Social Science Quarterly - 2022 - Stuckey - A Conceptual Validation of Transformative Learning Theory

15406237, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13205 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 8 October 2021 Revised: 23 March 2022 Accepted: 17 April 2022
DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13205
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A conceptual validation of transformative learning

theory
Heather L. Stuckey1 Mark Peyrot2,3 Riana Conway4

Edward W. Taylor5
1
Division of General Internal Medicine, ABSTRACT
Department of Medicine, Penn State College of
Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the integrated
Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA
2
transformative learning theory and quantitative measurement
Department of Sociology, Loyola University
Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
model developed by Stuckey and colleagues in 2013.
3
Methods: The Transformative Leaning Survey (TLS) was
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Department
of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway administered as a cross-sectional web survey to 467 respondents
University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway recruited from a variety of sources. The questionnaire includes
4
Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State four transformative learning outcome measures (acting differ-
College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA ently, deeper self-awareness, holding more open perspectives,
5
School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, Penn experiencing a deep shift in worldview) and 14 transforma-
State Harrisburg, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA tive learning process measures in three domains (extra-rational,
rational, social critique).
Correspondence
Results: The majority of respondents were female (73.7 per-
Heather L. Stuckey, DEd, Penn State College of
Medicine, 500 University Drive, PO Box 850, MC cent), white (70.7 percent), with a graduate degree (57.2 percent),
A320, Hershey, PA 17033, USA. and professional employment (56.1 percent); the median age
Email: hstuckey@pennstatehealth.psu.edu
was 35–44. Reliabilities (alpha) of TLS scales ranged from 0.68
to 0.91 (median = 0.78). Multivariate regression identified two
Funding information
Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, rational process factors (Action, Disorienting Dilemma) and
Department of Medicine, Grant/Award Number: two social critique process factors (Empowerment, Unveiling
Innovations Grant (Internal Grant) Oppression) that had significant (p < 0.05) positive indepen-
dent associations with multiple transformative learning outcome
measures; no extra-rational process measures were significant.
Conclusions: This study replicates, validates, and extends
the development of the Transformative Leaning Survey and
advances transformative learning theory by identifying drivers
of transformative learning outcomes. Further quantitative, qual-
itative, and mixed method research on transformative learning is
needed.
KEYWORDS
adult learning, Mezirow, survey questionnaire, transformative learning
Social Science Quarterly. 2022;103:1459–1474. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssqu © 2022 by the Southwestern Social Science Association. 1459
15406237, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13205 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1460 STUCKEY ET AL.
The origin, sharing, and change in beliefs and behaviors have been the main focus of Western social
and behavioral sciences since their inception. Socialization is the process whereby individuals acquire the
culture that represents competence as a member of society (i.e., socially approved and disapproved beliefs
and behaviors) and is fundamental to the existence of society as well as its members. The founders of
micro-sociology (including social psychology—Dewey 1900; Mead 1934; Thomas 1923) and psychology
(Piaget 1926) sought to understand human cognition and behavior, including educational and therapeutic
interventions to change them. Later social scientific theories took a social learning approach (Bandura 1963,
1986). This approach has a mostly basic science orientation, describing the process through which beliefs
and behaviors are learned; individuals observe and imitate the behaviors of others who serve as models,
including their responses to the individual’s behaviors.
Social learning is not limited to childhood; it continues throughout the life course, and it is not limited to
formal learning environments; it can occur in any context. Social learning theories assume that changes in
beliefs and behaviors are driven by changing relationships between the actor and the social environment.
As Maslow (1943) has suggested, an individual’s needs may change over time and may trigger changes
in beliefs and behavior, even if the social environment does not change. Alternatively, the external social
environment may change. These environmental changes can be positive (e.g., job promotion) or negative
(e.g., job loss) and either major life events, such as divorce, or minor daily events, such as a disagree-
ment with a spouse (Holmes and Rahe 1967). The impacts of social events are conditioned by the coping
responses of the individuals experiencing the events. In general, coping strategies can be classified into two
categories: (1) problem-focused coping, for example, fixing, preventing, or avoiding the problem; and (2)
emotion-focused coping, for example, changing how one perceives or feels about the problem (Folkman
and Lazarus 1980).
Coping responses may involve major (transformative) or minor (incremental) changes in beliefs and
behaviors (e.g., Cranton 2016; Mezirow 1991). Major changes may affect several life domains as well as
multiple cognitions and behaviors. Moreover, the concept of transformative change implies an existential
change that is more global in nature, a change in worldview and lifestyle rather than a change in a specific
belief or behavior. For example, rather than becoming more accepting or appreciative of a particular indi-
vidual, a transformative change would involve acceptance or appreciation of all people or an entire social
group. Transformative changes are also thought to be more durable because they are supported by changes
in the actor’s cognitive and social contexts. In this research, we focus on major cognitive and behavioral
transformations in response to life events and experiences and seek to determine what types of processes
lead to those major transformations.
TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY

