# data[].attributes.body
The two main parts of Newman's article, "Transformative Learning: Mutinous Thoughts Revisited" that stood out for me were when he discussed dominant discourse and inappropriate learning. I agreed with his sentiments regarding dominant discourse in that transformative learning should be treated like the other theories. While I gravitate to transformative learning theory because of the social implications and impact it has on the learner and overall society, I do not think it needs a conference and journal solely devoted to it. This implies transformative learning theory is better than others and places it on a hierarchy, which is not necessary because other adult learning theories are valuable depending on its applicability in a specific context.

I disagreed with Newman's thoughts on transformative learning being an inappropriate form of learning. He mentions that for the "vast amount of learning we do in the practical world," this type of learning is "inappropriate." Self-analysis, to him, requires more time, and we need to focus on competency-based education. On the contrary, I think due to globalization--how hyperconnected we are--and the current sociopolitical context of American society, we need to think deeply as to who we are in relation to this world; self-analysis is critical in understanding this piece. In order to transform society, we need to be introspective first. This learning is highly appropriate also because society's issues are not easily rectified with one solution. They require thought, intent, introspection, and strategy, which begins with self-analysis from transformative learning.

# data[].attributes.body
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Newman. I isolate his critique of transformational learning as being a priority for the privileged. He brings up Freire, who was influenced by Marxist theory: "Conscientization is about mobilizing learners to struggle against oppressive forces, and it encourages them to examine the ways those forces have worked on them. The learners are not to blame. The oppressors are."

This statement makes me think of how often instructors rush into the classroom with every good intention, but end up focusing on "transforming" their students, when so much of the work we need to be doing is thinking of how to best serve our students, which arguably might be to transform ourselves and  our thinking, not them and theirs.

While I think it's crucial that white students learn about oppressive forces (and their role in them), Newman does make me question power relations in the classroom in a way that I hadn't previously. I value that.

Because he interrogates the potential hegemony of transformational learning, I am tempted to agree with him.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree and disagree with some of Newman’s perspective.  He says that the “concentration on the individual learner has been a problem from the very start”.  I do not fully agree with this statement because self-reflection can reel you back in when we get lost from our busy schedules.  But I do concur that we are sometimes confined and get trapped and the need for “physical and intellectual contact with the people and the world around us, no matter how imperfect that contact may be” presented by Newman can be that key to unlocking the trapped door because we cannot always be able to solve our own problem and to learn from others creates an environment to share, reflect and come up with solutions that you may not have been able to solution yourself.

# data[].attributes.body
Newman's section The Aim of Adult Education  revisits the purpose of Transformative Learning and provides a framework for us to look at the impact transformative learning has on adult education, if any. If we are able to more concretely determine the purpose of Adult Education, either looking big picture, or defining it for a specific class we are teaching, I think we can then understand the need for transformative learning. The question that specifically stood out was, "Do we focus on our faults, or build on our strengths?" which I feel can be a key indicator in whether or not we even use transformative learning.

Additionally, through critique of Transformative learning, Newman points out the very question I formulated in my reflection which affirms the view I held after reading the book. Newman states, "I had felt that a lot of the transformative learning described in the literature was an activity for the privileged, an indulgence that the majority of people in the world who are struggling to earn a crust, feed a family, or just survive would find little time for." I am still working through the purpose and concrete examples of what transformative learning can do for those who don't have access but appreciate that Newman articulated similar thoughts.

# data[].attributes.body
Newman hit on several of the concerns I had with transformational learning in this article. To me, true transformational learning seems like it would be a very rare occurrence. We learn all kinds of things every day, but can we truly say that it is transformative? I can even think of many courses I’ve taken over my academic career in which I know I learned something, but wouldn’t say I am transformed at the end. I feel that most learning builds on what came before, so it deepens the knowledge you have. True transformational learning in which one engages in deep self-reflection and recognizes that they are different afterward is rare. I think Newman’s critique of the overuse of the transformational learning theory is spot on.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Newman that there are times in which transformative learning isn’t necessary and not particularly helpful. His example of someone servicing a Boeing airplane not needing or having time for introspection.

I also agree with his sense that transformative learning can be seen as a privileged activity.  I am reminded of a distant family member who is single mother of 5 children and how she went through a training program to obtain knowledge of a skill in order to qualify for a better job.  I doubt she had the time or energy to devote to much introspective as she juggled work, caring for her children, and going to night schools and earn a degree in just 9 months.

