|
An Extended Epistemology for Transformative Learning Theory and Its Application Through Collaborative Inquiryby Elizabeth Kasl & Lyle Yorks - January 27, 2002 This paper extends Jack Mezirow's theory about the transformative dimensions of adult learning. Drawing on John Heron's conceptualization of how learning is grounded in feelings and emotion, the authors suggest that transformation be understood as changed habits of being. Collaborative inquiry, a methodology based on an epistemology rooted in experience and dependent on relationship, is presented as an effective strategy for facilitating learning and transformative learning. Three cases of collaborative inquiry projects are presented. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion about the epistemology of transformative learning and to describe collaborative inquiry as an ideal strategy for facilitating such learning. Jack Mezirow's writings about the transformative dimensions of adult learning are seminal to the ongoing discourse about adult learning and transformation. His analysis has been generative for theory building and research, not only because of the conceptualization he provides but also because of the productive lines of critique his work has stimulated. We join the discourse with suggestions that extend Mezirow's theory to a more wholistic conceptualization. We then show how collaborative inquiry, a methodology based on an epistemology rooted in experience and dependent on relationship, provides practitioners with a useful structure for facilitating adult learning. TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY AND LEARNING FROM
EXPERIENCE Before proceeding with our discussion, we make a short comment
about the development of Transformation Theory (Mezirow 1978, 1981,
1991, 1995, 2000). The original purpose of Mezirow’s project
was to introduce a theory of adult learning into the discourse
about adult education. Writing at a time when the literature in
adult education was largely focused on describing a set of
educational practices that assumed beliefs about adults as
learners, Mezirow called attention to the need for a formal theory
of adult learning and offered his own vision. He has been
successful in sparking an extensive discussion about how adults
learn (Taylor, 1998, 2000). Mezirow rests his work on the assumption that learning
transformatively is rooted in learning from
experience. Learning is understood as the process of using a prior
interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the
meaning of one's experience as a guide to future action....
Transformative learning refers to the process by which we
transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning
perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more
inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and
reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will
prove more true or justified to guide action (Mezirow, 2000, pp.
5-8). Critics have asserted that Mezirow's conceptualization of
transformative learning is overly rational and analytic (Clark
& Wilson, 1991; Taylor, 1998). Mezirow has responded to critics
by acknowledging the importance of multiple ways of knowing, but he
continues to pay primary attention to the analytic force of
reflection and rational discourse as the catalyst for
transformative learning. "Transformation theory is not simply a
theory of rationality, although a theory of rationality is central
to it" (Mezirow, 1995, p. 48). In contrast, we believe that the wholistic epistemology
developed by John Heron and Peter Reason (Heron, 1992, 1996a,
1996b; Heron & Reason, 1997, 2001), which theorizes the
foundational role of affect, provides a compelling framework for
articulating how experiential knowing relates to learning and
transformative learning. As their work has gone largely unnoticed
by adult educators in North America, our agenda is to introduce
this valuable perspective into adult educators' frame of reference
about learning and transformative learning. HERON’S MODEL: EXPERIENTIAL KNOWING ARISES FROM
AFFECTIVE AND IMAGINAL MODES OF PSYCHE For decades, Heron has been writing about an extended
epistemology grounded in a phenomenological sense of felt
experience. In 1992, he expanded his point of view by suggesting
that epistemology must be understood in the larger context of
personhood. In his book, Feeling and Personhood, Heron
(1992) presents an integrated theory of human psyche. By psyche,
Heron means "the human mind and its inherent life as a whole,
including its unexpressed and unexplored potential, as well as what
is manifest in conscious development...psyche includes both the
potentials for personhood and the actual person….” (p.
14). The psyche, according to Heron, has four modes of functioning
— affective, imaginal, conceptual and practical. Each mode
includes two processes: "The affective mode embraces feeling
and emotion.... The imaginal mode comprises intuition and
imagery.... The conceptual mode includes reflection and
discrimination. And the practical mode involves intention and
action" (pp. 14-15). The extended epistemology that springs from these modes of
psyche includes four ways of knowing — experiential,
presentational, propositional and practical. Heron writes that
experiential knowing is evident when we meet and feel the presence
of some energy, entity, person, place, process, or thing.
