In a world in need of profound change, the importance of transformative education is increasingly recognized. However, barriers abound in our Higher Education Institutions, including that educators often have little notion of how to make their teaching more transformative in practice. This paper builds on our experience of developing a transformative learning intervention in the context of our sustainability education at Utrecht University. For this project, we designed a learning cycle consisting of seven steps, summarized as excavate, absorb, experience, observe, deepen, exchange, and consolidate. We tested this seven-step learning journey in two Bachelor courses, using qualitative student evaluations (n = 305), and then substantiated it by drawing on the learning sciences literature. We conclude this cycle can help educators structure their teaching; include reflective, experiential, and interactive learning methodologies; and invite learners to systematically reflect on their change in meaning making, thereby supporting (transformative) education design in different contexts.
Introduction
Our world—battered by ecological collapse, democratic decay, extreme polarization, and wide-spread mental health issues—is increasingly in (existential) crisis, and therefore in profound need of deep, even transformative change. Coinciding with calls for such largescale transformative change (IPBES, 2022; UNDP, 2020) is a growing interest in more transformative education (Sterling, 2021), which is by this journal defined as an approach to teaching and learning that has the potential for “significant change in how learners experience, conceptualize, and interact with the world.”1
Transformative learning is not merely focused on the content (or object) of study but includes a critical exploration of the (subjective) perspectives from which one engages any object of study. Such education thus invites for a reflexive movement in which learners become concerned with—and reflect on—how they understand, perceive, interpret, value, and relate to the world at large as well as to any learning topic in specific, thereby inviting “a deeper questioning of the assumptions and beliefs that frame both problems and solutions” (O’Brien et al., 2013, p. 48).
In both transformative learning theory and developmental psychology, transformation is understood as a shift of perspective that allows one to see a situation, phenomenon, or the world at large, in a new and qualitatively different way (e.g., Berger, 2012; Mezirow, 2009). Transformative learning invites learners to question their habits of thought through engaging learning strategies like critical reflection, perspective-taking, and open discourse (Cranton, 2016). The theory of transformative learning was developed by adult educationalist Jack Mezirow, who defined it “as the process by which we transform problematic frames of reference (mindsets, habits of mind, meaning perspectives) … to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (2009, p. 92).
The assumption here is that transformation is inherently good (Taylor & Cranton, 2013). That is, when conducive conditions for such deep learning are created, and perspectives end up shifting, they do so in a direction that is more objective, complex, inclusive, and/or expansive—and thus beneficial in a broad sense. In Mezirow’s words, “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” (2009, p. 92). Transformative learning is therefore oriented to affecting a process of change in meaning making, rather than to prescribing what the change (in terms of content or meaning) exactly should be.
A similar understanding is forwarded by the field of constructive-developmental psychology, which asserts that human meaning making can evolve over the lifespan, increasing in breadth, depth, and complexity. As Kegan and Lahey point out (2016, p. 58):
for more than a hundred years, researchers have studied the ways the human being constructs reality and have observed how that constructing can become more expansive, less distorted, less egocentric, and less reactive over time.
Such “evolutions in meaning-making” may result in individuals taking greater responsibility for what they think and feel, understanding issues with greater complexity, considering greater time-horizons (e.g., thinking further into the future), and having wider circles of moral concern (Berger, 2012; Stein, 2019). However, the idea of transformation as delimited to a direction of positive growth has been challenged in the context of transformative learning theory (Taylor & Cranton, 2013). And while, for example, educational philosopher Zachary Stein (2014; 2019) affirms the value of cultivating these “higher reaches of the human potential,” and thus their worthiness as educational aim, he has warned for the dangers of all-too-simplistic “growth to goodness” assumptions.
Despite these caveats, the act of taking different perspectives tends to be seen as both indicator and instigator of personal transformation and growth, which is sharply contrasted with learning merely oriented to information. In the words of Berger (2012, p. 17):
Learning might be about increasing our stores of knowledge in the form of our thinking that already exists (in-form-ation), but growing means we need to actually change the form itself (trans-form-ation). Each moment of our development, then, is a potentially temporary form of mind that, with the right support, can become more expansive, leaving traces of the less-mature form behind like rings in a tree trunk.
As Berger underscores, transmissive, information-oriented learning is fundamentally different from transformative learning and aims for vitally different outcomes. Appreciating this difference may help to explain why—despite the growing recognition of the need for more transformative education—curricula in our Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) still tend to orient around transmitting knowledge and cultivating cognitive skills and not on facilitating transformation (Sterling, 2021; Wamsler, 2020).2
Transformative education involves the examination of one’s “inner dimensions”—that is, one’s values, perceptions, beliefs, worldviews, and attitudes. Such efforts are still rare and potentially met with skepticism, as HEI’s have tended to reject efforts that may be interpreted as “subjective” or “spiritual” (Astin et al., 2007). The reasons for this are cultural and paradigmatic, such as the underlying (modernist, objectivist) worldview of most HEI’s—which does not (fully) acknowledge the reality nor the relevance of these inner dimensions (Sterling, 2021)3—while also having historical and political dimensions, such as the separation between church and state and the resultant emphasis on formal knowledge and marketable skills in education (Stein, 2019).
However, more practical reasons are also not to be underestimated, as transformative education is challenging, not just as lived experience for the learner, but also to facilitate or design as a learning experience.