In addition, I agree with Newman that there is an exaggeration about just how much someone can change via transformative learning.  How can we fully deduce that someone has completely change through the process of transformative learning?  Won’t there be some factors we may never realize? How can we recognize transformation on a continuum? Newman does question Mezirow’s assumption about this very thing—being somewhat open to more open isn’t necessarily a transformation.  However, Newman does clarify and agree with Mezirow that the bottom line of learning is meaning making.

# data[].attributes.body
I thoroughly enjoyed this! I hope it's okay if I confess that I sometimes get a bit frustrated and impatient with academic writing, and Newman's iconoclastic approach is, if overly critical, is lively and engaging. He is taking on the role of the provocateur (think Michael Moore, Bill Maher), and, as such, he is trying to get people to reconsider their assumptions, take a closer look, and put their critical thinking skills to work. All good!

Newman's comments about "inappropriate learning" (the fueling 787 example);
transformative learning's emphasis on an individual's psychological transformation; and the question of whether TL is actually an "indulgence" that many learners don't have time or the "margin" for are all important to consider when thinking about incorporating the concept of transformative learning in our classrooms. Yes, learning English as a second language IS transformative in so many ways: learning the difference between "solve" and "resolve" probably is not.

# data[].attributes.body
Michael Newman’s article Calling Transformative Learning Into Question: Some Mutinous Thoughts, challenged the entire notion of transformative learning. I began to understand his critique when he uses Kings survey to explain that the 5 ways of evaluating transformative learning are heavily weighed by the way the person felt during the survey, for example one way of answering Kings survey could have been, “I see things really differently now” (39). Newman brings up the counterargument that we simply,  “cannot assume that people have undergone a radical change because they say they have undergone a radical change” (40). The feelings they felt during the survey could change and therefore their answer.

In a way Newman is seeking concrete answers not based on a person thoughts. Regardless, transformative learning is seeking change while  Newman’s critique simple states that change does not have to occur but simple the addition of knowledge. I believe both are seeking a change in character they are just seeking different ways of going about finding the thing that changed.

# data[].attributes.body
Newman's article provides the opportunity to disagree which inspires critical thinking with the article. I appreciate that this article provides a context to interrogate our understanding of transformational learning.  I agree with Newman in that Mezirow's theory of transformational learning can occur through different capacities such as critical reflection.  Newman's critique of tranformational learning is that it is "just another theory" but theories are intended to build off of one another and to be critiqued so I don't think that other methods of experiences should be dismissed.  For example, cognition versus body and spirit.  I do agree with Newman that measuring change can be difficult to capture, plan for and evaluate.  I also agree that the label of transformative learning is being applied to all kinds of learning that it is harder to identify what is being transformed.  But, the emphasis is on how people see and experience the world and there is no end point to that processes of change.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with many aspects of Newman's article. At the end of the day, I believe learning results in some sort of change - whether learner picks up a new skill, attitude, knowledge, or feels like they have "transformed" and have a better understanding of the world around them. In all scenarios of learning, the hope is that the learner does in fact change for the better.

Also, who is to say that learners are not just "responding to the trends of the day" (Newman, 2012, p.39). This quote is in relation to Mezirow's study of women going back to school during the peak of the women's movement. Perhaps there was not as much critical thinking/agency involved as Mezirow lead others to believe; maybe these women felt like society was moving in a direction that allowed them to continue their education. I think Newman further drives this point home with "affirmations have no guaranteed validity" (Newman, 2012, p. 40). Anyone can say that they have been "transformed" or have undergone radical change.

Lastly, I feel like all learning should allow for dialogue, reflection, and even debate that does not result in a consensus. I think Mezirow calling attention to reaching a consensus is actual not very transformative. I do not think we should change ourselves to fit a mold or a consensus.

Like Diane, I (too) am very interested in hearing more about Newman's experiences that have lead him to this more cynical view of transformative learning. His points really resonated me, so maybe him and I have something in common?

I know that I have gone through quite a few "disorienting dilemmas" in my life and have certainly walked away with learned experiences. Though, I almost feel like perhaps there is something wrong with me that I haven't felt transformed by these experiences per se?

# data[].attributes.body
Great post! I love how you call for Newman to share the experiences that shaped his views on transformative learning!
-Stacey

# data[].attributes.body
Michael Newman’s article calling into question the heavy focus of transformative learning. I really appreciated the real-world perspective on this learning theory. I agree that being able to reflect and make personal connections to the content is one of the strongest learning strategies you can engage in. I feel that transformative learning is great for deep and complex concepts which require higher order thinking skills to master. I also believe though, that learning should follow the path of least resistance. If a person is able to learn a skill just by watching it done once and practicing it themselves, there is no reason for them to spend hours reflecting and drawing connections to their previous knowledge-base. Newman’s realistic view on learning is refreshing. I feel that in academia, we often get so caught-up in educational theory and best practices that we dismiss some of the simplest and basic forms of learning which people engage in successfully every day.

