The natural dynamic instinct of leading educators has led them into finding loopholes in the traditional models of pedagogy--both the didactic pedagogy and authentic pedagogy. For these dynamic educators, learning is not confined to the traditional knowledge transmission that happens in classrooms where command and compliance rule and where learners have homogeneous citizenry. These are all characteristics of didactic pedagogy. Also, for these educators learning can happen beyond a classroom if it is reconfigured as a fluid space, where the discursive orientation is among students, themselves, as they interact within a group. These are characteristics of authentic pedagogy. In an authentic pedagogy, the activities are learner-centered as students are involved in the learning process; it is where student differentiation and multiculturalism are increasingly recognized, and where students actively build the knowledge by searching out their sources, thereby internalizing their learning process.

The world is changing—fast, and the only constant is change itself. As such, traditional education is fairly static, with a teacher transferring knowledge from the one who knows to those who do not. To some extent, this may be fine and necessary. But this approach does not prepare for change. Rather, it prepares for passively accepting change without asking questions.

Today, a higher level of learning approach comes in the form of transformative pedagogy, sometimes called reflective pedagogy. It originated from the transformative learning theory which was developed in the late 1900s by Jack Mezirow, an American sociologist and Emeritus Professor of Adult and Continuing Education at Teachers College at Columbia University. This theory was founded on how people develop and use critical self-reflecting to consider their beliefs and experiences, and over time, change dysfunctional means of seeing the world.

Mezirow began his theorizing with perspective transformation which advances the belief that adults do not simply make application of old ways of learning to new situations; instead, they discover a need to acquire new perspectives to gain a more complete understanding of changing events. He coined the process called "reflective-change-action" as illustrative of perspective transformation. From a broader perspective, Mezirow was interested in peoples’ worldviews and what leads people to change their particular view of the world.

Mezirow describes transformative learning as a means to reflect on problematic frames of reference to make the students more discriminating, reflective, open, and emotionally able to change. This learning model is based on the belief that students experience personal and intellectual growth when they grapple with disorienting dilemmas because they examine their assumptions related to certain contradictory information. In such situations, the students seek out the additional perspective and ultimately acquire new knowledge, attitudes, and skills in light of their reflections. This is consistent with today’s transformative pedagogy described by Meyers (2008) as one that encourages students to critically examine their assumptions, grapple with social issues, and engage in social action. All told, transformative pedagogy helps students examine their experiences in consideration of social issues and then act to effect broader change.

So, is it possible for teachers and educational institutions to adopt transformative pedagogy? Can it happen in real life? Or is it just merely an idea and a dream?

Critics believe that Mezirow’s theory has a heavy western view on learning and it cannot be applied universally. For instance, the strong focus on rationalizing thoughts and ideas, as well as promoting autonomy may not happen quickly and may not be possible at all times. Critics rejected the belief in transformative learning that meaning-making process is an individual experience as the same is not true in all cases. Critics also cited the lack of emphasis on how the learning context or situation affects the learning process. Moreover, transformative learning has been criticized because of the difficulty in defining itself that it bleeds into the boundaries of concepts such as "meaning-making" or "critical thinking".

On the other hand, many have proven the values or benefits of transformative pedagogy. Meyers (2008) studied the application of transformative pedagogy in online teaching and found out that faculty members who teach online courses can effectively use transformative pedagogy in (a) creating a safe environment; (b) encouraging students to think about their experiences, beliefs, and biases; (c) using teaching strategies to promote student engagement and participation; (d) posing real-world problems that address societal inequalities; and (e) helping students implement action-oriented solutions. Carrington and Selva (2005) studied the transformational learning experience of a group of pre-service teachers who were engaged in service-learning as a pedagogical process with a focus on reflection. The data they gathered provided evidence of transformational learning, highlighting how the students critique their world and imagine how they could contribute to a better world in their work as a beginning teacher.

