transformation-theory

Transformation Theory: A theory of adult learning

Posted on by

transformation-theory

Image source: Suzanne D. Williams, CC0

I am often skeptical of some of the language we use in education, and that is common in other sectors too. This includes words such as: disruption, innovation, transformation. I wonder about the human impact using these words has. How does it feel to be ‘disrupted’, to be asked to ‘innovate’, or to ‘transform’ one’s self or one’s practice? This isn’t to say though that I don’t believe in challenge or provocation, nor that I don’t see the value in encouraging people to test their assumptions and question their underlying beliefs. Indeed, far from it.

So let’s think more about transformation for a moment.

Common metaphors for transformation include the butterfly, which evolves from its humble beginnings as a caterpillar into a beautiful, soaring creature. Another metaphor is a Biblical one: St Paul’s conversion to Christianity on the road to Damascus. Both of these metaphors encompass the idea of a sudden, dramatic, and profound change in direction or orientation or worldview. When we talk about transformative experiences, we might say something like: ‘the scales fall from your eyes’, or use what is a favourite quotation of mine (attributed both to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Oliver Wendell Holmes): “The mind once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions”.

But there is another aspect to transformation I think it’s useful to know of: the adult learning theory – Transformation Theory. Transformation Theory is generally ascribed to American Jack Mezirow based on his study of women returning to university in the late 1970s. Mezirow (2009) offers this definition of transformative learning: “Transformative learning may be defined as learning that transforms problematic frames of reference to make them more inclusive, discriminating, reflective, open, and emotionally able to change” (p. 22, emphasis in original).

Transformation Theory focuses on critical reflection and dialogue to support people to adapt their worldview – to orient it towards being agentic, inclusive, open, seeking social justice and equity. Therefore we could say that transformative learning occurs when a person is able to change their their worldview, for example about what knowledge is; how society operates; or about their beliefs about themselves (Kitchenham, 2008).

In practice, Transformation Theory could look like CORE Education’s Dr Vince Ham eFellowship. The Dr Vince Ham eFellows are committed to exploring ways of doing education differently for their schools, kura, centres and communities. The purpose of the Dr Vince Ham eFellowship is to inspire transformational practice through inquiry. eFellows are mentored through their own deep inquiry journey that generally takes the form of an action research project. They experience workshops, field trips, critical reflection and dialogue – learning from and with one another.

Further, Transformation Theory can also support school and kura leaders to think about how they design professional learning and development opportunities for their colleagues. Some of the challenges include: nurturing robust professional learning conversations; creating safe environments where people feel comfortable in being vulnerable: admitting they don’t know, or made a mistake. It is important that leaders value and model critical reflection and dialogue with one another, and with colleagues.

To that end, leaders might consider the following questions:

  • How might we encourage teachers to understand their current worldview and assumptions about education, including their position within the education system?
  • How might we foster supportive, safe, and inclusive relationships that allow space for critical reflection and dialogue to unfold?
  • How might we respectfully challenge our assumptions and our assumptions of others so that we can learn other ways in which to view the world?

References and further reading:

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104-123. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1541344608322678

Meluish Spencer, K. (2016). Can we create conditions for transformation? Retrieved from http://blog.core-ed.org/blog/2016/04/can-we-create-conditions-for-transformation.html

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress / Jack Mezirow and Associates (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 18-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

read more
Posted in
bogomil-mihaylov-519199-unsplash

Words, words, words

Posted on by

bogomil-mihaylov-519199-unsplash

Ko tōu reo, ko tōku reo,

te tuakiri tangata.

Tīhei uriuri, tīhei nakonako.

Your voice and my voice are expressions of identity.

May our descendants live on and our hopes be fulfilled.

(Learning Languages Whakataukī, NZC 2007)

We language our world and ourselves into being. We have ideas. We think thoughts. We express these things to ourselves and to others using words. The words we choose to use say something about the person we are, and the way we perceive the world to be. So we may say that language shapes our culture, and shapes our identity.

Words, to perhaps use a construction metaphor, are the building blocks of stories. Words, strung together in sentences, held together with the mortar of grammar (and punctuation, if the words are written down), create worlds and the characters who inhabit these worlds. Some of these characters become ‘larger than life’: Māui, Harry Potter, Gollum… By the words we choose to use, and the stories we choose to tell, we convey important messages and ideas about who is important, what beliefs are valued, whose perspectives we honour. In this way, words and stories, and storytellers, have infinite power. Hana O’Regan spoke about this kaupapa at uLearn this year.

