"INSIDEPIDP"

 

Building a case for ‘Soulful’ Transformation and learning.

An investigation of spiritually transformative learning theory.

 

Learning theories are conceptual frameworks describing how information is absorbed, processed, and retained during learning (Learning Theory, 2015). Over the years, learning theories have evolved from learning being a “process of receiving” to learning being “construction of knowledge”. In the last two centuries a paradigm shift has happened in the conceptualization of learning theories. These theories range from traditional ones like behaviorism, cognitivist and constructivist to more modern approaches like transformational, experiential and social emancipatory theories. However, a consensus over the best or most appropriate learning theory is still far from sight as scholars have always sided with one side of thought or the other.

 

Briefly summarize this learning theory, highlighting key concepts, mentioning noted theorists.

My understanding of these theories suggests me that they are situational and each learning theory has a relevance depending upon the content, context, learner’s motivation, background, intellect and maturity. Thus, I believe each learning theory has a relevance of its own.

 As I went through one theory after another- understanding how learning happens, there were times I agreed with each and there were times when I said to myself no there needs to be something more to it. And I guess that is the reason why so many theories on learning have come up over the years. I like the behaviorists’ ideology of learning who say that lets ‘drink’ it and absorb it. After all, when I think of my small kid who asks me what does this shape mean- ‘A’, I just tell him ‘A’ and he accepts it and absorbs it. I equally like the constructivists’ ideology of learning who say don’t just ‘drink’ it- know it, make your own recipe for it and then ‘drink it’ and ‘offer it’. When my son is playing with his lego- that is his familiarity zone- and so he experiments and creates random shapes and objects- and then he identifies them with something he knows- and relates them to a small little experience of his own. He is at this time constructing knowledge.

   When I thought more closely about where I stand today and how I learn- as an adult, as a person with my own ideas, knowledge and perspectives – I realized that learning for me is ‘soulful’ transformation.

Transformative Learning Theory

Transformative learning is about altering/reframing perspectives and mindsets through a critical reflection of one’s own paradigms. ‘Transformation’, literally mean to go beyond or across structure, change completely, essentially composition, or structure, or a metamorphosis.

Jack Mezirow, a leading thinker in adult education, developed the theory of transformative learning in the late 70s and early 80s. The foundation of this theory consists of “dynamic, fundamental changes in the way individuals see themselves and the world in which they live” (Caffarella & Merriam, 2009, p. 60). Transformative learning theory says that the process of "perspective transformation" has three dimensions: psychological (changes in understanding of the self), convictional (revision of belief systems), and behavioral (changes in lifestyle) (Transformative Learning, 2014).

Mezirow’s initial theory on TL postulated in 1978 included 10 phases or steps leading to transformative learning presented in figure 1,

According to Kitchenham (2008), Mezirow’s early theory of transformative learning was influenced by Kuhn’s (1962) paradigm, Freire’s (1970) conscientization, and Habermas’s (1971, 1984) domains of learning (Mezirow, 1978a, 1991a, 2000). Mezirow adapted Haberma’s 3 domains of learning that is technical, practical and emancipatory (Haberma, 1971) as instrumental, dialogue and self-reflective (Mezirow, 1985). He stated that the three types of learning are meaning perspectives-the general frames of reference comprising of meaning schemes. He further explained that within each of the three learning types, three learning processes operate- learning within meaning schemes, learning new meaning schemes, and learning through meaning transformation. Mezirow (1985) further stated that perspective transformation occurs when meaning schemes change and this may happen painlessly or painfully.

In 1991, Mezirow added the 11th stage to the earlier known 10 stage model of perspective transformation- renegotiating relationships and negotiating new relationships, between stage 8 and 9. At this time and further in 1994 he argued that the central element to perspective transformation is critical self-reflection. In other words questioning and reconciling lied at the heart of transformation. He emphasized here that meaning was individualistic and was within the learner and it became significant through critical discourse. He further argued that there are three types of meaning perspectives: epistemic- related to knowledge and how a person uses knowledge, sociolinguistic- related to language and how it is used in social settings and psychological- related to the way people viewed themselves. He said that remedy for distortions in any of the meaning perspectives was perspective transformation and reflective discourse. Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning at this point resembled the works of constructivist theorists like Kelly (1970), Knowles (1975), Kolb (1984), Piaget (1972) and social constructivists like Vygotsky (1978).