To start, transformative education demands different attitudes and capacities from the educator, which are generally not supported in the contexts of contemporary HEI’s. As Mezirow (1997) emphasized, transformative educators function as facilitators more than as authorities on subject matter. Rather than transmitting a body of knowledge, their primary task is to invite students into a learning process that supports them to explore what the new ideas, concepts, and knowledge mean to them, their lives, and their learning goals, in ways that embody curiosity and reflection, open-mindedness, and humility. This includes creating social learning environments in which learners learn through dialogue, discourse, and in problem-solving groups, with the facilitator modelling “the critically reflective role expected of learners, and ideally, [becoming] a co-learner who progressively transfers one’s leadership to the group as it becomes more self-directive” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 11).
Additionally, while more traditional forms of education tend to have clear, fixed learning outcomes (i.e., mastering a certain body of knowledge), transformative learning aims to effect change in learners’ understanding and meaning making (Mezirow, 2009), which has major implications for the formulation of learning outcomes, design of learning processes, and use of learning methods as well as assessment approaches. That is, as students will start from different perspectives on the learning topic, go through different changes in their understanding, and complete with different ways of meaning making it, formulating fixed learning outcomes similar for students across the board may be challenging. This raises questions about how to determine adequate learning outcomes, how to facilitate such a process of change in meaning making, and how to assess what has been learned. Though researchers have developed reliable methods for documenting and assessing the transformative process in adult learners (Snyder, 2008; Stuckey et al., 2014), these methods are often of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature, and (thus) tend to be more complex and demanding than current practices of assessment and grading. As they have not garnered wide-spread acceptance or use in higher education settings, an unmet need for effective means of assessing transformative learning remains (Wiley et al., 2021).
Next to potentially being challenging to define, design, facilitate, and assess, transformative education can also be quite uncomfortable for learners. By its nature, such education challenges learners to critically consider their basic assumptions, ideas, and values, potentially involving a restructuring thereof, which may result in a lengthy and deep process over time as mental models undergo radical change (Sterling, 2010). As multiple authors have pointed out, transformation by definition involves loss and uncertainty—stepping into a new perspective involves the loss of old ways of seeing or being; and one would not move into a new perspective if one was certain of one’s old one (Berger, 2004; Kegan, 1982).
As Taylor and Cranton (2013) note, the phases of transformation may involve pain, discontent, guilt, and shame, and the life-changing events that precipitate transformative learning are often traumatic experiences such as the death of a loved one, divorce, loss of a job, or living outside one’s country or culture (see also Stuckey et al., 2014). So, while the outcomes of transformative learning are described in positive terms, the path for getting there may be painful. However, as Berger (2004) underscores, individuals portray a rich variety of responses to being confronted with “the edge of their knowing,” ranging from fear and bewilderment to excitement and trust. Perhaps Dweck’s (2016)growth mindset—the active, hopeful embrace of challenge and discomfort, in the recognition that they are vital ingredients of one’s growth and learning—may (partially) explain the difference.
An important aspect therefore is learners’ readiness and desire for transformation: if participants do not have “emotional buy-in.” the chance of a perspective-shift is slim (Snyder, 2008). In our contemporary context, the disorienting experience of living in a world in existential crisis may function as Mezirow’s disorienting dilemma (1997), priming learners’ desire for change at a deep level. Additionally, understanding that one’s confusion, discomfort, or challenge are mere signals indicating that one is growing into something more expansive (i.e., understanding the growth mindset) may be crucial for fostering the willingness to engage transformative processes. As Berger (2004, p. 349) puts it, “it is only through the recurring awareness that there will eventually be solid ground after the edge of transformation … that students will more and more willingly come to the edge” (The assumption of transformation’s inherent goodness may therefore in fact be a necessary one).
Thus, though the need for transformative learning is increasingly recognized, questions abound with respect to how such education can be defined, designed, facilitated, and assessed; how educators and learners can be primed for engagement in these deep learning processes; and how HEI’s can create supportive contexts for this kind of education. This paper therefore builds forth on our own project of designing a transformative learning intervention in the context of our sustainability education at Utrecht University.
As educators and researchers, we had concluded that our education might benefit from more emphasis on students’ ability to take different perspectives, critically reflect on their own perspective, and understand the role of perspectives in our planetary issues and solutions more. We were also interested in making our education more transformative generally (see also Vermeulen et al., 2014). We therefore set out to develop the Educational Worldview Journey—a transformative learning intervention consisting of short but deep learning journeys that invite students to reflect on their worldviews (“explore”), communicate with those with other worldviews (“exchange”), and contextualize their worldviews in the planetary crisis and opportunity of our time (“expand”).
While we report on the development and evaluation of this intervention elsewhere (forthcoming), the current study focusses on a learning cycle that emerged in our first experiments, which proved useful for structuring and facilitating the transformative learning process in practice. After somewhat intuitively designing this cycle, we tested it in two different Bachelor courses with more than 300 students, who filled out a qualitative reflective survey right after participating in the first learning journey (“explore”). Heartened by its positive reception both in the classroom as well as in the survey, we consulted the learning sciences literature to substantiate this “seven-step learning journey.”
We discuss our research design in the following section; describe our design process, student evaluations, and literature substantiation in the results section; to complete with a discussion and conclusion in the last section.
