Training Early 2016 - Şebnem Et Al - Childhood Teachers For Sustainability - Towards A Learning Experience of A Different

Environmental Education Research
ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20
Training early childhood teachers for

sustainability: towards a ‘learning experience of a
different kind’
Şebnem Feriver, Gaye (Tuncer) Teksöz, Refika Olgan & Alan Reid
To cite this article: Şebnem Feriver, Gaye (Tuncer) Teksöz, Refika Olgan & Alan
Reid (2016) Training early childhood teachers for sustainability: towards a ‘learning
experience of a different kind’, Environmental Education Research, 22:5, 717-746, DOI:
10.1080/13504622.2015.1027883
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1027883
Published online: 20 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1986
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Environmental Education Research, 2016
Vol. 22, No. 5, 717–746, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1027883
Training early childhood teachers for sustainability: towards a

‘learning experience of a different kind’
Şebnem Ferivera*, Gaye (Tuncer) Teksöza, Refika Olgana and Alan Reidb
a
Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey;
b
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
(Received 11 February 2014; accepted 7 March 2015)
In this study, we discuss findings from a small-scale project evaluating an

in-service teacher training programme focused on ‘perspective transformation’ in
early childhood education and education for sustainability (EfS). A bespoke pro-
fessional development programme was developed for Turkish early childhood
teachers, based on a variety of Mezirowian-inspired adult education activities.
Data were gathered using a mixed method research design, from 24 early child-
hood educators, through learning diaries, a Learning Activities Survey and
follow-up interviews. Initial findings illustrate the range of transformations
possible in the teachers’ perspectives during and after the training workshops.
Influential factors in facilitating perspective transformation are shown to be the
content, structure and sequencing of the training, and peer support. We conclude
that transformative learning techniques offer a viable framework for engaging
practicing early childhood teachers with EfS and also discuss implications for
teacher preparation in both areas.
Keywords: education for sustainable development; early childhood; transformative
learning; adult education; teacher education
Introduction
Learning experience of a different kind
In a brief discussion of priorities for curriculum reform, Huckle (2000) gave voice
to a well-known observation that people living in countries with advanced industrial
economies collectively exhibit lifestyle patterns that are ecologically, economically,
socially and culturally unsustainable. Huckle went on to note that this situation is
compounded by implicating a range of non-Western economies too, through various
patterns and effects of globalisation; but that education, including curriculum, seems
to offer little redress, be that nationally or internationally. Yet, within such situations,
according to Schumacher (1973), if nations are to realise a vision of a just and sus-
tainable society, then education should be considered the greatest resource available
to all, regardless of economic conditions or predicaments.
Uncritically accepting the idea that high levels of education automatically con-
tribute to solving the challenges of local to global patterns of unsustainable lifestyle
and economy has long been rejected as a tenable position. On the one hand, Sauter
and Frohlich (2013) note that people in the most educated countries, typically with
*Corresponding author. Email: sebnemferiver@gmail.com
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