Transformative learning theory has been developed and studied over the last 40 years in an effort to
make sense of how people change their general worldview and perspective on events in their everyday
life (Cranton 2016; Mezirow 1991). Transformative learning generally occurs when a person encounters
a perspective or experiences an event that represents a disjuncture with their existing perspective. This
can include anything from a personal traumatic event to a social movement. The discordant perspec-
tive/experience may be overlooked or it can provoke a disorienting dilemma that results in the examination
of previously held beliefs, values, and assumptions. When the latter occurs, the potential for transforma-
tive learning exists, though it does not take place until an individual re-interprets prior experience. This
re-interpretation potentially results in transformative learning, comprising a more inclusive and permeable
worldview, increased self-awareness, and corresponding changes in behavior (Cranton 2016). According
to Mezirow (1991, 2000), the process centers on critical reflection, while some theorists (e.g., Dirkx 2001)
place imagination, intuition, and emotion at the heart of transformation, and other theorists, especially
Freire (1970), focus on a critique of the larger society in which unveiling injustices embedded in the
hierarchy of power leads to greater critical consciousness.
A CONCEPTUAL VALIDATION OF TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY 1461
Initially, transformative learning theory developed within the field of adult education. However, over the
last 20 years, it has become an interdisciplinary lens through which adult learning (i.e., change in beliefs and
behavior) can be conceptualized across various disciplines and situations (Taylor and Snyder 2012). Along
with extensive practical applications, research on transformative learning has grown significantly in the
30 years in adult education (e.g., Brendel and Cornett-Murtada 2018; Gawlicz 2022), medicine or public
health (e.g., Kerins et al. 2020; Tallentire et al. 2021; Vipler et al. 2021), and general research (Hoggan
and Kloubert 2020, Schnepfleitner and Ferreira 2021; Schnitzler 2020) just to mention a few. Most of
the research has been qualitative in nature, and few studies have attempted to measure transformative
learning, which has limited researchers’ ability to generalize transformative learning theory beyond narrow
descriptive accounts and to establish the effectiveness of interventions focused on fostering change.
To address these limitations, the Transformative Learning Survey (TLS) was developed to measure
and quantify the outcomes of transformative learning and the processes that bring about transformation
(Stuckey, Taylor, and Cranton 2013). TLS questionnaire development involved a comprehensive review of
the literature, external review by experts in adult education, focus groups for clarifying content, calculation
of inter-item correlations for each scale and cross-scale correlations, and calculation of Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficients (Stuckey, Taylor, and Cranton 2013). Aligned with the call for a more integrative and
unified theory (Cranton and Taylor 2012), Stuckey, Taylor, and Cranton 2013 synthesized multiple diverse
conceptual models into an integrated multifactorial model that comprised dimensions of transformative
outcomes and processes that reflect three main perspectives of transformative learning (Cranton 2016):
the cognitive/rational (Mezirow 1991), the extra-rational (Dirkx 1998; Lawrence 2012; Tisdell 2000), and
social critique (Brookfield 2012; Freire 1970).
TLS questionnaire development involved a comprehensive review of the literature, including an external
review by experts in adult education. We derived the outcomes and process items for the survey directly
from these theoretical conceptualizations and obtained expert reviews from those scholars working within
each conceptualization. The TLS questionnaire reflects the assumptions underlying these perspectives
through ordinal rating items. The initial development and validation study conducted focus groups for
clarifying content and calculated inter-item and cross-scale correlations, as well as Cronbach’s alpha relia-
bility coefficients for each scale (Stuckey, Taylor and Cranton 2013). The TLS was designed to be used in
multiple contexts both inside and outside the formal classroom. The survey is available free of charge to
the general public as individuals or to groups of learners (https://www.transformativelearningsurvey.com).
Outcome measures were defined as: (1) acting differently, (2) a deeper self-awareness, (3) holding more
open perspectives, and (4) experiencing a deep shift in worldview. Process measures were defined by the
three main models of transformative learning, each with corresponding scales (see Figure 1). The first
perspective emphasizes cognitive/rational processes (Mezirow 1991) such as rationality, critical reflection, and
ideal conditions for discourse. This is a constructivist and universal view of learning, explaining a process
of constructing and appropriating new or revised interpretations of the meaning of one’s experience with a
goal of greater personal autonomy and independence. The second perspective has been called extrarational
processes (Dirkx 1998; Lawrence 2012; Tisdell 2000); it emphasizes the emotive, imaginal, spiritual, and arts-
based facets of learning, those that reach beyond rationality. Dirkx (2001) extends the work of Boyd and
Myers (1988) who followed a Jungian approach to describe how symbols, images, and archetypes play a
role in personal discernment and illumination as individuals work with unconscious content. This view of
transformative learning recognizes personal, intuitive, and imaginative ways of knowing that lead to indi-
viduation (the development of the self as separate from, but integrated with, the collective of humanity).
The third perspective focuses on social critique processes (Brookfield 2012; Freire 1970), including ideological
critique, unveiling oppression, and social action in the context of transformative learning. This view is
about developing an ‘‘ontological vocation’’ (Freire 1970, p. 12), a theory that views people as subjects, not
objects, who are constantly reflecting and acting on the transformation of their world so it can become a
more equitable place for all to live. There is also a purpose of rediscovering power and developing a sense
of agency to transform society and their own reality, emphasizing social transformation over personal
change.
STUCKEY ET AL.
transformative learning outcome and

FIGURE 1 Definitions of
process domains
1462
Recent research has validated the approach underlying the TLS. Papenfuss and Merritt (2019) com-
pleted a descriptive case study of Findhorn Foundation College’s 5-week Ecovillage Design Education
course. This case study used ethnographic techniques, and their qualitative analysis identified four out-
comes that represented transformation: self-awareness; inter-connectedness, personal resilience, and
worldview/paradigm shift. Their constructs of self-awareness and worldview/paradigm parallel two of
those assessed by the TLS. There also has been growth in the quantitative assessment of transforma-
tive learning through the use of the TLS. These studies have used the TLS in combination with other
questionnaires and/or qualitative research (Magrizos, Kostopoulos, and Powers 2020; Probst et al. 2019).
Magrizos, Kostopoulos, and Powers (2020) used an ethnographic record of interviews, observation, and
pictures in a study of volunteer tourism to gain a “deeper understanding of how transformation is experi-
enced by volunteer tourists [tourism with pro-social giving and personal development] and why it actually
materializes” (p. 879). In addition to the outcome scales from the TLS, this study also measured authen-
ticity (Ramkissoon and Uysal 2011), immersiveness (Alexander 2012), and societal meaningfulness (van
der Voet, Stein, and Kulpers 2017). They found that transformation occurs when: (1) volunteer tourists’
experience was perceived as authentic; (2) there was a high degree of immersiveness, that is, exerting the
required effort; and (3) participants believed they were contributing to a cause and were pushed beyond
their comfort levels, enabling them to reflect on how they viewed themselves and the world around them.
In a study of a university-led international training course on organic agriculture in Uganda, Probst et
al. (2019) measured environmental attitudes (Sutton and Gyuris 2015), professional and personal skills,
and agency of students, in addition to the four TLS outcome scales. Results confirmed the reliability of
the TLS measures and higher levels of transformative learning outcomes from the program positively
predicted competent professional and personal skills, environmental attitudes, and personal influence on
sustainability, suggesting that the TLS outcomes impacted a number of other important outcomes.
The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the TLS as a means of advancing transformative learning
theory. The study’s aims include establishing the reliability of the original TLS process and outcome scales
in a larger sample. This article also examines how the original TLS scales cluster into higher-order measures
representing conceptual domains, that is, outcomes and the three process models discussed above. Finally,
we examine the conceptual validity of the TLS by determining the degree to which the various process
measures are associated with the outcome measures. The latter analysis advances transformative learning
theory by identifying potential process determinants of transformative outcomes and identifying future
research that is needed to further advance transformative learning theory.
METHODS
Research design
The TLS is hosted on a website (https://www.transformativelearningsurvey.com) that users can access

