Talk:Transformative learning: Difference between revisions
Five Years (talk | contribs) edu |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Further edited first couple paragraphs to make more clear for lay reader, and to sum up the debate. Hope I got that right and others will help clarify further. 12/20/2006 [[Rtorosyan] |
Further edited first couple paragraphs to make more clear for lay reader, and to sum up the debate. Hope I got that right and others will help clarify further. 12/20/2006 [[Rtorosyan] |
||
It might be a dumb question, but how come American schools are four-square against Transformative learning? |
|||
== Holy Christ Almighty == |
== Holy Christ Almighty == |
||
Revision as of 16:15, 29 June 2008
 | Education Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Changes: Moved the introductory paragraph to the "another perspective" section. This was O'Sullivan's definition, which had not been referenced (!!!). Since the introductory section is mostly about Mezirow, Sullivan's definition should be in the "another perspective" section. Also, added a section on the difficulty of defining transformative learning. Feb 15, 2004, morimom
This entire description is taken from Eric Digest ED423426, Susan Imel 1998, verbatim, without referencing this source.
Changes: Edited first and second paragraphs and references to include information on the origins of the theory and status as a "theory in progress" from Mezirow 1975 and Mezirow 2000. Sept 24, 2006 AKSoldat
Further edited first couple paragraphs to make more clear for lay reader, and to sum up the debate. Hope I got that right and others will help clarify further. 12/20/2006 [[Rtorosyan]
It might be a dumb question, but how come American schools are four-square against Transformative learning?
Holy Christ Almighty
Jesus Christ, I got through this entire article, and I deserve a freaken medal for that. What a difficult article. Anyway, I pruned back about half or more of the article and did some minor editing here and there. It's still unreadable, but you should have seen it before... anyway, nevermind that, the question is, is it still copyvio from Susan Imel's original at [1] (PDF at [2]. It was just an almost direct copy of that. Dpes removing half the material make it not a copyvio? I don't know, but I suspect it doesn't. Herostratus 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, in the external link, it says the PUBLIC DOMAIN original is here... so maybe copyvio is not an issue. Anyway, with the various edits, mine and others, that have been made, maybe its not really a direct copy anymore... anyway, I removed the copyvio tag. Herostratus 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)