718 Ş. Feriver et al.
the most advanced economies,1 have lifestyles that leave the largest ecological foot-
prints on Earth (Global Footprint Network 2007). On the other, as demonstrated by
various environmental education researchers and scholars commenting on theories
and evidence for the effectiveness of particular educational interventions and prac-
tices, it is now well known that education programmes and systems which focus on
passing on information about the causes and effects of environmental issues inevita-
bly falter in having long-term traction on changing behaviours or lifestyles for the
better (see, for example, Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002;
Orr 2004).
In accounting for this situation, Sterling (2010) differs from Huckle, in that he
avoids turning primarily to accounts of economy to pinpoint the crisis in much
mainstream education provision. For Sterling, what is at stake is whether we can
think ‘outside of the box’ to develop requisite learning experiences ‘‘of a different
kind’’ (Schumacher, written 1974, published 1997). Accordingly, the priorities for
educational provision and reform should be discussed and scrutinised in relation to a
research base and current thinking about sound educational practice (see Rickinson
2006). This includes a clear focus on early childhood education (ECE) as a crucial
part of education across the lifespan, rather than for example, economic critique, bet-
ter suited to secondary and post-compulsory stages of education. This is because the
very conceptualisation of childhood and practices of ECE form important founda-
tions for any subsequent learning about and for sustainability (Duhn 2012).
Within the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(2005–2014) (UNESCO 2005), this education (known in Turkey, as education for
sustainability (EfS)), was deliberately positioned as a form of learning of a ‘different
kind’. Like much in the rhetoric of the UN Decade, it has attempted to link knowl-
edge, inquiry and action to help learners build a sustainable future for their com-
munities and the planet. These linkages are typically understood to be the key
vectors for linking lifestyle considerations with those of education across the lifes-
pan. Indeed, as a challenge to many mainstream educational systems around the
world, EfS is expected to be very closely attuned to the philosophies and practices
of ECE, since early childhood is widely recognised as the period in a person’s life
when the foundations of thinking, being, knowing and acting are established, and
relationships with others and the environment are strongly shaped (Samuelsson and
Kaga 2008).
We also note that the pre-school period is widely considered crucial to preparing
for early and then unfolding forms of action and activism around environmental
issues, that is, throughout childhood and into adulthood, given that early formative
experiences may prove difficult to shift or challenge later on (Chawla 1998; Davis
and Gibson 2006; Levy and Zint 2013). Yet, recent research on the intersections of
the action-oriented dimensions of ECE and EfS has shown that there is a lack of
extensive involvement of preschool children as participants in educational activities
explicitly linked to the action-oriented goals outlined in, for example, the UN DESD
(Hedefalk, Almqvist, and Östman 2015). Davis (2009) has already shown that in a
preliminary survey of the literature (from 1996 to 2007), the subject of sustainability
constituted less than 5% of the articles in international research journals concerning
ECE and environmental and/or sustainability education. However, in their more
in-depth follow-up study, Hedefalk et al.’s literature review of studies from 1996 to
2013 shows that a shift in the focus of practice and development is underway: From
a focus in research reports on practices that teach young children facts about the
Environmental Education Research 719
environment and sustainability issues, towards the instigation of studies and practice
development in education that is focused on educating children to act for change.
They conclude that ‘this new approach reveals a more competent child who can
think for him- or herself and make well-considered decisions’ (1); and that this in
turn, has direct implications for the two areas of work that have dominated recent
research in ECE and EfS: (i) how early childhood teachers (come to) understand
EfS, and (ii) how EfS can be implemented in ECE practices, including in ‘fresher’
or ‘more effective’ ways.
The role of teachers in supporting social change

Returning to Sterling (1996), questions of unsustainability and sustainability lead to
questions of the sufficiency of established goals for schooling and educational pro-
cesses, including what he terms the features and institutional dimensions of a ‘sus-
tainable education’ via such considerations as seeing education as sustainability, and
sustainability as education (Sterling 2010). We understand Sterling’s themes as rais-
ing particular challenges for traditional approaches to education, as carried out
though schooling or other formal provision across the lifespan (e.g. kindergartens
through to universities), because of their holistic and systemic underpinnings (e.g.
across economic, ecological, social and cultural dimensions). For example, in inte-
grating aspects of sustainability into education, this will often necessitate educators
thinking critically and creatively about the structuring (and possible restructuring) of
didactical arrangements, and nested within this, what it means to be and become one
amongst many possible teachers of EfS over the course of one’s career, when
‘education for unsustainability’ may be more the order of the day.
We highlight this situation because the most crucial component to a student’s
learning towards sustainability in formal settings is likely to be experienced through
the mediating effects of each and every teacher (Wals 2006), noting too that the per-
spectives, capabilities, competences and priorities of a teacher will also shift over
the course of a career, including possible changes or interruptions to that career, and
various contradictions or conflicts in these when compared with those of other tea-
chers. However, as noted in the UN Decade and much earlier, in the Brundtland
Report (WCED 1987, xiv), the general educational shift advocated here is one that
seeks to encompass a ‘converging transformation’ of the priorities and mindsets of
education professionals, because teachers have ‘a crucial role to play in helping to
bring about extensive social changes’. Accordingly, the professional preparation of
teachers, teachers as the leading actors in shaping children’s learning processes, and
the continuous professional development of teachers across differences of perspec-
tives, goals and practice, are vital considerations for the success of achieving EfS
goals across the lifespan (Hanushek, Rivkin, and Kaim 2005).
With these initial considerations in mind, we also note that according to the
US-based NAEYC (2009a), ECE teachers are seen to have a unique role in prepar-
ing and providing opportunities for children in relation to sustainability. NAEYC
(2009b) argues that young children benefit from well-planned curriculum that both
supports and challenges them to engage their worlds and that of others, be that in
play-based approaches, or structured around other considerations (e.g. Cutter-
Mackenzie and Edwards 2013). Operationalising and evaluating such opportunities,
however, requires a strong sense of the ‘lifelong’ and ‘life-wide’ learning of the chil-
dren being educated, the schooling and phases of schooling children may receive, as
well as the range of priorities of the teachers a child experiences during their educa-
tion.2 Thus, there is a strong case for re-evaluating and possibly shifting educational
orientations and priorities within an early childhood teacher’s professional practice,
particularly regarding how these relate to those involved in the early childhood
phase, and as the possible foundation for many other phases.
Transformative learning as a ‘learning experience of a different kind’

