# data[].attributes.body
The point that stood out most to me was the idea that transformative learning (TL) cannot both be "special and universal." I think this criticism by Newman is well-intentioned but I don't see the issue as binary. TL is universal in that anybody can have a transformative experience and become an entirely different person. However, it is also special in that it does not happen to everybody. I see it as very similar to Kegan's constructive developmental theory and its claims that less than 1% of humans achieve a self-transforming mind. I think Newman's argument that TL cannot be both unique and ordinary is flawed since every human is equally capable of moving through those stages and yet not everyone will do so.

# data[].attributes.body
It's a fair point that "transformative learning" doesn't necessarily need to apply to all types of learning. I think Newman does correctly identify some "scope" issues of transformative learning: if what you're trying to do is learn how to drive a car, you don't have a transformative experience in which you understand the greater ramifications of automobiles on society and how they have re-shaped our civilization. You just need to know how to drive a car.

I had not actually thought about the somewhat religious or spiritual narrative underpinning transformative learning, but what Newman describes makes sense. There is something sort of ... spiritual about the whole transformative learning thing that maybe feels weird or out of place when you think about what the goal of learning is.

Considering my own personal experiences with transformative learning, it would suppose that I'm a bit "on the fence" with the whole concept. I don't necessarily buy everything Newman suggests, but I also think transformative learning isn't the whole of learning and isn't always particularly appropriate. I just don't know if I can comprehend what it means to have a transformative experience in the context of basic skills. Or, in the alternative, any sort of transformative experience would be seemingly inapplicable to the skills in question.

I don't think it's a meaningless endeavor, though. I think, in the context of more subjective, introspective material, transformative experiences are meaningful and applicable. Of course, now that I type that, I can't help but wonder if what I mean to say is that that's just how learning is effective in those subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
After hearing Newman's thoughts I think we have two extremes, and reality that falls somewhere in the middle (depending). Like Nikki commented I agree that in practical or technical fields Newman's more formal education and learning style is appropriate.  These are cases where there there are very distinct learning objectives requiring repetition for mastering skills.  As Newman argues, practice of these skills is more practical than a discussion of the emotions or merits of the task at hand. On the other side, many of us have agreed that beneficial experiences and transformational learning do happen and are effective.  It is often times impossible to completely isolate these two sides of "soft" and "hard" learning that Newman identifies.

Personally, I know that I learn best through a transformational learning style, where I am interacting with the work and learning from feedback.  I am certainly privileged in the education I have been fortunate to receive, and as Newman contends not everyone can have these transformative experiences. As Andrea said I think transformative learning is more focused on the learner having a passion for seeking out educational opportunities, however formal or informal these may be. If anything it seems to me as though skill-based, formal learning requires a certain level of privilege, especially in terms of the financial means necessary.  The life-altering, tranformative learning we describe happens through experiences in every setting.

# data[].attributes.body
I think most of us have fallen on the side of "Transformative Learning does exist" through our own experience and witnessing it in others and as a result have had fairly strong responses to this article

There were some areas where I did agree with Newman, for example, that transformative learning IS a part of good education (p38), or that we needed to try and rationally discuss LGBTQ rights with a homophobic group (or similar, this was the example he used but you get the gist). I also agreed with him that it takes years to establish real trust and solidarity (p45). But over all, I really felt that he missed the point and that he demonstrated his own blindness in favour of his own opinion.

Not all learning is Transformative Learning - some of it is skills based but even Mazilow stated that (p41) - but this doesn't mean that TL doesn't happen, just that it doesn't ALWAYS happen. And Newman's example of the identity of a physiotherapist changing as soon as they were employed as a paramedic to me was far too short sighted as this completely misses the importance of work as part of our identity. For people who stay as home as carers, SAHM/F refugees or those who are underemployed this lack of being able to have a professional identity is huge and is way more than what job you do.

I wished that he had spent longer describing his own 9 aspects of good learning as I felt that these were not discussed in depth. I actually think that they are excellent goals and give a framework to adult learning, but, to me, he demonstrated the fact that I so often tell my children - that it is easier to knock down rather than build up and that we need to be builders rather than demolitioners!!  I'd have liked him to have spent more time giving practical examples I think.

