Transformative Learning theory was first developed by Mezirow (1991) and has been extensively used by adult education scholars to explain concepts of informal learning among adults. As Mezirow (1991) argues, transformative learning “involves an enhanced level of
awareness of the contexts of one’s beliefs and feelings” and a “more critical understanding of how one’s social relationships and culture have shaped one’s beliefs and feelings” (p. 161).
Essentially, Transformative Learning involves a fundamental shift in one’s meaning
perspective – the way one generally makes sense of the world. Mezirow (1991) asserts that there are three types of meaning perspectives. These are, epistemic (in respect of 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 view themselves). Perspective transformation is possible, Mezirow (1991) argues, when a person is:
…able to reflect critically on presuppositions and their consequences, [has] equal opportunity to participate (including the chance to challenge, question, refute, and reflect, and to hear others do the same), and [is] able to accept an informed, objective, and rational consensus as a legitimate test of validity.
For Mezirow (1991), transformative learning results from a disorienting dilemma which is triggered by a life crisis or a major life transition. It is concerned with the expansion of consciousness through transformation of basic world views. It involves experiencing a deep structural shift in the basic premise of thought, feelings and actions, leading to a perspective transformation, a fundamental shift in our ‘habits of mind’ that shape, among other things, our psychological self-image, cultural expectations, and epistemic frameworks about what counts as important knowledge (English & Peters, 2012). Transformative learning is about self-understanding and self-location in relation to other people and the interlocking structures of race, class, gender and the agenda for social justice.
Kitchenham (2008) in his article on the evolution of Mezirow’s theory gives a detailed chronology of Mezirow’s development of Transformative Learning theory. He shows that Mezirow added an 11th phase to the original 10 phases of transformative learning:
Experiencing a disorienting dilemma
Undergoing self-examination
Conducting a critical assessment of internalised role assumptions and feeling a sense of alienation from traditional social expectations
Relating one’s discontent to similar experiences of others or to public issues - recognising that one’s problem is shared and not exclusively a private matter
Exploring options for new ways of acting
Building competence and self-confidence in new roles
Planning a course of action
Acquiring knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans
Making provisional efforts to try new roles and to assess feedback
Reintegrating into society on the basis of conditions dictated by the new perspective
Altering present relationships and forging new relationships.
Cunningham (1998) reiterated Mezirow’s (1991) argument that transformative learning is about social transformation in the sense that it seeks to change social constructions by triggering a personal transformation. However, Cunningham (1998) states that knowledge that is produced by what he calls the underclass is certainly different from that produced by elites as it (the former) is geared to achieving social transformation. His point is that
Transformative Learning theory provides a lens to understand learning and its relation to the production of knowledge.
Imel (1998) agrees with the view that Transformative Learning theory assumes that learning is analytical, rational and cognitive with an inherent logic. Supporting this view also is Cranton (1994), who argues that the ideal conditions for learning are those that allow full participation in reflective discourse. In other words, when a person is interpreting the meaning of a new experience and examining the validity of prior learning, discussion with others provides a vehicle for learning. Taylor (2007) asserts that epistemological change is central to transformative learning in that during the process people change the way they make meaning.
3.3.1 Relevance for social movement learning
Unlike Experiential learning, Transformative learning provides a space to assess the relationship between power and knowledge production. It deals with learning that is influenced by the existing perspectives with the intention to transform them into new perspectives. The theory provokes conscientisation - people are able to question or critique
their reality. Individuals are able to engage as a group to create awareness among others and, as a result, dominant knowledge systems are challenged and new knowledge emerges. Some scholars who write within a Marxist tradition have used Transformative Learning theory in studies related to life stories. For example, Harley (2012a) looks at life histories of activists associated with the Abahlali movement.
3.3.2 Why it is not useful enough for this research
There is an ongoing debate about the phases of Transformative learning. John (2009) warns that there is a growing concern over the linear presentation of these phases as reality does not always present itself in that way. Although the theory explains how adults learn, I am
concerned that it still relies on the individual’s learning and does not clearly explain the group’s learning, given power dynamics that are often found in large groups. In the context of grassroots organisations, learning is facilitated by a range of circumstances, and
transformative learning theory does not give enough explanation of how an individual’s learning experience influences the group’s learning. As stated in the earlier chapters, this study focuses on collective or group learning. As explained above, the theory is much more useful when tracking transformation of learning of individuals and is, therefore, not quite appropriate in this study.