1
Transformational Teaching at the Upper Intermediate Level?;
A Theoretical Exploration.
Danielle Dunsmore
68317130
EDUC 521
UBC Okanagan
Dr. Christopher Martin
July 2, 2014.
2
Introduction
Transformational teaching is a model, which involves synergistically
incorporating many effective learning principles, and methods of instruction,
developed over the past 50 years (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.569). Included are
the major contemporary approaches to learning; problem-based learning, studentcentered learning, active learning, collaborative learning, and experiential learning,
all of which share underlying complimentary components (Slavich & Zimbardo,
2012, p.569). Employing these approaches together has great potential for students
to grow intellectually and personally, and I believe many educated teachers are
already doing this with their students to some degree. The implementation of
transformational teaching has the potential to help students transcend self-interest,
feel inspired and motivated, and transform their attitude toward learning, and
toward themselves (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.569).
In an effort to better understand the transformational teaching approach, the
following paper is primarily a theoretical exploration. I will do the following:
outline the fundamental characteristics of the approaches listed above, highlighting
their interrelatedness; review the philosophical underpinnings of transformational
teaching, as comprehensively laid out by Slavich & Zimbardo, (2012)
(constructivism, social constructivism, transformative learning theory, social
cognitive theory, transformational leadership, and intentional change theory);
acknowledge some main critiques of transformational teaching; question the
potential for personal mastery within transformational teaching; and finally, to
make assertions throughout this paper, as to how the objectives of transformational
teaching might be applied to the upper elementary level (it has primarily been
associated with adult-education).
The overarching goal of transformational teaching is to help students acquire
key course concepts, and master bodies of information in a manner which also
“enhances students’ personal development” (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.569).
Teachers serve as motivational leaders, intellectual coaches, and facilitators of a
shared vision for coursework (Slavich, 2006, p. 576). Ultimately, transformational
3
teaching is meant to inspire,… to “call ordinary students to embrace their own
greatness” (Anding 2005, as cited in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.576). As the
transformational teaching model develops, perhaps its main aspects could be
adapted appropriately for younger students. It may be a conceptual framework
capable of uplifting the profession of public school teaching.
Methods of Instruction within Transformational Teaching
Ongoing advancements in classroom instruction have been generated
through many formulations of values, principles, and methodology encompassed
within the following learning approaches: active learning, student-centered
learning, collaborative learning, experiential learning, and problem-based learning
(Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.571). I think it has become clear to many educators
that there are similarities and overlapping compatibilities between these
approaches, and once these are revealed, viewing them as a collective within a
broader approach called transformative teaching, can be substantiated. In fact, the
characteristics of these contemporary learning approaches lend well to their
blending.
Active learning involves the notion that “students must read, write, discuss, and
engage in problem-solving to maximize their potential for intellectual growth”
(Bonwell & Eison; Meyers & Jones; Sviniviki & McKeachie, as cited in Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.569). Student-centered learning holds that instructors should
tailor course content based on students’ abilities, interests, and learning styles
(Brandes & Ginnis, 1986, as cited in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.569). Collaborative
Learning is based on the principle that learning occurs more effectively in groups
because it
encourages students to restructure their own knowledge and
understanding of concepts, helps students recognize gaps in their
understanding, promotes social modeling of effective problem-solving
strategies, and teaches to synthesize, communicate and discuss ideas
in ways that advance conceptual understanding (O’Donnell, Cooper,
4
Smith et al., as cited in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.571).
Problem-Based Learning builds on this, where instructors identify, and facilitate, the
process of solving complex, multi-faceted problems, usually in groups (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.571). Within this approach teachers model, scaffold, and
promote student responsibility for learning (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.571).
Finally, experiential learning, which also tends to be done in groups, involves
engaging students in experiential activities in or out of the classroom. Examples of
this include experiments, conducting interviews, playing games or simulations, or
keeping a reflective journal (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.571).
In my experience, at upper intermediate level, combining and overlapping these
approaches in different ways is becoming common practice. It is not surprising to
find out that they share similar theoretical foundations. In particular, they are all
founded within the constructivist notion that
students generate knowledge and meaning best when they have experiences
that lead them to realize how new information conflicts with their prevailing
understanding of a concept or idea….they must engage in activities or
exercises that require them to reflect on their understanding and examine or
explain their thinking (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.574).
