Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

362 The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology
previously mentioned it is the centrality of experience in conjunction with critical reflection and
dialogue that helps make sense of how adults develop and transform their knowledge structures—
their personal views of the world.
Kegan (2000) helps further illustrate transformative learning relationship with constructivism
by discussing the transformation as an epistemological transformation, rather than behavioral
or simply the process of acquiring greater knowledge. This epistemological transformation is
reflected in two processes. One is a constructivist process of meaning forming or making, where
perceiving is both an act of interpreting and conceiving. The second, and most significant to
transformative learning, is the reformation of meaning-making. “We do not only form meaning,
and we do not only change our meanings; we change the very form by which we are making meaning.
We change our epistemologies” (pp. 52–53). Greater understanding of the dynamics of this
change can be found in constructive developmental psychology (e.g., Kegan; Piaget; Kohlberg).
During the transformative process the learner developmentally moves from a place where his
or her values and beliefs are informed and defined by others, uncritically assimilated, toward a
place or he or she develops an internal authority, making personal choices, critically, developing
a self-authoring view of the world. This developmental view of transformative learning encourages
a lifelong view of learning, where learners are capable of having several transformations of
knowing during their lifetime.
Another way to add further understanding of the different perspectives of transformative learning
to look at them through three forms of constructivism, psychological, social and sociological,
as discussed by Woolfolk (2001). Psychological constructivism is concerned with “individual
knowledge, beliefs, self-concept, or identity ...” (p. 330), similar to Mezirow’s view of transformative
learning, where the primary focus is on significant change in the inner psychological life of
adults. New understanding for the adult learner is derived from reflection on thoughts and actions.
Although in contrast to Piaget, Mezirow would see social interaction, particularly dialogue with
others as a key mechanism in fostering change in thinking. This emphasis on the social moves the
analysis into the next form of constructivism, that of social constructivism. Rooted predominantly
in the work of Vygotsky, this form of constructivism held “that social interaction, cultural tools,
and activity shape individual development and learning” (p. 330). Vygotsky sees cognition not
solely determined by innate factors, but is the product of the activities rooted in place, context,
and culture. Consequently, the situation, the context, in which an adult learns, is a crucial determinant
how adults will make sense of the learning experience. It is the emphasis on situated
knowing connected to the essentiality of language that consistent with the previous factors identified
significant to transformative learning, that of the role of context and dialogue. Research has
shown that other concepts introduced by Vygotsky help broaden the constructivist emphasis of
transformative learning. They include the nature of change in relationship to the zone of proximal
development (interdependent process of development), using a holistic approach of analysis, the
emphasis on language mediation within collaborative group settings (dialogue with others), and
the importance of studying phenomena in process as opposed to performance outcomes.
The third form of constructivism, sociological, sometimes called constructionists, “does not
focus on individual learning” (Woolfolk, 2001, p. 331) instead it is concerned with how public
knowledge is created. Freire and O’Sullivan, similarly, emphasize the importance of discussing
not only how knowledge is socially constructed, but more importantly, foster an awareness, a
consciousness, of the dominant culture and its relationship to power and positionality in defining
what is and is not knowledge in society. Further, all perspectives of transformative learning, like
constructivist, encourage collaborative dialogue across diverse perspectives, fostering critique
and questioning of dominant discourses.
By engaging transformative learning theory through a lens of constructivism, it not only sheds
light on its inherent relationship to much in the field of educational psychology, but further