In 1995, Mezirow presented three types of reflection- content, process and premise. Here, content referred to examining previous actions (learning within meaning schemes), process to where the actions and their related factors originated (learning new meaning schemes) and premise to transforming a series of meaning schemes (learning through meaning transformation). Transformation through premise reflection was much more profound and deeper.

Further in 1998, Mezirow gave the taxanomy of critical reflection of and on assumptions and stated that they involved objective reframing (consideration of the assumptions) and subjective reframing (consideration of what caused the assumptions).

In 2000, Mezirow, called his theory of transformative learning- a theory in progress and added, the fourth type of learning to it which was transforming points of view. He added that learning could also occur by transforming point of view and that this was not the same as transforming habits of mind.

Transformative learning theory is an adult learning theory because it rests on the accumulation of acquired experiences in order to “reflect back on prior learning to determine whether what we have learned is justified under present circumstances” (Mezirow, 1990). The process of perspective transformation concerns “the epistemology of how adults learn to reason for themselves” (Mezirow, 2009)

Spiritual Learning

The idea behind soulful learning is that we need to engage the whole person in the learning process and not just his mind, body or intellect (Nuttall, 2009). Learning occurs when all of these work cohesively on what is being learnt.

Soulful learning is well represented in the holistic approach to learning initially identified in Gardner’s (1993) theory of multiple intelligences and, more recently extended to include the emotional and spiritual intelligences.

Education that nourishes the soul involves more than emotion and develops in the learner a creative, disciplined quality of mind. Such education beings through nurturing the imagination, not creating fantasies, but discovering the patterns that weave us together with the world. (Mackeracher, 2004).

English and Gillen (2000) argued that to omit the spiritual dimension of adult learning would be to ignore ‘the importance of a holistic approach to adult education as well as the complexity of the adult learner. Spiritual learning helps us to

• Connect with a higher consciousness or cosmic being through what is described as ‘transcendent learning (Wilber, 1986)

• Move beyond the limits of our model of reality through what is described as ‘transformative’ learning (Dirkx, 1997; Mezirow. 2000; Scott, 1997)

Transformative learning as a spiritual process

Healy (2000) suggested that Mezirow’s transformative learning theory has been often criticized as being too cognitive and lacking a spiritual dimension by many prominent scholars. Tisdell (2007) had pointed out that spirituality is about connection, meaning making, identity development and constructing knowledge. The transformative power of a spiritual experience has often been discussed and documented in literature (King, 2008). Therefore, scholars like Campbell (2010), Dei (2002) and Kazanjiian & Laurence (2002) have turned their attention towards the spiritual dimensions of transformative learning.

Lawrence and Dirkx (2010) argued that the learner’s engagement in the transformative learning process with himself and the world is inherently spiritual as the process is deeply personal and intimate. Thus a spiritually transformative learning theory would be a holistic learning theory (Lawrence and Dirkx, 2010).

Spiritual dimensions mentioned by various scholars that could form the grounding for a spiritually transformative learning theory are mentioned below.

• Connectedness, inclusion and balance were identified by Miller (2005) as interlocking principles of holistic education.

• ‘Presence’ in the context of teachers being authentically present without an agenda was mentioned by Kornelsen (2006).

• Inspiration- an extra-rational way of knowing that can allow access to deeper levels of learning as mentioned by Hart (2000).

• Paying attention to knowledge that we take for-granted as knowledge is discovered stated Ortega y Gasset (1969).

• Mathew Fox (2005) talked about teaching with awe, as awe has the power to open doors in our souls, hearts and mind (Lawrence and Dirkx, 2010).

Further, Healy (2000) stated that to evolve a spiritually transformative learning environment readiness factors, withdrawal from external stimuli, observing mind and body, social interaction and developing a new relationship with self were crucial elements. He suggested looking at eastern spiritual knowledge to base a spiritually rooted theory of transformative learning.

My thoughts

Mezirow (1985), stated that meaning transformation could be a painful process. Various scholars have already recognized that the transformative learning theory is inherently spiritual. Building on the same premise it, I would add that learning spiritually would not be a painful process.