In my view, it is possible, and beneficial, to incorporate the central aspects of all the
approaches above in a powerful multi-faceted approach. Elementary versions of
problem-based learning, for example, can include a collaborative learning
component, as different groupings tackle given content and questioning, and work
to create ideas for solutions. Then individual projects related to this can be taken in
a direction of interest (with personalized goals that suit individual students),
including an active component of the project’s criteria where experiential learning
can also take place. Teachers act as facilitators bringing students in and out of larger
group discussions, using modeling and scaffolding to support the process of
attaining key concepts as the projects develop (Savery, 2006, p.11).
Further ways in which the approaches are related is that students are actively
involved in the discovery process, so that imbedded within them is the idea that we
“learn by doing” (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.575). Active learning and student-
5
centered learning can be thought of at the top of the “approach hierarchy”, with
experiential, collaborative, and problem-based learning “nested within these
principles” (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.575). While active learning and studentcentered learning are most clearly addressed in problem-based learning, they are
also essential for collaborative and experiential learning (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012,
p.575). All the approaches aim to “increase students’ involvement in, and
responsibility for, guiding and shaping the learning experience (Slavich & Zimbardo,
2012, p.575). Finally, within each of these approaches, there is the potential to
transform students’ personal growth, including;
increasing students’ academic self-efficacy, improving student
self-regulation capacities, instilling in students self-directed learning
skills, enhancing students’ learning-related attitudes and values, or
promoting students’ beliefs about their capability to acquire, synthesize,
analyze, and use knowledge in a way that is meaningful for their lives
(Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.575).
In my opinion, these outcomes are what sets transformational teaching apart as a
powerful undertaking, yet they are not a given. Rather, I believe, they depend on the
learning environment created, including the level of rapport and trust developed
with students, and the effect this has on the delivery of the combined approaches.
Also, I think teachers themselves are more likely to achieve this environment if they
themselves possess an inspired ‘disposition’, and the ability to consistently role
model transformational style leadership. This argument will not be elaborated here,
but is suggestive of the complexities and possibilities involved in the personal
growth aspect of transformational teaching.
Philosophical Underpinnings of Transformational Teaching
The conceptual basis for transformational teaching incorporates several
theoretical perspectives. As noted earlier, constructivist theory is an essential
influence, as it has been long held that “learning occurs best when students are
actively engaged in the discovery process” (Piaget, 1926, as cited in (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.577). Equally important, is the social constructivist notion that
6
“educational exercises are more impactful when they involve social interaction”
(Bruner & Haste, 2010; Vygotski 1978, 1986, as cited in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012,
p.577). While these theoretical perspectives are primary to the approaches
involved in transformational teaching, there are further theoretical foundations
that, in my view, act to differentiate transformational teaching as an ideal. This
involves combining the best ideas about student learning and instructional
leadership by drawing on the following; social cognitive theory, transformative
learning theory, intentional change theory, and transformational leadership (Slavich
& Zimbardo, 2012, p.577-8). Each of these are reviewed below, and finally
condensed into three transformational teaching principles as identified by Slavich &
Zimbardo (2012) (p.581).
Social Cognitive Theory
Social Cognitive theory addresses some basic aspects of learning that apply
to all instructional approaches, including transformational teaching (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.578). Social Cognitive Theory, in education, holds that students
are agents who exert intentional influence over their functioning through their
actions, and that this is largely determined by self-efficacy beliefs (defined as the
degree to which they think their actions will bring success)(Slavich & Zimbardo,
2012, p.578). Efficacy beliefs can have an enormous impact as they
effect human functioning by influencing the extent to which people are
optimistic versus pessimistic, make resilient versus detrimental attributions
for successes and failures, apply appropriate coping strategies for dealing
with difficult situations, and persist in the face of challenge (Bandura, as cited
in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.578)
According to Bandura (1997) academic success for students is strongly determined
by their own self-efficacy beliefs (as cited in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.578). I
would assert, from experience, that this is particularly true for upper intermediate
students who are often caught up in their impressionable attempts to formulate
their personal identities. Furthermore, a student’s success is also influenced by the
beliefs of their teachers, peers, parents and the principal (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012,
7
p.578). In my view, at least at the elementary level, this is a reciprocal phenomenon,
in that the student’s sense of self-efficacy is perceived by others and often
uncritically reflected back to them, especially by peers. I believe it takes a clear
sense of presence for adults to respect young students’ self-efficacy as it develops,
and honour carefully the malleability of their self-efficacy beliefs. Improvement in
self-efficacy can happen by constantly working to create experiences of success, and
having those successes repeatedly acknowledged, in order to raise student
confidence. However, student success is also influenced by the teacher’s own sense
of instructional efficacy which can effect many things: their time management,
persistence in the face of adversity, perceptions of how much control they have over
student success, commitment to teaching, and their job satisfaction levels (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.578). While the self-efficacy of teachers is considered a modest
influence on students (based on the lack of research available)(Slavich & Zimbardo,
2012, p.578), I contend that teacher self-efficacy at the intermediate level has a key
impact on the ability, and the motivation, to create the conditions for student
experiences of success. Nevertheless, the central idea to be gained here is that
student success “is determined by multiple sources, and….instructors must work to
manage several sets of expectations”(Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.578).