Let’s consider a couple of examples.

It is reasonably commonplace these days to speak of the ‘industrial model of education’. This phrase employs factory metaphors. We can see these ideas in words like ‘classes’, the ‘timetable’, and teaching ‘units’ to make sure students know all the necessary ‘nuts and bolts’. The overarching factory metaphor suggests that we see knowledge as ‘stuff’, and that education is about putting knowledge into people’s (empty) heads. And that this is best done by breaking knowledge down into small, manageable chunks, and telling people what they need to know, because we store knowledge in our own individual heads (see Gilbert, 2005).

When we say that we’d like to embrace ‘21st century’ or ‘future-focused’ teaching and learning, alongside unpacking what this means for us, we also need to examine the words we use to imagine and conceive of school and its purposes. Often we’ll find it very hard to move away from these words, as they are the signs that show us that we still think about education in this way. Finding new words, embracing new metaphors, telling new stories until these become ingrained, is a challenge.

Or perhaps this example:

We need teachers to come on board with our new initiative or strategy, or to adopt a new practice. Some teachers seem quick to embrace this innovation. When this happens, we sometimes say that they are the ‘early adopters’. This is a reference to the popularised research by Everett Rogers in the 1960s (see also the Diffusion of Innovation theory). ‘Early adopters’ we might find to be a comfortable phrase or label, but who is at the end of the scale? The ‘laggards’.

Can we use one term in isolation from the other? Who would choose to be known as the ‘laggard’? What do these words suggest about how we think of others – of our colleagues and peers?

When we tell stories, we generally speak from our own perspective, and because of this we tend to make ourselves the hero of this story. Jennifer Garvey Berger and Keith Johnston explore this idea in their book Simple Habits for Complex Times. It can be useful to keep this in mind when a colleague does or says something that you struggle to comprehend. Garvey Berger and Johnston recommend asking yourself: “If I had just done what that person did, and I thought my actions were perfectly reasonable, what story might I be telling myself?” (p. 24). We can use language to practice respect and empathy. We can challenge ourselves to be imaginative and compassionate.

We could apply these ideas about words, language, and stories to many phrases we use in education:

And more. What springs to mind for you?

This is an invitation to reflect on your vocabulary choices and what stories they may have to tell about you and the way you see the world around you. How do you refer to your learners? What words do you use to describe them? How do you refer to your colleagues? What words do you use to describe them?

Language is a dense and thorny thicket. Making your way through this thicket is rife with dangers. You must pick carefully your path through. Be mindful; be present – lest your words bite like thorns on the vines.

We can tell this story another way though.

Language is a seed bursting with possibilities. Plant it carefully in rich soil. Give the seed kindness, love and attention. Nurture its shoots, and protect it from harm. Be mindful; be present – so that your words may inspire.

What words do you use? What stories do these help to tell?

References

  • Garvey Berger, J., & Johnston, K. (2015). Simple Habits for Complex Times: Powerful Practices for Leaders. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The Knowledge Society and the future of education. Wellington: NZCER Press.
  • Title reference: 2.2.192 Hamlet

Image by Bogomil Mihaylov, CC0 

read more
Posted in
benjamin-davies-265095-unsplash

Be neotenous: The importance of curiosity for teachers

Posted on by

benjamin-davies-265095-unsplash

“Brown paper packages tied up with strings / These are a few of my favourite things…”

Oscar Hammerstein, Richard Rodgers, 1965

I put the gift bag in the centre of the table. While the handles were tied together with ribbon, you could still see variously-shaped packages, wrapped in innocuous brown paper, peeking out. Like five-year-olds about to play ‘pass the parcel’, the teachers turned towards the bag, eyes following my every move, eager to poke, prod and explore.  

They were invited to pass the bag around and to choose an item that captured their imagination. As they unwrapped their parcel, they were full of questions: What’s in there? What have we got? What is it? How does this relate? Does this belong to her? Is it valuable? Can we eat them?