Research Design and Methodology
This paper reports the design of the “seven-step learning journey,” a learning cycle supporting design, facilitation, and assessment of transformative learning. This learning cycle emerged during our educational design study of developing a transformative learning intervention in the context of our sustainability education at Utrecht University, during the period of 2020–2023 (forthcoming). Educational design research is a genre of research in which the iterative development of solutions to practical and complex educational problems provides the setting for scientific inquiry (McKenney & Reeves, 2014). It not only targets solving significant problems facing educational practitioners (i.e., through educational products, processes, programs, or policies), but simultaneously seeks to discover new knowledge that can inform the work of others facing similar problems (McKenny & Reeves, 2014).
In our case, we developed a learning cycle helping us structure/design, facilitate, and assess the transformative learning process. After successfully testing this learning cycle in two Bachelor courses, with overwhelmingly positive responses from students, we consulted the learning sciences literature to substantiate and improve it. In this way, we aimed to encapsulate our learning and make it available to others.
Our research questions can therefore be formulated as:
• How can we put the theory of transformative learning into practice?
• How can we create a learning process that guides learners through their unique learning journeys, while using transformative learning methodologies and supporting them to reflect on the process of change in their meaning-making?
• How can we make what we learn available to other educators, so they are supported to make their own teaching or interventions more transformative?
Educational design research is generally iterative, evolving through multiple cycles of design, development, testing and revision (McKenney & Reeves, 2014). We will describe this process in the results section, by first elaborating on our design of the seven-step learning process; to then describe the results of testing it in the classrooms of two different Bachelor courses with more than 300 students, using a qualitative reflective survey to gain insight into their experience of this learning journey; to finally revise and substantiate it building on insights from the learning sciences literature.
The two Bachelor courses were: 1) Sustainability Challenges (n = 151), which is an obligatory course within the Global Sustainability Science program4 and 2) Sustainable Development (n = 154), an optional course geared towards Bachelor students from all disciplines. As both courses took place in the Fall of 2020, thus, in the middle of the pandemic, the plenary session took place online. Students’ responses were gathered through an online document containing a reflective questionnaire (see appendix A), which was filled out by 305 out of 322 students (so with a response rate of almost 95%, this part was obligatory). In our analysis of these survey-responses, we do not aim to offer an overview of the wealth of data generated, but instead focus on student reflections’ relevant to the experience, usefulness, and potential improvement of the learning cycle (e.g., the use, combination, and sequence of different learning activities and methodologies). We analyzed the data through using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006), by reading through the different responses while making note of common themes and recurring reflections, and coding these as such.
With respect to the literature substantiation, we relied on several resources that translate scientific insight into concrete suggestions for educational practice. This included a recent review article (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020) that drew out “principles for practice” of an emerging consensus about the science of learning and development, synthesizing a large body of evidence regarding well-vetted strategies that support relationships and learning opportunities needed to promote learners’ well-being, healthy development, and transferable learning. Another important source was Jennifer Berger’s book Changing on the job. Developing leaders in a complex world (2012), which draws on insights from developmental psychology to inform the development of leadership programs for our complex times.
A potential limitation of this approach is that we did not develop, try out, or compare different learning cycles, with the aim of arriving at an optimal design. This is because we did not set out with the explicit intention to design a learning cycle. Instead, it was only upon noticing students’ overwhelmingly positive reception of their learning experience, that we realized that the seven-step format was partially to account for this. Also, as we struggled with the design of the other two levels of this program, we increasingly appreciated the usefulness of the seven-step format for structuring them. However, because we did not actively look for alternative learning cycles or alternative ways of structuring the cycle, it may be harder to note missing steps or other ways the cycle could be improved. The reflective survey also did not explicitly inquire into these questions, though it did create general space for suggestions for improvement (which were also offered by some students, suggesting that at least some corrective mechanisms were operating). It is (therefore) imaginable that variations of the learning cycle will be developed that prove to be of (even) more use in structuring and facilitating transformative learning.
Results: Constructing the Seven-Step Learning Journey
Design: Initial Development
The concept of the Educational Worldview Journey was proposed by Worldview Journeys Foundation, an organization aiming to engage people to examine their worldviews by developing transformative learning journeys—“empowering them to expand mindsets, collaborate more constructively, and initiate creative change in a world in crisis.” The foundation started developing this line of work after realizing its online Worldview Test (De Witt et al., 2016) was used as educational instrument in a diversity of contexts across the globe. The foundation colloquially defines worldviews as “the big stories through which humans make sense of their experience and world.”5
We developed the first learning journey (“explore”) by building on Worldview Journeys’ experience of working with worldviews in learning processes in organizations and groups (De Witt & Hedlund, 2017), combined with an analysis of the literature on transformative learning (Cranton, 2016; Mezirow, 1997, 2009; Sterling, 2010, 2021; Taylor & Cranton, 2013) and adult development (Berger, 2004, 2012; Kegan, 1982; Kegan & Lahey, 2016). Conceptualizing transformative learning in terms of a learning journey appeared apt and useful, considering that transformative learning orients to affecting a process of change in learners’ meaning making (Mezirow, 1997; Snyder, 2008), irrespective of where a learner starts or finishes in their understanding. That is, by its nature, transformative learning is more about the journey, than about the destination.
Because of limitations in available class time, we aimed to condense the learning journey to its essence. Starting from the “destination” of our rather openly formulated learning goal—that is, enhance understanding of (the relevance of) worldviews, foster reflection on one’s own worldview—we distinguished the minimum number of steps needed to get there, envisioning a seven-step process (see Figure 1 for an illustration of this learning cycle).