As suggested by Healy (2000), and looking towards eastern spiritual knowledge I can think Eastern spiritual practices like Anasakti (Non- Attachment), Karmayoga (Doing as a form of meditation), and Sattwa Guna (Being illuminated from within) as characteristics of a transformative learner. When the learner is aware that all knowledge he attained through practice and hard work is just a small minuscule of the knowledge that the world has, he will be able to feel less attached to the current knowledge and skill he has. That would enable him to easily interrogate his own knowledge and assess himself and his ideologies.

Why?: Identify ‘why’ you selected this learning theory.

Life is a journey and every moment in the journey leads to - learning. Learning is inseparable from us. The day we are born, learning begins. A baby is born with many reflexes that help him survive, but these reflexes fade away in a few months from birth. Just by being born the little infant launches himself into an environment where to live and survive, he has to learn- skills, ideas, theories, realities as he grows.

According to me learning is a continuous, voluntary or involuntary process that evolves us from physical to mental, emotional and soulful beings. As learners we need to respect learning and involve our ‘whole’ self in the process, as we transform ourselves through new knowledge. Therefore, for me learning should be transformative and spiritual.

In Hindi language, a common word used for studying soulfully is ‘lagan’ (devotion). Parents/teachers educators often try to inspire children to study with ‘lagan’ (devotion). Every child in India listens to this word in two contexts- in the context of learning and in the context of searching for God. According to Indian mythology the teacher is supreme and is the messenger of God, as he leads us to the path of learning. And learning is the path of the divine. The status of learning in India is divine and is even represented by a Goddess- ‘Saraswati- the goddess of learning’.

Spirituality transformative learning according to me is, learning with ‘lagan’ (devotion), where learners, involve their ‘whole’ self in the process of learning and learn not for the sake of the outcome of learning but for the sake of learning itself leading to transformation and growth. In such learning, the motivation is not the end but the process. The idea behind such learning is to delimit our self from our well-treaded learned ways, biases and inhibitions and launch our self on a journey to explore. Such a learning process is free from fear of failure or even the joy of completion. Learning is like breathe for the soul. A ‘soulful’ learner respects and loves learning. He knows that just like his breathe leads to physical growth and life, learning leads to the evolution of his soul.

Role of the Learner: How does this learning theory view the role of the learner?

The learner is at the center of this theory. They construct and reconstruct knowledge about themselves and their environment. With the autonomy of experiencing learning as a process of self- reflection, critical self- reflection and discourse the learner holds an equally important position as a responsible participant in the process. A participant who is responsible and respectful towards himself and other participants, participates but is not intrusive, debates but is not argumentative, is critical but not judgmental, accepts and assesses diverse thoughts and perspectives and yet keeps a mind of his own to form his own perspectives.

The learner is critical of his own assumptions and perspectives. He is not the receiver of knowledge, but a researcher seeking meaning and comprehension. Learners in the transformative learning environment are individually and collectively capable of critical reflection and discourse on assumptions (Transformative Learning, 2014).

The holistic approach to transformative learning calls for the learner to be present in the moment when learning happens, without any agenda or extrinsic motivation. The learner views learning as an integral part of being alive. Just like while meditating a person is just involved with his own self and concentrates on his breathing. While learning the learner is present in the moment, is cut out from his inhibitions and just concentrates on his learning.

Such learners have personal autonomy and they are capable of self- management of their learning. Class participation is a voluntary activity. Learning is purely motivated by the desire to learn.

Role of the Instructor: How does this learning theory view the role of the instructor?

The instructor in the transformative learning process becomes the facilitator of learning who provides the right atmosphere including safety, autonomy and independence to enable learning. The educator makes learner aware of their assumptions and motivates them to revise and review them by providing different views, options and ideas to explore. By doing so, educators encourage practice in redefining problems from different perspectives. The educator must try build the right atmosphere where each learner can freely involve their self in reflection and discourse. The educator however needs to be cautious that he does not lead his students as per his perspective or biases their reflection by spilling over his own.

The educator should exhibit the same love for learning and critical reflection as he expects his students to have. He needs to build an atmosphere of care and trust and facilitate the development of sensitive relationships among learners.