directly. Results of a user’s completed questionnaire (i.e., scoring of items into multi-item scales) can be
printed by the user. All data are retained and can be accessed for analysis by the website operators (authors
HS and ET). Researchers who want access to the original data generated by participants they have recruited
to complete the TLS can contact the corresponding author to obtain a group identifier to permit the selec-
tion of their participants for data transfer. In April 2021, the survey portion of the website was transferred
from a WordPress site into Research Electronic Data Capture, a secured web-based site with appropri-
ate securities and storage of data. The survey landing page (used to provide a survey overview, display a
consent form, and provide survey results to participants) remained on the original WordPress platform
but was transferred to an (Penn State University) approved hosting platform through CampusPress. The
domain was retained so that data could be collected without interruption in the use of the survey and to
allow backward compatibility with prior publications and communications regarding usage of the TLS.
The respondent recruitment process for the current study involved both individuals who found the
website on their own (n = 163, 34.9 percent), were recruited as one of 14 groups (n = 190, 40.7 percent),
1464 STUCKEY ET AL.
or are of unknown origin (n = 114, 24.4 percent; these were recruited before recruiting source was tracked
in TLS). The survey requires that all questions are answered (except for optional demographics), or the
questionnaire is removed as “incomplete.” To ensure that respondents were legitimately describing pos-
sible transformative learning events, all “completed” questionnaires were checked by examining the text
of the two TLS open-ended questions about the respondent’s transformative experiences. Human subject
approval was obtained through the Penn State University under IRB Study #00017060.
Measures
The TLS begins with two open-ended questions that ask the respondent to describe (a) the transformative
event and (b) how the event changed the respondent (researchers who wish to have a group use the
TLS can contact the lead author to request the use of a custom version of the open-ended questions
on the website). Respondents are encouraged to continually reflect on this event as they complete the
questionnaire. The beginning text from the survey is as follows:
Before you turn the page to start the survey, please think about one specific life-changing experience
that happened in your adult life. This should be an event that altered your life in a deep and
fundamental way. Take a few minutes to describe that experience here.
1. Describe the event here. When did it happen? Who was involved? Where did it happen?
2. In what ways did this event change your life?
Following the two open-ended questions, 90 fixed-response items assess the outcomes and processes of
engaging in transformative learning in any context. TLS scales and domains were described in the earlier
article on their development (Stuckey, Taylor, and Cranton 2013). Four scales describe the outcomes of
transformative learning, and 14 scales describe the various ways transformative learning can occur (see
Figure 1 and Table 1). Process questions are phrased as dispositions (the things a respondent generally does),
while outcome items are phrased as changes in perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Each of the 18 TLS
scales consists of five items, using a Likert format with responses from strongly agree (= 4) to strongly disagree
(= 1). Scale scores were obtained by taking the mean of the constituent item scores and transforming them
to 0–100 scoring with higher scores representing more transformative learning.
For this article, scale scores were combined into second-order composite domain measures by taking
the mean of the scales within each domain; composite domain measure reliability was calculated with
scales as items. An alternative set of composite process domain measures also was created using a similar
method but consisting only of scales within a domain that had a significant independent association with
one or more outcome measures; if no scale within a process domain had such a relationship, no alternative
composite domain measure was created.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics consist of frequencies and percentages or means and standard deviations (SDs). The
reliability of measures was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. One analysis assessed the bivariate correlations
of each demographic measure with each process and outcome scale and composite domain measure. The
primary analysis of conceptual validity assessed the independent associations of all TLS process measures
(including the composite process domain measures) with each TLS outcome measure (including the com-
posite outcome domain measure), controlling for demographic factors. Because the process measures were
highly correlated with each other, the analysis used multivariate regression ordinary least squares (OLS)
to control for confounding (shared variance) among them. The initial preliminary analysis (forced-entry)
entered all process scales into a single analysis for each outcome measure. However, the high correla-
tions among the process measures yielded some sign reversals in which a variable with a strong positive
TABLE 1 Respondent descriptive statistics
Measure M ± SD or percent (n)
Demographics
Gender (Female) 73.7 percent (344)
Race (White) 70.7 percent (330)
Age (Years)*
18–24 16.3 percent (76)
25–34 29.3 percent (137)
35–44 19.3 percent (90)
45–54 19.1 percent (89)
55–64 11.3 percent (53)
65 and over 3.6 percent (17)
Education*
Less than Bachelor’s Degree 6.2 percent (29)
Bachelor’s Degree 35.1 percent (164)
Graduate Degree 57.2 percent (267)
Employment*
Professional 56.1 percent (262)
Other Employment 11.3 percent (53)
Retired 3.0 percent (14)
Student 28.3 percent (132)
Nationality*
USA 54.8 percent (256)
Other 33.0 percent (154)
Outcomes
Acting Differently 74.90 ± 20.8
Self-Awareness 79.24 ± 19.7
Openness 73.08 ± 20.0
Shift Worldview 78.25 ± 23.5
Extra-rational processes
Arts Based 56.72 ± 29.4
Dialogue Support 74.02 ± 19.7
Emotions 74.47 ± 19.5
Imaginal Soul Work 68.34 ± 23.0
Spiritual 63.80 ± 29.9
Rational processes
Action 77.19 ± 17.4
Critical Reflection 71.28 ± 20.8
Disorienting Dilemma 69.81 ± 21.6
Discourse 79.57 ± 16.1
Experience 76.39 ± 18.8
(Continues)
1466 STUCKEY ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Measure M ± SD or percent (n)
Social critique processes