Figure 1. The seven-step learning journey. Image by Noeske Kaesler.
Aware of the need to customize the learning process, we started with asking students to articulate what they already knew and thought with respect to worldviews, both in general as well as with respect to their own worldview (Step 1, excavate). We also had clear notions of the knowledge and ideas that we considered foundational for engaging with this topic, which we wanted to transmit to students for offering them a frame and context for their learning (Step 2, absorb). We then wanted students to take the Worldview Test (De Witt et al., 2016) and have an experience of taking position on existential questions worldviews formulate answers to (Step 3, experience). We realized it would be beneficial for students, after having taken the test, to actively reflect on their results and experience, so we introduced a reflective journaling exercise (Step 4, observe).
After these initial steps, we expected the conditions to be “ripe” for some deeper and more personal explorations in small groups, using dialogical and group work approaches (Macy, 2007) from other contexts (Step 5, deepen). We knew that after these deep explorations in small groups, students would want to hear about what others experienced in this exercise, as well as share their own experiences, insights, and questions. So, this was the right moment for a group exchange (Step 6, exchange). To complete, we wanted students to reflect on what they learned throughout this process, using their journaling notes of the first step as reminder of where their journey had started and how their understanding and meaning making had changed throughout the learning process (Step 7, consolidate).
As the necessary knowledge and ideas of step 2 could be recorded in video-lectures, we decided to instruct students to take the first four steps of this process in their own time, as homework. This had several substantial advantages. In the first place, as students did the journaling exercises, watched the introductory lectures, and took the Worldview Test at home, this freed up the limited class time for live interaction and deep social and group learning. Secondly, it allowed the instructor to carefully craft and create the video-lectures, which, after successful recording, did not need to be repeated, and could now also be used by other educators, thereby making the program potentially scalable. Thirdly, by designing the learning process this way—that is, with the first part done by students by themselves, the second part in the whole group, and the last step solitarily again—we expected there to be a good balance between personal reflection and social learning and exploration.
To guide students through these first few steps, we developed a document offering context, explaining the journaling exercises, and including links to the video-lectures and Worldview Test (We later developed this document into a nicely designed travel journal, supporting and guiding students through the learning process while also offering them space for their thoughts, notes, questions, and learning goals.). The complete learning journey consisted of about 1–2 hours preparatory work at home (Step 1 to 4) and was followed up by a live 3-hour session, with an emphasis on deep dialogue in small groups (Step 5) and learning from and with each other (Step 6). Afterwards, students were asked to fill out the reflective questionnaire, which we considered a vital part of the learning process (Step 7) while also collecting data for our design study.
Testing: Students’ Responses to the Reflective Survey
The learning journey was well-received by students across the board. Based on our experiences in the classroom as well as more than 300 qualitative student reflections, we concluded the learning journey did not need much change, and that its successful seven-step process could serve as a template for the two subsequent learning journeys.
Only about 30 of the 305 students (about 10%) described their experience in more critical, yet often mixed terms, saying things like “it was interesting but unnecessary” or “well-organized but just nothing for me.” The major critiques of students involved: a) a certain lack of context or connection to the course this learning journey was part of; b) the approach being too “flakey” or “not scientific” enough (potentially due to not understanding the nature and aims of transformative learning); c) the particular timing of this learning journey, which was close to an upcoming exam; d) too much repetition in the live session (due to unclarity on part of the instructor as to whether the students completed the preparatory steps); and e) critiques of underlying concepts and models. In terms of the learning cycle, only the first two points stand out as relevant, underscoring the need to clarify what is aimed for and why (including an understanding of the different nature and aims of transformative learning) and how the different steps serve that purpose.
The great majority of students found the experience to be “interesting,” “fun,” “engaging,” “intriguing,” and “enlightening”, while articulating distinct learning insights and often explicitly appreciating the different nature of this learning journey and the learning methodologies it used. Here a few examples of frequently mentioned learning insights, including a general opening to different perspectives (“I thought that it was very educational and opened my mind to many different perspectives”), more awareness of one’s own views and values (“The tutorial helped me understand and describe my own worldview better and those of others. It became clearer to me what type of person I am and what things in life I value the most”), more openness to the validity of other opinions (“It helped me to think of every opinion as a true opinion and not only see my own opinion as a good one”), and the insight that solving complex challenges may require multiple perspectives:
Differences in worldviews might make communication and agreeing hard at first in some conversations, but they can also be seen as an asset and source of inspiration to solving problems. For example for sustainability issues they could serve to see many different approaches to solve a problem.
Many students also reflected positively on the combination of learning methods, the structured seven-step approach, and the preparatory steps taken at home. Some articulated how this was a rather different educational approach compared to most of their classes:
I liked the worldview journey, it is different than usual, when you only listen to a lecture and ask questions, now you get the opportunity to discuss more. I also liked that you get the opportunity to think about your own worldview and reflect about it and that you hear about others’ worldviews.
Others articulated the value of starting with a journaling exercise, emphasizing it to be helpful to start with exploring one’s own thoughts as well as how this served their reflection-process (“To first think of your own things independently and not influenced by others yet gave a good self-reflection afterwards”):
I think it was a good way to get started, to get us thinking about this topic before we learned more about it. I think we should do more of this, where we define our own definitions of things before getting to know the "real" or more commonly accepted ones.