# data[].attributes.body
Newman made interesting points in his article titled Mutinous Thoughts on Transformative Learning. There are multiple points in the article that I agree with. On page five of the article,  Newman states that he finds “most writing on transformative learning too earnest”. I had similar findings when searching for additional research on transformative learning. Most of the articles online claim much more then seems obtainable. He goes on to state that transformative learning simply is too much. He gives the following example; “Transformative learning involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically alters our way of being in the world”. On page 7, Newman states “I cannot help wondering whether some of the people writing about transformative learning applied the theory when they were planning and conducting their programs, or whether they turned to the theory some time later, once they had decided to write for publication”.  I had a similar wondering when reading about transformative learning. I wonder how much of the writers were truly implementing transformative learning within their classes, whilst writing these articles.

One question that came to mind after reading this article, is what teaching moments/experiences shaped his view on transformative learning. Additionally I wonder why he so strongly believes that religious belief and spirituality have no place in education. He goes on to explain that he believes this, because neither of them can be taught or learnt. This is true, but there are many  other concepts in the education field we assume are true!

I do believe he clarifies many assumptions in Jack Mezirow’s theory. I particularly enjoyed how he concluded his article by stating that although he disagrees with many points made by Jack Mezirow, he agree with the idea that learning is all about meaning making.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with most points raised by Newman. I like his reflection on the aim for adult education and really made me critical think about this week's module. But I did not like his approach to the topic of spirituality and religion. He categorize that all learning under this topic it is as if all learning as if everything is "I was lost, but now i am found". There is a significant difference and influence of how spirituality and religion play a role in how students learn. It also has a different view and influence regarding about motivation. It almost seems like he disregarded the subject as redundant to the learning itself. From what we have learned in the previous week, we learned that this certain topic does in fact rewire the way we think and learn. Does not already play a huge role in how we can teach?

# data[].attributes.body
First, I agree with Newman in that some tasks simply do not require self-reflection.  His example of refueling an airline tanker reminds me of how learning to tie your shoe is not transformative.  In fact, I would argue that shoe-tying, and perhaps refueling, is a result of countless hours spent practicing and modeling an expert.  This kind of social cognitive learning is based on empathy, learning by actively placing yourself in others’ shoes, engaging mirror neurons in our brains.  Here I agree then with Newman again by saying that transformative learning can often keep you “trapped inward”.  I question his notion of indulgence, that perhaps some populations may not have time for transformative reflection.  Does accessibility to a learning theory discount its value?  I am frustrated by how he discounts religion and spirituality because “neither can be taught or learnt.”  The very foundation of these perspectives lies in the action to me – acting on mission/values/beliefs.  Action can be taught and is why we set the outcome for our students to become agents of change.  Newman appears to view action in a loop or continuous cycle, where the action is the learning.  He moves into an argument of semantics here for me, including the notion that transformative might simply mean “good”.  This takes away from the end result and the power of the theory itself for me.  Transformation as an end goal remains a distinct reality for me, as a shift of the interior away from formation and certainly just information.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I agree with many of the points that he makes, I think he also "throws the baby out with the bathwater" in his overall conclusion. I appreciate that he acknowledges how ethereal the definition of "transformative learning" really is, especially when he discussed whether we can actually call "transformational" a slight change in view or more openness to a new idea - or whether we should only reserve this term for instances in which a person's mind was completely closed to something and then did a complete 180 and chose to accept it. I also appreciate that he elevates the role of a teacher in his concept of "good teaching/good learning" and clarifies his perspective that although a teacher as coach or guide is helpful in some contexts, he doesn't believe that it constitutes could teaching or learning.

However, I think he's very dismissive of the idea that good learning can/should also include critical self-reflection. He brings up a good point about reflection being a pursuit that's often only available to people who actually have the time and wealth to engage in it, but he seems to completely dismiss the concept entirely. I think reflection can be a very helpful tool for learning and growing, and I wonder if the name "transformative learning" was changed into something else, if he'd be nearly as against it as he seemed to be in his writings.

# data[].attributes.body
This is what I took from the readings above: "Do we look inwards, or do we reach out? Do we see education as therapy, or education as action? Do we focus on our faults, or build on our strengths? Do we examine the old as it is manifested in a number of supposedly dysfunctional assumptions or out-of- shape frames of reference, or do we create the new in the form of a heightened consciousness?"

I agree in some ways and not others. I do think it is challenging to meet this model across the board and there is no easy answer to it. He had a great argument though, and it makes me question what do we examine