Empowerment 63.58 ± 21.3
Social Action 72.71 ± 19.4
Unveiling Oppression 72.56 ± 20.3
Ideology Critique 73.86 ± 18.8
Composite domain scores
Outcome Domain 76.38 ± 18.1
Extra-rational Process Domain 67.47 ± 15.5
Rational Process Domain 74.84 ± 16.9
Social Critique Domain 70.69 ± 18.4
* Percentages do not sum to 100 due to missing values.
association with the outcome in bivariate analysis exhibited a negative association in the multivariate anal-
ysis as more predictors were added to the model. Therefore, we performed a second preliminary analysis
that used a stepwise-entry method (p-to-enter = 0.05). In the final (primary) analysis process, measures
that were significantly related to one or more outcome measures in both analyses were entered into a sin-
gle blockwise model, with demographic variables entering the first block, followed by the process variables
in a second block. R-squared change for each block and overall was reported.
Because there was no criterion for specifying that one process domain should be considered more
fundamental than another, it was not possible to assess incremental variance explained by the process
domains. Therefore, we used the composite process domain measures for this purpose. All composite
process domain measures that contained a significant predictor in the primary analysis were assessed as
predictors of each outcome measure, and we compared the regression coefficients for each composite
process domain measure to assess the relative contribution to explanatory power. Parallel analyses were
performed for both sets of composite process domain measures—one set calculated from the full set of 14
original scales, and the other set calculated only from the scales that were significant in the primary analysis.
We then compared the explanatory power of the composite process domain measures that included all
their component scales with the composite process domain measures that included only their significant
scales from the primary analysis.
All analyses were performed with SPSS version 27. Statistical significance for all analyses used 0.05
(two-tailed) as the criterion.
RESULTS
Sample description
The sample was mostly female (73.7 percent) and white (70.7 percent), with a median age of 35–44 (see
Table 1). The majority of respondents had a graduate degree (57.2 percent), were employed as a profes-
sional (56.1 percent, and were U.S. residents (54.8 percent). The mean of the TLS process measures ranged
from a low of 56.72 + 29.4 to a high of 79.57 + 16.1. The means of the TLS outcome measures ranged
from a low of 73.08 + 20.0 to a high of 79.24 + 19.7.
Psychometrics
Reliabilities (alpha) of TLS scales ranged from 0.68 to 0.91 (median = 0.78), see Table 2. Correlations
among scales within TLS domains were high for outcomes (min/max = 0.578/0.770, median = 0.706),
TABLE 2 Correlations of demographics with transformational learning survey measures
Measures (alpha) Female White Age Education Professional Student USA
Outcomes
Acting Differently (0.78) 0.044 0.045 0.171*** 0.038 −0.022 −0.057 −0.012
Self-Awareness (0.80) 0.086 0.042 0.182*** 0.082 −0.011 −0.077 0.012
Openness (0.74) −0.031 −0.052 0.249*** 0.149** −0.032 0.004 −0.045
Shift Worldview (0.86) 0.062 0.024 0.353*** 0.203** 0.117* −0.253*** −0.100*
Extra-rational processes
Arts Based (0.88) −0.033 −0.103* 0.004 −0.008 0.024 −0.054 −0.101*
Dialogue Support (0.76) 0.120** 0.060 0.012 −0.036 0.012 0.033 0.041
Emotions (0.75) 0.163*** 0.039 0.115* 0.024 −0.040 0.016 −0.044
Imaginal Soul Work (0.80) −0.051 −0.096* 0.127** 0.034 0.003 −0.039 −0.062
Spiritual (0.91) 0.008 −0.105* 0.071 −0.026 −0.004 −0.038 −0.086
Rational Processes
Action (0.73) 0.094* −0.009 0.093* −0.019 −0.039 0.027 −0.034
Critical Reflection (0.78) 0.016 −0.021 0.110* 0.091 −0.011 0.018 −0.070
Disorienting Dilemma (0.77) 0.027 −0.016 0.165** 0.104* 0.060 −0.061 −0.058
Discourse (0.68) 0.103* 0.007 0.060 −0.014 −0.063 0.074 0.052
Experience (0.81) 0.081 0.049 0.129** 0.085 −0.066 0.062 0.018
Social critique processes
Empowerment (0.74) 0.044 −0.020 0.163*** 0.052 0.029 −0.051 −0.004
Social Action (0.75) 0.125** −0.064 0.061 0.017 −0.094* 0.103 0.015
Unveiling Oppression (0.75) 0.109* −0.075 0.086 0.031 −0.060 0.058 −0.032
Ideology Critique (0.69) 0.100* 0.002 0.050 0.013 −0.101* 0.080 0.011
Composite domain scores
Outcomes (0.90) 0.046 −0.008 0.279*** 0.140** 0.029 −0.133* −0.045
Extra-rational Processes (0.78) 0.040 −0.071 0.088 −0.004 −0.001 −0.029 −0.079
Rational Processes (0.87) 0.073 0.001 0.141** 0.067 −0.024 0.025 −0.029
Social Critique Processes (0.87) 0.111* −0.046 0.107* 0.034 −0.063 0.053 −0.002
* p ≤ 0.05;
** p ≤ 0.01;
*** p ≤ 0.001.
extra-rational processes (min/max = 0.303/0.747, median = 0.402), rational processes (min/max =