Sitting with questions confettied around them on sticky notes, a group of teachers became gripped with a narrative they had formed around one of the items. They were convinced it was an antique, that it must have been passed down to me, cherished, from grandmother to mother to me. That they must take care with it, lest it get lost or damaged. That it must have significant meaning: culturally, historically, sentimentally. They were dying to know the true story behind the item. They were hungry for knowledge.

As teachers, I think we are genuinely interested in generating and nurturing curiosity in our learners. We worry about squashing curiosity and the childlike wonder in our learners, particularly when they start school. We believe that curious learners are engaged, passionate, excited. But I’m not sure that we invest enough in our own curiosity as adults.

Many teachers are involved with inquiring into their practice. They use the teaching as inquiry cycle from the New Zealand Curriculum (2007), or perhaps the Spiral of Inquiry from Timperley, Kaser and Halbert (2014) to explore the needs of their learners, and what they can do to make a difference. These inquiry cycles are important and useful frameworks to guide professional learning. And they must start with a teacher’s own curiosity about what’s happening and why it might be happening.

Christopher Clark (1992) calls on teachers to “make the familiar strange”. He says that “this involves at least two steps: first, to believe that interesting, exciting, amazing things are happening all around us all the time; and second, to question the traditional ways, reasons and explanations that we usually take for granted” (p. 81). In other words, we should seek to see our world with fresh eyes, and to wonder about it. We need to be neotenous – retaining childlike dispositions into adulthood (Berger, 2014).

We may need to invest some time to nurture our neoteny. And looking outside of education may be useful – you never know what interesting and unusual potential connections you might make. So, go to the museum, the art gallery, the theatre. Spend some time in the bush, or walk around the block and challenge yourself to notice three things you haven’t before. Attend a public lecture, play a new game, listen to a TED talk or podcast.

We know from observing our own children and our students that curiosity drives a need to know; a desire to find out; that it can be the spark that can ignite a passion. To be curious is to be driven to learn. It opens doors and makes us eager to explore. Curiosity also sustains us through the messy pit of learning. It helps us to know that although we might not know yet, we are on the path to knowing more than we did previously. So pursue relentless curiosity. Question ferociously. Wonder and ponder and brood.

 

Where do you find inspiration within and without of the classroom? What do you do to nurture your own curiosity?

Curious to learn more?

Here are some links to curiosity for students:

Here are some links to curiosity and teaching as inquiry:

And here are some references to relevant literature on curiosity:

  • Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. New York: Bloomsbury.
  • Clark, C. M. (1992). Teachers as designers in self-directed professional development. In A. Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 75-84). London: Cassell.
  • Thomas, D. & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington: CreateSpace.
  • Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.

Photo by Benjamin Davies on Unsplash

read more
Posted in
design thinking process

DT in DT and HM: Design thinking in the Digital Technology and Hangarau Matihiko Curricula

Posted on by

“With its focus on design thinking, technology education supports students to be innovative, reflective, and critical in designing new models, products, software, systems, and tools to benefit people while taking account of their impact on cultural, ethical, environmental, political, and economic conditions.” (Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Ministry of Education, 2017)

design thinking process
With the strengthening of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko within the Technology learning area in the New Zealand Curriculum, and the Hangarau Wāhanga Ako in Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, this has prompted change for schools, kura, and Kāhui Ako. While there is certainly much that is new to the learning areas, something that is not is design thinking.

Design thinking has always underpinned the Technology and Hangarau curricula because this these are learning areas that are process-driven. Both technology — in all its forms — and design thinking are about identifying problems, creating solutions for people, experimenting, refining, acting on feedback.

So, while we’re grappling with new concepts and content, perhaps the strengthening of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko is also an opportunity to put the spotlight back onto the process of design thinking and its mindsets.

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is a creative process that can be adopted to find solutions to complex problems. There are various models of design thinking, but one that is often cited is that created by the d.school at Stanford University. This has five phases, as can be seen below:

the five phases of design thinking

The NZC doesn’t suggest a particular model, but in the English translation of the draft Hangarau Matihiko document, the following steps were outlined:

  • Dedication — to people and their thoughts and feelings and knowing the users and their needs. (Empathy)
  • Define — the major issues and the available pathways.
  • Propose ideas — formulating concepts, and outcomes / solutions. (Ideate)
  • Original model — construct an original model. (Prototype)
  • Experiment — test the model and adapt correspondingly. (Feedback)

The two models map comfortably onto one another. But, design thinking is about more than process, it is also about choosing to adopt innovation mindsets.

