Talk:Transformative learning

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Changes: Moved the introductory paragraph to the "another perspective" section. This was O'Sullivan's definition, which had not been referenced (!!!). Since the introductory section is mostly about Mezirow, Sullivan's definition should be in the "another perspective" section. Also, added a section on the difficulty of defining transformative learning. Feb 15, 2004, morimom

This entire description is taken from Eric Digest ED423426, Susan Imel 1998, verbatim, without referencing this source.

Changes: Edited first and second paragraphs and references to include information on the origins of the theory and status as a "theory in progress" from Mezirow 1975 and Mezirow 2000. Sept 24, 2006 AKSoldat

Further edited first couple paragraphs to make more clear for lay reader, and to sum up the debate. Hope I got that right and others will help clarify further. 12/20/2006 [[Rtorosyan]

It might be a dumb question, but how come American schools are four-square against Transformative learning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.109.172 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have made the changes that are needed. Would you please email me to discuss if needed? wtb2001@columbia.edu

Non-encyclopedic

Sentences like "At its core, transformative learning theory is elegantly simple" are not encyclopedic. I think it needs to be rewritten both for tone and for clarity. 75.31.173.239 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary?

Hardly 'transformative', barely in command of topic. Derivitive and not clear that the author grasps significance, or meaning of 'making meaning'. Nearly all taken from Mezirow and Taylor's critique of Mezirow's articles; BUT still more in control of the information and a much better written article on the topic than as demonstrated in

'Transformative Learning Theory', which is poorly written, repetitive and also (as T Learning) jumbles information without clear direction or intention. Weakest on one of the theory's most significaant contributors, P. Freire.

I had thought to edit the first artcle, and to suggest/recommend combining it with the second...but I read the 'talk' pages for both articles, and returned to follow links to

'Critical Pedagogy', which has the virtue of established command of the English language and common usage, in addition to a more comprehensive idea about the subject matter and its implications for teaching and learning. The 'talk' page on 'Critical Pedagogy' article has two negatively critical comments on its inadequacy: 'worst article I've seen', which surprised me--the reader appears not to have seen these other two articles.

Viewed the 'Education Portal'. It is in line with other portals that I've encountered on WIKI. Curreently, I've nothing to add there.

I'll come back to this artcle, and will check here first. If anyone is monitoring...Docdev (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Christ Almighty

Jesus Christ, I got through this entire article, and I deserve a freaken medal for that. What a difficult article. Anyway, I pruned back about half or more of the article and did some minor editing here and there. It's still unreadable, but you should have seen it before... anyway, nevermind that, the question is, is it still copyvio from Susan Imel's original at [1] (PDF at [2]. It was just an almost direct copy of that. Dpes removing half the material make it not a copyvio? I don't know, but I suspect it doesn't. Herostratus 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, in the external link, it says the PUBLIC DOMAIN original is here... so maybe copyvio is not an issue. Anyway, with the various edits, mine and others, that have been made, maybe its not really a direct copy anymore... anyway, I removed the copyvio tag. Herostratus 05:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Very Dense

Lots of problems here. Right now this article is laden with "educationalese," the almost deliberately dense language used in pedagogy journals written by graduate students. It’s a neat concept, and is definitely worthy of a good article. But there’s no way the average guy is going to get through this without a headache. As for the citation style, again it is very much like what you’d expect to see in some pedagogy article. Andacar (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]