Further, for learning spiritually, educators need to provide opportunities to students where they can experience silence and solitude, explore questions about the meaning and purpose of life, celebrate joy, beauty and gratitude in being alive, develop their creative potential, stretch beyond their perceived limits in specific curriculum areas and social development, and be lead gently through transition in life (Kessler, 2000 in Nuttall 2009).  

Various instructional strategies can be used to create a transformative learning environment.

• Lunde and Hartung (1990) suggested allowing learners write growth plans (set their own objectives), implement the growth plan, and evaluate the process.

• Brookfield (1986) considered group support and learner networks as crucial to the process of critical reflection.

• Moore (1992) suggested story telling as an excellent place to start learning about the soul.

• Miller (1999) stated that contemplation is the soul’s main form of learning and knowing.

• Amundsen, Gryspeerdt, and Moxness's (1993) stated that programs like student discussion groups and classroom research studies provide a much closer approximation to strategies that would foster transformative learning

Further, instructional strategies like metaphor analysis, concept mapping, consciousness raising, life histories, repertory grids, learning contracts, group projects, role play, case studies, and simulations and participation in social action can be very helpful in fostering transformative learning. (Transformative Learning Theory, 2014).

Three Classroom Examples: Provide 3 examples illustrating what this learning theory would ‘look like’ in your classroom.

I envision a soulful learning environment where learning is transformative and creative. Such an environment would make my classroom look like an ‘energy ball’. I envision students to be ‘wholly’ participating in the process of learning and enjoy it completely. I as an educator would just be a participant and facilitator in such a learning process. In my classroom my role would not be limited to content delivery rather it would be facilitating critical assessment of commonly held assumptions and beliefs, reconciling, forming and reforming assumptions.

I remember a session I had once held with my students to talk about corruption in India. It was a time when everyone was angry and animated on how the government was causing it. As a facilitator I challenged every belief they had and every assumption they had about the issue. I then told them they were safe and let them free to discuss. I made them feel big about themselves and quoted examples of how common people and civilian had lead the world in history and resolved big issues in the past. And then I let them lead. For 45 minutes they debated, discussed, agreed, disagreed, reflected, altered and reformed their perspectives. They then wrote their point of views after the discussion.  What came out from that was overwhelming. These young students had brought out perspectives and ideas that were all so new to me. They collaborated their ideas and later presented them in a conference. There were many other times during my teaching career in India when I experienced the power of a transformative learning environment. I used to proudly call them my ‘energy ball’ classes.

I strive to create a safe and trusting environment for my students where my students do not feel compartmentalized and controlled. To let them learn and transform their assumptions, beliefs and feeling, they need autonomy to reflect and decide and as a facilitator my primary role is to create an environment where they can feel that autonomy. For example, I would make my students plan their own learning goals and evaluation criteria’s. That would give them a fair feeling of autonomy in their learning process.

I strive to create an atmosphere where they can be themselves and shed their inhibitions. I recall the speaking bird experiment I used to do in my classroom as a warmup to help my students shed their inhibitions and feel free and safe while exploring their assumptions and perspectives. I would tell them in the starting of the class that we have a mall bird sitting on our shoulder that keeps telling us not to do this, not to do that, else we would look like or sound like fools. Then I would ask them to speak or do something funny and explain them that they can only do that thing if they let the bird fly. This gave me the result I expected. My students would shed their inhibitions and become free and open to learning.

As I believe:

 

“Soulful learning enriches our spirit, revives and reinvents our soul. Let us together embark upon a soulful learning journey.”

 

 

References

 

 

Amundsen, C., D. Gryspeerdt & K. Moxness. (1993). Practice-Centred Inquiry: De- veloping More Effective Teaching. Review of Higher Education, 16, 329-53.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caffarella, R., & Merriam, S. (2009). Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 55-70). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xWtDphO9eTkC&oi=fnd&pg=P A55&dq=adult learning self directed_ffairs&ots=zo4mfp97Qs&sig=p5Bbg1oxGTotPikYFAMLzYKVaZA

Campbell, K. P. (2010). Transformative learning and spirituality: A heuristic inquiry into the experience of spiritual learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.

