(Part II) Transformative Learning- Changing the Educational Paradigm

 

(Part II) Transformative Learning- Changing the Educational Paradigm

This is the second in a series of short articles with a focus on challenging current educational models and paradigms with a view to gathering current research and knowledge to provide a sustainable and transformative approach to education to foster active agents of change for the uncertain future that lays ahead.

If you missed Part I of this series of articles you can find it on my blog (petedrayton.blogspot.com), LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/pete-drayton) or Twitter (@drayton_pete).

Are we ready to make a collective, conscious decision as a species and as a society?

I

n the last article, I discussed the current conceptual ideas around a collectivized approach to learning and set the theoretical context for transformative learning. I reviewed Four Different Ways of Knowing (Harding, 2023); feeling, thinking, sensing and intuition as well as introducing a conceptual model/framework for Levels of Knowing, grounded in systems thinking, by Mezirow (2000). This article takes a deeper dive into the framework set out by Mezirow in the context of Levels of Learning with a focus on the different concepts and levels set out in the framework. In Part III, I will discuss transformative learning in an educational setting.

The Levels of Knowing set out in Mezirow’s (2000) model demonstrates that our worldviews, beliefs and values influence our thoughts, behaviors and actions and this highlights the importance of challenging these worldviews in order to actualize meaningful change. However, an individual, or to that end an educator, could well be unaware of how their own personal beliefs, worldviews and values inform every teaching decision they make from planning lessons, to giving feedback, to how information is disseminated. This is also true of policy makers and curriculum developers. Building knowledge, critically engaging with perceptions and being reflexive through self-awareness of our own worldviews is paramount in our ability to at first challenge them (Sterling, 2011 and Lawton, 1989). In reference to developing a collectivized approach, the model for learning can be applied on both the micro (individual) and on macro (societal) levels in terms of both individual knowing and a collective and cultural form of knowing in society (Sterling, 2011). For the purpose of this article, I will discuss each level of Mezirow’s model for learning and delineate its importance. 

Metaphysics and Cosmology

A quick Google search can support your understanding of these terms but to highlight their importance in their ability to inform and influence our behavior and actions, I will do my best to define them here too. Metaphysics is a school of philosophy which is primarily concerned with the first principle of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time and space. These concepts are paramount in how we relate to our sense of self and how we relate ourselves to the planet. Cosmology is concerned with the study of the cosmos, essentially anything beyond the Earth. However, I wonder how often we consider these fundamental concepts or engage critically from day to day with them, I would argue that consciously very little but subconsciously it is obvious how these have a huge impact on our actions, ideas and thoughts.

Paradigms and Worldviews

It has been argued that the current worldview or paradigm accepted in western civilization is outdated and no-longer serves the world of today (Reason, 1998). Fundamentally, this is a worldview that has its roots held in industrialism and post-war capitalism. Although humans have come a long way in terms of quality and security of life, this is far from equal and has come at the cost of both social and human fragmentation (Global North and South). In addition, these steps forward for humanity have come at the cost of the environment through degradation and decay of its biomes, habitats, systems, life and climate as well as the vast inequality. It is well debated that there is a fundamental shift in our understanding of the world and our place within it and that previous modes of thinking are outdated. This sets the precedent and necessitates a call for change of our paradigms and worldviews if we want to avoid further societal and planetary degradation and decay (Reason, 1998). 

Beliefs and Values

The idea of beliefs and values can be seen as controversial and incredibly diverse as different groups of people regard their particular beliefs and values as most important, above and beyond that of others, and here in lies the issue. If this is the case, how can we go about manifesting a transformation in pre-held beliefs and notions if these are already believed to be superior? This is particularly obvious in the area of education as contested by competing pedagogies, curriculums and modes of learning as well as in environmentalism with climate advocates and climate deniers (Harvey, 2000). Is it possible for different/multiple values, each viewed as superior, within education to coexist (the current educational models we have) or conversely should education seek to determine a core set of values that are necessary and pertinent to all human societies? Of course, these are big, philosophical questions and have been much debated but an answer has yet to be arrived at. However, this reiterates the issue and challenge faced both more broadly with regards to value and belief systems on a human scale and through an educational lens.   

Norms and Assumptions

Put simply, social norms are our perceived notion of how to act and behave based on the attitudes and assumptions of those of our peers, family and community without the force of law (Berkowitz, 2005 and Kees Keizer, 2018). To a certain extent, these are a set of unwritten rules that can be passed generationally as well as from institutions and government of an appropriate way to act and behave in society, ultimately guiding human behavior. However, based on the Learning for Knowing model we can see these norms and assumptions are far more complex than this. They are greatly influenced by our beliefs, values, worldviews and our metaphysics. Kees Keizer (2018) states that norms can exert a vast amount of influence on pro-environmental behavior as individuals often underestimate the persuasive power of social pressure. However, is social pressure enough to fundamentally shift the current narrative surrounding pro-environmental behavior, agency and advocacy? I would argue it is not. I believe a fundamental shift needs to occur within which new frameworks for social norms and assumptions can be built. Pro-environmental worldviews! Stern (1999) presents an intriguing schematic model based on the motivations for participatory active engagement in social justice (see below).

Ideas, Theories and Actions

Social support is a key determiner and driver in gaining momentum and success in pro-environmental and social justice movements to overcome societal and cultural norms and the adverse interests of key players and the elite when driving social change (Stern, 1999), but how are these actions, ideas and theories influenced, driven and discerned? Furthermore, Stern (1999) cites Dietz et al 1989, ‘Indeed our previous work shows that general public support may be one of the most important resources for the environmental movement, and one that is critical in struggles to define social problems!’ If public support is vital to the success of social-environmental movement and activism, how can it be garnered? What ideas and theories do individuals and communities need to hold to support social movement?  

However, this form of movement-activism and call to continued commitment in active engagement is not the only form of activism that can take place. For example, less disruptive forms of action also contribute to the success of environmental movements such as letter writing, joining, collecting and contributing funds and reading movement literature. To a lesser extent action can be in the form of a passive acceptance of environmental and social reform, social norms set out by the societal groups we live in, but these need to be grounded in environmentalism, advocacy and a systems thinking approach (Stern, 1999).

In Part III, I will discuss how the aforementioned forms of knowing and models of learning can be adapted and applied in an educational context. I will focus on models of good practice and what is required to evoke social change and reform in the current educational paradigms.

Reference List

Berkowitz, A. (2005) An Overview of the Social Norms Approach. Chapter 13 in L Lederman, L Stewart, F Goodhart and L Laitman: Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Prevention Campaign, Hampton Press.

Lawton, D. (1989) Education, Culture and the National Curriculum. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Harding, S. (2023) Learning to Value.

Harvey, D. (2000) Megacities Lecture 4: Possible Urban Worlds. Amersfoort, The Netherlands:Twynstra Gudde Management Consultants.

Kees Keizer and P. Wesley Schultz. (2018) Social Norms and Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Chapter 18 Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, Second Edition

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

Reason, P. (1998). Towards A Participatory World. Resurgence, 168, 42-44.

Sterling, S. (2011) Transformative Learning and Sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground. University of Plymouth. Journal for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 5, 2010-11.

Stern, Paul C.; Dietz, Thomas; Abel, Troy D.; Guagnano, Greg; and Kalof, Linda, "A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism" (1999). Huxley College on the Peninsulas Publications. 1.