0.437/0.732, median = 0.597), and social critique processes (min/max = 0.507/0.742, median = 0.612).
Reliabilities for composite domain scores ranges from 0.78 to 0.90(median = 0.87).
Bivariate associations of demographics with TLS measures

Correlations of demographics with TLS scales were modest; only 30 of 126 were significant, and the largest
correlation was 0.353 (see Table 2). For most demographic characteristics, their significant associations
with TLS measures were consistently positive or negative. Women had higher scores (7 of 18), as did older
respondents (11 of 18), and those with higher education 3 of 18). Students (1 of 18) and those from the
1468 STUCKEY ET AL.
TABLE 3 Regression of Transformational Learning Survey outcomesa
Predictors Acting Differently Self-Awareness Openness Shift Worldview Composite
Demographics
Female 0.026 0.065 −0.038 0.093* 0.044
White −0.043 0.037 −0.042 −0.007 −0.016
Age 0.090 0.067 0.155*** 0.182*** 0.144***
Education −0.006 0.048 0.080 0.083* 0.060
Professional −0.104 −0.137* −0.059 −0.136* −0.127*
Student −0.111 −0.145* −0.005 −0.248*** −0.151**
USA 0.035 0.059 0.004 −0.004 0.025
Rational Processes
Action 0.217*** 0.230*** 0.189*** 0.145** 0.220***
Disorienting Dilemma 0.100 0.133** 0.170*** 0.314*** 0.210***
Social Critique Processes
Empowerment 0.122* 0.155** 0.128* 0.035 0.122*
Unveiling Oppression 0.166** 0.126* 0.110* 0.061 0.130**
R-squared, Demographics 0.044** 0.056*** 0.075*** 0.162*** 0.094***
R-squared, Processes 0.237*** 0.268*** 0.228*** 0.215*** 0.299***
R-squared, Overall 0.282*** 0.324*** 0.303*** 0.377*** 0.393***
a
Cells report standardized regression coefficients.
* p ≤ 0.05;
** p ≤ 0.01;
*** p ≤ 0.001.
United States (2 of 18) had lower scores. Professionals had higher (1 of 18) and lower (2 of 18) scores on
different TLS measures.
Multivariate associations between TLS process and outcome measures
Preliminary analysis using the forced-entry strategy identified one significant association within the
extra-rational process domain, and the stepwise-entry strategy identified two significant associations (3
associations among 40 comparisons); no measure was significant using both strategies. The forced-entry
strategy identified eight significant associations within the rational process domain, and the stepwise-
entry strategy identified seven significant associations (15 among 40); two measures were significant using
both strategies—Action (7 among 8) and Disorienting Dilemma (6 among 8). The forced-entry strategy
identified three significant associations within the social critique process domain, and the stepwise-entry
strategy identified six significant associations (9 among 32); two measures were significant using both
strategies—Empowerment (6 among 8) and Unveiling Oppression (3 among 8).
The primary analysis used the demographic measures along with the four TLS process scales identified
in the preliminary analyses to analyze the four outcome scales and the composite outcome domain measure
(see Table 3). Demographic measures accounted for 4.4 percent to 16.2 percent of the variance in the
outcome scales and 9.4 percent for the composite outcome domain measure. Age was positively associated
with two scales and the composite outcome domain measure. Professionals and students had lower scores
for two scales and the composite outcome domain measure.
TLS process measures accounted for 21.5 percent to 26.8 percent of the variance in the outcome scales
and 29.9 percent of the composite outcome domain measure. Among the rational process scales, Action
TABLE 4 Regression of Transformational Learning Survey outcomes on process domain measuresa
Predictors (composite Acting Self- Shift Composite Outcome

domain measures) Differently Awareness Openness Worldview Domain
Original process measures