Presentational knowing is evident in our intuitive grasp of the
significance of imaginal patterns as expressed in graphic, plastic,
moving, musical, and verbal art forms. Propositional knowing is
expressed in intellectual statements, both verbal and numeric,
organized in ways that do not infringe the rules of logic and
evidence. Practical knowing is evident in knowing how to exercise a
skill (1996a p. 33). Heron uses the metaphor of parenting (1992, p. 157) to describe
how each way of knowing arises from, and is situated within, two
modes of psyche. Experiential knowing is parented by the affective
and imaginal modes, presentational knowing by the imaginal and
conceptual modes, propositional knowing by the conceptual and
practical modes, and practical knowing by the practical and
affective modes of psyche. Heron presents the fours ways of knowing as a cycle: the
learner experiences a felt encounter that is grasped and
presented intuitively, expressed propositionally and
extended into practical action. Action creates a new
experience of felt encounter and the cycle begins
anew. Many North American educators will notice similarities between
Heron's cycle and the experiential learning cycle posited by David
Kolb (1984), which also includes four psychological modes (feeling,
perceiving, thinking, and behaving) and four learning modes
(concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation). Because Kolb's
model is so familiar to North American educators and the apparent
similarities tempting, we think it important to draw attention to
four significant differences between Kolb's and Heron's
conceptualizations:
In contrast, Heron connotes a relationship of "up-hierarchy" by depicting ways of knowing as a pyramid. He explains "In an up-hierarchy, it is not a matter of the higher controlling and ruling the lower, as in a down-hierarchy, but of the higher branching and flowering out of, and bearing the fruit of, the lower" (1992, p.20). Figure 1 illustrates the up-hierarchy for multiple ways of
knowing as conceived by Heron. In each band of the pyramid, a way
of knowing is named in large print, with the two supporting modes
of psyche indicated in smaller print. Experiential knowing, which
arises from the affective and imaginal modes of psyche, is the base
of all learning and grounds all other forms of knowing. Practical
knowing occupies the pinnacle and is the "fruit" of all other ways
of knowing. Figure 1. Based on John Heron's (1992)
Conceptualization of Ways of Knowing as Up-Hierarchy Heron would argue that an epistemology congruent with human experience must acknowledge affect as a central feature. We agree. In spite of their importance, emotions and feelings are often paid scant attention by learning theorists and practitioners. David Boud, who has spent a career unraveling the relationship between reflection and learning from experience, writes with colleagues Ruth Cohen and David Walker, "In contemporary English-speaking society, there is a cultural bias towards the cognitive and conative aspects of learning. The development of affect is inhibited...leading to a lack of emphasis on people as whole persons.... " (Boud, Cohen & Walker, 1993, pp. 12-13). We believe that Transformation Theory as currently articulated
by Mezirow pays too little attention to "people as whole persons,"
specifically to the way in which critical reflection is
interdependent with other ways of knowing. Based on his exhaustive
review of research related to Mezirow's theory, Ed Taylor (1998)
observes: Based on the research it seems quite clear that both critical
reflection and affective learning play a significant role in the
transformative process.... Mezirow as well as most other studies
looked at these two concepts...separately and did not give enough
attention to their interrelationship in the transformative process
(Taylor, 2000, p. 303). Taylor goes on to describe findings from what he calls "the most
extensive study to date" (p.304) that document the interdependence
empirically. We suggest that Heron's model of up-hierarchy provides
a theoretical perspective on the interdependence of multiple ways
of knowing and the primacy of affect that can usefully be pursued
in the discourse about transformative learning. VALIDITY OF EXPERIENCE-BASED KNOWLEDGE Like any theory of knowledge, constructivist theories based on a
premise that adults make meaning from their experience must
consider the issue of validity. Heron and Mezirow have similar
ideas about the importance of public consensus. According to
Mezirow, the outcome of a valid meaning making process will be
frames of reference that are increasingly "more inclusive,
discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and
reflective...that will prove more true or justified to guide
action" (Mezirow, 2000, pp. 7-8). Discourse is a primary means for
developing more adequate frames of reference, enabling learners "to
use the experience of others to assess reasons justifying [their]
assumptions..." (p.8) in search of a "best judgment...based on the
broadest consensus possible" (p.12). In reflecting on the same
issue, Heron observes that valid meaning ...clearly does not mean creating any old world that suits your
fancy.... For reality is essentially public and shared; it depends
on a consensual view of its status and credentials. I can have a
distinct and idiosyncratic perspective on this shared reality, but
this purely personal view is interdependent with the public account
(Heron, 1992, p. 249). Although Mezirow and Heron agree that public consensus plays an
important role in judging the content validity of meaning that
learners make from their experience, the two theorists'
epistemologies lead them to significantly different ideas about the
processes that lead to that valid content. Mezirow argues that we
use reflection to assess the adequacy of the meaning we are making.
"Reflection is the process of critically assessing the content,
process, or premise(s) of our efforts to interpret and give meaning
to an experience" (Mezirow, 1991, p. 104). Thus, in Mezirow's view,
the conceptual mode of psyche bears primary responsibility for
validity. Heron (1992, pp. 161-176) argues that each way of knowing
has its own independent canons of validity. Each must be judged in
its own terms. At the same time, because of the up-hierarchy, the
validity of each way of knowing is also dependent on the ways of
knowing that ground it, meaning that the validity canons for
experiential knowing are the "touchstone for the validity of all
higher sets of transactions" (p.162). The primary criterion for
validity is congruence (Heron, 1988, 1996a). "Valid
knowledge...means that each of the four kinds of knowledge is
validated by its own internal criteria, and also by its
interdependence and congruence with all the others within a
systemic whole" (Heron, 1996a, p.33). Critical subjectivity is the
process for achieving congruence. It "involves an awareness of the
four ways of knowing, of how they are currently interacting, and of
ways of changing the relations between them so that they articulate
a reality that is unclouded by a restrictive and ill-disciplined
subjectivity" (Heron & Reason, 1997, p. 281). On the face of it, Mezirow's description of process reflection
appears similar to critical subjectivity. According to Mezirow,
"Process reflection is an examination of how we
perform [the] functions of perceiving, thinking, feeling, or acting
and an assessment of our efficacy in performing them" (1991, pp.
7-8). Critical subjectivity "involves an awareness of the four ways
of knowing...and of ways of changing the relations between
them..."(Heron & Reason, 1997, p. 281). However, in Mezirow's
construction process reflection is an analytic activity and the
examples he gives are construed in the context of problem solving
(1991, pp. 107-108; 1995, pp. 44-45). In the Heron/Reason
construction, critical subjectivity is a process of heightened
awareness that, when incongruence among ways of knowing is
detected, requires returning to the experience of the felt
encounter. Experiential knowing, site of the affective and
imaginal, is the "touchstone for the validity of all higher sets of
transactions" (Heron, 1992, p.162). HABITS OF BEING AND AN EPISTEMOLOGY OF
BALANCE We conclude our analysis with a reflection about language.