In the realm of transformational teaching, the teachers who are able to manage
these expectations will be more likely to increase student success academically as
well as transform their “learning-related attitudes, values, beliefs, and skills (Slavich
& Zimbardo, 2012, p.578). In my opinion, teachers can greatly benefit by developing
their own sense of self-efficacy through repeatedly attending personal and
professional development courses, learning structured self-reflection, and engaging
in a consistent, determined effort to model what healthy self-efficacy looks like. In
doing so, they can more easily promote student self-efficacy and enjoy the
associated outcomes. This is not to assume that teaching practices are easily
quantified, or that student achievement can ever be “solely attributed to…. the
pedagogical strategies employed by teachers” (Skourdoumbis & Gale, 2013, p. 892).
8
Transformative Learning Theory
Transformative Learning Theory holds that adult learners improve their
understanding by modifying their ‘frame of reference,’ which comprises their habits
of mind and points of view (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5). Habits of mind are defined as
“broad, abstract, orienting, habitual ways of thinking, feeling and acting influenced
by assumptions that constitute a set of codes” (Mezirow, 1997, p.6). These codes
may be cultural, economic, social, political, educational, or psychological and are
expressed in a “specific point of view –the constellation of belief, value judgment,
attitude, and feeling that shapes a particular interpretation” (Mezirow, 1997, p.6).
Mezirow (2000) stated that students can learn in four ways; they can elaborate on
existing frames of reference, learn new frames of reference, transform habits of
mind, or transform points of view (as cited in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.579). The
role of the teacher is to serve as a “provocateur” who facilitates students to be more
aware, and critical of, their assumptions (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.579). The
theory proposes that this is achieved through engaging students in “learnercentered, participatory, and interactive experiences, that require group problemsolving, autonomous thinking, critical reflectivity, and discourse” (Mezirow, 1997,
p.11).
Autonomous, socially responsible thinking is considered the ultimate
educational goal of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1997, p.8). Autonomy in this
context means the
understanding, skills, and disposition necessary to become critically
reflective of one’s own assumptions and to engage effectively in discourse
to validate one’s beliefs through the experiences of others who share
universal values…values such as truth, justice, and freedom….found to result
in more beneficial action than their alternatives (Mezirow, 1997, p.9).
Mezirow (1997) believed that in order for these values to be acquired and for
autonomous thinking to develop, there are processes of learning involved at each
developmental stage, and certain educational interventions that need to take place
(p.9). He outlines that children “commonly acquire a foundation of the specific
learning required to think autonomously…..and in adulthood, the task is to
9
strengthen and build on this foundation” (p.9) Included in these foundations are the
(1)ability to recognize cause-effect relationships, (2) to use informal logic in
making analogies and generalizations, (3) become aware of and control their
own emotions, (4)become empathetic of others, (5)use imagination to
construct narratives, (6) and think abstractly (Mezirow, 1997, p.9).
Perhaps the fact that transformative learning theory is largely recognized in the
adult educational literature, reflects an underestimation of the level of
sophistication that students’ are capable of at an earlier age. I would argue that
educational interventions to promote autonomous, socially responsible thinking can
start at the upper intermediate level through age appropriate activities, questioning
skills training, and self-reflection exercises. Also, I believe younger students benefit
from frequent discourse about the aforementioned moral ‘universal values’ as an
integral part of problem-based learning.