Rational Domain 0.173** 0.262*** 0.227*** 0.370*** 0.299***
Social Critique Domain 0.319*** 0.264*** 0.256*** 0.090 0.259***
R-squared, processes 0.206*** 0.233*** 0.196*** 0.187*** 0.262***
Reduced process measures
Rational Domain 0.267*** 0.309*** 0.307*** 0.410*** 0.372***
Social Critique Domain 0.266*** 0.258*** 0.220*** 0.079 0.230***
R-squared, Processes 0.231*** 0.263*** 0.228*** 0.211*** 0.298***
a
All analyses control for Female, White, Age, Education, Professional, Student, USA. Cells report standardized regression coefficients.
* p ≤ 0.05;
** p ≤ 0.01;
*** p ≤ 0.001.
was positively associated with all four outcome scales and the composite outcome domain measure, and
Disorienting Dilemma was positively associated with three scales (excluding Acting Differently) and the
composite outcome domain measure. Among the social critique process measures, Empowerment and
Unveiling Oppression each was positively associated with the same three outcome scales (other than Shift
Worldview) as well as the composite outcome domain measure.
Table 4 reports the parallel analyses of the explanatory power of the rational and social critique com-
posite process domain measures based on the original nine scales or on the four scales identified by the
primary analysis. The original composite process domain scores accounted for 18.7 percent to 23.3 per-
cent of the variance in the outcome scales and 26.2 percent in the composite outcome domain measure.
The empirically derived composite outcome domain scores accounted for 21.1 percent to 26.3 percent of
the variance in the outcome scales and 29.8 percent in the composite outcome domain measure. The latter
accounted for 2.4 percent to 3.6 percent more variance than the former across the five comparisons.
DISCUSSION
The results of the current study validate and extend the development of the TLS, as well as advance trans-
formative learning theory. Reliabilities for the original TLS scales were acceptable to high, as were those
for the newly examined higher-order composite domain measures. As expected for persons reporting
on transformative learning, mean scores on all scales were higher than the midpoint of the scale scores,
although mean scale scores ranged from 56.72 to 79.57, representing a difference of more than 1.0 SDs.
Scores tended to be higher for women and older participants. There were no significant associations of any
extra-rational process measure with any outcome measure in the primary analysis. However, the primary
analysis identified two scales from the rational process domain (Action, Disorienting Dilemma) and two
scales from the social critique process domain (Empowerment, Unveiling Oppression) that were signif-
icantly associated with most of the outcome scales as well as the composite outcome domain measure.
Moreover, the composite rational and social critique process domain measures based only on these signifi-
cant process scales had greater explanatory power than the composite process domain measures based on
the full set of scales within these domains.
The major finding of this study is that scales from the rational and social critique process domains are
significantly and independently associated with transformative learning outcomes. These domains repre-
sent the transformational learning processes identified by Mezirow (2000) and Friere (1970). Three of
1470 STUCKEY ET AL.
the four outcome scales and the composite outcome domain measure have stronger associations with the
rational composite process domain measure than the social critique composite process domain measure.
These associations are complementary empirically (as reflected by independent associations that signif-
icantly increase explanatory power) as well as conceptually. The rational scales (Disorienting Dilemma,
Action) represent fundamental processes involved in cognitive change generally, and specifically in trans-
formative change. The Disorienting Dilemma is conceptualized as the trigger and/or catalyst for one’s
change experience, while Action represents the degree to which people take action upon their emer-
gent transformation, moving the transformation from purely cognitive to behavioral. We hypothesize that
behavioral change represents more powerful and dramatic change, although it was not possible to test
this hypothesis directly. Moreover, change in behavior may maintain cognitive change by anchoring it in
behavioral routines. Indeed, Critical Reflection, Discourse with others, and new Experiences may help to
trigger Action, but our results suggest that without Action these other factors may not be sufficient to
produce change.
Although the social critique processes are somewhat less strongly associated with the outcomes than
the rational processes, they do account for additional variance. In contrast to the rational processes, the
social critique processes reflect the criteria by which participants react and act on their transformative
experiences in relation to changing society for the better. Of significance are two scales of social critique,
Unveiling Oppression, which suggests that one’s transformative learning is based on an awareness of
privilege and possibly working with others to address the needs of those that are marginalized in society,
and Empowerment, which reflects a greater confidence in the self and in questioning those in authority.
However, two other scales of social critique lack significance, Ideology Critique (a conscious awareness of
how the larger structures of society advantage certain groups) and Social Action (engagement in activities
that make society more equitable), which seems to imply that even though one has developed greater
confidence about themselves and has the willingness to act, the focus is predominantly on the self in
relation to the larger society and less awareness of the role society plays in subjecting others and how to
act and make a change. These measures seem tied to a subset of transformative events and experiences,
which may account for why they are not as strongly associated with transformative learning outcomes as
are the rational processes. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that the associations of transformative
learning outcomes with the rational and social critique processes are independent and additive. Thus, while
rational processes may be more broadly applicable, events that trigger social critique processes and persons
who implement these processes may achieve more substantial transformative learning outcomes.
Another major finding of this study is that no extra-rational process measures were significantly associ-
ated in a meaningful way with transformative learning outcomes (note that this is not a result of lower scale
scores for these measures because there is a substantial variation for these measures, which is what drives
their associations). There are several possible explanations for this absence. Although these results might
be interpreted as indicating that these extra-rational processes play little role in transformative learning,
such a conclusion would be premature based on a single study, particularly since others have suggested
that engaging feelings is important to reflection, providing valence for cognitions (Damasio 2006; Mälkki
2019). Early on in its conception, transformative learning was critiqued for being overly rational, mini-
mizing the role of emotions and unconscious ways of knowing in change (Taylor 2001). However, this
study explicitly incorporated measures of these concepts so that argument is not relevant to this study. A
possible explanation for the lack of association between outcomes and extra-rational process measures is
that it may be a reflection of survey respondents not recognizing the role of emotions in how they make
changes in perspective or that emotions act in ways outside one’s conscious awareness.
There also are several possible methodological explanations for this finding in the current study,
including measurement and sampling issues. First, it may be that the outcome and extra-rational pro-
cess measures are flawed and do not capture all the important dimensions identified by relevant theories,
even though the TLS did capture important dimensions formulated by rational and social critique theories.
Second, even if the existing measures are adequate, it is possible that the sample from which our results
are derived is biased against finding a role for extra-rational processes. For example, the sample includes
too few participants with less than a college education (a major portion of the population at large) to be
able to detect different types of processes they might use in transformative learning. Likewise, the sample
includes too few participants from smaller subpopulations that might be expected to use extra-rational
processes, including those in creative occupations (e.g., poets, fiction writers, artists, musicians) or peo-
ple undergoing psychotherapy, for whom transformative learning may make extra-rational factors explicit.
Further research with other populations that might use extra-rational processes is needed before the role
of these factors can be definitively assessed.
Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include: (1) it is based on a conceptual framework that permits testing a priori
hypotheses; (2) statistical tests are performed on a large sample; (3) use of multivariate analysis deals with
confounding and identifies potential drivers that have independent relationships with outcomes; (4) the
analysis focuses on patterns in the relationships between processes and outcomes rather than cherry-
picking a few selected associations from multiple comparisons. This is one of the first transformative
learning studies to present an analysis of conceptual validity, that is, the ability of transformative learning
process measures to explain transformative learning outcomes.
This study has several limitations that are common to all research using a similar methodology: (1)
the analysis is based on cross-sectional, retrospective data; (2) all data are self-reports with no indepen-
dent confirmation; (3) the sample is self-selected and of unknown representativeness. While prospective,
longitudinal analysis would allow us to examine whether preexisting characteristics predict transformative
learning, that approach by itself would not allow us to determine what processes were (or were not) used by
those who did (or did not) experience transformation. While independent confirmation of processes and
outcomes would be desirable, many consist of intra-psychic experiences that are not directly observable.
Although we make no claims about whether our study participants are representative in terms of hav-
ing experienced a transformative event, representativeness in terms of socio-economic and occupational
status would enhance our ability to generalize our findings more broadly.
Planned next steps
Our additional plans for the data from this study include: (1) coding, analyzing, and reporting the qual-
itative data from the two TLS open-ended questions concerning the triggering event and the changes
experienced and (2) integrating the quantitative data examined in this article with this qualitative data
through mixed method analysis. These steps will allow us to examine the differences and similarities
between the qualitative and quantitative measures for corresponding concepts and assess whether there is a
need for additional quantitative measures to capture concepts missed by the existing quantitative measures.
We also will be able to examine associations between quantitative and qualitative measures, for example,
what transformative learning processes and outcomes are associated with different types of triggering