Mezirow (2000) has recently adopted the phrase habits of
mind to refer to what in earlier work he called meaning
perspective. We believe that the change of language from
meaning perspective to habits of mind makes the idea of meaning
perspective more transparent, and thus more accessible to a broad
range of readers. At the same time, we also notice that the phrase
habits of mind can serve as a metaphor for Mezirow's emphasis on
the conceptual and rational. We suggest that an epistemology that
balances multiple ways of knowing, which we propose is a more
adequate framework for understanding adult learning, is captured
appropriately with an alternative phrase, habits of
being. The epistemological differences in perceptions about how meaning
is created and tested lead to different implications for design of
learning interventions. When Mezirow writes about the
"establishment of ideal learning conditions" he describes ideal
conditions for rational discourse (1991, p. 198). An educator
following Mezirow would emphasize conceptual practices such as
dialogue under the rules of free and open discourse. When Heron
writes about learning, he describes an array of facilitative
practices designed to elicit a balanced engagement with all four
ways of knowing (1992, 1996b, 1999). For us, a significant
implication of an epistemology of balance is that unchecked
dominance of any one way of knowing leads to truncated, even
dysfunctional, learning experiences. Examples of truncated learning
experiences vary. They can range from highly dialogic designs that
depend solely or largely on discourse, to meditative or expressive
experiences that exclude or minimize discourse, to action-based
learning methods that minimize reflection on feelings and how
feelings impact learning. THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF ACTION Over the years, many of Mezirow's critics have pointed to what
they perceive as his lack of attention to social action (Taylor,
1998), charging that his work is "too psychological." We suggest an
alternative critique — that Mezirow's description of the
psychological falls short of accounting fully for how action is
embedded in the psyche. We believe that many action-oriented
critics, with their terse dismissal of the psychological, fail to
apprehend the significance of psyche as the context for action. Of
course, not all action is social action. However, we believe that
social action cannot be understood separately from an epistemology
of action and is predicated upon it. From the perspective of an epistemology of balance, we suggest
that a common cause of a learner's failure to take action for which
he or she has avowed commitment is a lack of congruence among the
four ways of knowing. The lack of congruence may signal either
lack of skill or lack of will. In the first case,
lack of skill grows from lack of experiential know-how, sometimes
expressed with the simple phrase, knowledge about is not the
same as knowing how. In the second case, lack of will grows
from lack of coherence between what has been articulated
propositionally and what the learner knows through other modes of
psyche. In this case, the learner may have agreed in good faith to
a line of action, only to discover when it comes time to act that
espoused intention is somehow at odds with experiential or
presentational knowing. TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY AND
LEARNING-WITHIN-RELATIONSHIP1 We now distinguish between Mezirow's description of discourse
and a phenomenon we call learning-within-relationship.
Our distinction rests on the differences in epistemologies just
described. We use the term learning-within-relationship to
describe what happens when an epistemology of balance is enacted in
the context of a group: learners are fully engaged with their
own whole-person knowing as well as the dynamic whole person of
their fellow learners. To grasp the difference between discourse
and learning-within-relationship, we first examine Mezirow's
description of discourse. Following Habermas, Mezirow identifies two major domains of
learning — instrumental and communicative. The process of
communicative learning, "learning what others mean when they
communicate with you.[often involving] feelings, intentions,
values, and moral issues" (1991, p.8), requires processes for
structuring interaction. Mezirow suggests the ideal process is
discourse. Discourse, in the context of Transformation Theory, is that
specialized use of dialogue devoted to searching for a common
understanding and assessment of the justification of an
interpretation or belief. This involves assessing reasons advanced
by weighing the supporting evidence and arguments and by examining
alternative perspectives. Reflective discourse involves a critical
assessment of assumptions. It leads toward a clearer understanding
by tapping collective experience to arrive at a tentative best
judgment" (2000, pp. 10-11). Discourse is an analytic process that fosters communicative
learning. In Heron's model, discourse would be a manifestation of
propositional knowing, which is parented by the conceptual and
practical modes of psyche. In contrast, communicative learning in
Heron's model would require that participants engage each other
through affective and imaginal modes of psyche as well as
conceptual and practical. Discourse would be only one form of
communication, embedded in a larger pattern of interaction that
enables communities of learners to create mutually-held beliefs and
meaning. This whole-person pattern of interaction is
learning-within-relationship. Both theorists agree that the role of felt connection in
communicative learning is critical, but account for it differently.
Mezirow acknowledges that effective participation in discourse
requires pre-existing capacities and conditions. Discourse requires
emotional maturity in participants (Mezirow, 2000, p. 11) and
"[f]eelings of trust, solidarity, security, and empathy are
essential preconditions..." (Mezirow, 2000, p. 12). According to
Heron, feelings and emotional capacities are lodged in the
affective mode of psyche, one of the "parents" for experiential
knowing — which is "the domain of empathy, indwelling,
participation, presence, resonance, and such like” (Heron,
1992, p. 16). We assert that Transformation Theory does not adequately account
for how adults can be helped to create the conditions for
reflective discourse because it privileges two modes of psyche,
effectively cutting learners off from the source of felt
connection. Conditions of trust, solidarity, security, and empathy
cannot be created from a conceptual commitment to their importance,
no matter how deeply that commitment is felt by the person who
holds it. Trust, solidarity, security, and empathy require human
interaction through affective and imaginal modes. Further, the more
diverse the group of co-learners, the greater the effort needed to
create conditions that enable them to engage each other
authentically as whole-persons. Activities that can foster
learning-within-relationship take time and, as Boud and his
colleagues observe, are not typically provided for in contemporary
English-speaking society's social institutions. We add a caveat
that the "contemporary English-speaking society" norms to which
Boud and colleagues allude are represented by a hegemony that is
often described with the adjectives, "Western or Eurocentric,
white, male." We hasten to add that people of color and women are
also swept into the hegemony in their patterns of human
interaction. Heron and Reason are the architects of a research process called
co-operative inquiry (Heron, 1996a; Heron & Reason, 1997),
which they assert ideally actualizes the wholistic epistemology
described above. The educational process called collaborative
inquiry (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000; Kasl & Yorks,
forthcoming; thINQ, 1993), which we now describe, is derived in
large part from principles outlined by Heron and Reason
. COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY—PUTTING THE EXTENDED
EPISTEMOLOGY INTO PRACTICE Collaborative inquiry is a systematic process ideally suited for
facilitating learning-within-relationship. Small groups of learners
come together as peers to pursue a question of mutual interest.
