Fostering transformative learning in education for sustainable

development (ESD): A review of the literature on transformative

learning for practitioners of ESD

Words: 2,493

Rob Plastow
Introduction
Education for sustainable development (ESD) is born out of a response to ecological crises
indicative of a destructive model of human development. It aims to achieve, through education, a
more sustainable model of human development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. However, a great deal of
learning makes no positive difference to a sustainable future, and may indeed make that prospect
less rather than more likely, (Orr, 2004; Sterling, 2011).

Therefore, educators interested in sustainability and social justice have, in recent years, looked to
learning theory for possible ways forward - in particular, the concept of transformative or
transformational learning has aroused increasing interest, as a way of conceiving and practising
educational forms that might ‘take us to the depth of things’, (Sterling, 2011:18). The following
review of literature therefore seeks to provide the ESD practitioner with an overview of theory and
research in transformative learning.

Transformative learning is defined as a process by which previously uncritically assimilated

assumptions, beliefs, values and perspectives are questioned and thereby become more open,
permeable, and better justified, (Mezirow, 2000; 2003; Cranton, 2006). At its centre it is a challenge
of our beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives that leads us to question ourselves, (Cranton 2002).

The beginnings of transformative learning

Before exploring the broad literature on transformative learning, it is important to first explore the
work of Jack Mezirow, (1978; 1981; 1991), upon which all work in this field has since built upon or
diverged from. Building on his notions of ‘perspective transformation’ in women returning to
education, (Mezirow, 1978), Mezirow (1981) developed his theory by drawing on Habermas's
(1971) three kinds of learning (instrumental, communicative and emancipatory), in order to
construct what he called a critical theory of adult learning and education, (Cranton, 2006). Stress is
given in the wider literature to the fact that it is adult education - King and Kitchener (1994) argue
that it is only in adulthood that people develop the reflective judgement necessary to assess their
own reasoning about their habitual expectations.

From Mezirow’s perspective on Habermas’ work, meaningful learning integrates instrumental and
communicative knowledge, and emancipatory learning occurs when that knowledge changes a
person's perspective on their self and the world, (Mezirow, 1981, 1991; Cranton, 2006).

Mezirow's use of Habermas's work was originally criticized as being inaccurate and selective,
(Collard and Law, 1989). In response, he suggested that emancipatory learning was not a separate
domain, but rather, applicable to both instrumental and communicative learning (Mezirow, 1989).
In 2000, Mezirow (2000) introduced the terminology 'habits of mind' and 'points of view' as
dimensions of his previously described ‘frames of reference’.

“A frame of reference encompasses cognitive, connative, and emotional components, and

is composed of two dimensions: habits of mind and a point of view. Habits of mind are
broad, abstract, orienting, habitual ways of thinking, feeling, and acting influenced by
assumptions that constitute a set of codes. These codes may be cultural, social,
educational, economic, political, or psychological. Habits of mind become articulated in a
specific point of view—the constellation of belief, value judgment, attitude, and feeling that
shapes a particular interpretation.” (Mezirow, 1997:5-6).

Transformative learning is therefore learning that transforms problematic frames of reference to

make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change,
(Cranton, 2006). Such frames of reference are better than others because they are more likely to
generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action, (Mezirow,
2003a). Mezirow (1991; 2000) defines six kinds of habits of mind: epistemic, sociolinguistic,
psychological, moral-ethical, philosophical and aesthetic, all of which are usually left unexamined
and as a result can become seemingly unquestionable.

For Mezirow, learning occurs when an individual encounters an alternative perspective and prior
habits of mind are called into question. Mezirow originally saw this as a single, dramatic event – an
epochal, disorienting dilemma – but he and others (Mezirow, 2000; Taylor, 2000) have since
acknowledged that it could also be a gradual, incremental process. However, there is a paucity of
research on the potential differences that learners may experience in relation to this.