Many educators have applied transformative pedagogy in different spheres of social development. Willis (2007) explored ways in which transformative learning can be a useful catalyst for the development of social capital in community and workplace groups and networks. The learning experience found out that it cannot be enough to focus on the technical skills and knowledge required for the specific functions of an enterprise without attention to the way participants create, critique, and maintain the values that underpin their judgments and choices for action. Brown (2004) applied transformative pedagogy in leadership for social justice and equity and concluded that it changes the way people see themselves and the world. It explains how their expectations, framed within cultural assumptions and presuppositions, directly influence the meaning they derive from their experiences.

The use of transformative pedagogy is not without challenges and hurdles. Inderbitzin and Storrs (2008) wrote on their experiences in mediating the conflict between transformative pedagogy and bureaucratic practice in a university where the prevailing pedagogical philosophy is unclear. Since experts have suggested that the university should shift from the traditional instruction paradigm to a learning paradigm, the use of transformative pedagogy became difficult within the structure that values and reflects the instruction paradigm. A similar challenge is the need to make the students ready to engage in critical reflection of their experiences for them to change their “meaning schemes” (Brown 2004). If that happens, the process will lead to a perspective transformation.

By and large, transformative pedagogy can be put into practice, more particularly in adult learning. It can help adults understand that social structures and belief systems can influence learning. It shows evidence that learners make meaning of their experiences in various ways which influence the sort of value systems they develop (Christie, et al. 2015). In using transformative pedagogy, the potential for innovation and creativity is maximized with the explicit teaching of multimodality and around an environment that provides learners with the opportunity for multimodal storytelling, remixing, and reimagining identities (Thomas 2011).

I have never had the opportunity to experience teaching in an institution that fully adopts a transformative pedagogy. I only had bits and pieces of activities that resemble and are aligned with the merits of transformative pedagogy as these were done only for specific parts of a course. Ironically, I was teaching in a graduate program in development management advocates change in the outlook of individuals so they can become change agents in the community and society. And yet, the transformative pedagogy is not in the system. Hence, for me, transformative pedagogy is yet to come. While it is real, it remains aspirational.

My reflection also centers on the fact that in my country, Catholic schools offering basic education have initiated moves toward transformative education within the school system. These institutions reflect on how their schools can be cultural spaces against ecological degradation, poverty, and gender sensitivity. They mirror themselves as spaces of human creativity and imagination to the challenges of our times. Largely, they have responded to the call for a paradigm shift in the system of education towards a transformative pedagogy that creates a balance between knowledge acquisition and values formation. These schools place an equal focus on personal achievement and social responsibility. For them, transformative pedagogy is real.

Reference

Brown, Kathleen M. 2004. Leadership for Social Justice and Equity: Weaving a Tranformative Framework and Pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 40. No. 1. The University Council for Educational Administration. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7ef5/787fc803d343c56b17f896a61fa421283afa.pdf

Carrington, Suzanne and Gitta Selva. 2005. Critical social theory and transformative learning: Evidence in pre-service teachers’ service-learning reflection logs. Higher Education Research and Development. Vol. X. No. X. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/31994/1/31994.pdf

Christie, Michael. Michael Carey, Ann Robertson, and Peter Grainger. Putting transformative learning theory into practice. 2015. Australian Journal of Adult Learning. Number 1.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1059138.pdf

Critique of transformative learning theory.  https://4f35transformativelearning.weebly.com/critique-of-transformative-learning-theory.html

Inderbitzin, Michelle and Debbie A. Storrs. 2008. Mediating the Conflict Between Transformative Pedgaogy and Bureaucratic Practice. Heldref Publications. Vol. 56, No. 1.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241737527_Mediating_the_Conflict_Between_Transformative_Pedagogy_and_Bureaucratic_Practice

Meyer, Steven A. 2008. Using Transformative Pedagogy when Teaching Online. Heldref Publications. Vol. 56, NO. 4. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.roosevelt.edu/dist/b/55/files/2011/04/transformative.pdf

Putting transformative learning theory into practice Michael Christie Michael Carey Ann Robertson Peter Grainger University of the Sunshine Coast (USC)

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1059138.pdf

Thomas, Angela. 2011. Towards a Transformative Digital Literacies Pedagogy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. Vol. 6. No. 01-02. https://www.idunn.no/dk/2011/01-02/art06

Transformative Learning Theory (Mezirow)

https://www.learning-theories.com/transformative-learning-theory-mezirow.html