Students often emphasized that the combination of different learning methods worked well for them. As one student put it, “I liked doing the test because it made me more aware of the stuff I learned in the online lecture videos.” Some students articulated that the video’s provided a knowledge base, which became more concrete and personal in the exercise of taking the Worldview Test, which in its turn was deepened by the dialogue exercise in the live session: “By just making the test I didn’t have a real idea of what my perspective actually is. Whereas after the discussion in pairs I got to deepen into what counts for me looking at my perspective.” And:
The journaling was a nice beginning, and I actually realized that I already knew a lot about worldviews. The videos were good as a base for knowledge, but the best thing was actually the test. Some questions were hard to answer, but it really made me think about the topics, also after the test.
Also other students emphasized the value of taking the Worldview Test, which activated their thinking-process and succeeded in making a potentially abstract topic more concrete and personal: “The test made it less informative, which actually helped me understand it better. It also allows you to immediately apply it to yourself, which makes it much more interesting.” And: “The test was also helpful, because it made the subject very personal and you had to think about your own situation.”
Some students explicitly mentioned the sequential, stepwise structure of the learning process and the clarity this brought: “I really liked the 7 steps structure of the journey. It was a good combination between self-study, testing and discussion. I learned I lot from it.” And: “It was very helpful, because you had to take different steps, which were very clear.” Many students also spoke to how the homework assignments helped them prepare for the live, interactive part of the learning journey (which students refer to as “tutorial”) and gave them time to ponder the foundational ideas and concepts before engaging in class and in discussion with others: “I thought the preparations at home were interesting. I could take my time for them and have the peace to absorb everything and let it settle.” And:
Doing the preparatory assignments beforehand allowed me to focus on the aim of the journey more, as I had already studied the context before. I feel like it has helped me to truly dive into the tutorial and understand it to a much greater extent.
Overall, students also were appreciative of the social learning environment created in the fifth step, which consisted of deep dialogues in pairs (referred to as “stream of consciousness duets”). A fair number of students articulated that this sort of exercise was new for them. As this student put it, “I had never done something like this before. But I felt like I got to know my partner really well, even though it was the first time I spoke to her.” Like this last student, many shared the dialogue exercise created meaningful, interesting, and deep conversations that also seem to have the potential to strengthen the social fabric in the classroom: “This exercise was my favorite part. The exchange of experience, impressions, … created a quite deep discussion.” And: “It was really interesting to talk with people you didn’t know about such deeply personal topics, it’s something you don’t really do all that often, not even with friends and relatives.”
Several students spoke about how this exercise taught them something about conversations more generally (“the idea of letting the other person speak and only listening has taught me aspects I want to implement more in our fast, rushing and discussing world”), as well as about the potential of “thinking out loud” as learning strategy:
… it made me realize that the more open and attentive I am with someone else the more I understand the other. I also think that verbally expressing my thoughts and experiences is helpful to get a better understanding of myself and beliefs/worldview.
Some students experienced some challenge or shyness in doing this exercise, but many shared that these feelings went away shortly: “Initially I thought this was very scary, but very quickly it felt safe and above all interesting.” And: “At the beginning … I felt a bit shy, but I think it was a very powerful exercise.”
Overall, these responses affirmed what we had observed in the classroom: namely, that students were engaged with the topic and learning process. The evaluations underscored that, by and large, students appreciated the step-by-step process, with each step building on the ones before, while using learning methodologies that engaged them personally, including space for both personal reflection and exploration as well as social learning and exchange.
Reconstruction: The Learning Sciences Literature
Reflecting on this learning cycle by considering the literature validated, and to some extent refined, this approach. Below we will describe the seven-step learning journey in detail, and with references to emerging insights in the sciences of learning and development. The learning sciences have shown that learning well depends on (a) how prior knowledge is incorporated in building new knowledge, (b) how knowledge is organized, and (c) how well learners can monitor and reflect on their learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). The seven-step learning journey supports students with each of these aspects, through offering a) support for excavating prior knowledge; b) a well-structured, step-by-step learning process; and c) structural opportunities for reflection, experience, dialogue, and discussion.
Step 1: Excavate—Take Stock of Where You Are
The first step instructs students to journal on several questions, supporting them to excavate and activate their latent knowledge, ideas, and associations with respect to the topic. This active start aids the learning process, while also enabling students to look back at the end of the journey to see how their understanding has changed. This first step is particularly relevant as the science of learning and development emphasizes the need to connect the learning to students’ prior knowledge and experience: “If what they know and believe is not engaged, learners may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them superficially but not be able to apply them elsewhere” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020, p. 110). This is also important because resistance to new ideas can come from their conflict with old beliefs that are inconsistent with them (Kolb, 1984). Additionally, this step helps one to make learning efforts “developmentally fit” to the variety of meaning making styles and worldviews one tends to encounter in any adult learning context. As Berger points out (2012, p. 100–101): “creating spaces for people to name and get grounded in their own experience … makes space for each person to enter the content in his or her own way.”
Once the topic of learning is entered in this personalized way, students can be invited to formulate their own learning goals, thus tapping into their motivation. Unsurprisingly, students work harder to achieve understanding and make greater progress when they are motivated to learn (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Creating space for students to connect the topic of learning to their interests and real-world problems can therefore be a powerful way to galvanize their motivation.
