In the course so far, we have heard about the need for a deep transformation in way in which we approach education. There is a need for a “new learning” revolution in formal education that accommodates the deep technological and societal changes that we are undergoing. We are becoming aware of the shortcomings of the entrenched dominant approaches to education by looking at the architectures and assumptions that guide them. Many of us profess agreement with the arguments presented by the course leaders. However, how many of us will practice what we profess?

The transformation of something as ubiquitous and historically rooted as formal education requires committed educators who will enact the principles that they have learned. Too often, even participants in the most progressive teacher training programs struggle to not teach as they were taught. As a matter of fact, while looking for a course to help me understand approaches to online learning, I came across one for which a common theme in student reviews was, “She doesn’t practice what she preaches.”

So, what is the secret sauce to teacher training that turns out educators who are not only willing to break the mold, but are capable of doing so in practice?

I attended a very progressive, student-centered, experiential, etc. Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program at a place called the School for International Training in Brattleboro, VT. They were mainly concerned with training language teachers, and were very committed to ensuring that their students did not “teach the way they had been taught” in their earlier formal educational contexts. Years later, I was studying for a graduate specialist (Ed.S.) in Instructional Technology. It was while studying in that program that I came across approaches to adult learning, most notably reflective practitioner training and transformative learning. What I learned about transformative learning helped me to understand the amazing teacher training program that I had participated in. I will explain the insights that I came by later.

Transformative learning is an approach to instruction that was created by Jack Mezirow in 1975. In it, he takes the position that in order for someone to really learn and become truly committed to their new knowledge, they must undergo a personal transformation. Relevant to education, each of us brings ingrained attitudes, values, knowledge, and beliefs into the classroom. These things underpin our assumptions about learning, teaching, and the subject matter, for example. Mezirow says that we must become aware of these guiding assumptions and that we may need to radically reshape them in order to join a community (or culture) of practitioners. Sometimes the transformation can be very difficult and even traumatic as we come to understand ourselves and therefore the depth of change that we must undergo to become the practitioners that we want (or can) to be. In some discussions, I have seen this likened to Maslow’s self-actualization.

This is especially challenging in the profession of teaching. It is very easy to intellectually embrace new approaches to education at the surface level, but much more difficult to become truly committed to them at the deep level. In order to do this, one needs to become aware of one’s own assumptions, understand how assumptions guide practice, and then work to articulate how our assumptions have grown from the knew knowledge, skills, and awareness that we are developing as we study. This is the key – in order to change, we focus on how we are changing. Otherwise, it is very possible to complete a program of instruction without changing at all.

In order to illustrate what I am talking about, I will talk about my experience learning in my MAT program. In the MAT program we first were exposed to a “shock language” experience in which we became learners of a foreign language that were likely completely ignorant of in an intensive two-day session. This was literally the first thing that we did. I learned Thai. I also learned a lot about how it feels to be a language learner. This was followed by discussions, activities, and papers designed to help us understand our own learning and the features of the shock language instruction that were effective for us and why we found them effective. At the same time, we were learning about approaches to language instruction. Each approach was a well-defined “paradigm” in which the assumptions about teaching, learning, and language were well-illustrated. We were learning about the assumptions inherent in these approaches so that we could develop an approach of our own. It was clear that some approaches were more en vogue than others. However, we were allowed, in fact encouraged, to embrace features of any approach as long as we clearly articulated why we embraced it. It was really all about focused self-awareness.

During our intensive teaching internships, it became clear during supervisory visits that I should be able to explain everything that I did in my teaching based on my assumptions. Everything. I remember being asked, “Why did you write … on the board?” Luckily, I knew why, and I was able to answer, “Because I believe…” Knowing why you do what you do is essential to the process of transformation.

The process was like a tearing down and rebuilding, like arising from the ashes into a new self. It was very difficult because of the degree of deep personal involvement that was required. The MAT faculty were constantly looking to determine our level of engagement. Engagement in the process was really more important than what we finally ended up being. (In terms of the features of our approach to instruction that we developed.) I felt like I really needed to believe in what I was doing, no matter what it was, in order for it to be effective. I was a little like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to visit his pumpkin patch. You must be sincere!

I later went to Thailand and taught English language at a university and in many other settings. I then went to teach in Taiwan were I taught for the de facto U.S. embassy. The regional supervisor for that program referred to me as a “model teacher.” I couldn’t believe it. One of the things I did was to get out from in front my students and let them focus on the learning activity that I had proscribed. I nearly left the room. I think he liked that. See Stevick’s description of “The Silent Way,” below.

Here’s a good video intro to the basics of Transformative Learning.

The book of language teaching approaches that we studied is Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways, by Earl Stevick.

Here is Stevick writing about a very interesting approach to language teaching called “The Silent Way.” Caleb Gattegno conducted a two-day workshop that I attended at the school.