5.

0 UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEARNING

Mezirow’s perspective has been critiqued for its inattention to context and its overreliance on
rationality in the meaning-making process. There are three unresolved issues in transformational
learning theory which is context, rationality and affect, and the last one is social action.

5.1 Context

A second unresolved issue with transformative learning theory has been its decontextualized view of
adult learning and rational discourse (Clark and Wilson 1991). Derived as it was from research
Mezirow’ s original research of women returning to school after a long hiatus, their “ experiences
were studied as if they stood apart from their historical and sociocultural context, thereby limiting
our understanding of the full meaning of those experience. Context reflects the individual and
sociocultural elements that assume an affecting job during the time spent transformative learning.
Extensively, these elements incorporate the environmental factors of the prompt learning occasion,
made up of the individual and expert circumstance of the person around then and the more
inaccessible foundation setting including the familial and social history that has affected the
individual growing up (Clark 1991, 1992; Sveinunggaard 1993). Furthermore, in his
decontextualization of rational discourse, he does not recognize its subjective nature framed within
ongoing social, cultural, and historical condition.

Research on transformative learning tends to support Clark and Wilson’ s conclusion concerning
context and transformative learning. More specifically, the influence of personal contextual factors
on a perspective transformation is found in what is referred to by other studies as a readiness for
change (Bailey 1996; Hunter 1980; Pierce 1986; Van Nostrand 1992), the role of experience (Coffman
1989), prior stressful life events (Vogelsang 1993), and a predisposition for a transformative
experience (Turner 1986). Taylor (1994), in his study on the transformative nature of intercultural
competency, found that the participants “ were ready for change due to former critical events,
personal goals, or prior intercultural experiences” (p. 169).

In a later distribution Mezirow (1996) puts forth a progressively authoritative attempt to clarify how
setting fits inside transformative learning hypothesis. He considers figuring out how to be "
arranged," influenced by social and social powers. Besides, it is essential to see how these powers,
verifiably and historically, shape our importance points of view and furthermore our act of testing
our presumptions and following up on decisions. Specifically, he ponders the job of individual and
social elements and their effect on reasonable talk. " These overall powers are of significant
importance to grown-up learning; they direct whose voice will have need and who is allowed to be
heard. In this manner, they can twist the perfect of full free support in talk." (p. 168). Furthermore, it
is by concentrating on the perfect states of discovering that teachers can rise above the informative
twists made by close to home and social relevant variables.

Despite the fact that Mezirow perceives that grown-up learning is arranged in a social setting, he
neglects to keep up the association between the development of information and the setting inside
which it is deciphered. Adapting should be viewed as situated in relations among people, acting in
explicit settings, with the end goal that the setting and learning exercises add to the meaning of self
and the structure of cognizance (Wilson 1993). All the more explicitly, this viewpoint might give
understanding into why some perplexing difficulties lead to a point of view change and others don't.
An inside and out examination concerning the setting of muddling issues may help uncover the social
and instrument subordinate nature of a point of view change. This proposes for a more clear
comprehension of a critical life occasion, for example, a bewildering predicament, " instructors need
consider logical variables in light of the fact that these shape the significance of the learning by
organizing it and coordinating its course" (Clark 1991, p. 152).

5.2 Rationality and Affect

The subsequent significant issue with Mezirow's perspective on transformational learning hypothesis
is the thing that gives off an impression of being an overreliance on objectivity as the methods for
influencing a point of view change, different types of knowing are optional, best case scenario.
Reasonable reasoning is an especially Western idea, a result of the Enlighment and Descartes' brain
body split. the possibility that feelings and comprehension are independent and that feelings are
"less advanced" proceeds to his day notwithstanding proof despite what might be expected
(Taylor,2001). Even in the West, rationality, and in particular its separation from experience, is also
gender-specific, privileging men, those of the middle and upper classes and Whites.

Rationality seems to be significant to transformative learning, though possibly not any more
significant than the role of emotions and feelings. However, I tend to think that most educators
focus on practices that facilitate rational thinking, such as critical reflection, and do not recognize its
interdependent relationship with feelings. The discussion of feelings is something we often avoid in
the classroom, arguing they are too subjective for formulating reasons and decisions. The irony is
that just because we choose not to discuss them does not mean they don’ t exist and exploiting
them might actually help in the process of critical reflection. All of this makes me think about the
role of education and emotional development.
This overreliance on judiciousness in transformative learning hypothesis has likewise been
investigated from a physiological point of view (Taylor 1996; 1997b). There has been a striking
increment of logical investigations distributed in the course of the most recent decade in
neurobiology life sciences that include the life systems, physiology, and pathology of the sensory
system (Caine and Caine 1994; Davidson and Cacioppo 1992) that give a more top to bottom
comprehension of human reasoning and dynamic. Contemporary research is uncovering an
increasingly incorporated connection between the physiological procedure of cognizance and
feeling. LeDoux (1989) contends that cognizance and feeling are interceded by isolated and
interfacing frameworks of the mind.

