Analyzing Mesirow

From analyzing Mesirow’s through three different lens, I have come to the conclusion, that though, the issue of coining the learning process as “transformational” raised several eyebrows as with Newman’s, I have to mention that he did highlight key points which does leave one questioning Mesirow as well:

• learns something new, has a new viewpoint, but continues to remain an entity, not tiered or leveled, “simply adding knowledge to our meaning schemes or learning new meaning schemes with which to make interpretations about our experience” (p.41)

• “There is a flow to life, and the learning becomes part of that flow” (p. 43)

• “The world in all its components— objective, social and subjective—is in continual change” (p. 43)

• Confidence and change in behaviour may be gained to begin mobilizing, but again, it does constitute transformation feels that it does not assist “others in awakening." (p. 47)

In regards to Cranton & Kasl, they, too, highlight a key point in regards to the confusion circumventing transformative learning: process, outcomes, and context. They support Newman’s view and illustrate this by “trying on a new identify might be a part of the process of working toward transformative learning, but it is not an outcome; similarly, mobilization could lead to transformation, but it is not an outcome in itself.” (p. 397) I agree with this point here as it is facilitated through, hence not an outcome.

Though Mesirow’s theory has left some to question its fragmentation, it has indeed enriched my understanding of what the theory entails using these three various taxonomies for critical reflection. I was also getting a dosage of critical thinking deciding whether Mesirow’s theory was valid or not. In any case, I am still left scratching my head. Indeed the theory may be in its early stages of development. Are there others to follow in the footsteps of Newman, Cranton & Kasl? I will wait and see as it will only build upon my existing bank for getting it.

...