(Part IV) Transformative Learning- Changing the Educational Paradigm

 

(Part IV) Transformative Learning- Changing the Educational Paradigm

Transformational Learning- The Possibility of Transcendence

This is the fourth 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, II and III 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?

But how can we develop a learning experience, curriculum and educational institutions which are able to really get to the depth of things, that are able to access this second and third order learning? How can we develop third-order learning, which in turn can lead to changes in both second and first-order learning?

Consider your own educational setting or the education you received, which form of learning do you feel it was most concerned with? Which area of learning do the current tests sat by children all over the world retrieve understanding from?

I

n the previous article I focused on what it means to truly ‘know’, a deeper understanding of learning. Second and Third-Order learning. The idea of epistemic learning, where a deeper, more meaningful form of cognition takes place, whereby a learner is challenged and enabled to ‘see their worldview’ as opposed to ‘seeing through their worldview’. I argued the latter form of learning cannot take place on a deeper level as you cannot change a paradigm whilst learning within it. I offered a model of nesting learning, which visually demonstrates the concept of third-order learning, affecting change on both second and first-order learning.

Second-order learning can clearly have an effect on first-order learning but the inverse of this is not possible. It is of the utmost importance that educational institutions, educational leaders and teachers create experiential learning which targets and enables a higher order of thinking and learning.

I have included another model which more clearly demonstrates the relationship between the three forms of learning and how they enact change on different levels of knowing. However, this form of learning is not without its difficulties and struggles on the part of the learner. The model delineates that second and third-order learning may be uncomfortable for the learner and will often involve resistance as it will challenge existing beliefs and ideas about the world based on values, beliefs and social norms (Sterling, 2009). This then highlights the power that transformative learning has but also its constraints and challenges, first in an educational institution or teacher’s ability to facilitate it as a learning experience and, secondly as an emotional experience of the learner (Sterling, 2009).

Epistemic Learning on the Part of the Learner- The Learner’s Experience

Epistemic learning can be challenging and emotionally turbulent for the learner as it requires a restructuring of the base assumptions as a result of the illogical inconsistence between assumptions and experience (Sterling, 2009). To this end, for transformative learning to take place in the epistemic sense the learner will go through a series of states of chaos, confusion and being overwhelmed by the complexity of the experience prior to the aforementioned restructuring of cognitive models at a higher level. In turn, this allows the learner to better understand and be more cognitively aware of concepts and information which before were confusing and complex.  

 The quote from O’Sullivan (2002) states concisely the sentiment above:

‘The breakdown, or crisis, motivates the system to self-organize in more inclusive ways of knowing, embracing, and integrating data of which it had been previously unconscious (O’Sullivan, 2002, p.4).’

The above quote highlights the importance and mindset shift needed to radically alter and change our beliefs, values and social norms, which are required to live in a harmonious and complementary way towards the environment and all living things now and in the future.

Scenarios that Spark Transformative Learning

This all sounds great, but based on the evidence it is incredibly difficult to foster a culture whereby transformational learning takes place. This notion of high-order thinking, third-order learning and cognitive reflection to challenge pre-held views and assumptions is fundamentally challenging in the current educational paradigm. O’Sullivan (2002) among others state that for this self-organizing of internal systems to take place, a catalyst is required, something to perturb change.

Below I have adapted Sterling’s (2003) Process for Transformative learning into a pictorial graphic to describe the process of the stages a learner will progress through when experiential, transformational learning takes place. Hicks (2002) describes a holistic process of transformational learning as a stage of ‘3 awakenings’, the heart, the mind and the soul! This process includes within it 5 dimensions of learning: cognitive, affective, existential, empowerment and action, the initial 3 dimensions happen before transformative learning takes place, which I have added to the pictorial image below to visualize where these dimensions and awakenings come into effect. As is modelled below, it is clear that existential learning links with the initial process of transformational learning, this highlights again the complex nature of a transformative learning process. Looking at the model below, where would you see the ‘3 awakenings’? At what point would the learner be using their heart, mind and soul? Do you think they would happen in that order?

Consider your own educational experiences and teaching practice. At what point are you asking learners to think with ‘their heart or soul?’ I would argue that the curriculum is mostly considered with an intellectual, academic form of knowing as opposed to a ‘spiritual’ one!

Transformative Practice

At this point, it would be helpful to define the key terms in the process ascribed in the model above with a particular focus on the 5 Dimensions of Learning (Hicks, 2002) in providing a theoretical model to ground transformative learning experiences in.

