SAFILT Underpinning Learning Theories: Transformative Learning (Jack Mezirow)

Overview:

The Transformational Learning Theory originally developed by Jack Mezirow is described as being “constructivist, an orientation which holds that the way learners interpret and reinterpret their sense experience is, central to making meaning and hence learning” (Mezirow, 1991). In other words, learners engage in an experience and come to some conclusions about that experience. However, over time that perception of the world may be tested by exposure to other’s experiences of this, and which begin to force them to question their perception of it and the values that they have ascribed to it. As a result it becomes re-interpreted and is thus transformative. At the core of this is the capacity for individuals to recognise the personal factors that have led them to understand things in a particular way and the things that shape the transformation to new understanding. It is essentially a cognitive and reflective process.

The theory has two basic kinds of learning: instrumental and communicative. Instrumental learning focuses on learning through task-oriented problem solving and determination of cause and effect relationships (such as simulated medical scenarios). Communicative learning involves how individuals communicate their feelings, needs and desires (such as a positive debrief following the scenario)

Meaning structures (perspectives and schemes) are a major component of the theory. Meaning perspectives are defined as “broad sets of predispositions resulting from psychocultural assumptions which determine the horizons of our expectations” (Mezirow, 1991). A meaning scheme is “the constellation of concept, belief, judgment, and feelings which shapes a particular interpretation” (Mezirow, 1994, 223). What Mezirow suggests is that the way in which we create meaning of events and observations is governed by the cultural and psychological view that we each have of the world. Therefore it is our upbringing – the reinforcers which guide behaviours and thinking provided by parents, teachers, peers, etc, which constructs the limits of our expectations of how the world should be ordered. These structures are divided into 3 sets of codes: 1) sociolinguistic codes (the precision of the words understood by the receiver); 2) psychological codes (the impact of the experience on the psyche), and; 3) epistemic codes (the way in which learning is perceived to take place). What we can draw from Mezirow’s work from a teaching and learning perspective is that the three codes outlined above can be shaped tightly, but also loosely enough for personal learning to take place beyond the stamp of authority of the provider, as aids to a reflective, and therefore transformative learning process.

In Mezirow’s transfomative learning approach, meaning structures are understood and developed through reflection. Reflection in this context is similar to problem solving and Mezirow talks about how we “reflect on the content of the problem, the process of problem-solving, or the premise of the problem” (Mezirow, 1991). Through this reflection we are able to understand ourselves more and then understand our learning better. Merizow also proposed that there are four ways of learning. They are “by refining or elaborating our meaning schemes, learning new meaning schemes, transforming meaning schemes, and transforming meaning perspectives” (Mezirow, 1991).

From the perspective of clinical medicine scenarios and debriefing, this can be explored from through the phenomena of ‘transitions’: The transition from medical student to FY1, from FY1 to FY2, and from FY2 and graduating into ST1. These transitions are connected to the flow of learning from theoretical and compartmentalised knowledge to knowledge and practice capacity as a result of continued exposure to experiences and the testing out of what is known within those experiences in order to stretch that knowledge further, gaining new knowledge and understanding along the way. For Mezirow this happens at both the psychological and cultural levels, recognising the impact of the learning for itself and acting in such ways that it is embedded firmly within the culture in which it exists.

Principles:  

1. Adults exhibit two kinds of learning: instrumental (e.g., cause/effect)) and communicative (e.g., feelings)
2. Learning involves change to meaning structures (perspectives and schemes). 
3.  Change to meaning structures occurs through reflection about content, process or premises.
4. Learning can involve: refining/elaborating meaning schemes, learning new schemes, transforming schemes, or transforming perspectives.

Click here to go to the next section

References:

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Jack Mezirow & Associates, Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood (Jossey-Bass 1990).

Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & associates, Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 
Mezirow, J. (1995) Transformation theory of adult learning. In M.R. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning (pp. 39-70). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

Related Web Sites:
For more about transformative learning theory, see:
http://transformativelearningtheory.com/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning [ INTRO ][ THEORIES ] [ CONCEPTS ] [ DOMAINS ]