The earliest critics of transformative learning theory focused on Mezirow's failure to address social
change (Cunningham, 1992), his neglect of power issues (Hart, 1990), his disregard for the cultural
context of learning (Clark and Wilson, 1991), and his overemphasis on rational thought, (Dirkx,
1997). In response to these criticisms, the literature abounds with many alternative approaches.
These different approaches can be grouped thematically and the key threads for ESD are:
psychoanalytic, psychodevelopmental, social-emancipatory, neurobiological, cultural-spiritual, and
planetary, (Taylor, 2008).

Approaches1

1
For an in depth and wider exploration of these and additional threads, see Taylor, (2008).
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 that make up
an individual’s identity, (Boyd and Meyers, 1988; Cranton, 2000). It is most related to the work of
Carl Jung, both in terms of analytical psychology, (Boyd and Myers, 1988; Boyd, 1985; Boyd,
1989), and in terms of how different psychological types can perceive and experience
transformation in different ways, (Cranton, 2006). This stance has also been taken up by Dirkx,
(1997; 2000; 2001a; 2001b) in relation to Jung’s work on soul, Mythos and symbolism.

A psychodevelopmental view of transformative learning emphasises epistemological change over

behaviour change or quantity of knowledge. It appreciates the role of relationships, personal
contextual influences and holistic ways of knowing, (Daloz, 1986; Kegan, 1994).

Whereas these first two approaches are predominantly about the individual, the social-
emancipatory approach purports to consider the role of context and social change in transformative
experience, (Dirkx, 1998; Taylor, 2008). This approach is rooted in the work of Paulo Freire, (1972)
and promotes 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.”, (Taylor, 2008:8). Transformative learning, from this perspective can be seen as
ideology critique: (Brookfield, 2003; Brookfield, 2005; Newman, 1994) and its goal is therefore
social (not just individual) transformation.

From the neurobiological approach learning is seen as “volitional, curiosity-based, discovery-

driven, and mentor-assisted” and most effective at higher cognitive levels (Janik, 2005: 144 cited in
Taylor, 2008). 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 kinaesthetic 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, (Taylor, 2008).

A cultural-spiritual view of transformative learning (Brooks, 2000; Tisdell, 2003) is concerned with
how learners construct knowledge (narratives) as part of the transformative learning experience.
Through the work of Dirkx it is also seen as a response to the rational approach of Mezirow. This
‘extrarational’ approach is instead drawn to something beyond the cognitive way of processing,
(Herman, 2003; Lennard, Thompson and Booth, 2003) as Dirx, (2001a) stresses the importance of
incorporating imagination, intuition, soul and affect in transformative learning, (Cranton, 2006).

Perhaps of most significance to practitioners of ESD is the planetary view of transformative

learning, which emphasises the existential context of human development within a larger narrative
of the development of the universe as a whole, (O’Sullivan, 1999; Gunnlaugson, 2003). In doing
so, this approach is heavily indebted to the work of Thomas Berry, (1988, 1999), which it seeks to
bring to life for the purposes of what Berry called ‘The Great Work’, which is to teach the story of
the universe as a mean of re-framing the human story within the context of our relationship to
nature - as being part of the earth from which we have evolved. For Berry, the universe is best
seen as a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects and the Great Work is therefore to
bring about this change in frame of reference – to show learners that they are indeed a part of the
universe – for the creation of more sustainable approaches to development that this frame of
reference, Berry asserts, fosters. For O’Sullivan, this approach is part of a paradigm shift away
from the current market based, mechanistic paradigm to a sustainable, ecological worldview with a
broad vision that spans the individual, relational, group, institutional, societal and global
perspectives, (O’Sullivan, 1999; Cranton, 2006).

General themes in the literature across different approaches

Of great value in summarising the literature, are the eight themes identified by Taylor’s (1998)
literature review, which included graduate theses and other unpublished research findings.