Step 2: Absorb—Consider New Knowledge
The second step consists of the more transmissive aspects of the learning journey: introducing students to the topic of learning through outlining essential knowledge, concepts, and ideas. Cognitive scientists have found that learning is enhanced when learners have a cognitive map for relevant concepts and relationships among concepts, into which they can place and connect what they are learning so that it adds up to a meaningful whole (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). This underscores the need to contextualize the knowledge presented and connect it to other concepts and ideas.
In the travel journals (which we later introduced), we therefore offer space for notes while encouraging students to draw mindmaps that represent their understanding of the topic. We have also taken great care to make sure that the video-lectures depart from a pointed question (e.g., What are worldviews and why are they significant?) and have been developed to present the information and ideas needed for effectively engaging, and thus in service of, the transformative learning process, rather than acquiring knowledge as goal in itself.
Step 3: Experience—Engage in an Activity
The third step consists of an activity, so students can explore the topic of learning actively, and in their personal experience. Modern learning theory broadly supports the idea that experience plays a central role in the learning process, underscoring how learning and development are intertwined with the experiences of the learner in a wide range of contexts (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; see also Kolb, 1984).
As described before, in our first learning journey (“explore”), students take the Worldview Test, stimulating them to reflect on their own answers to the big life questions, including how they see God and nature, the world and themselves, suffering and the good life, science and societal issues. Reading their personal results encourages them to reflect on whether they recognize the worldview description they are presented with. This supports them to look at their worldviews, instead of being embedded in them. Berger describes the essential elements of a transformative learning space,6 referring to this step as “getting it on the table: making things object” (2012, p.110).
Step 4: Observe—Reflect on the Activity
“We do not learn from experience, we learn from reflecting on experience” is a quotation frequently ascribed to the educational reformer John Dewey. In his view, reflective thought serves to train thinking and thereby make it better thinking (Dewey, 1933).7 In this step, students are therefore supported to actively reflect on the activity in the third step, using a journaling exercise and some pointed questions. Journaling can be of significant support for transformative learning, as it provides opportunities to uncover assumptions, articulate thoughts, and piece together life’s threads. These “paper mirrors” reflect students’ internal processes of meaning making, enhancing introspection and self-examination (Hubbs & Brand, 2005). Research has also linked expressive writing with a range of benefits in the sphere of enhanced mental and physical health and wellbeing (Baikie & Wilhelm, 2005). This step entails what Berger refers to as “Walk around the table curiously”—“to take a variety of perspectives on the issue and to ask a variety of questions about it” (2012, p.110).
Step 5: Deepen—Think Aloud in Small Groups
In this step, students engage in “stream of consciousness” duets, in which students learn deeply in pairs (exercise adapted from Macy, 2007). This practice encourages the “talker” to “free flow” vocalize, that is, uninhibitedly think aloud, in response to carefully designed prompts (see appendix B), while the “listener” is encouraged to listen deeply, without interruptions and with the intention to “listen to understand” (i.e., non-judgmental, open-minded). Students keep on shifting roles, so each get to speak as well as listen. Our students frequently declared this to be their favorite step, and the conversations that tended to emerge were often experienced as meaningful, interesting, and connection-enhancing.
Following Vygotsky (1978), learning scientists have demonstrated that “talking things through”—internally or aloud—supports learning by helping people organize and manage their thought processes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Students sharpen their thinking as they converse about their reasoning and inquire into what they do not yet understand. Discussing their thinking and hearing other ideas also offers students opportunities to develop metacognitive skills like self-regulation and executive function, as they learn to manage themselves to interact productively with others (ibid). Berger refers to such collaborative learning as “inviting others to the table,” saying that “bumping up against people who are different or who hold different … ways of thinking about the world is one of the most powerful ways to make sense of your own perspective – and hold it as a perspective rather than the truth about the world” (2012, p.111, italics added).
Additionally, these practices offer an instructive experience of the value of more mindful conversations without the usual interruptions and distractions, highlighting the insight and connection that can emerge when being deeply listened to. When listening deeply, people can also become aware of the mindsets they listen with, allowing them to reflect on the tendencies in their thinking. However, deep listening is more difficult than it may seem. As Berger (2012) argues, it can be developmentally demanding, as true listening requires people to filter out their projections and interpretations and attend to the meaning the other is making.
Step 6: Exchange—Discuss in the Whole Group
In the sixth step, the group comes together to share and exchange, reflecting on the interactive exercise of the former step as well as the journey so far. This is a space for open question and reflections, discussion and group learning. After having shared and learned in the intimate setting of the small groups, this step allows learners to hear from others and be confronted with a variety of experiences, insights, and reflections. This step can therefore be seen as a further extension of Berger’s (2012) above mentioned “inviting others to the table.”
This step is also important as it encourages students to speak up in the whole group and share their experiences, perspectives, and questions. As the learning sciences have shown, this can be beneficial for the overall learning environment: “when teachers view students’ experiences as an asset and intentionally bring students’ voices into the classroom, they create a safe and engaging atmosphere for learning to take place” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020, p. 108).
Step 7: Consolidate—Articulate Your Learning
In the seventh step, which should be done individually and preferably during or soon after the live/plenary meeting, students are supported to articulate their learning though journaling on reflective questions. They are explicitly asked to look back at their notes of the first step, to consider the journey they have made and the ways in which they have (or have not) achieved their learning goals. This encourages them to explicate what has changed in their understanding through this learning process, supporting them to become aware of potential “perspective shifts.” Students are also encouraged to reflect on what this learning means for their lives and how they want to translate it into action.