Hicks (2002) 5 Dimensions of Learning

5 Dimensions of Learning (Hicks, D. (2002) Lessons for the Future: the missing dimension in education, Futures and Education Series. London: RoutledgeFalmer)
Cognitive	Traditionally seen as the core of teaching, which is concerned with the intellect.
Affective	When intellectual knowing moves to a personal and connected knowing, however this importantly involves the emotions.
Existential	Students are challenged to face and question their values, beliefs and ways of living- with a challenge of reconstruction.
Empowerment	Conditionally- if the existential crisis is resolved, involves a sense of greater commitment, responsibility and direction.
Action	Conditionally- if the questions are resolved from the first four dimensions, development of informed choices at a personal, social and political level.

 

Conclusion

For individuals to be prepared and transcend their current modes of knowing, believing and seeing the world around them, they need to be prepared to ‘come to terms’ with their grief and pain for the planet and the planetary crisis we face (Hicks, 2002 and O’Sullivan, 2002). Furthermore, educators and policy makers, at the forefront of potentially driving this experiential process need to confront their feelings too but are educators prepared for this? Hicks (2002) would argue that in fact, educators and policymakers are not. Educators need to have more than a tokenistic and cognitive learning model on environmental education! Currently it could be argued that teachers could be inadvertently worsening climate issues by burdening future generations with the task of ‘solving the climate crisis!’.

It could be argued that a holistic view, that of the mind, body and soul, of learning is now required, which allows children to engage with their emotions and grief for the world in order to reconnect with it, a true sense of empowerment! It requires more than just a cognitive approach, more than just the head, it also requires the heart!

‘To understand and deliver a pedagogy which enables and provokes students to move across levels of epistemic competence is in itself challenging. To do so requires an awareness on the part of the curriculum designer and personal tutor so that they can facilitate these changes … it is not always clear that academics and tutors have these competencies themselves.’ (SPMC, 2002)

To foster epistemic change requires individuals to experience a deep level of doubt, to create cognitive dissonance. To this end, learners need to experience cognitive doubt in terms of inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes related to behavioral change or attitude change (Sterling, 2011). To therefore, facilitate transformative learning, educators and curriculum designers need to be cognizant and based on their own epistemic learning and forms of knowing, construct learning systems in which a focus and encouragement on exploration of beliefs about knowledge and knowing through collaborative enquiry.

Future Recommendations

For transformative learning to take place, this experiential learning model needs to be embedded in the core ethos and values of the educational institution, curriculum and pedagogical practice. Educators need to of come to terms with their own experiences, values and beliefs and challenged them through their own experiential learning. A systems thinking approach, whereby each component is focused on the development of the same goal is key to its success so that all aspects of the organization work in synergy. Furthermore, challenging pre-existing norms and values within current, and dominant, educational models as this are essentially not sufficiently transformed themselves in moving beyond a reductionist and mechanistic view of learning and knowing. A model of learning is required that moves beyond educating content in discrete silos or an individualistic manner, a model that necessitates pushing learner beyond the first intellectual form of knowing. More needs to be gleaned from models and institutions of good practice, there are many pockets of this, but more visibility, exploration and training is required in transforming ‘the norm’ within the current educational paradigm.

Part V- Teaser

Part V of this series of articles on transformative learning will look at case studies and examples of good practice with regards to systems of effective transformative learning. A deep dive of the institutions, pedagogy, curriculum and policy will be collated, reviewed and discovered, affording an insight into how transformative learning can be applied within your institution or place of work!  

Reference List

Fear, F., Rosaen, C., Bawden, R. & Foster-Fishman, P. (2006) Coming to Critical Engagement. Maryland: University Press of America, Lanham.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Hicks, D. (2002) Lessons for the Future: the missing dimension in education, Futures and Education Series. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Mezirow, J. (1978) Perspective transformation, Adult Education, vol.28, no.2, pp.100-110.

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

O’Sullivan, E. (2002) The Project and Vision of Transformative Learning, in: O’Sullivan, E., Morrell, A. & O’Connor, M. (eds) Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: essays on theory and praxis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.1-12.

SPMC (2002) Systems Practice for Managing Complexity – project philosophy and theoretical basis, [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: December 2010).

Sterling, S. & Baines, J. (2002) A Review of Learning at Schumacher College, Dorchester: Bureau for Environmental Education and Training, unpublished report to Schumacher College.

Sterling, S. (2003) Whole Systems Thinking as a Basis for Paradigm Change in Education: explorations in the context of sustainability (PhD thesis). Bath: Centre for Research in Education and the Environment, University of Bath.

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.