events. In particular, analysis of our qualitative data may help determine if extra-rational processes are
described in these narratives and whether these relate to the outcome measures in the quantitative portion
of the TLS. It may also answer whether social critique processes are more likely to be used in response to
certain types of transformative events and are less likely to be related to outcomes across the full range of
such events.
Future research directions
As with many studies, our findings not only answer some questions; they also raise new questions
requiring additional research. Studies of representative samples of individuals from the general popula-
tion would allow us to modify the TLS to quantitatively assess (1) how many people have experienced
1472 STUCKEY ET AL.
transformative learning, and how many such experiences they have had; and (2) how profound are the
positive and negative aspects of their transformative learning experiences. More intensive qualitative data
would allow us to assess (1) the degree to which various processes are used in what temporal context as
transformative learning progresses, and (2) how outcomes emerge and develop over time, including direct
outcomes (such as having to work full-time after divorce from the primary wage earner) versus indirect
(contingent) outcomes (such as forming a new family after divorce).
During the time since the publication of the TLS (Stuckey, Taylor and Cranton 2013), new question-
naires for assessing transformative learning have been developed: the Transformative Outcomes and
Processes Scale (TROPOS; Cox 2017) and the Transformative Learning Environments Survey (TLES;
Walker 2018). TROPOS consists of four measures (self-directed learning, social support, attitude toward
uncertainty, and criticality) that correlate with transformative outcomes. Interestingly, Kwon, Han, and
Nicolaides (2020) used TROPOS in combination with a seven-item psychological safety to understand the
impact of these factors on transformative learning outcomes in the workplace. TLES assesses student
perceptions of their own transformation and their educational learning environment on four dimen-
sions (disorienting dilemma, self-reflection, meaning perspective, critical discourse, and acting) and Walker
(2018) examined the association of these scales with student satisfaction (but not transformative learning
outcomes).
These instruments provide a new opportunity for synthesizing empirically-based conceptual models
of transformative learning and developing an updated empirical approach to studying transformative
learning as Stuckey, Taylor and Cranton 2013 did. These instruments could be combined with the TLS
in a comprehensive study to determine whether there is overlap among the measures (redundancy) or
incremental explanatory power for the various measures (complementarity). This research could catalyze
further research into the contexts and processes that contribute to transformative learning and enhance
understanding of interventions to achieve transformative learning.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has validated several hypotheses of transformative learning theory and identified other hypothe-
ses that were not confirmed empirically. These findings suggest that the integrated transformative learning
theory of Stuckey, Taylor and Cranton 2013 can be applied to studies of interventions designed to produce
cognitive and behavioral change. Moreover, it may also be useful in studying spontaneous transformation
arising from “eureka” and “conversion” experiences. Finally, it may contribute to a better understanding
of the trajectory of transformative decisions, and the kinds of changes that not only contribute to a natural
progression toward greater transformation, but also those that inhibit progression or result in regression
of transformation.
ORCID
Heather L. Stuckey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3200-3543
REFERENCES
Alexander, Z. 2012. “International Volunteer Tourism Experience in South Africa: An Investigation into the Impact on the Tourist.”
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 21(7):779–99.
Bandura, A. 1963. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boyd, R. D., and M. J. Gordon. 1988. “Transformative Education.” International Journal of Lifelong Learning Education 7(4):261–64.
Brendel, W., and V. Cornett-Murtada. 2018. “Professors Practicing Mindfulness: An Action Research Study on Transformed
Teaching, Research, and Service.” Journal of Transformative Education 17(1):4–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618762535
Brookfield, S. 2012. "Critical Theory and Transformative Learning." In Handbook of Transformative Learning Theory: Theory,
Research and Practice, edited by E. W. Taylor and P. A. Cranton, 131–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. A. and E. W. Taylor. 2012. "Transformative Learning Theory: Seeing a More Unified Theory." In The Handbook of
Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by E. W. Taylor and P. A. Cranton, 3–20. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. A. 2016. Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide to Theory and Practice, 3rd ed. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Damasio, A. 2006. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin.
Dewey, J. 1900. The School and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Dirkx, J. 1998. “Transformative Learning Theory in the Practice of Adult Education: An Overview.” PAACE Journal of Lifelong
Learning 7:1–14.
Dirkx, J. 2001. “Images, Transformative Learning and the Work of the Soul.” Adult Learning 12(83):15–16.
Folkman, S., and R. S. Lazarus. 1980. “An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample.” Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 21(3):219–39.
Cox, R. C. 2017. “Assessing Transformative Learning: Toward a Unified Framework.” PhD diss., University of Tennessee.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gawlicz, K. 2022. “I Felt As If I Was Becoming Myself Anew: Transformative Learning Through Action Research Projects Carried
Out by Beginner Teachers.” Journal of Transformative Education 20(1):62–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446211049467
Hoggan, C., and T. Kloubert. 2020. “Transformative Learning in Theory and Practice.” Adult Education Quarterly 70(3):295–307.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713620918510
Holmes, T. H., and R. H. Rahe. 1967. “The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.” Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11:213.
Kerins, J., S. E. Smith, E. C. Philips, B. Clarke, A. L. Hamilton, and V. R. Tallentire. 2020. “Exploring Transformative Learning When
Developing Medical Students’ Non-Technical Skills.” Medical Education 54(3):264–74.
Kwon, C. -K., S. -H. Han, and A. Nicolaides. 2020. “The Impact of Psychological Safety on Transformative Learning in the
Workplace: A Quantitative Study.” Journal of Workplace Learning 32(7):533–47.
Lawrence, R. 2012. "Transformative Learning Through Artistic Expression: Getting Out Of Our Heads." In Handbook of Trans-
formative Learning Theory: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by E. W. Taylor and P. A. Cranton, 471–85. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Magrizos, S., I. Kostopoulos, and L. Powers. 2020. “Volunteer Tourism as a Transformative Experience: A Mixed Methods Empirical
Study.” Journal of Travel Research 60(4):878–95.
Mälkki, K. 2019. “Coming to Grips with Edge-Emotions: The Gateway to Critical Reflection and Transformative Learning: Euro-
pean Perspectives on Transformation Theory. In European Perspectives on Transformation Theory, edited by T. Fleming, A.
Kokkos, and F. Finnegan, 59–73. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50(4):370–96.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mezirow, J., and Associates, eds. 2000. Learning as Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Papenfuss, J., and E. Merritt. 2019. “Pedagogical Laboratories: A Case Study of Transformative Sustainability Education in an
Ecovillage Context.” Sustainability 11(14):3880.
Piaget, J. 1926. The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge.
Probst, L., L. Bardach, D. Kamusingize, N. Templer, H. Ogwali, A. Owamani, L. Mulumba, R. Onwonga, and B. T. Adugna. 2019.
“A Transformative University Learning Experience Contributes to Sustainability Attitudes, Skills and Agency.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 232:648–56.
Ramkissoon, H., and M. S. Uysal. 2011. The Effects of Perceived Authenticity, Information Search Behaviour, Motivation and
Destination Imagery on Cultural Behavioural Intentions of Tourists. Current Issues in Tourism 14(6):537–62. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13683500.2010.493607
Schnepfleitner, F. M., and M. P. Ferreira. 2021. “Transformative Learning Theory—Is it Time to Add a Fourth Core Element?”
Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches (JESMA) 1(1):40–49.
Schnitzler, T. 2020. “Success Factors of Transformative Learning: Putting Theory into Practice.” Reflective Practice 21(6):834–43.
Stuckey, H. L., E. W. Taylor, and P. Cranton. 2013. “Developing a Survey of Transformative Learning Outcomes and Processes
Based on Theoretical Principles.” Journal of Transformative Education 11(4):211–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614540335
Sutton, S. G., and E. Gyuris. 2015. “Optimizing the Environmental Attitudes Inventory.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 16:16–33.
Tallentire, V. R., J. Kerins, S. McColgan-Smith, F. Stewart, and J. Mardon. 2021. “Exploring Transformative Learning for Trainee
Pharmacists Through Interprofessional Simulation: A Constructivist Interview Study.” Advances in Simulation 6(1):31. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s41077-021-00180-2
Taylor, E. W. 2001. “Transformative Learning: A Neurobiological Perspective of the Role of Emotions and Unconscious Ways of
Knowing.” International Journal of Lifelong Learning 20:218–36.
Taylor, E. W., and M. J. Snyder,.2012. “A Critical Review of Research on Transformative Learning Theory, 2006-2010.” In Handbook
of Transformative Learning Theory: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by E. W. Taylor and P. A. Cranton, 37–55. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, W. I. 1923. The Unadjusted Girl. With Cases and Standpoint for Behavior Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.
Tisdell, E. J. 2000. “Spirituality and Emancipatory Adult Education in Women Adult Educators for Social Change.” Adult Education
Quarterly 44:34–42.
Vipler, B., A. Knehans, D. Rausa, P. Haidet, and J. McCall-Hosenfeld. 2021. “Transformative Learning in Graduate Medical
Education: A Scoping Review.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education 13(6):801–14. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-21-00065.1
1474 STUCKEY ET AL.
Van der Voet, J., B. Steijn, B. S. Kuipers. 2017. “What’s In It for Others? The Relationship Between Prosocial Motivation and
Commitment to Change Among Youth Care Professionals.” Public Management Review 19(4):443–62.
Walker, S. L. (2018). “Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Transformative Learning: The Transformative
Learning Environments Survey (TLES).” Journal of Transformative Learning 5(1):23–46.
How to cite this article: Stuckey, H. L., M. Peyrot, R. Conway, and E. W. Taylor. 2022. “A
conceptual validation of transformative learning theory.” Social Science Quarterly 103:1459–1474.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13205