In summary, Mezirow’s theory are too relies on rationality has sparked discussion about the role of
feelings and the unconscious in the transformative learning process. In addition, researchers have
explored how people experience a perspective transformation in the absence of critical reflection.
These studies and others clearly show that transformative learning is not just rationally and
consciously driven, but incorporates a variety of extrarational and unconscious modalities for
revising meaning structures. They not only confirm the importance of rationality to transformative
learning, but recognize as well other ways of knowing that are of equal importance to the learning
process.

5.3 Social action

The most dubious issue concerning transformative learning hypothesis has been its relationship to
social activity and force (Collard and Law 1989; Cunningham 1992; Griffin 1987; Hart 1990; Newman
1993, 1994). A significant part of the issue starts with Mezirow' s endeavor to intertwine
transformative learning with the epistemology of Habermas ' basic learning hypothesis. Specifically,
it is the accentuation on social change surrounded inside Habermas ' epistemology of emancipatory
knowing, that of information got from mankind' s want to accomplish liberation from control. In any
case, Collard and Law (1989) consider it to be " the absence of a reasonable, extensive hypothesis of
social change, a need diffused all through the interior structure of this hypothesis, apparent in his
particular translation and adjustment of Habermas, and incompletely reliant on issues inside
Habermas own work. More specifically, it is the emphasis on transformation of the individual within
the context of social action. “ Perspective transformation appears to focus on the individual
examining her or his own personal experience. This emphasis allows for a greater detachment from
the inherent political and social action associated with emancipatory education.
Moreover, it appears that Mezirow is endeavoring to find emancipatory training inside the setting of
a liberal law based framework, therefore not perceiving the sociopolitical study from which
emancipatory instruction was conceived an offspring. It is " his inability to address satisfactorily
inquiries of setting, belief system, and the extreme needs exemplified in well known battles [that]
denies viewpoint change the intensity of emancipatory theory (Collard and Law 1989, pp. 105-106).
Furthermore, in Coffman’ s (1989, 1991) study on the promotion of inclusive language and
perspective transformation among seminary students, she found that Mezirow “ does not
adequately accommodate the possibility of the transformation of society based on the perspective
transformation of individuals who are members of a group” (1991, p. 52). It is the transformation
within a group context that gives individuals more courage to initiate social change within new
communities.

Accordingly, Mezirow (1989) accepts that the decision of social activity lives with the student. It is
reliant upon whether the twists that are by and large fundamentally endless supply of an individual
or sociocultural nature and it isn't that he neglects to perceive group and social change, however
rather, considers it to be a different substance from singular change. It is through concentrating
solely on sociocultural contortions that Mezirow is generally basic. Moreover, he trusts it is essential
to perceive the assortment of circumstances where transformative learning can happen outside the
setting of social activity. There can be no simple linear relationship between transformative learning
and social action; there are many kinds of transformative learning and many kinds of social action.
Transformative learning experiences which result in changes that are epistemic and psychic may not
logically lead to collective action at all and may only very indirectly be a product of a specific social
practice or institutionalized ideology. (Mezirow 1989, p. 174).
In a later distribution Mezirow (1996) puts forth a progressively authoritative attempt to clarify how
setting fits inside transformative learning hypothesis. He considers figuring out how to be "
arranged," influenced by social and social powers. Besides, it is essential to see how these powers,
verifiably and historically, shape our importance points of view and furthermore our act of testing
our presumptions and following up on decisions. Specifically, he ponders the job of individual and
social elements and their effect on reasonable talk. "These overall powers are of significant
importance to grown-up learning; they direct whose voice will have need and who is allowed to be
heard. In this manner, they can twist the perfect of full free support in talk." (p. 168). Furthermore, it
is by concentrating on the perfect states of discovering that teachers can rise above the informative
twists made by close to home and social relevant variables.

6.0 TRENDS IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEARNING

There are several trends in transformational learning which is more closely at the emotional and
spiritual aspects of transformative learning. Second, includes transformatives learning and
technology and the last one is involoves transformatives learning in the workplace.

6.1 Emotional and spiritual aspect

Emotional and spiritual aspects is important in transformative learning. For example, through in-
depth interviews with twelve participants explored “the human experience of spirit and its
relationship to the tramsformative leraning process”. Participants reported spiritual experiences that
is “intrapersonal conversations with spirit” that were transformational. The role of cognitive,
emotions, physical and spirituality and behavioural dimensions of experience and pave the way for
more intergrative perspectives on how human beings leran, adapt, and grow.

6.2 Technology

A second area of inquiry includes transformative learning and technology. For example, Cranton and
Dirkx explore how their online dialogue with each other led them toward a more inclusive
perspective on transformative learning. Dirkx and Smith(2005) examined how people “worked
through the problem of the relationship of the individual to the group, and the transformative
process and dynamics associated with this learning and development”. Findings suggest that while
individuals valued collaborative online learning, they also wanted to be evaluated individually.
Participants noted that the online format did not lend itself as well to social connected to each other
as they would have in face-to-face course.
 6.3 Workplace

A third area of interest involves transformative learning in the workplace. Transformative learning in
groups and organizations is a topic of interest. For example, Yorks and Marsick (200) utilized action
learning in an organization. Action learning involves people working in teams toward a solution to a
problem. Through dialogue and reflection, the teams solved the problem and the organizational
culture was transformed.