Collaborative inquiry is especially appropriate for constructing
new meaning regarding questions that are professionally
developmental, socially controversial, require personal or social
healing, or explore inner experience. These categories are of
course not mutually exclusive. Using systematic procedures for learning from their personal
experience, participants generate new knowledge from repeated
episodes of reflection and action. They share equal power and
responsibility for making decisions, practice critical subjectivity
and intersubjectivity in mutual pursuit of new meaning, and follow
explicit validity procedures. Thus, collaborative inquiry creates a
learning structure that mirrors the conditions long held by Mezirow
(1991, 1995, 2000) to be fundamental to transformative adult
learning — freedom from coercion, equality of opportunity for
participation, and norms of inquiry that reinforce commitment to
building shared meaning through validity testing. Learning from experience and transformative learning are both
supported by learning in the context of a group. The context of
group has several benefits. Groups offer ready access to diverse
and challenging perspectives. They create social support for
construction and reconstruction of meaning. Collaborative inquiry
groups typically meet for an extended period of time, thus making
it more likely that members will develop the trust and empathy that
is associated with the whole-person epistemology of
learning-within-relationship. Below we briefly tell the stories of three inquiries. We have
chosen these particular inquiries because they illustrate the broad
range of purposes to which collaborative inquiry lends itself. As
we have space to provide only the briefest sketch of these three
inquiries, we focus our narrative on how the power of whole-person
epistemology and learning-within-relationship creates a place of
nexus for individual personal growth and action in the world. After
describing each inquiry, we use Mezirow's observations regarding
frames of reference as an interpretive frame for describing the
inquirers' transformation. In 1991, Mezirow described "three types
of meaning perspectives" — epistemic, sociolinguistic,
psychological (pp. 42-43). In 2000, he writes, "A frame of
reference is a 'meaning perspective,' the structure of assumptions
and expectations through which we filter sense impressions" (p.16).
In addition to epistemic, sociolinguistic, and psychological
"filters," he now adds moral-ethical, philosophical, and aesthetic
(p. 17). THE COMMUNITY WOMEN Linda Smith is a community-based adult educator committed to
what she describes as "the validation of grass-roots knowledge."
After discovering Peter Reason's work, she was inspired to organize
a collaborative inquiry group. In the opening paragraph of his 1988
edited book, Reason writes about research "with and
for people rather than on people" (p.1). Linda
wondered, "How can I join with people who have grass-roots
knowledge in order to validate the importance of this kind of
knowledge?" She began to search her network of connections in her
home community, Washington D.C., and discovered the community
women. The community women had been working for a year as volunteer
peer counselors in clinics that serve new mothers. One of them,
Ann, obtained a small grant to cover expenses for child care and
transportation. With great enthusiasm, Linda invited the group to
join her in an inquiry about the power of grass-roots knowledge.
Linda bubbled with enthusiasm, based on her practitioner experience
and her recent discoveries related to epistemology —
descriptions of women's ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger & Tarule, 1986) as well as Reason's "new
paradigm." Years later, in describing her approach to the community women,
Linda smilingly explains that her presentation was "perhaps a
little too abstract." Luckily, the group's leader with whom
Linda had spoken during her search for a group, was committed to
the inquiry. Ann called Linda to ask, "What will it take to make
the idea of collaborative inquiry more concrete? The peer
counselors like things to be concrete." Together, they decided to
organize a potluck. Over casual interaction, enjoying favorite
dishes and sharing recipes, the women agreed to try collaborative
inquiry, which they now understood as "telling stories about clinic
experiences in order to learn from each other." The peer counselors were diverse in race, language, and
education. For many, English was not a first language and several
had only a high school education or equivalency. When they met
Linda, they had been working together for a year, but not as a
cohesive unit. Within their group of ten, they tended to work in
pairs or trios defined by race or language. Relying on expert
knowledge, they turned often to a large reference book about
breastfeeding. After they agreed to try collaborative inquiry, the
women crafted their question, "What are the ways we can lower the
barriers to peer counseling?" and through telling clinic stories,
learned to appreciate the value of their personal experience. As
Linda facilitated their storytelling, she "waited and watched" for
opportunities to help the women direct their own reflection in a
process they all thought of as "asking questions." After a year of inquiry, the community women had grown confident
that their personal experience was as important a guide for
counseling practice as the big reference book on which they had
been dependent. For example, one counselor's story about
interacting with a Spanish-speaking client catalyzed reflection and
ongoing experiment with different ways to overcome language
barriers. As they broadened their experience with communicating
across cultural differences, the women grew comfortable with
talking about race and culture. By the end of the inquiry, Smith
reports how the group had learned to change its assumptions about
cultural differences. "In one of our early sessions, Emily, a white
peer counselor, spoke about not approaching black women because she
assumed that they were not interested [in breastfeeding]. Several
sessions later Emily told a story [about] a great experience with a
black woman" (Smith, 1995, p.163). The "great experience" was
possible because the group had begun to challenge members'
assumptions about race and Emily's confidence in approaching the
black woman was based in what she and the group were learning. From
their growing cross-cultural experience in the clinics and within
their group, the women debunked their own racial and cultural
stereotypes, stereotypes that had guided their work the previous
year. About the same time, the peer counselors' two-year grant came to
an end. Having learned to value their own experience, when the
women asked themselves how they might raise money for the stipends
that made their counseling work possible, they hit upon the idea of
using their knowledge about communicating across cultural
difference. Having once thought of themselves as working
"mother-to-mother," they now made plans to work "group-to-group."