Mezirow (1997) summated that “becoming critically reflective of one’s own
assumptions is the key to transforming one’s taken-for-granted frame of reference,
an indispensible dimension of learning for adapting to change” (p.9). In my
experience, upper intermediate students are capable of understanding what an
assumption is, how assumptions are developed, and how to question what ‘frame of
references’ they may have formed (or be in the process of forming), in a selfreflective manner. While these may not be as complex or layered with life
experience as adult collections of assumptions, I think it is this very point that
makes for the practice of critically reflecting on assumptions, all the more valuable
and more easily learned. If young students can gain the personal development of
being able to question their assumptions, presumably this would set them on a
positive course for the future. Furthermore, I think “adapting to change” is a crucial
skill for the world that younger generations are now exposed to, compared with
what the adults who are writing about this have ever had to endure, including
Mezirow himself.
Intentional Change Theory
Intentional Change Theory is another perspective embedded within the
transformational teaching model, and is drawn primarily from management
10
literature (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.579). This theory articulates five steps or
“discoveries” proposed to be required for “desirable, sustainable change in an
individual’s behaviour, thoughts, feelings, or perceptions” (Slavich & Zimbardo,
2012, p.579). Slavich & Zimbardo, (2012), articulate these steps as follows. First,
individuals must establish a personal vision for the future and an “ideal self” which
is based on “developing an image of a desired future, fostering hope that one can
achieve their goals, and identifying strengths upon which the personal vision can be
realized”(p.579). Second, an identification of one’s “real self” (comprised of an
honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses) is compared to their ideal self, or
“who they want to become” (p.579). Third, a customized learning plan must be
devised establishing a personal set of standards that the individual needs to attain
in order to “close the gap” between the ‘real’ and ‘ideal self’(p.579). Fourth,
engaging activities are needed to allow “experimentation or practice with new
behaviours, thoughts, feelings, or perceptions”(p.579). Lastly, close, personal
relationships with people who can help to move through these steps toward
realizing change must (ideally) be developed (p.560).
These steps can be used as a framework for understanding how transformational
teaching can help improve students’ attitudes, values and beliefs (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.580). I would suggest these steps can raise a great deal of
awareness and self-reflection for students, even within the upper intermediate age
grouping, and also help inform and develop individualized development plans for
students. Compared to adults, I would offer that younger students have a much less
inhibited expression of their “real” and “ideal self,” for example, this can be apparent
in goal setting exercises. Also they enjoy role playing activities where they imagine
and act out how a person (who had already attained the qualities of their “ideal
self”) would respond in given scenarios.
Transformational Leadership Theory
Finally, and possibly the most exciting aspect of transformational teaching, is the
conceptual inspirations drawn from the literature on Transformational Leadership
Theory. In the education world, this area of study has largely been preserved for
11
administrative leadership training, involving a “paradigm for empowering,
inspiring, and challenging individuals to transcend their own self-interest for the
purposes of achieving a higher level of functioning” (Barling et. al. as cited in Slavich
& Zimbardo, 2012, p.580). This is developed through inspiring followers to commit
to a shared vision….., challenging them to be innovative problem solvers, and
developing their capacity for leadership through coaching, mentoring, and support
(Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.580). While transformational leadership has rarely
been applied to teacher-student relationships, I would agree that most good
teachers do incorporate aspects of Transformational Leadership within their
instructional style (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.580). However, I think a closer look
at its four key components would be beneficial for any teacher to understand.
Slavich and Zimbardo (2013) cite Bass and Riggio’s (2006) articulation of these
components: First “idealized influence” which is said to occur when
leaders serve as role models who demonstrate high standards or ethical
and moral excellence, and who engender admiration, trust and respect
from others while inspiring them to maximize their personal and collective
potential (p.580).
Second, “inspirational motivation” refers to the promotion of “optimism and
enthusiasm which inspires and motivates others to exceed expectations, and realize
a collectively shared vision of excellence” (p.580). Third, “intellectual stimulation” is
when a leader engenders creative patterns of thinking, and flexibility, by promoting
independent thought, challenging assumptions, and learning to view problems from
differing perspectives (p.580). Finally, “individualized consideration” occurs when
leaders give challenges followed by empathetic, supportive feedback that is
customized for individuals, and when that individual contributes to the group they
are recognized and celebrated (p.580).
