such changes. Few would argue that both Mezirow and Freire
have established anything but prescriptive constructs of transformational
learning. Freire was perhaps more
prescriptive in his call for social action, while Mezirow was less so in
focusing more on cognition. To obtain a
clearer sense of where the theory bridges prescriptive and descriptive
dimensions, however, one must first understand the processes involved.
Learning and the Process of Transformation
The concept of learning
is clearly at the heart of Mezirow’s conception of TL. He writes that learning can happen “by
elaborating existing frames of reference, by learning new frames of reference,
by transforming points of view, or by transforming habits of mind” (Mezirow
& Associates, 2000, p. 19). One’s
meaning perspective in turn affects learning, and provides a context for making
meaning. These meaning perspectives encompass
two elements: habits of mind and points
A habit of mind,
according to Mezirow, is a broad set of assumptions related to one of many
areas including culture, morality, philosophy, religion or art. In simple terms, a habit of mind can be seen
as an orientation toward a certain way of thinking. A habit of mind is often expressed as a point
of view, which “comprises a
cluster of meaning schemes—sets of… expectations, beliefs…and
judgments—that…determine how we judge, typify objects, and attribute causality”
(Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 16).
According to Robert
Kegan, among others, perspective transformations occur when we critically
reflect upon our assumptions. He refers to this as the subject-object split (1982).
Some of our most deeply held assumptions exist without our awareness,
and so we must identify these values that are subject (hidden to us) and
make them object in order to critically reflect upon them and presumably
change them (Kegan, 1982, 1994).
Changing our most deeply held assumptions is an essential distinction
between TL and other types of learning (Mezirow & Associates, 2000).
In terms of
process, Mezirow suggests that critical reflection and reflective
discourse are, among other things, at the heart of transformative learning,
and they involve “a critical assessment of assumptions. It leads toward a clearer understanding by
tapping collective experience to arrive at a tentative best judgment” (Mezirow
& Associates, 2000, p. 11). Through
rational and reflective discourse with others, we can uncover deeply held
beliefs and gauge them against the yardstick of their perspectives and the consensus
of those we include in this discourse.
This is an important element of the process as it clearly suggests that
others can heavily influence the dialog and, hence, the nature of the
transformation. While Dirkx (2001)
proposes a much less structured process, he does acknowledge the influence of
These questions are
rhetorical to a degree because the extent to which the answers can be
generalized is uncertain. In addition,
we are once again forced to contend with the complexities introduced by the
notion of context. To help move closer
to a greater sense of clarity, it is important to understand what is being
transformed and what other sorts of changes occur before, during, and after
perspective transformations. In this
regard, the work of Kegan simultaneously complements and stands in
juxtaposition to Mezirow’s work.
Constructive Developmental Theory and Transformations
Theory (CDT) (Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2004; Drago-Severson, 2004a,b; Kegan, 1982,
1994) provides a framework with which to explain the different ways that adults
make meaning of the world around them.
CDT builds on
Piaget’s (1954a,b) work delineating the developmental stages in
childhood. Kegan calls developmental
stages in adults ways of knowing, although Drago-Severson (2004a)
interchangeably uses the terms “meaning-making system,” “way of knowing,” and
In his book In
Over Our Heads, Kegan (1994) suggests that the social structures of the
modern world have become so complex that we require increasingly complex ways
of knowing to help us make sense of them.
He describes six developmental levels through which adults can progress,
each level encompassing more complexity than the preceding one. It is not our fund of knowledge—the amount of
knowledge we possess—but rather our ways of knowing, Kegan argues, that need to
improve if we are to make meaning of our increasingly complex world. According to Kegan and Lahey (2001), “we are
already well informed, and it is maddeningly insufficient” (p. 232). In other words, it is not what we
know, but how we know.
CDT stems in part from constructivism, which holds that people
actively construct their own reality by reflecting on experiences, and not by
merely absorbing them passively. The
theory is also developmental in that it suggests that individuals pass through
various levels of increasing complexity over a lifetime. In addition, CDT holds that emotions play a role in adult
development, whereas Piaget focused primarily on cognitive development. In CDT, the process of transformation is as
important as any stage occupied by an individual, and the influence of social
context on development is equally important.