During the next eighteen months, the community women facilitated
inquiry processes for organizations interested in cross-cultural
communication. Their efforts culminated in a project they undertook
for the March of Dimes, in which they guided leaders from 32
community organizations drawn together by their association with
programs related to teen pregnancy and parent
education. Looking back on the group's experience, one woman observed, "I
think on our meetings as golden. We learned to believe in
ourselves, and we all stood taller." Interpretive Comment During the first year of their inquiry, the community women
learned new epistemic frames of reference (meaning perspectives or
habits of mind). In the language of Women's Ways of Knowing,
a model Linda used to guide her work with the women, the community
women changed from being the received knowers who were
dependent on the "big book of breastfeeding" to constructed
knowers who had grown skillful in making sense of their experience
and acting on their experience-based knowledge. They also learned
new psychological frames as members' growing sense of agency
changed self concepts. Finally, they disrupted former
sociolinguistic assumptions about race and cultural
difference. Further reading about the community women's inquiry is available
in Bray, Lee, Smith, and Yorks (2000), Smith (1995), and Smith
(forthcoming). THE TECHNOLOGY EDUCATORS Joyce Gerdau (now Joyce Lee) recruited eight technology
educators to pursue an inquiry about the impact of educational
technology on teaching and learning. All held state-wide
educational leadership positions as administrators, staff
developers, or coordinators of programs for the state of New
Jersey. All were persons Gerdau had come to respect for both their
knowledge and curiosity about the link between technology and
education and how this link could be most effectively utilized by
teachers. This initiating interest is reflected in the group's
inquiry question, "How can educators be assisted in planning for
and integrating technology into the teaching/learning processes at
their respective sites?" Through six action/reflection cycles over a period of eight
months, the participants identified nine assumptions that
participants believed should guide their respective practices. The
last assumption captures a shift in their perspective about their
work with teachers. "Above all, the integration of technology
should be a humanizing process and we should remember that
technology itself is not the solution, that the application of
technology is only one solution to improving the educational
system" (Gerdau, 1995, p. 203). As the group reflected on how its
learning had led to this insight, members examined the discrepancy
between their original question and what they now believed to be
important. Henry: Then forget about technology! The burning question
is: How do human beings better communicate with each other in
a teaching-learning environment. That doesn't have anything to do
with machines, eh?.... Martin: Very good. Why didn't you come up with this six
sessions ago? (laughter) Joyce: ...we all bought into the question. Martin: That's true, we did..... The bigger question
is: How do we use technology to improve the
interactions in the teaching-learning process! (Gerdau, 1995, p.
236). The group's insight reflects a systemic understanding of
education and technology's role in the schools. As illustrated by
the difference between the group's initiating question and its
closing perception, the co-inquirers changed their assumptions
about the role of teacher agency in the relationship between
teachers and technology. Growth in members' capacity to perceive education systemically
grew, in part, from their experience of learning to perceive the
systemic character of their learning within the collaborative
inquiry process. They grew to appreciate how their interrelatedness
created a power greater than a sum of individual powers. At their
last meeting, members drew pictures of their experience, then
explained their drawings to each other. The pictures nearly all
expressed prominently the power of group learning (Gerdau, pp.
207-215). For example, Sara drew streams of water that had
originated in various locations, then came together in a waterfall.
She explained, ...At the beginning we were diverse and came from different
backgrounds. Then in the mixture of this waterfall the water is
shared — the interchange of ideas and experiences opens up to
new ways of thinking by building up a repertoire of choices and
avenues. As the waterfall reaches the bottom, we disperse but
within each little molecule of water the structure is changed
somewhat (Gerdau, p. 214). Paul drew two pictures. The first shows him tugging hard to pull
uphill a rope that has twelve people attached to it. The second
shows a number of people, milling around, exploring different
points of view. He explained, Before collaborative inquiry, I thought there was a right
direction which was Paul's enlightened direction. After
collaborative inquiry, I see there is no one right way, there may
be many ways. With this process, I think if you get a whole bunch
of people who are smart and care about what they are doing and get
them in the same place at the same time and give them no direction
at all, they'll probably go someplace in the right direction
(Gerdau, p. 208). In an interview five months after the inquiry's conclusion, Paul
observed, At first, it was like a lot of baloney...it took
awhile...somewhere, about half-way through I discovered I was
learning something and changed my behavior. I went into this
collaboration with one set of opinions, a hardened set, and then
softened in my positions (Gerdau, p. 237). Although the group cherished the power of its experience with
making meaning collaboratively, members tended to believe that they
could not use collaborative strategies in their respective
workplaces. At the final session, for example, as they talked about
the process itself, "Martin leaned forward in an intense way and
slammed his hand on the table. 'This is not real!'...Henry voiced a
similar reaction, "It strikes me that our work environment by
definition is not this work environment. The work environment has
all kinds of qualities about it that work against the nice
chemistry of this kind of mix." Paul concurred, likening the
group's process to a poetry meeting, "In our lives we were all like
firemen. We were putting out fires and then suddenly...we went to
this poetry meeting.... If you are fighting fires, poetry becomes
insignificant. But if your entire life is spent without any poetry
in it, then what is the meaning of your life?" Although members
appeared to believe that collaborative inquiry processes had no
immediate relevance to their work environments, eight months after
that closing session, Martin observed that "a narrow application
for collaborative inquiry" could have "efficacy in the workplace"
(Gerdau, pp. 224-225). At the group's closing meeting, Martin asked rhetorically, "How come I get all excited and pumped up about this process? This is the first time I have experienced at this level the adrenaline as a participant — this collaborative learning" (Gerdau, p. 204). Perhaps in answer to his own question, he also observed, "You know, it's really therapeutic for me...[but] I have no idea why I get so pumped up" (Gerdau, p. 241). Thinking about the "one thing that stands out about the experience that was particularly satisfying," Tom observed, "What sticks in my mind about our experience was the emotional content. It was very high intensity. The discussion had a high emotional content, people felt what they said and people took it as important — it was psychologically charged" (Gerdau, pp. 238-239). Interpretive Comment The technology educators all held highly responsible positions
in the state department of education, based on their expert
knowledge about technology. During the inquiry, they experienced
change in both sociolinguistic and epistemic frames of reference.