These are:
1. transformative learning is uniquely adult
2. transformative learning appears to be a linear, but not necessarily step-wise process
3. the nature of a frame of reference and how it transforms is unclear
4. a disorienting dilemma usually initiates transformative learning
5. critical reflection is significant to transformative learning
6. discourse is equally dependent on relational ways of knowing
7. context plays an important role in shaping transformative learning
8. some characteristics of a learning environment that fosters transformative learning have
been identified, but more work needs to be done in this area.

Fostering transformative learning

Although the literature covers many key facets of how to encourage transformative learning, it must
be emphasised that transformation is voluntary on behalf of the learner. It cannot be specifically
taught and we cannot say what kind of learning experience will definitely promote it, (Cranton,
2002; 2006). Indeed, if transformative learning was mandated or the process forced upon learners,
then we step more towards brainwashing and indoctrination than learning, (Cranton, 2006).

However, educators can teach as though the possibility always exists that a student will have a
transformative experience, (Cranton, 2002), and therefore what follows is by no means a
prescriptive list of methods for fostering transformative learning, but examples from the literature
for which there is some consensus or at least widespread support.

Methods and models

Critical reflection
By far the most common feature of fostering transformative learning in the literature is the act of
critical reflection, as it is through this process that the frames of reference of oneself and of others
are observed, revised and transformed, (Mezirow, 1997; Taylor, 2008; Brock, 2009).

Mezirow, (1991), identifies three types of critical reflection: content, process and premise reflection,
and it is thought that it is premise reflection that has the potential to lead people to the
transformation of a habit of mind, (Cranton, 2006). Research also supports the expansion of the
step of critical reflection beyond the cognitive realm to emotional, spiritual, and situational
dimensions, (Kovan and Dirkx, 2003; Kroth and Boverie, 2000; Tisdell, 2000; Brock 2009).

Discourse
Another key feature is discourse. Effective participation in discourse is seen as necessary to
validate what and how one understands, (Mezirow, 1997), and is central to meaning making.
Discourse is also a social process through which one makes sense of the world, (Mezirow, 1997;
Cranton, 2006) and through which one may resolve conflicts (which transformation can often bring
about philosophically) through dialogue, conversation, storytelling and perspective sharing,
(Belenky and Stanton, 2000), in collaborative settings, (Sterling, 2011).

Facilitation and self-direction

In the literature, the role of ‘teacher’ is often replaced with that of facilitator who creates an
atmosphere in which learners are comfortable being critical, reflective and feel free to discuss
ideas with others; the educator then functions as a provocateur when necessary and eventually
works themselves out of a lone position of authority, to one of co-learner amongst a class of self-
directed learners, (Mezirow, 1997; Pilling-Cormick, 1997). Indeed, transformative learning and self-
direction go hand in hand as both are developmental processes, (Mezirow, 1985; Pilling-Cormick,
1997; Cranton, 2006)

Action
Research supports the relationship between action and transformative learning, (MacLeod, Parkin,
Pullon, and Robertson, 2003). Lange, (2004), found learners who had experienced transformation
in fostering citizen action toward a sustainable society had a need to act on their new perspective
as part of their learning experience not only because of the impetus that was born out of their
learning but also to test and explore their new perspective. Writers and theorists who emphasise
social action see critical reflection without social action as “a self-indulgent form of speculation that
makes no real difference to anything” (Brookfield, 2000: 143).

Teaching and learning methods

Methods that have been found useful include reflective journaling, metaphor analysis, concept
mapping, consciousness raising, life histories, repertory grids, and participation in social action
(Mezirow and Associates, 1990), role examination through role play, (Brock, 2009) and verbal
reflection through discussion, (Taylor, 2008). The key message being to help the learners actively
engage the concepts presented in the context of their own lives and collectively critically assess
the justification of new knowledge, (Mezirow, 1997)

Models
The following two models go some way to summarise methods in the literature that aim to assist
practitioners to foster transformative learning, albeit that their authors would stress that neither is
prescriptive nor exhaustive.