The movement from
one way of knowing to another may entail increasingly complex thought
processes, but new questions emerge: Do
such transformations require acceptance of the views of others, or do
they simply entail a new way of meaning making in which the subject attempts to
understand the views of others?
Can a person undergo a transformative learning experience and come to
reject the views of others? What if
those views are or are not in agreement with our own? The answers to these questions depend in part
on who is asked and which lenses that individual applies.
In light of the normative
construct of TL as envisioned by Mezirow and others, one is also led to
consider whether some developmental levels, as defined in CDT, are better (more
advanced) than others. Taking an
apparently descriptive view, as defined earlier in this paper, Drago-Severson
et al. (2001) and Kegan (1994), tell us that one way of knowing is not
intrinsically better than another; successive levels are merely more complex
and allow for more sophisticated meaning making. On the other hand, if one agrees that an
individual must possess certain cognitive ability to engage in the critical
reflection required for a perspective transformation (Merriam, 2004), this indeed implies that some levels are
at least qualitatively better than others if not morally or politically.
While these developmental
processes are presented as sequential, people of similar ages and phases of their
lives may be at different stages in their development. In addition, as will be discussed below,
adults undergoing these changes need different supports and challenges to help
them cope with the increasing complexity and ambiguity with which they are
confronted. These supports and
challenges are part of what Kegan (1982) and Drago-Severson (2001)
describe as the holding environment, and here once again the notion of
context demands consideration.
The Challenge of Context
al. (2001) describe the role of the holding environment in transformations:
Students with different ways of knowing
need different forms of support and challenge from their surrounding contexts
to grow. [These] “holding environments,”
when successful, can help students grow to manage better the complexities of
their learning and their other social roles.
postulates that one’s way of knowing can in turn influence how one construes
and makes use of supports and challenges (2004a). Therefore, not only does the holding
environment impact a person’s learning experience, but one’s way of knowing can
in turn influence the way one perceives the holding environment. One may deduce from this line of reasoning that
the holding environment is subordinate to the developmental stage. In other words, if a person does not see the
value of her holding environment due to her current perception of it, then he
or she must progress to a new way of knowing in order to recognize the value of
those supports and challenges and then make use of them. It is clear, then, that the holding
Taking this a step
further, Clark and Wilson (1991) warn against approaching TL from a
decontextualized perspective. They cite
Mezirow’s attempt to extrapolate the process seen in the women in his early
study to the broader adult population, which caused the theory to lose its
original context and hence its meaning.
They conclude that, “context…is integral to the structure of the [TL]
theory” (p. 79). Clark and Wilson also
chide Mezirow for “uncritically
incorporating [into TL theory]… the hegemonic American values of individualism,
rationality and autonomy” (p. 80).
This is not to say that a normative or prescriptive approach should
never be taken, but rather that it introduces subjectivity, which by
implication is exclusionary. The
process of uncovering our most deeply held assumptions can be arduous and, and
ironically some arguments made to support TL reflect the very values that the
theory tries to countervail.
While Mezirow’s early
conception of TL was derived from the emancipatory domain, he later expanded
the theory to become more broadly descriptive of the processes and outcomes of
perspective transformations. Mezirow (1998)
suggests that “the universal constructs of…adult learning are interpreted
differently by different cultures and in different time periods. Choice is rational if one chooses well. The culture and time determines what ‘well’
means” (p. 2). Here he recognizes the
influence of context and tacitly acknowledges the challenges posed by any
normative application of the theory.
The constructive nature
of learning suggests that it is context-bound — students’ journeys are all very
different. Harkening back to Habermas,
we are compelled to acknowledge that learning cannot be disconnected from its
communicative dimension. All of our
contexts, communications, and interrelationships are inherently emotional and
subjective (Brookfield, 1993; Heron, 1992).
When these notions are combined, we can conclude that myriad
perceptions, learning processes, and outcomes are possible in any given
learning or developmental context.