What are the design-thinking mindsets?

Again, Stanford’s d.school suggest the following mindsets as being key for design thinking:

mindsets of design thinking

Given the opening quote from the New Zealand Curriculum, and the design-thinking process suggested by Te Matauranga o Aotearoa, here, we will focus on three particular innovation mindsets:

  • human-centred
  • culture of prototyping, and
  • bias towards action.

Human-centred

In the context of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko, the focus is on creating technology to support people. People are, and must be, at the heart of the design process. There is no use designing a solution to a problem that doesn’t work for the people concerned. This is why empathy, being human-centred, is the fundamental component of design thinking.

Culture of prototyping

When we think we have a solution that might just work, it’s important to get that idea out of our heads and into the real (or digital!) world. This allows the idea to be tested, for us to challenge our assumptions, and to find the flaws. Prototyping — making a model — invites us to use our creative and critical thinking. A prototype is primarily a vehicle for feedback from the very people for whom we are designing the solution. Based on their feedback, we refine, adapt, and change our solution: we iterate. This mindset calls on us to hold our ideas lightly, to be human-centred, and to be prepared to alter, or even abandon, our proposed solution based on new knowledge.

Bias towards action

When grappling with a problem it is easy to be stuck:

  • What is the problem?
  • Who is it a problem for?
  • How do we know it’s a problem?
  • What can we do about this problem?
  • What if we try…?

A bias towards action mindset calls on us to acknowledge this learning phase and to move towards doing something about the problem. It is closely linked to the above culture of prototyping mindset. Identify and define a problem; let your imagination loose to find multiple ways of solving the problem; then filter down to one or two key possibilities that you make tangible and test. It is like being in ‘beta mode’. We are used to having to update the apps on our smartphones in order to make them work better and more efficiently. We don’t sit around and wait for everything to be perfect before we release the solution into the wild. We prototype, test, and refine. We innovate.

How might we…

Let’s not lose sight of the underlying design-thinking process and its mindsets when exploring the brave new world of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko. In fact, we could well use the design-thinking process to give structure to our exploration. Perhaps a starting question could be:
How might we integrate Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko into our local curriculum?

 

If would like help with building a design-thinking approach to your curriculum, get in touch!

 

Resources

 

Image credits:
Feature image: by the author
5 phases – d.school K12 Lab Wiki (used by permission)
Mindset for design thinking – d.school K12 Wiki (used by permission)

read more
Posted in
wellbeing wordle

Nothing about us without us: Student wellbeing

Posted on by

Schools cannot simply rely on their positive culture and respectful relationships to promote wellbeing but need to provide opportunities for students to make decisions about their wellbeing and to be active in leading their learning, Education Review Office, 2016, p. 18.

The wellbeing of young people is increasingly an area of focus for schools here in Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as overseas. In the past, we have possibly relied too heavily on an implicit approach to the wellbeing of our staff, students, and school community that:

  • teachers and students have a good rapport
  • leaders have an ‘open door’ policy whereby any issue can be raised at any time
  • the school environment has a positive feeling.

While these are indeed all strengths schools can build upon, this isn’t an approach to wellbeing in and of itself. If we see wellbeing as important, then it must be reflected in all areas and aspects of a school. Wellbeing requires an explicit approach, as the Education Review Office (ERO) calls for in the quote above.

What is wellbeing? When I asked participants this very question at a recent CORE Breakfast, this is what people said:

wellness wordle

A synonym I like to use is flourishing (as did one or two others!). That our young people are nurtured to do more than exist; they thrive. They have the right to be who they are without having to leave any aspect of their identity (such as their ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation) at the school gate.

This is all very laudable, but how do schools go about explicitly planning for our young people to flourish and thrive?

Both ERO and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) have produced useful work for schools focusing on the wellbeing of students. When we bring this material together, we can see that both organisations call for:

  • a whole-school approach to wellbeing
  • taking a youth development perspective in wellbeing work
  • seeing young people as active agents in their lives.