The first comes from Mezirow’s (1978), original work on perspective transformation in adult
learning, which states ten phases:

1. A disorienting dilemma;
2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame;
3. Recognition that one’s discontent and the process of transformation are shared and that others
have negotiated a similar change;
4. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions;
5. A critical assessment of assumptions;
6. Provisional trying of new roles;
7. Planning of a course of action;
8. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans;
9. Building of competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships;
10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective

A slightly more succinct version (and perhaps more useful to ESD practitioners) is Cranton’s,
(2002), seven step guide for teachers:

1. Creating an activating event

2. Articulating assumptions
3. Critical self-reflection
4. Openness to alternatives
5. Discourse
6. Revision of assumptions and perspectives
7. Acting on revisions

Conclusion
Much like changing our current models of Western development into something more sustainable,
transformative learning is voluntary, difficult, and sometimes painful; it is also holistic, requiring of
deep reflection and committed action, and emancipatory. As such, they are well suited and
complement each other.

Although transformative learning cannot be taught, the inclusion of critical reflection and discourse
appear as stalwarts to the process and there is much in the literature that may be replicable for
ESD practitioners. There is also much to learn from the different strengths of each of the different
approaches. Of particular potential benefit to many would be to further research the fostering of
transformative learning through the planetary approach, as therein lay many common goals and
understandings of those in sustainability related fields. This would no doubt make an interesting, if
somewhat complex, area for further research as it is an approach that O’Sullivan, (1999), argues
could transform human consciousness.

References
Belenky, M., and Stanton, A.2000. ‘Inequality, development and connected knowing’ in Mezirow, J.,
& Associates. (Eds.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berry, T. 1988. The Dream of the Earth. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco.

Berry, T. 1999. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. Bell Tower/Random House: New York,
NY.

Boyd, R. D. 1989. Facilitating personal transformation in small groups. Small Group Behavior, 20,
459-474.

Boyd, R. D., & Myers, J. G. 1988. Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 7, 261-284.

Boyd, R.D. 1985. ‘Trust in groups: The Great Mother and Transformative Education’ in Walker, L.S.
(ed.) Proceedings of the Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult and Continuing
Education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Brock, S.E. 2009. ‘Measuring the Importance of Precursor Steps to Transformative Learning’ in
Adult Education Quarterly 60: 122.

Brookfield, S. 2003. “Racializing the Adult Education.” Harvard Educational Review, Issue 73,
pp.497–523.

Brookfield, S. D. 2000. Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow & Associates

(Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives as a theory in progress (pp. 125-148). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and Teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brooks, A. 2000. “Cultures of Transformation.” In A. L. Wilson and E. R. Hayes (eds.), Handbook of

Adult and Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, M. C. and Wilson, A.L. 1991. ‘Context and Rationality in Mezirow’s Theory of
Transformational Learning’ in Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 41(2), pp.75-91.

Collard, S. and Law, M. 1989. ‘The Limits of Perspective Transformation: A Critique of Mezirow’s
Theory’ in Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp.99-107

Cranton, P. 2000. Individual differences and transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates
(Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 181-204). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. 2002. ‘Teaching for Transofrmation’ in New Directions For Adult And Continuing
Education, No. 93, Spring.

Cranton, P. 2006. Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of
adults. Second Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cunningham, P. 1992. From Freire to feminism: The North American experience with critical
pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 42(3), pp.180-191.

Daloz, L.1986. Effective Teaching and Mentoring: Realizing the Transformational Power of Adult
Learning Experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J. M. 1998. Knowing the self through fantasy: Toward a mytho-poetic view of transformative
learning. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Adult Education Research Conference. Retrieved
from http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/1998/98dirkx.htm
Dirkx, J. M. 2000. After the burning bush: Transformative learning as imaginative engagement with
everyday experience. In C. A. Wiessner, S. Meyer, & D. Fuller (Eds.), Challenges of practice:
Transformative learning in action. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Transformative Learning (pp. 247-252). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Dirkx, J. M. 2001a. “Images, Transformative Learning, and the Work of Soul.” Adult Learning, Vol.
12(3), pp.15–16.