A key element of context that seems to be downplayed in the
literature is the issue of locality. As
mentioned earlier, Taylor (2006) provides two lenses to help frame discussions
in this regard. Social action theory
addresses local context to a certain degree, but transformative learning,
critical theory, and social action theory all seem to emphasize broader social
movements and tend to ignore the impact of micro-environmental factors on
learning. Brookfield (2000), for
example, suggests that critical reflection should be aimed at hegemonic
assumptions and power dynamics. Habermas
too recognizes that some social action comes from a critique of the consensus
of the dominant culture (Van Der Veen, 2007).
When applied at a local or individual level, however, many outcomes are
possible and not all transformations will necessarily meet Mezirow’s strict
What of a young man who is raised in a feminist commune? Upon critical reflection, he might
justifiably come to different conclusions about power dynamics than if he had
been raised in an all-male racist environment.
Again, perspective and context are crucial elements in framing
transformations and in subsequently judging them from a normative perspective.
The contexts of
learners who undergo transformative learning experiences, regardless of the
lens or model applied, create challenges in crafting theoretical
generalizations. Such challenges are
inherent in the development of any overarching theory that addresses adult
learning, but in this case the very values engrained in the theory are in
danger of being eradicated – or excavated (Brookfield, 2000) – by the
theory’s incapacity to adequately address the myriad outcomes it enables. This need not be the case, however, if one
considers a broader view of TL through the explicit application of a non-prescriptive,
or descriptive, lens.
The Descriptive Lens
In concluding his
literature review of Transformative Learning, Taylor (2007) calls for, among
other things, a “broadening of the definition of a perspective transformation”
(p. 1). A descriptive view of TL allows
for such a broadening by allowing for a variety of transformations, normative
and otherwise. While it does not appear
that Taylor is suggesting that we strip the theory of its normative
orientation, his comment suggests that this might be appropriate at times.
Mezirow was criticized
for broadening the theory, which was seen by some as a distancing from those
roots. One such critique cited his “lack
of a coherent, comprehensive theory of social change” (Collard & Law, 1989,
p. 102). Mezirow (1989) responded to
this critique in his retort: “it seems
unsupportable to suggest that every perspective transformation must involve a
critique of social oppression” (p. 243).
These statements indicate that there may be room for multiple views, and
that in fact this might be welcomed.
Mezirow (1991) describes
critical reflection as “appraisive rather than prescriptive or designative” (p.
88). He also points out that “Habermas
follows Hegel and Marx in rejecting the notion that a transformed consciousness
can be expected to lead automatically to a predictable form of action in a
specific situation” (p. 88). He later
adds, “One cannot become emancipated through indoctrination” (p.88). These statements seem to indicate that he has
struggled with the epistemological implications of TL despite his normative
arguments supporting a number of approaches to the development, analysis, and
application of theory as well. Prange
(1999), for example, explicitly discusses the prescriptive versus descriptive
contributions made by various organizational learning theories. In highlighting
different theorists, she makes a case for a descriptive approach to theory
building. To this end she suggests,
among other things, that “one should describe processes and results of
organizational learning, rather than undertake a futile attempt at prescriptive
generalization” (p. 31).
Some argue that the use
of a descriptive lens applied to perspective transformations is tantamount to a
regression to rationality and instrumentalization (van der Veen,
2007). To lose the normative elements
inherent in TL and adult education is to move in a direction that is
antithetical to the tenets of the theory itself. Cunningham (1993) expresses this notion in
stating that “democratic adult education should facilitate the production of
knowledge by the ‘have-nots’ to counter the official knowledge of the ‘haves’”
(Kerka, 1997, p. 2).
Yet another perspective comes from Kegan
(2000), who, like Brookfield (2000), makes a compelling argument that the word transformation
is in danger of losing its original meaning because of its increasing
ubiquity. He laments that the word
“begins to refer to any kind of change or process at all.” (p. 47). While Kegan may take issue with this diluted
meaning, he nevertheless recognizes that the dilution has apparently already
happened and that descriptive views are in play, which Hoggan (2016) also
perspectives suggest that some action be taken, and in light of this it is
incumbent upon researchers to provide new tools that will guide future inquiry
without losing sight of the goals of adult learning and education. The provision for these two new categories –
descriptive and prescriptive – may serve this purpose.
advocates for the explicit use of two lenses in the study of Transformative
Learning; however, proposing a
descriptive lens has its risks. In
building an argument for an explicit delineation as has been presented here,
one might conclude that the emphasis of adult education should, like water,
take the form of its container; that social change is less important than the
analysis applied to justify its proposed outcomes. However, it is not necessary to subscribe
to the term descriptive or the theories encompassed by this lens any
more than it is necessary to subscribe to the term bigotry or the
behaviors that are encompassed by it.