But, I come back to the point, that he missed the point of transformative learning. Learning isn't just about the facts, the knowledge and skills, but about our emotional response to it. We are human, not robots and we do have an emotional connection to our learning which can and does transform us.

# data[].attributes.body
Newman is a self-proclaimed cynic who seems to be crushing people’s thinking on learning and teaching. Not all teaching is meant to change your thinking and move you to a different way of seeing your world.  Newman agreed that most learning is competency based to live in our world, as an example, the highly technical task of refueling airplanes.  On the other end of the spectrum having an amazing moment; the delight of discovery as you know at that moment beautiful things are happening. And then, after it has happened, as you sleep on it, after the fact, as Freire uses the Marxian term Praxis for this process of action-reflection and then uses conscientization for the authentic consciousness that results from praxis.  We must have words to describe the feeling and learning that have taken place in our lives. That moment when you know it’s a huge event that came from the outside of ourselves and help change the way we look at things in ourselves (process) and then we acted on our new understanding.  Call it transformation or call it good teaching. Our society would not be the same if we did not celebrate the thinking of learning and teaching. By using works that describe our feelings of earnestness, excitement, and transformation.

# data[].attributes.body
I agreed with Newman's example of  transformative learning being "inappropriate" in the context of someone learning practical or technical skills. Perhaps inappropriate is too strong a word, though. It's more that that learning context does not really lend itself to TL, unless the
instructor is truly committed to creatively integrating opportunities for self-reflection in the lessons.

However, I disagree with Newman's statement that faith is out of place in a learning context. I am an educator and a Christian, and while I never impose my beliefs on my students, I pray for them and would love to see them come to faith. I work in a Christian institution where the instructors' love for God and others defines and permeates what we do, regardless of the subjects we teach. Therefore, I am happy to share my faith with my students (who knowingly attend a Christian institution). Believing in Jesus is the most beneficial transformative experience anyone can have. My hope is that my teaching will show learners the love of God and that they will accept that love in their lives.

# data[].attributes.body
As much as there were parts that I agreed and disagreed with—yes, O’Sullivan’s “formulation of transformative learning” is ridiculously broad (Newman, 2014), I almost found Newman’s cynicism to be distracting. I can’t stand ambiguity and I hate gray, but his interpretation was a little too black and white. I found everything to be either/or, no chance for both/and.

Like Kim, I found that Newman did seem to center his ire on the sense of self-centeredness in transformative learning. But he failed to acknowledge that transformation in the working world happens through interactions with others, through discourse and empathy development (Mezirow, 2000). And that discourse and empathy can improve the working environment and increase productivity. On one hand, no, this wouldn’t work in a military exercise. On the other hand, if you are in the military and stationed in an area where you are helping people, learning to see from the other’s perspective might be essential for everyone’s survival.

I think it’s easy to assume that inward reflection and transformative learning is for the privileged and that it could be a waste of time for those who are struggling. However, as someone who has been witness to many people with severe struggles (including myself), occasionally transformative learning can provide an updraft, a motivation to push forward. It can enable an individual to name their barriers, challenge them, and find a new way.

“Do we look inwards, or do we reach out?” (Newman, 2014, p. 353).

I look inward so I can better reach out.