Dirkx, J. M. 2001b. “The Power of Feeling: Emotion, Imagination, and the Construction of Meaning
in Adult Learning.” In S. B. Merriam (ed.), The New Update on Adult Learning Theory. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Gunnlaugson, O. 2003. ‘Toward an integral education for the ecozoic era: A case study in
transforming the Glocal Learning Community of Holma College og Integral Studies’ in Journal for
Transformative Education, Vol 2(4), pp.313-335.

Hart, M.1990. ‘Critical Theory and Beyond: Further Perspectives on Emancipatory Education’ in
Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp.125-138.

Herman, L. 2003. ‘Engaging the disturbing images of evil’ in Wiessner, C.A, et al (eds)
Transformative Learning in Action: Building Bridges Across Contexts and Disciplines, Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Transformative Learning, Teachers College, Columbia
University.

Janik, D. S. 2005. Unlock the Genius Within. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

Kegan, R. 1994. In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

King, P. and Kitchener, K. 1994. Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lange, E.A. 2004. ‘Transformative and Restorative Learning: A Vital Dialectic for Sustainable
Societies’ in Adult Education Quarterly, 54: 121

Lennard, D., Thompson, T., and Booth, G.. 2003. ‘The Artist’s Inquiry: Fostering Transformative
Learning through the Arts’ in Wiessner, C.A, et al (eds) Transformative Learning in Action: Building
Bridges Across Contexts and Disciplines, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Transformative Learning, Teachers College, Columbia University

MacLeod, R. D., Parkin, C., Pullon, S., and Robertson, G. 2003. “Early Clinical Exposure to People
Who Are Dying: Learning to Care at the End of Life.” Medical Education Issue 37, pp.51–58.

Mezirow, J. 1978. Education for perspective transformation: Women re-entry programs in

community college. New York: Center for Adult Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Mezirow, J. 1981. ‘A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education’ in Adult Education, Vol. 32,
pp.3-24.

Mezirow, J. 1985. A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Selfdirected

learning: From theory to practice (pp. 7-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. 1989. ‘Transformative Learning and Social Action : A response to Collard and Law’ in
Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp.169.175.

Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. 1994. Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 22-32.

Mezirow, J. 1997. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” In P. Cranton (ed.),

Transformative Learning in Action: Insights from Practice. New Directions in Adult and Continuing
Education, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. 1998. On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 185-193.

Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Ed.), Learning as
Transformation (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. 2003. ‘Transformatove Learning as Discourse’ in Journal of Transformative Education,

Vol. 1(1), pp.58-63.

Mezirow, J. 2003. Epistemology of transformative learning. Paper presented at the 5th International
Conference on Transformative Learning, New York.

Mezirow, J., & Associates. (Eds.). 2000. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a
theory in progress. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Newman, M. 1994. Defining the Enemy: Adult Education in Social Action. Sydney, Australia: Victor
Stewart.

O’Sullivan, E. 1999. Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. London,
Canada: Zed Books.

Orr, D. 2004 Earth in Mind – on education, environment and the human prospect. Washington:
Island Press.

Pilling-Cormick, J. 1997. ‘Transformative and Self-Directed Learning in Practice’ in New Directions

For Adult And Continuing Education, No. 74, Summer.

Sterling, S. 2011. ‘Transformative Learning and Sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground’ in
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 5, pp.17-33.

Taylor, E. W. 1998. Transformative Learning: A Critical Review. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,

Career, and Vocational Education (Information Series No. 374).

Taylor, E. W. 2000. Fostering Transformative Learning in the Adult Education Classroom. The
Canadian Journal of the Study of Adult Education, 14, 1–28.

Taylor, E.W. 2008. ‘Transformative Learning Theory’ in New Directions For Adult And Continuing
Education, No. 119, Fall.