These terms serve as descriptors that help us to categorize, analyze,
and conduct inquiry. And while these
terms vary in their level of subjectivity, they have intrinsic, non-normative
value in research as discussed earlier.
A descriptive lens also allows researchers, who are so inclined, to
reject transformations that are not aligned with certain models of TL, while
simultaneously creating a more expansive space to analyze transformations that
fall outside the boundaries set by normative models.
When liberated from its prescriptive constraints, Transformative
Learning theory provides a unique framework with which to describe a wide
variety of intellectual and emotional journeys.
It has been argued here that many authors only implicitly apply these
lenses. A more explicit use of the terms
descriptive and prescriptive as qualifiers—applied not only to transformations
and branches of theory, but to other adult education theories as well—provides
us with a more robust set of tools with which to describe learning in all its
A constructivist epistemology demands that researchers in the field
of adult education should be explicit about their assumptions, perspectives,
and lenses. Since the proposed lenses
are dichotomous, there may be significant implications in that future
Transformational Learning theory development and the analysis of perspective
transformations may proceed down two or more paths going forward. Some have
implicitly argues that his is already happening as mentioned above.
Consequently, such lenses and models can help frame new constructs at a broad
level, or serve as a metric of sorts against which a given perspective
transformation can be judged at a more granular level to be good, bad, or
neither. It is hoped that applying the
two proposed lenses will accomplish these goals without diminishing the spirit
of social change inherent in Transformative Learning theory.
L. M. (2001). An update on transformative learning. In S. Merriam (Ed.), The
new update on adult learning theory (pp. 15-24). New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education (89). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
M. F. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and
mind. New York: Basic Books.
B., Gaventa, J., & Peters, J. (Eds.). (1990). We make the road by
walking: Conversations on education and
social change, Myles Horton and Paolo Freire. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
R. D., & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 7(4) 261-284.
S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco:
S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore
alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
S. D. (1990). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in
the classroom (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
S. D. (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical
practice of adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4) 227-242.
S. D. (2000). Transformation as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow and Associates
(Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 125-148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
S. D. (2005). Learning democratic reason: The adult education project of Jurgen
Habermas. Teachers College Record, 107(6), 1127-1168.
M. C., & Wilson, A. L. (1991). Context and rationality in Mezirow’s theory
of transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2), 75-91.
S., & Law, M. (1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique
of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(2), 99-107.
S. (2004). Making the case for a developmental perspective. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 36(7), 275-281.
B. C., Merriam, S., & Reeves, P. (1998). The centrality of meaning-making
in transformational learning: How HIV-positive adults make sense of their
lives. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(2), 65-84.
B. C., Merriam, S., Reeves, P., & Baumgartner, L. (2000). Perspective
transformation over time: A 2-year follow-up study of HIV-positive adults. Adult
Education Quarterly, 50(2), 102-119.
P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for
educators of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives
for teachers of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
P. (1997). Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for
educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
P. M. (1993). Let’s get real: A critical look at the practice of adult
education. Journal of Adult Education, 22(1), 3-15.
L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational
power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
L. A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco:
(date 1723) In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Retrieved on September 15,
2008 from http://www.merriam-webster.com.
(n.d.) In Princeton University online.
Retrieved on September 15, 2008 from http://wordnet.princeton.edu.
J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
J. M. (1998). Transformative learning in the practice of adult education: An
overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1-14.