Dei, G. J. S. (2002). Spiritual knowing and transformative learning. In E. V. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell, & M.A. O’Connor (Eds.). Expanding the boundaries of transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis (pp. 121 - 133). New York: Palgrave.

Dirkx, J. M. (1997). Nurturing soul in adult learning. In Cranton (Eds.) New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 79-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

English, L.M. & Gillen, M.A. (2000). Editor’s notes. In L.M. English & M.A. Gillen (Eds.), the new update on adult learning theory (pp. 1-5). New Directions for Adult and continuing education, No. 85. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Fox, M. (2006). The A.W.E. Project: Reinventing Education, Reinventing the Human. B.C. Canada: Copper House.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herter and Herter.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (tenth anniversary edition). New York: Basic Books

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge of human interests. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.

Hart, T. (2000) Inspiration as transpersonal knowing in T. Hart, P. Nelson and K. Puhakka (Eds). Transpersonal Knowing. New York: SUNY Press.

Healy, M. (2000). East Meets West: Transformational Learning and Buddhist Meditation. In T.Sork, V. Lee & R. Sr. Claire (Eds.), AERC 2000- An International conference proceedings from the 41st annual adult education research conference. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Kazanjian, V. H., & Laurence, P. L. (2002). Education as transformation: Religious pluralism, spirituality, and a new vision for higher education in America. New York: Peter Lang.

Kelly, G. A. (1970). A brief introduction to personal construct theory. In D. Bannister (Ed.), New perspectives in personal construct theory (pp. 1-30). London: Academic Press.

King, D. B. (2008). Rethinking claims of spiritual intelligence: A definition, model, & measure. Unpublished master’s thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of john mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of transformative education. 6(2): 104-123.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago: Association Press, Follett.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kornelsen, L. (2006). Teaching with presence. In P. Cranton (Eds.). Authenticity in Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 111 (pp. 73-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lawrence, R.L. & Dirkx, J.M. (2010).Teaching with Soul: Toward a Spiritually Responsive Transformative Pedagogy. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Midwest Research to Practice Conference, East Lansing, Michigan.

Learning theory (education). (2015, May 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:04, May 21, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_theory_(education)&oldid=660278585

Learning theory (education). (2015, May 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:04, May 21, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_theory_(education)&oldid=660278585

Lunde, J. & T. Hartung. (1990). "Integrating Individual and Organizational Needs: The University of Nebraska, Lincoln." In J. Schuster, D. Wheeler and associates (Eds.) Enhancing Faculty Careers: Strategies for Development and Renewal (pp.188-297). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learners. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press

Mezirow, J. (1978a). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. New York: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Mezirow, J. (1985). A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Self-directed learning: From theory to practice (New Directions for Continuing Education, 25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991a). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the life-world (pp. 39-70). New York: State University of New York Press.

Mezirow, J. (1998b). On critical reflection. Adult Learning Quarterly, 48(3), 185-198.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow, E.W. Taylor, & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 18-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, J.P. (2005). Holistic learning and spirituality in education. New York: SUNY Press.

Miller, W. R. (Ed.). (1999). Integrating spirituality into treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Nuttall, M. (2009). Energy development and aboriginal rights in northern Canada. In A. Dey-Nuttall & M. Nuttall (Eds.), Canada’s and Europe’s northern dimensions (71-84). Oulu: University of Oulu Press.

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1969). Some lessons in metaphysics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescent to adulthood. Human Development, 16, 346-370.

S. J. Donald J. Moore (1992). An Ignatian Perspective on Contemporary Jewish Spirituality. Thought 67 (4):420-429.

Scott, S. M. (1997). The grieving soul in the transformation process. In Cranton (Eds.) New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 31-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Tisdell, E. (2007). In the new millennium: The role of spirituality and the cultural imagination in dealing with diversity and equity in the higher education classroom. Teachers College Record, 109, 531-560.

Transformative learning. (2015, March 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:03, May 21, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformative_learning&oldid=651875795

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilber, K. (1986). Treatment modalities. In K. Wilber, J. Engler, & D. Brown (Eds.), Transformations of consciousness (pp. 127-159). Boston: Shambhala.