For assessment purposes, these journaling exercises can be used as input for an essay in which students reflect on their learning journey. As the learning sciences emphasize, assessments that place value on growth and change in understanding, rather than on scores earned at one discrete moment, have been found to create higher motivation, greater agency, higher levels of cognitive engagement, and stronger achievement gains. Additionally, assessments encouraging higher order thinking, evaluation, reasoning, and deep understanding are themselves tools for learning, that build students’ metacognitive skills and foster a growth mindset (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Dweck, 2016).
Discussion and Conclusion
The seven-step learning journey supports students to sequentially 1) excavate; 2) absorb; 3) experience; 4) observe; 5) deepen; 6) exchange; and 7) consolidate (see Figure 1). As our teaching experience and student evaluations showed, this learning cycle may support transformative learning, as well as its design, facilitation, and assessment. That is, it offers a useful template to structure one’s teaching and leverage the new knowledge about how students optimally learn, while including reflective, experiential, and interactive learning methodologies, and supporting learners to systematically reflect on the process of change in their meaning making. Though this learning cycle emerged out of our specific context, and is to some extent limited by that, insights of the learning sciences suggest that it may prove helpful to other educators, who can subject it to refinement as they adapt it to their own contexts. As articulated in the methodological section, we did not probe for alternative learning cycles or alternative ways to structure this cycle, and so further experimentation with this intent may result in the evolution of an even more useful or effective learning cycle.
One potential improvement is to make sure to create adequate context (which is considered a central requirement for transformative learning; Mezirow, 1997). In their evaluations, some students explained that the connection to the rest of the course was not clear to them, while others expressed that they felt distracted due to more immediate concerns, while again others wondered how this learning journey would be assessed in the exam. Perhaps there should be a step 0, a preparatory step taken before the different steps of the learning cycle are engaged, clearly framing the learning journey’s purpose, while clarifying the nature of transformative learning, and offering guidance as to what to expect, how to be successful, and where to find support. This may be particularly important as students (at this stage of life) are not always “ready for” or “on board with” engaging deep transformative processes. It may therefore also be helpful to prepare them for potentially uncomfortable or challenging feelings and explain the notion of the growth mindset (Dweck, 2016), thus providing them with suggestions for how to handle these experiences, as well as generative interpretations thereof.8
Another potential improvement is the accompaniment of a travel journal, a workbook “scaffolding” students to take the different steps with appropriate assistance, while offering an overview of the learning process and goals; clear instructions and pointed questions; space to journal and reflect; and aspirational quotes and images. As transformative learning invites students to reflect on why and how they learn, in addition to what they learn, resources encouraging them to reflect while also helping them keep track of their reflections may be helpful. This can empower them to gain perspective on the learning process itself and examine how their understanding is evolving, thus encouraging metacognition, moving “students out of the role of passive receptors of information to active learners where they are aware of and monitoring their own understanding during the learning process” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020, p. 118). Next to enhancing retention and integration, the travel journal also supports an inquiry-based approach to learning, requiring students to take an active role in knowledge construction by being asked to answer questions or solve problems, thus enhancing student agency (Ibid). All this can foster more transformative learning.
Though making one’s teaching more transformative may seem like a daunting task, the seven-step learning journey offers concrete handles for how to get started. First, the learning cycle supports learners to actively reflect on their meaning making and take note of how it may have changed throughout the learning process (particularly in step 1 and step 7), thereby helping them achieve the central goal of transformative learning, namely, a change in meaning making. Having a structure for this helps educators define as well as assess adequate learning goals and outcomes, which, as discussed in the introduction, are generally not as fixed and clear-cut as they tend to be in more traditional forms of education.9 Secondly, the learning cycle supports educators to include different learning modalities often considered essential for transformative learning (i.e., next to knowledge: experience, reflection, dialogue, and discourse), while offering a logical sequence and balancing individual and social/collective learning activities.10 The learning cycle can also support students to do the needed preparatory work at home, thereby freeing up the time in the classroom for deep exchange and lively discussion. Third and last, introducing the learning cycle may help students understand the larger logic of what learning activities are engaged, why, and when, as well as offer them direction, guidance, and some level of predictability. This may be support them to handle the uncertainty and discomfort transformative learning can provoke in a constructive way, while also empowering them in their “learning to learn.”
Acknowledgments
We want to thank Christine Wamsler, Center for Sustainability Studies, Lund University, for reviewing an earlier version of this article and providing helpful suggestions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We are thankful to Pathways to Sustainability at Utrecht University (https://www.uu.nl/en/research/sustainability) for supporting this work with a small seed fund.
Author ContributionsAnnick de Witt: Funding acquisition; conceptualization; methodology; data curation; formal analysis; and writing - original draft; Margien Bootsma: Supervision; writing - review and editing; Brian Dermody: Writing - review and editing; Karin Rebel: Funding acquisition; supervision; writing - review and editing.
1. This qoute was informed by Hoggan's (2016) definition of transformative learning as referring to "processes that result in significant and irreversible changes in the way a person experiences, conceptualizes, and interacts with the world."
2. This even applies to higher education on sustainability, which has tended to focus on outer or exterior transformation, that is, transformation of ecosystems, socio-economic structures, technology, and governance, while omitting the vital sphere of inner or interior transformation—the transformation of attitudes, perspectives, worldviews, and priorities (Wamsler, 2020).