Transformational leadership is a critical feature of transformational teaching
in my opinion. When its components are successfully integrated in educational
settings, the benefits have been shown impressive (Beauchamp and Morton, as cited
in Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). It makes sense that when a teacher is simultaneously
able to be a transformational leader with their students, everything rises to a higher
12
level. This includes self-determined motivation, more positive attitudes toward
learning, greater enjoyment during class, greater satisfaction with the teacher, and
“significant improvements in self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation” (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012, p.580).
Three Overarching Principles of Transformational Teaching
Articulating the philosophical underpinnings of transformational teaching
uncovers their overlapping, mutually beneficial qualities and interrelatedness. For
example, the improved self-efficacy that arises from embedding a transformational
leadership approach, relates to the same goals of transformative learning theory.
Also, the idea of challenging assumptions and perceptions is a common theme
through each theoretical perspective, in order for academic and personal growth to
occur. Further, the potential for personal growth, through students working
together in teams, is suggested by social constructivism, intentional change theory,
as well as transformative learning theory (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.581).
Ultimately, Transformational Teaching aims to cause “transformation for learners,
through a synergy of academic, social, and spiritual goals” (Rosebrough & Leverett,
2011, p.95). Condensing transformational teaching into a set of three principles
helps solidify the concept. Slavich and Zimbardo, (2012) have expressed this as
follows;
(1) facilitating acquisition and mastery of key course concepts, (2) enhancing
strategies and skills for learning and discovery, and (3) promoting positive
learning-related attitudes, values, and beliefs (p.581).
The first two principles may seem nothing new for teachers who already use
contemporary approaches learning. However, the third principle is one that effects
all-else in the learning process and, in my view, needs further inquiry and
development. It has become increasingly evident in public schooling, especially in
our current information age, that students could greatly benefit from being taught
“social-emotional-spiritual competencies, and skills that allow them to learn
independently, to adapt, and to self-regulate” (Rosebrough & Leverett, 2011, p.36).
Within transformational leadership literature, the realm of social-emotional-
13
spiritual competency is understood as “personal mastery,” and is said to be the “the
discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing
our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively” (Senge, as
cited in Grogan, 2013, p.8). These abilities, if explicitly taught and modeled, might
help congeal the third principle. Furthermore, in my view, personal mastery can
start very early, by giving students skills and understandings that equip them with
more than just learning-based attitudes.
Peter Senge (as cited in Grogan, 2013) stated that few adults rigorously develop
the discipline of their own personal mastery (p.7). Part of why this is the case, could
be that it was never modeled and taught from a young enough age. Imagine if upper
intermediate students were entering high school with an awareness of how to live
their lives “in the service of their highest aspirations” (Senge, as cited in Grogan,
p.7). Part of personal mastery is learning one’s mental models, or “deeply ingrained
assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we
understand the world, and how we take action” (Senge, as cited in Grogan, 2013). If
students learned earlier about how assumption-making occurs, and became aware
of mental models, and how they can effect behaviour, perhaps assumptions would
not have the chance to become as deeply engrained. These students could be given
the skills to maintain a greater awareness, through learning meta-cognitive
strategies for isolating and questioning their thoughts. This may reduce the
occurrence of discovering later in life how “pervasive was the influence of (their)
hidden mental models, especially those that become widely shared” (Senge, as cited
in Grogan, p.9). Furthermore, young students are now much more exposed to visual
stimuli, and an increasing amount of information is being delivered visually, by way
of media devices. It is crucial, in my opinion, that students are able to filter, and
question the mental models being transmitted in this manner. It is also crucial that
they can learn to put their exposures to information into perspective. This includes
everything from popular media to the actual content introduced by teachers during
units of study. It is possible for younger students to learn that human beings are
constantly mean-making in their responses to life, and that knowledge is being
socially constructed.
14
The inspirational aspects of transformational teaching are derived from
strategies found in transformational learning theory, intentional change theory, and
transformational leadership (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012, p.580). Perhaps these have
not nearly been exploited due to a lack of personal mastery training on the part of
teachers themselves. While these theories have mainly been applied to adult
learning, there are definite aspects that could be shared with younger students.