When the group perceived that its original question focused
inappropriately on technology instead of the quality of the
teaching-learning process, it was identifying and challenging norms
in the technology community as well as a cultural predisposition
toward valuing instrumental learning and problem solving. When
members recognized the power of group learning, they were learning
new frames for understanding how knowledge is created. This new
frame had not yet permeated members' epistemic worldview, in that
they could not imagine, at the time of their closing session, that
the pace or chemistry of collaborative inquiry could be efficacious
in their workplaces. However, as Sara observed with the water
analogy, the inquiry changed "the structure" of each participant's
perspective. Eight months after the inquiry, Martin was imagining
that he might apply collaborative inquiry in his work environment.
We suggest that the technology educators found it difficult to
associate whole-person epistemology with the context of work. Yet,
having experienced it themselves, they now had new epistemic frames
with which to view what might be possible in other
environments. Further reading about the technology educators' inquiry is
available in Bray, Lee, Smith, and Yorks (2000) and Gerdau
(1995). INQUIRY INTO WHITENESS This third example is not one inquiry, but a federated design in
which several different collaborative inquiry groups were convened
to assist members in learning about the impact of white
consciousness on their personal beliefs and behaviors. A team of
researchers studied the learning experience of participants in four
of these groups. This synopsis is based on that team's
findings. The research team discovered that all but one of nineteen
participants reported changed beliefs and behaviors, even though
they started the inquiry "with different levels of awareness or
consciousness regarding white hegemony" (Barlas, et al., 2000a, p.
27). From the many examples these researchers provide, we choose
one that reveals the dynamic of how personal change is entwined
with changed behavior. Barlas and her colleagues (2000a) describe
the change in Eleanor: Eleanor, who is a writing teacher in a highly diverse community
college, has changed her teaching. Before participating in the
[collaborative inquiry], she never asked her students to write
about their cultures or their experiences with discrimination, in
part because she thought it would be unethical to ask disclosure
from her students when she did not know how to be disclosing about
herself. She also believed that if she talked about racism, it
would "be like reinforcing it and make it more powerful and more
oppressive to minority people." As a result of her [collaborative
inquiry] experience, Eleanor asked her remedial writing class to
write about personal experience with racism. She completed the
assignment herself and volunteered to be first to read her paper,
which described through a vivid critical incident her own struggles
with understanding how to confront racism. "I read mine first and
you could just feel the whole room shift. It was really powerful
because, I think, of how honest I was. It was hard for me to be
this way and, you know, they knew that.” (Barlas, et al.,
2000a, pp. 28-29). Eleanor had wanted for a long time to "do something" about
racism, but what she calls her "good girl" upbringing had taught
her that it was "not nice" to talk about such things. Avoidance of
things not nice filtered her perceptions of the world, which in
turn directed her actions. Before her [collaborative inquiry] participation, she was so
ashamed of having prejudiced thoughts that she "would just close
them down so fast that they wouldn't really have contained any
reality for me...." In contrast, she now notices such thoughts
“in a little moment” of awareness. She notes that
“[w]hen that happens I feel a little bit scared, and a little
bit kind to myself, at the same time.” With compassion for
herself on these occasions, she thinks “I need to give myself
explicit permission, not exactly in words, but to say to myself,
'It’s okay to have the thought. It is all right.'”
