Talk:Transformative learning

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changes[edit]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.109.172 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have made the changes that are needed. Would you please email me to discuss if needed? wtb2001@columbia.edu

Non-encyclopedic[edit]

Sentences like "At its core, transformative learning theory is elegantly simple" are not encyclopedic. I think it needs to be rewritten both for tone and for clarity. 75.31.173.239 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary?[edit]

Transformative Learning

Hardly 'transformative', barely in command of topic. Derivitive, and not clear that the author grasps significance, or meaning of 'making meaning'. Nearly all taken from Mezirow, and Taylor's critique of Mezirow's articles; BUT still more in control of the information and a much better written article overall on the topic than as demonstrated in

'Transformative Learning Theory', which is poorly written, repetitive and also (as T Learning) jumbles information without direction or intention made clear for readers. Weakest on one of the theory's more significant contributors, P. Freire.

I had thought to edit the first article, and to suggest/recommend combining it with the second...but I read the 'talk' pages for both articles, and NOTICED that the authors of 'Transformative Theories' may be users of Engish as a foreign language, in which case more power to them. It takes courage to assess and write about theory in a foreign language. There is a place for less than 'perfect' English at all levels of instruction. It took three generations of the characteristic rhythms, tempo, pace, glide and quick stuttering steps of India's great writers in English to have it recognized as one among the other dialects of India.

I returned to follow links to

'Critical Pedagogy', which has the virtue of established command of the English language and common usage, in addition to a more comprehensive idea about the subject matter and its implications for teaching and learning. The 'talk' page on 'Critical Pedagogy' article has two negatively critical comments on its inadequacy: 'worst article I've seen', which surprised me--the reader appears not to have seen these other two articles.

Viewed the 'Education Portal'. It is in line with other portals that I've encountered on WIKI. Curreently, I've nothing to add there.

I'll come back to this article, and will check here first. If anyone is monitoring...Docdev (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Christ Almighty[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Still Very Dense[edit]

Lots of problems here. Right now this article is laden with "educationalese," the almost deliberately dense language used in pedagogy journals written by graduate students. It’s a neat concept, and is definitely worthy of a good article. But there’s no way the average guy is going to get through this without a headache. As for the citation style, again it is very much like what you’d expect to see in some pedagogy article. Andacar (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current research added/Question re: link to Bond[edit]

Agreed that this article is very lengthy but felt it needed some newer research re: application of transformative learning in education (particularly around educator development) and so, have added this. I tried to include content that would be of interest to all. I am new to Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have done more editing but still trying to figure out the basics. Question - I edited a few other areas but I couldn't find a link to Bond. It looks like another editor intended to include but didn't finish, so I removed the link. If anyone knows how to find this information, please add. Pachecok (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent work, Jan. 2013[edit]

I must be in a better mood, and/or there's been sound organizational rewrite of this piece since I saw it last October. There are still some areas needing attention in the existing article, the primary one is that its topic is not "Transformative Learning".

Rather, it is on (as I see it) ]'Transformative Learning in Instructional Theory and Practice'. It used to be about 'Mezirow's neat theory on transformative learning and some of his critics as well as asking/anwering 'what will it mean for teachers, administrators and learners?

My User page sandbox Doc Dev (Transformational Learning) contains what began as a simple (single)introductory paragraph, meant as a friendly addendum to introduce your piece, to note the distinction between Transformational Learning and the various theories about it - which your existing article now recognizes ... there will need to be some editing on both pieces, but I think we have two articles: one on Transformational Learning and one on Transformational Learning: Instructional Theories and Effects [implications?].

'Transformative' (learning) is not an acceptable substitute term for me. 'Transformational' refers to the instructional, personal and organizational changes necessary to establish an environment that might transform a learner but do not--as Mezirow's theory sets up-- put 'transformation' out as a course or learners' OUTCOME, OBJECTIVE OR GOAL.

I agree with Newman on this--the term is inappropriately applied in Mezirow's work. It is just a small specialism within an already narrowly defined pedagogy. I would recommend, 'engaged' learning-- as 'engagement' is not on the common list of student behaviors expected in learning outcomes; or 'reflexive' -- a term that I have been using since 1996 to describe the active learning collaboration that resulted in our producing a 'reflexion': that is, a noun referring to the 'third thing' (that semioticians, historical phiolosophers, narrativists and educators claim might arise)-- a 'reflexion' is an/the image created by human reflection on their encounter with passed human experience or the data of 'the past'.

I also propose a new article for both you and I to kick off--working from the idea of transformational teaching, to classroom principles and practices. See soon sandbox User page Doc Dev Teaching and Learning in the 'Communication Era', third millennium (CE3)

It may take us awhile to rightly value the several strands of this complex identification. I think we have made a good start. Docdev (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues[edit]

The article has NPOV issues, it only has coverage by a few selected promoters of this concept, no indication that it has any following in mainstream academia, no outside critique. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, and I've removed the tags. I think the opposite of everything you've said is true. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Change[edit]

This article is quite intimidating to begin looking at. I would like to add a introduction/summary that makes the topic seem less complicated. The page needs a better seagway into Mezirow and the other perspectives of transformational learning. Rachelannett (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed FULBERT (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]