Transformative Learning Theory, for example, has been described as “a form of
education very different from that commonly associated with children.. (because)
new information is only a resource in the adult learning process” (Mezirow,1997,
p.10).
To become meaningful, learning requires that new information be
incorporated by the learner into an already well-developed symbolic
frame of reference, an active process involving thought, feelings, and
disposition. The learner may also have to be helped to transform his or her
frame of reference to fully understand (Mezirow, 1997, p.10).
Younger students have lesser developed frames of reference due to a lack of life
experience, but transformation can still take place. Upper intermediate students
come to school with vast amounts of knowledge, interests, and informationexposure to work with. Furthermore, much of this knowledge carries with it adult
views of the world. Their frames of reference are less entrenched, but I think this
allows them to develop self-awareness more easily compared to adults who often
have to struggle out of the identities (with which they’ve become attached), before
being able to access transformation. Among what there is to access is
consciousness-raising, improving, becoming free of the past, undoing twisted
views of the world, raising above self-limitations, being future-oriented,
becoming enlightened, unfolding spiritually, metaphorically of butterflies
emerging, enlarging understanding and appreciation of the world….In this
domain, a person’s way of seeing the world can become more inclusive,
discriminating, reflective, open, and emotionally able to change (Howie &
Bagnall, 2013, p.821).
15
“The past” for a 10-12 year old child, may seem inconsequential compared with that
of an adult, but it is the process of gaining the ability to question the past that is
important, and this skill can be carried into adulthood. Especially in the emotionalsocial realm, for example, every upper intermediate student has a range of
personally meaningful experiences that can be related to personal development
training.
Critiques of Transformational Learning
Further research is needed on the Transformational Teaching model, and
although much of it would be hard to quantify, qualitative data should be possible
(Caughie, 2012, p.12). Rosebrough & Leverett’s (2011) book, ‘Transformational
Teaching in the Information Age’, reflects this lack of data, as there are no case
studies cited from schools attempting to use the model. Not surprisingly,
Transformational Teaching has been critiqued as more of “a philosophy, than an
action plan” (Caughie, 2012, p.72). However, this is a work in progress that will take
time to develop, and presumably multiple ‘action plans’ could be created within its
framework. There have also been criticisms that the spiritual elements of
transformational teaching draw educators away from “formulaic approaches to
school improvement”(Caughie, 2012, p.72). However, conventional approaches in
schooling have clearly been less than stirring for many students, and one could
argue that it is the spiritual component, or personal development aspect, that could
re-invigorate ‘school improvement’. Others have questioned how a certain
universalism can arise in the endeavor to create transformative learning (Taylor,
1998, p.182). This concern is warranted, especially for those trying to implement it
with younger, impressionable students. I think the concept of relativism needs to be
acknowledged and modeled within the transformational approach, allowing for
students to recognize that there are no absolutes. Related to this, teachers need to
be very aware that they are not “discounting the effects of power in dialogue”
(Taylor, 1998, p.182) which can be a barrier to (any) authentic learning. Power
inequalities within classes (student to student) will always be at play, but I think
this can be mediated through strategic rotations of student groupings, (among other
16
strategies). Also explicit teaching can be provided about ways to cope with, and
question, situations where power inequalities exist. Foremost, I would assert that
the power inequality from teacher to student must be carefully considered and not
abused in any way, especially for those teachers who develop a particularly
inspiring influence.
Among the theoretical underpinnings of Transformational Teaching,
Transformational Learning Theory has been widely critiqued (Howie & Bagnall,
2013, p.819). This may be a pertinent set of criticisms to consider as the
Transformational Teaching model becomes more established. Howie & Bagnall
(2013) summarize a few main ways in which critical responses to the theory of
transformative learning have been advanced. The first type are those criticisms that
suggest “certain elements are lacking, or require further elucidation, in order to
improve it” (p.819). Although no examples are given, these criticisms have
apparently contributed to the refinement and “removal of some of the theory’s
minor deficiencies….(but) cannot be considered criticisms of the fundamentals of
the theory in any substantive manner” (p.819).
The second type of criticism centers around the idea that a person must have a
“high enough level of cognitive functioning to engage in rational discourse and to
critically reflect on, or otherwise engage in, transformative learning” (p.820).