Whole school really means whole school: that wellbeing goals are reflected in school policy, curriculum, the physical environment, pastoral care practices, in the staffroom, in the boardroom, and in the classroom. It means that we monitor the wellbeing of all students and staff, and that we iteratively design and evaluate wellbeing strategies and initiatives.

Taking a youth development perspective requires moving beyond our previous practices of focusing on responding to specific issues as they present themselves (bullying, teen pregnancy, smoking, for example) to promoting wellbeing. It also means that students are actively involved in developing and leading wellbeing programmes. This goes hand-in-hand with treating young people as agentic. Young people are experts in their own lives; they have knowledge that deserves respect and offers learning opportunities for adults.

Last year, I had the privilege of being selected for the Lifehack Flourishing Fellowship. Lifehack was a systems-level intervention in youth mental health and wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand. One of the amazing resources I was introduced to was the ‘Mapping and Mobilising Conditions for Youth Wellbeing and Hauora’. This is a tool primarily designed for youth work teams and organisations to “identify and strengthen their practices and ways of working across areas that are known to promote youth wellbeing, hauora, and positive youth development.” As soon as I saw it, I got excited. I could see its potential to be used in schools as a reflection tool. I tested it with a group of teachers, and we had a think about both its format and its language. Based on their feedback and thoughts, I had a play to create this version for use in schools and Kāhui Ako: Pathways towards student wellbeing.

In it, I pose three key questions:

  1. Agency and Engagement: How are young people involved?
  2. Cohesion and Collaboration: How do we learn and work together to nurture wellbeing systemically?
  3. Environment and Community: Do our environments show that young people are valued and important?

Agency and engagement

Much of the literature about youth wellbeing places emphasis on agency — that young people are involved in the planning, leading, and implementation of wellbeing programmes and initiatives. We should work towards the consistent involvement of diverse groups of young people, including initiatives and programmes they co-design and lead.

As a prompt to consider where you might be at in your school with regards to agency and engagement, you may like to consider student leadership.

  • Who are the student leaders in your school?
  • How are they selected?
  • What role(s) do they fulfil? How much agency do these leaders have?
  • Who is not represented in student leadership roles?

And perhaps more broadly:

  • To what extent are young people involved in the design of programmes/initiatives and in decision-making generally?
  • Are there are a variety of opportunities for young people to participate and be involved in meaningful ways?

Cohesion and collaboration

To grow the capacity of a school to support youth wellbeing, it is important to be a learning community. The principle of ako is crucial here: how do we learn with and from one another; how do we share this learning; and, how do we curate this learning? The challenge in this space is to have a commitment to cohesion, innovation, and collaboration, and iterative ways of working and learning both internally and externally.

As a prompt to consider where you might be at in your school with regards to cohesion and collaboration, you may like to consider learning as inquiry.

  • Who decides what is taught and how?
  • To what extent is learning through inquiry a basis for learning in classrooms; as professional learning and development; as building capacity for leadership?
  • How do we share the learning from our inquiries with one another?

And perhaps more broadly:

  • To what extent are individuals, groups, teams and/or departments operating in silos or in isolation?
  • How do individuals and teams draw on and contribute to data and a shared knowledge base?

Environment and community

The third aspect to consider is that of environment and community. This is intentionally broad, encompassing all aspects of the environment: the physical, cultural, social and emotional environments of the school. It is important that the input and value of young people are reflected in places, spaces and governance structures.

As a prompt to consider where you might be at in your school with regards to environment and community, you may like to consider what’s on display on the school and classroom walls.

  • Do we display learning in progress or finished products?
  • Who decides what is displayed?
  • Who decides where material is displayed?
  • How often is material for display changed?
  • What isn’t displayed on walls?

And perhaps more broadly:

  • Do young people feel welcome and included in our spaces and community places?
  • Does the design and management of amenities and spaces specifically incorporate young people’s needs?

These are big issues for schools to grapple with. However, starting by asking young people what is happening for them in their lives and in your school; auditing wellbeing programmes, initiatives and data; and then considering the strengths the school has to build upon, are useful beginning steps. The key theme is that of agency: Nothing about us without us. This is a wero all schools should wrestle with.

Resources:

 

Let’s not forget about the importance of supporting the health and wellbeing
of all staff in centres, schools and kura, too.

Discover the Educators’ Wellbeing Toolkit.

read more
Posted in