J. M. (2000). After the burning bush: Transformative learning as imaginative
engagement with everyday experience. In Proceedings of the third international
transformative learning conference, Columbia University, New York, October
J. M. (2001). The power of feelings: Emotion, imagination and the construction
of meaning in adult learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult
learning theory (pp. 63-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
J. M. (2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on
emotion and transformative learning. In E. W. Taylor (Ed.), Teaching for change
(pp. 15-26). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109. San
L. L., Meyer, S. R., & Fitzgerald, S. P. (2007). Transformative learning
and appreciative inquiry: A more perfect union for deep organizational change.
Academy of Management Proceedings.
E. (2004a). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective
development. New York: Teachers College Press.
E. (2004b). Helping teachers learn: principal leadership for adult growth and
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
E., Helsing, D., Kegan, R., Popp, N., Broderick, M., & Portnow, K. (2001,
October). The power of a cohort and of collaborative groups. Focus on Basics:
Connecting Research and Practice, 5(B), 15-22.
P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Revised 20th Anniversary Ed.). New York:
M. (1995). Adult education and society today. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 14(2), 110-119.
P. L. B. (2004). Transformative learning in undergraduate education. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
D., Drago-Severson, E., & Kegan, R. (2004). Applying
constructive-developmental theories of adult development to ABE and ESOL
practice. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 4, 156-194.
J. (1992). Feeling and personhood: Psychology in another key. London: Sage.
Hoggan (2016) A typology of transformation: Reviewing the transformative
learning literature, Studies in the Education of Adults, 48:1, 65-82.
EK. (1980). Perspective transformations in health practices: A study in
learning and fundamental life change. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles.
E., & Yorks, L. (2002). An extended epistemology for transformative
learning theory and its application through collaborative inquiry. Teachers
College Record Online.
R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
R. (2000). What ‘form’ transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to
learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation
(pp. 35-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work:
Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
S. (1997). Adult education: Social change or status quo? ERIC Digest, 176,
C. D., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M., & Baker, B. A. (2006).
The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634-653.
S. B. (2004). The role of cognitive development in Mezirow’s transformational
learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 60-68.
S. B., & Brockett, R. G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult
education: An introduction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
J. A. (1989). Transformation theory and social action: A response to Collard
and Law. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(3), 169-175.
J. A., & Associates. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A
guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
J. A. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco:
J. A. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3),
J. A. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow & Associates
(Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
P. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology (3rd ed.). New York: W. H.
M. (1994). Response to understanding transformation theory. Adult Education
Quarterly, 44(4), 236-242.
J. (1954a). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child
development. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review.
J. (1954b). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
K., Popp, N., Broderick, M., Drago-Severson, E., & Kegan, R. (1998).
NCSALL’s research findings: Transformational learning in adulthood, 2(D).
C. (1999). Organizational learning –
desperately seeking theory? In Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., Araujo, L.
(Eds.), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization,(pp. 23-43).
(n.d.) In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Retrieved on September 15, 2008
(n.d.) In Princeton University online.
Retrieved on September 15, 2008 from http://wordnet.princeton.edu.
E. W. (1996). Rationality and emotions in transformative learning theory: A
neurobiological perspective. In H. Reno & M. Witte (Eds.), 37th annual
adult education research conference proceedings (pp. 301-306). Tampa:
University of South Florida.
E. W. (2000). Fostering transformative learning in the adult education
classroom. The Canadian Journal of the Study of Adult Education, 14, 1-28.
E. W. (2003). Attending graduate school in adult education and the impact on
teaching beliefs: A longitudinal study. Journal of Transformative Education, 1,
E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of
the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 26(2), 173-191.
der Veen, R. (2007). A model for the support of active citizens: Based on
Habermas’ theory of communicative rationality. In R. Van der Veen, D. Wildesmeerch,
J. Youngblood, & V. Marsick (Eds.), Democratic practices as learning
opportunities (pp. 33-44). Rotterdam: Sense.
L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
L., & Kasl, E. (2002). Towards a theory and practice for whole person
learning: Reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education
Quarterly, 52(3), 176-192.
L., & Kasl, E. (2006). I know more than I can say: A taxonomy for using
expressive ways of knowing to foster transformative learning. Journal of
Transformative Education, 4(1), 43-64.