Social Science Quarterly - 2022 - Stuckey - A Conceptual Validation of Transformative Learning Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Science Quarterly - 2022 - Stuckey - A Conceptual Validation of Transformative Learning Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15406237, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13205 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [31/12/2022].

A conceptual validation of transformative learning

Heather L. Stuckey1 Mark Peyrot2,3 Riana Conway4

TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING THEORY

transformative learning outcome and

The TLS is hosted on a website (https://www.transformativelearningsurvey.com) that users can access

TABLE 1 Respondent descriptive statistics

Measure M ± SD or percent (n)

Measure M ± SD or percent (n)

Social critique processes

* Percentages do not sum to 100 due to missing values.

TABLE 2 Correlations of demographics with transformational learning survey measures

Measures (alpha) Female White Age Education Professional Student USA

extra-rational processes (min/max = 0.303/0.747, median = 0.402), rational processes (min/max =

Bivariate associations of demographics with TLS measures

TABLE 3 Regression of Transformational Learning Survey outcomesa

Predictors Acting Differently Self-Awareness Openness Shift Worldview Composite

Multivariate associations between TLS process and outcome measures

TABLE 4 Regression of Transformational Learning Survey outcomes on process domain measuresa

Predictors (composite Acting Self- Shift Composite Outcome

Original process measures

Study strengths and limitations

Planned next steps

Future research directions

You might also like