3. In the words of Sterling (2021, p. 4): “These habits of thought reside in the subterranean layers of the university culture and manifest in the educational landscape above the surface: hierarchical governance, single disciplines, separate departments, abstract and bounded knowledge, belief in value-free knowing and a reluctance to engage with ethical matters in the curriculum, privileging of cognitive/intellectual and technical knowing over affective and practical knowing, prevalence of instrumental rationality, transmissive pedagogy, linearly arranged learning spaces, valuing of analysis over synthesis and an emphasis on first-order or maintenance learning which leaves basic values unexamined and unchanged both individually and institutionally.”
4. The Global Sustainability Science Bachelor is an innovative program that embodies a multidisciplinary approach aimed at developing solutions to sustainability issues and preparing students to make a meaningful contribution to our planet. See https://www.uu.nl/en/bachelors/global-sustainability-science.
5. See www.worldviewjourneys.com. Here, at the homepage, you can also find a link to the Worldview Test.
6.Berger (2012, pp. 108–113) describes a number of fundamental steps to any transformational process: Making things object (“getting it on the table”); take a variety of perspectives on it (“walk around the table curiously”); engage with different perspectives (“invite others to your table”); be curious about the problem, topic, or issue without needing to solve it or come to a conclusion (“don’t just do something, stand there”), keep reflecting on the problem, topic, or issue over time (“keep the table set”).
7. According to his own definition: “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought” (Dewey, 1933, p.6, italics in original).
8. We created an introductory video-lecture for students to watch as well as a welcoming, introductory text in the accompanying travel journal, both explaining the why, how, and what of the program, aiming to offer students adequate context, purpose, and support for embarking on the Worldview Journey.
9. For example, our learning journey aimed for enhancing awareness of one’s worldview. This is hard to define, as enhanced awareness will depend on the level of one’s awareness at the start of the journey. However, having a “self-report” of where one started and where one finished, one can now reflect more systematically on the change process. This will therefore offer possibilities for both a clearer definition of learning outcomes, as well as ways to assess them.
10. That is, first excavate than absorb (step 1 and 2); experience, then observe (step 3 and 4); after this individual exploration (step 1–4), deepen and exchange through social learning (step 5 and 6); complete by individual reflection (step 7).
References
Astin A. W., Astin H. S., Chopp R., Delbanco A., Speers S. (2007). A forum on helping students engage the “big questions”. Liberal Education, 28–33.
Baikie K. A., Wilhelm K. (2005). Emotional and physical health benefits of expressive writing. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11(5), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.11.5.338
Berger J. G. (2004). Dancing on the threshold of meaning: Recognizing and understanding the growing edge. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(4), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344604267697
Darling-Hammond L., Flook L., Cook-Harvey C., Barron B., Osher D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
De Witt A., de Boer J., Hedlund N., Osseweijer P. (2016). A new tool to map the major worldviews in The Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 63, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.012
De Witt A., Hedlund N. H. (2017). Toward an integral ecology of worldviews: Reflexive communicative action for climate solutions. In Mickey S., Kelly S. M., Robbert A. (Eds.), The variety of integral ecologies: Nature, culture, and knowledge in the planetary era (pp. 305–344). SUNY Press.
Dewey J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of the Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
Hoggan Chad D. (2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216
Hubbs D. L., Brand C. F. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling. The Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590502800107
IPBES (2022). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
McKenney S., Reeves T. C. (2014). Educational design research. In Spector J., Merrill M., Elen J., Bishop M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11
Mezirow J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In New directions for adult and continuing education (vol. 74). Jossey-Bass Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
Mezirow J. (2009). On overview on transformative learning. In Illeris K. (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists ... In their own words. Routledge.
O’ Brien K. L., Reams J., Capari A., Dugmore A., Faghihimani M., Fazey I., Hackmann H., Manuel-Navarrete D., Marks J., Miller R., Raivio K., Romero-Lankao P., Virji H., Vogel C., Winiwarter V. (2013). You say you want a revolution? Transforming education and capacity building in response to global change. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 48–59.
Snyder C. (2008). Grabbing hold of a moving target. Identifying and measuring the transformative learning process. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(3), 59–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608327813
Sterling S. (2010). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 11(5), 17–33.
Sterling S. (2021). Concern, conception, and consequence: Re-Thinking the paradigm of higher education in dangerous times. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2, 743806. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.743806
Stuckey H. L., Taylor E. W., Cranton P. (2014). Developing a survey of transformative learning outcomes and processes based on theoretical principles. Journal of Transformative Education, 11(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614540335
Taylor E. W., Cranton P. (2013). A theory in progress? Issues in transformative learning theory. European journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:7705
Vermeulen W. J. V., Bootsma M. C., Tijm M. (2014). Higher education level teaching of (master’s) programmes in sustainable development: Analysis of views on prerequisites and practices based on a worldwide survey. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 21(5), 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.944956
Wamsler C. (2020). Education for sustainability. Fostering a more conscious society and transformation towards sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-04-2019-0152
Wiley J. L., Wiley K. R., Intolubbe-Chmil L., Bhuyan D., Acheson K. (2021). A new, depth-based quantitative approach to assessing transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 19(4), 400–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446211045164
Annick De Witt, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Postbus 80.115, Utrecht 3508TC, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Journal of Transformative Education.
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