Collard and Law(1989) are cited as arguing that “contingent variables” interfere
with the possibility of ideal critical reflection (p.820), rendering the theory deficient.
However, Mezirow (1989,2000) himself countered that “critical reflection varies
depending on contingent variables, is never ideal, but can nonetheless contribute to
transformative learning” (as cited in Howie & Bagnall, 2013, p.820). I think this
statement verifies that critical reflection and transformative learning experiences
occur in a relative manner. This line of reasoning may, in part, help validate the
proposition that younger students can qualify as worthy recipients of
Transformational Teaching.
Howie and Bagnall (2013) also cite Pietrykowski (1996), Clark and Wilson (1991)
as having criticized transformative learning to be “too modernistic and
17
emancipationist” (p.820). Since Mezirow is known to be emancipationist in
orientation
the argument then becomes an argument for or against an emancipation
viewpoint, and is a difference of philosophical standpoints rather than a
coming-to-terms with the substance of the theory itself (Mezirow, as cited in
Howie & Bagnall, 2013).
Finally, Transformative Learning Theory has been critiqued by Newman(2012) as
“lacking a well-developed and explicit concept of power” (as cited in Howie &
Bagnall, 2013, p.580). Newman’s (2012) central argument being that “what is
described as transformative learning is really just good learning, any opposition to
which is essentially a substantive philosophical matter” (as cited in Howie &
Bagnall, 2013, p.820). Perhaps this critique lends to the substantiation that
Transformative Learning Theory would only benefit from being merged with other
learning theories, such as in the case of developing the Transformational Teaching
model.
Conclusion
I have reviewed here the main contemporary approaches to learning within
the Transformational Teaching framework (problem-based learning, studentcentered learning, active learning, collaborative learning, and experiential learning),
and underlined their similarities. The philosophical underpinnings of
transformational teaching were reviewed (constructivism, social constructivism,
intentional change theory, transformative learning theory, intentional change
theory, and transformational leadership theory), as set out by Slavich and Zimbardo
(2012). Three culminating Principles were provided, and some main critiques of
Transformational Teaching were acknowledged.
The idea of implementing Transformational Teaching, will, at worst, help to
promote some of the most powerful contemporary lines of thinking in education. At
best, it is a powerful model for inspiring students (and teachers), intellectually,
personally, and spiritually. Judging by the literature, Transformational Teaching is
18
meant for adult learning, however I have promoted and questioned the possibility of
implementing its goals starting with upper intermediate level students.
I think the strategies and thinking within transformational leadership, and
the field of personal development generally, is a vastly untapped area in the context
of institutionalized public schooling. These resources should be utilized in training
the front lines (teachers). This could have a profound impact on the level to which
public educators are able to have an inspiring presence in their classrooms. Taking
on the Transformational Teaching model may be one step closer to this occurring.
19
References
Caughie, Brian. (2012). Transformational Teaching in the Information Age (review).
The Journal of General Education. 61:1(66-72).
Howie, Peter and Bagnall, Richard. A Beautiful Metaphor: Transformational
Learning Theory. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 32:6(816-836).
Kucukaydin, I., and Cranton, P. (2012). Critically Questioning the Discourse of
Transformative Learning Theory. Adult Education Quarterly. 63:1(43-56).
Mezirow, Jack. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions
for Adult Learning and Continuing Education. Issue 74 (p.5-12).
DOI:10.1002/ace.7401
Rosebrough, Thomas R. and Leverett. (2011). Transformational Teaching in the
Information Age: Making Why and How We Teach Relevant to Students. ASCD:
Danvers, MA. Retrieved from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10446312
Savery, John. (2006). Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and
Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 1:1(9-20).
Senge, Peter. (2013). Give Me a Lever Long Enough…And Single-Handed I can Move
the World. Grogan, Margaret. (Ed.). The Jossey Bass Reader on Educational
Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Skourdoumbis, A. & Gale, T. (2013). Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Research: a
Conceptual Critique. British Education Research Journal. 39(5): 892-906.
Slavich, George and Zimbardo, Philip. (2012). Transformational Teaching:
Theoretical Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods. Educational
Psychological Review. 24:569-608.
Taylor, Edward (1998). Internet Editorial; Transformative Learning Theory. Journal
of Workplace Learning.13(4):182-183.