Because she has learned to be "a little bit kind" to herself,
Eleanor now can stop repressing thoughts that shame her. Instead,
she can notice them, reflect on them, and learn from them (Barlas,
et al., 2000a, pp. 27-28). Eleanor's new way of being with herself and in the world had
consequences beyond her classroom. The year after she participated
in the inquiry, Eleanor "created a diversity workshop for college
faculty and administrative staff. Her workshop spawned the
rejuvenation of a disheartened institutional diversity committee,
who sought and received a new budget allocation of $10,000"
(Barlas, et al., 2000a, p. 29). In Eleanor's story, we see the interaction between feeling and
perceiving, perceiving and thinking, thinking and taking
action. Interpretive Comment Eleanor typifies the way in which personal transformation
manifests itself in multiple ways and demonstrates how changes in
epistemic, psychological, and sociolinguistic frames of reference
are interrelated. Eleanor's shift in personal consciousness changes
her capacity to notice her own racist thoughts and also changes the
way she thinks about her responsibility as a white person to speak
out about race and racism. Before her participation in
collaborative inquiry, perceiving the world through her frame of
"good girl," Eleanor thought it was "rude" to admit that she was
conscious of race. Now she understands that her silence
communicates a false message of acquiescence or support for
race-based inequities. Eleanor's change in personal consciousness
affects her behavior as a teacher and as a white person in the
world. Before her participation in the inquiry, Eleanor avoided
issues of race and culture, even though she is a writing instructor
in a community college where the students are nearly all persons of
color. Now, understanding that writing about race and culture can
be liberating for her students, she bravely ventures into
communications that she previously avoided. Further, in other
venues of her life, she is learning how to speak about racist
behavior when she observes it. Eleanor's new meaning perspectives
have encouraged her to speak out in faculty meetings in ways that
have provided leadership for institutional change. With her new
boldness, she has become a leader in the institution's diversity
initiatives. Further reading about the Inquiry into Whiteness can be found in
Barlas, et al. (2000a, 2000b) and European-American Collaborative
Challenging Whiteness (2002, forthcoming). CONCLUDING REFLECTION We close with two observations. NEXUS OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL GROWTH AND ACTION IN THE WORLD The examples of the three groups illustrate the interaction
between action in the world and reflection on the self. When they
began their inquiry, the Community Women focused on action in the
clinics. Gradually, they learned to balance their natural
propensities for action with reflective practices. Experimentation
with ways to overcome barriers in the clinics spilled over into
reflection about the social and cultural divisions among
themselves, a force that before the collaborative inquiry had been
potent but unacknowledged. With new understanding of cultural
differences grounded in their own felt experience, the women were
then able to translate their insights into practical action —
among themselves, in the clinics, and in the larger
community. The Technology Educators began their inquiry with relatively
instrumental frames of reference about technology and their task of
helping teachers learn to use it. Their perspective grew
progressively more systemic. As they began to appreciate the power
in their own relationship-based learning, they gradually realized
the importance of communicative and relationship-based learning for
the teachers. The Technology Educators changed their perspective on
the goals of their work and seem on the cusp of restructuring their
beliefs about processes that might effectively implement that
change. Experience from four different groups participating in the
Inquiry into Whiteness is represented in Eleanor's story. The
supportive context of relationship enables Eleanor to confront in
herself frames of reference that she had been too ashamed to
acknowledge. Once able to surface these schemas, she is able to
examine them and make progress toward changing them. Eleanor's
change in personal consciousness propels her into new behaviors and
actions that have served as catalysts for change in her workplace.
Collaborative inquiry groups usually begin their inquiries with
a relative imbalance in their attention to inner experience or
outer behaviors. For example, at their onset the Community Women
and Technology Educators were focused on actions in the context of
work roles (either volunteer or paid). Gradually, reflection about
their experience in the workplace turned these inquirers'
reflective attention toward self. The opposite pattern applies to
the White Inquiry project. More than the other two projects, this
one begins with a clear focus on an issue that is socially
controversial and requires deep attention to inner experience.
Changed internal consciousness in turn leads to changed
behavior. Changed habits of being are linked to the wholistic epistemology
implemented in collaborative inquiry. Inquiry groups try out new
behaviors as part of the action/reflection process. Sometimes
members first practice new behaviors inside their inquiry groups,
as the Community Women practiced communicating across language
barriers. Co-inquirers also plan actions that require new behavior
when they are away from the group, as Eleanor practiced talking
about race instead of silencing herself because "that would be
rude." Throughout the inquiry, co-inquirers find ways to maintain
the quality of affective knowing in their interactions so that they
can support each other exploring the full meaning of their
experience. COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY IN PRACTICE Adult educators who want to learn more about how to structure
and facilitate the collaborative inquiry process are encouraged to
consult other sources (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000;
Heron, 1996a; Yorks & Kasl, forthcoming). We observe two notes of caution. The wholistic epistemology
described here is counter-cultural in the dominating norms of
"contemporary English-speaking society." For example, although the
Technology Educators valued their emotional connections with each
other and acknowledged learning deeply when they engaged
imaginatively through drawing pictures of their experience, they
did not think it possible to use similar ways of knowing in their
respective workplaces. From our experience as adult educators who
have coached countless adults in how to use collaborative inquiry,
we know that keeping participants continually grounded in their own
felt experience is one of our greatest challenges. The multiple
cycles of action/reflection that form the basic structure for
collaborative inquiry can be short-circuited into a more familiar
epistemology that privileges analysis and critical reflection
instead of balancing multiple ways of knowing. When adults engage wholistically — with people who bring
diverse points of view, in inquiries about issues for which they
feel strong personal interest — emotions can run high. This
will be especially true if the process begins to lead toward
transformation. As Mezirow observes, "Transformative learning,
especially when it involves subjective reframing, is often an
intensely emotional experience in which we have to become aware of
both the assumptions undergirding our ideas and those supporting
our emotional responses to the need to change" (Mezirow, 2000, pp.
6-7). At such times, it is crucial that collaborative inquiry
groups provide for distress facilitation (Heron, 1996a; Heron &
Reason 2001), yet many adult educators feel unprepared for this
challenge. In discussing this challenge with colleagues, Ed Taylor
no doubt speaks for many educators when he observes,
...on an intellectual level I recognize the significance of
feelings and their interrelationship with rationality, but on a
practical level I often find myself at an impasse of how to deal
with intense feelings in the classroom.... too much focus on the
personal starts to turn the classroom experience from one of
education into therapy (Tisdell, Hanley, & Taylor, 2000, p.