# data[].attributes.body
I found myself agreeing with Newman on his point that not all learning needs to be transformative (Newman 2014, page 346). His use of the Boeing example really spoke to me. When I think about my own transition to a career in nursing, I think I had a broad transformational learning arc that lead me to that career change, and certain courses / experiences during my degree were certainly transformational learning, but when it came down to it what was most important to me at that time was learning the skills of doing obstetrics, and being safe and competent - I wanted to practice practice practice, not sit around and discuss the merits of this and that. Again - don't get me wrong - there was a lot of good discussion - but I don't see my clinical courses as "transformative" and I don't think that's a bad thing. They were "good" learning, as Newman describes. I do, however, disagree with Newman on his concept that transformative learning is a privilege and for the privileged (Newman 2014, page 347). I actually feel like the most transformative learning comes when the learner is not necessarily seeking it, and may not recognize it as transformative until later - this can happen at all times and all walks of life, not just in a privileged classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
This is very interesting to me, especially because on a personal level I have been looking more into Friere. I do believe being reflective often times should be a call to action, to understand systemic oppression especially.  I also think Newman contradicts himself in saying people do not have time to be reflective then to site P.F. and saying it is only when people are being conscious.
Being in education I see some deficit theory going on in his approach, poor people cannot be reflective because they do not have time since they have to work. While reflection is a privilege to the wealthy and yet it is an  awakening and they get to still live in their same culture.
This is tough for me to swallow. I look at ethnic study programs, think Precious Knowledge, and how they have transformed the learning of the oppressed and the oppressors, even those who benefit from the oppression but maybe did not know they are. The ECS programs definitely helped activate the oppressed, the poor and the ones who did not receive adequate education and yet it enlightened the rest of the room as well and allowed the students to all stand in solidarity. Being ignorant is a privilege, while there are definitely stronger theories and transformative may not live up to the hype for various reasons, I also do not agree with everything Newman says because there is room for transformative theory when done well.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Newman's theory on Discussion in regards to Mezirow's opinion on the element of rational discourse in the process of transformative learning. Newman's explains that Mezirow's view is very "soft" and involves empathy, trust, and 'the like'. I agree with this process within transformative learning but I also agree with Newman's point of have a 'hard' version where conventional discussion and dialogue are differentiated and equally important of rational discourse. Newman uses Allman's (2001) distinction of conventional discussion and dialogue is that conventional discussion is a sharing of monologues while dialogue is a form of collective inquiry. I agree with this distinction and think both are very important to transformative learning and creating the dialogue and discussion helps us examine ourselves in relation to others. It gives us a good perspective of our 'self' and the environment  can help shape our assumptions.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm going to have to disagree with Newman about transformative theory being for the privilege. I do not believe that transformative learning, or reflection is 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. (Newman, 2014 p. 347). I disagree with this because I think often times that may be the motivation for transformative learning. Newman's (2014) argument is that the literature describes transformative learning as urging the learner to go searching for his or her assumption (p. 348). I would think that someone who is oppressed/less fortunate would hold certain assumptions of the world. With that being said, I feel like they could have that "disorienting dilemma" (Merriam & Bierema, 2013 p. 84) that would start their transformative learning journey.
A lot of the examples that we read about, or even relate to on a personal level about transformative learning may seem like a privilege. I know one of my experiences was when I volunteered in third world country- seems like a privilege to me right? But I don't think that that's the only way to experience transformative learning. I think anyone can have that "dilemma" that allows them to learn and explore the assumptions that they once had about the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Kim brings up a great point about Newman's article in that the application of transformative theory is what may be most important to give it meaning, (Mezirow and Newman agree that, "learning is about making meaning.") (Newman, 2014, pg. 353) While reflection is difficult in the moment, as was given in the Boeing tanker example, transformation theory does seem to fit when given the time and, as Mezirow (2012) points out, "in fostering transformative learning efforts, what counts is what the individual wants to learn. (pg. 93) My main objection with transformation learning is in how Newman depicts it as so self-centered. "A full and rewarding life is to be found in the company of others." (Newman, 2014, pg. 347) The reflection described in transformational learning is self-reflection and is practiced as such. "An open, generous mental activity that attributes to the fullness of our lives becomes a narrow concern with me, my and mine." (pg. 347) In this way, interaction with the environment and having contextualized experiences that have been described as so vital to adult learning is other readings is diminished. Thought the article itself was fairly one sided in the perspective it offered, I do agree with a less extreme critique that transformative learning may be too inflexible to apply across as wide an array of learning abilities and people as it attempts to.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree and disagree with Newman’s article. I agree that transformative learning isn’t great for some forms of learning such as Neuman’s (2014) example of “how to connect a hose from a tanker to a Boeing 787” (pg.346). This article might also be correct that the transformative theory is for the privileged (Neuman, 2014). When I used to work at Quiznos, there was no way I was stepping back to have reflective discourse on how to make sandwiches; I was too busy working for that. However, I feel that, if you are a bit more privileged and have time you can take the example of how to connect the hose and reflect on how to make that more efficient. However, if something is constraining you, like time or a boss, then thinking about your actions is probably not going to happen. However, I think transformative theory works in regards to more abstract subjects. For instance, any cultural. If someone steps back and thinks about their culture and the discourse they have with others, then they can have a transformation. I don’t think that Newman takes into too much account that the individual has to work with others to have a transformation. It seemed, to me at least, that he thought it was all about the individual, where I think it’s more that others are transforming each other.