138). In writing about her own experience with distress facilitation
in collaborative inquiry, Penny Rosenwasser makes an important
distinction, "Like therapy, distress facilitation helps
co-inquirers process emotions, and ideally, transform in the
process. Unlike therapy, however, ... distress facilitation methods
are not the focus of the inquiry; instead, these methods are tools
to facilitate learning during action/reflection cycles"
(Rosenwasser, forthcoming). Although challenging, we believe it imperative that adult
educators who want to use collaborative inquiry as a structure for
learning and transformative learning become skillful in dealing
with intense feelings in the context of learning. NOTE 1. Our use of the term learning-within-relationship
is drawn from the Group for Collaborative Inquiry (1994), who
writes about learning-in-relationship, as well as
from Gwendolyn Kaltoft's (1990) discussion of what she calls
self-in-relationship. REFERENCESBarlas, C., Kasl, E., Kyle, R., MacLeod, A., Paxton, D.,
Rosenwasser, P. & Sartor, L. (2000a). Learning to unlearn
White supremacist consciousness. In Sork, T., Lee-Chapman, V.,
& St. Clair, R. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult
Education Research Conference. University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, June 2-4, pp.
26-30. Barlas, C., Kasl, E., Kyle, R., MacLeod, A., Paxton, D.,
Rosenwasser, P. & Sartor, L. (2000b). Cooperative inquiry
as a facilitator for perspective transformation. In Weissner,
C., Meyer, S, & Fuller, D. (Eds.) Challenges of
practice: Transformative learning in action. 3rd
International Transformative Learning Conference Proceedings,
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, October 26-28, pp.
51-56. Belenky, M. F, Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule,
J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind. New York:
Basic Books. Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Walker, D. (1993).
Introduction: Understanding learning from experience. In D.
Boud, R. Cohen, & D. Walker (Eds.), Using experience
for learning (pp. 1-17). Buckingham, England: The Society
For Research into Higher Education & Open University
Press. Bray, J., Lee, J., Smith, L.L. & Yorks, L. (2000).
Collaborative inquiry in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications. Clark, C.M. & Wilson, A. (1991). Context and
rationality in Mezirow's theory of transformational learning.
Adult Education Quarterly 41, 75-91. European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness
(2002). Cooperative inquiry as a facilitator for perspective
transformation. Teachers College Record.
http://www.tcrecord.org/internal/ContentA.asp?ContentID=10879 European-American Collaborative Challenging Whiteness
(forthcoming). A multiple-group inquiry into Whiteness. In L.
Yorks & E. Kasl (Eds.), Collaborative inquiry as a strategy
for adult learning: Creating space for generative
learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education no. 94. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Gerdau, J. (1995). Learning in adulthood through
collaborative inquiry. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56,(07), 25247, (University
Microfilms No. AAC95-39807). Group for Collaborative Inquiry (1994). A model for
transformative learning: Individual development and social
action. 35th Annual Adult Education Research Conference
Proceedings. The University of Tennessee at Knoxville,
May 20-22, pp. 169-174. Heron, J. (1988). Validity in co-operative inquiry. Pp.
40-59 in P. Reason (ed.), Human inquiry in action:
Developments in new paradigm research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications. Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and personhood:
Psychology in another key. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications. Heron, J. ( 1996a). Cooperative inquiry: Research
into the human condition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Heron, J. (1996b). Helping whole people learn. Pp.
75-91 in D. Boud & N. Miller (eds.), Working with
experience. London and New York:
Routledge. Heron, J. (1999). The Complete Facilitator’s
Handbook. London: Kogan Page. Heron, J. & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry
paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry 3, 274-294. Heron, J. & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of
co-operative inquiry: Research 'with' rather than 'on'
people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (eds.), Handbook of
action research. London: Sage
Publications. Kaltoft, G. (1990). Music and emancipatory learning in three community education programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Kasl, E. & Yorks, L. (forthcoming). Collaborative
inquiry for adult learning. In L. Yorks & E. Kasl (Eds.),
Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning: Creating
space for generative learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education no. 94. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning:
Experience as a source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation.
Adult Education 28, 100-110. Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning
and education. Adult Education Quarterly 32,
3-24. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult
learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult
learning. Pp. 39-70 in M. Welton (ed.), In defense
of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning (pp.
39-70). Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York
Press. Mezirow J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult.
Pp. 3-33 in J. Mezirow and Associates, Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reason, Peter. (ed.) (1988). Human inquiry in action :
Developments in new paradigm research. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications. Rosenwasser, P. (forthcoming) Exploring internalized
oppression and healing strategies. In L. Yorks & E. Kasl
(Eds.), Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning:
Creating space for generative learning. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education no. 94. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Smith, L. L. (1995). Collaborative inquiry as an
adult learning strategy. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56,(07), 2533, (University Microfilms No.
AAC95-39867). Smith, L. L. (forthcoming). Using the power of
collaborative inquiry: Community women learn and lead
themselves. In L. Yorks & E. Kasl (Eds.),
Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning: Creating
space for generative learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education no. 94. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Taylor, E. (1998). Theory and practice of
transformative learning: A critical review. Information
Series No. 374. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearing House
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Taylor, E. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative
learning theory. Pp. 285-328 in J. Mezirow and
Associates, Learning as transformation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. thINQ. (1993). Adult learning through collaborative
inquiry. 34th Annual Adult Education Research Conference
Proceedings, Penn State University, University Park, PA, May,
pp. 293-298. Tisdell, E., Hanley, M.S., & Taylor, E. (2000).
Different perspectives on teaching for critical consciousness. In
A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and
Continuing Education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. (Eds.) (forthcoming).
Collaborative inquiry as a strategy for adult learning: Creating
space for generative learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education no. 94. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
|
|
|