In light of the above discussion, we believe that it may be possible to achieve a
‘learning experience of a different kind’ by reconsidering the focus and content of
ECE and the competencies of early childhood educators as these related to sustain-
ability, during their professional development. We also believe there is a case to
revisit ways of developing practicing teachers’ abilities and priorities in ECE, from
a local rather than international perspectives alone, particularly when the prevailing
practices, approaches and traditions of teacher preparation and education have not
always engaged with some of the considerations and expectations articulated above.
Our study proceeds from a spark provided by Sterling (2010, 19), who notes
that, ‘where there is a call for re-examination of assumptions and values, critical
thinking and new creativity, the concept of transformative learning is coming more
to the fore’. In this and other work, transformative learning is typically traced to the
work of the adult educationalist, Jack Mezirow, and associated activities are
expected to be incorporated in professional development, rather than professional
preparation per se.
From the 1970s onwards, Mezirow has argued that the goal of adult education
must be to guide adult learners towards processes and events of transformation,
working with where people are, rather than where they might start. In other words,
with the support and facilitation of a competent and inquiring teacher, trainer or
facilitator, adult learners can grow and mature intellectually (often with their peers),
and as a result, change as a person through critical reflection on their assumptions,
beliefs and values, practices and actions.
Mezirow (1971) termed this process of change, perspective transformation,
while the expected outcomes of this perspective transformation, as suggested by
Mezirow (1991), are as follows: cultivating individuals who are more inclusive in
their perceptions of the world, the ability to differentiate increasingly its various
aspects, an openness to other points of view, the ability to integrate differing
dimensions of their experiences into meaningful and holistic relationships, and a
willingness to exchange ideas with others and receive help from others.
Perspective change towards sustainability

The work reported here also proceeds from the assumption that ECE, like a
Mezirowian adult education, is likely to be more closely attuned to the idea of
sustainability when compared to other levels of formal education (e.g. secondary
schooling, Haddad 2008) due to the fact that developmentally appropriate practices
(DAP) in EfS and ECE share common characteristics. These include a concern for
engagement with active learning, emphasis on direct experiences, and free explo-
ration of matters of concern to the learner, not just the educator (Cohen 1992). In
addition, as far as EfS in Turkey is concerned, ECE is likely to be a most crucial
component of the education system (i.e. through its presence or absence), and
relatedly, through the quality of what happens through this or otherwise in early
childhood, as a precursor (or not) to other possible experiences related to EfS. Thus,
on the one hand, both the perspectives of educators and what educators working in
the ECE phase do, and on the other, how they are prepared or develop as
practitioners, are crucial considerations, particularly as to whether such teachers are
both empowered and willing to help children develop their potential in fostering
sustainable societies, both there and then, and into the future.
As suggested above, Turkey is, we believe, an interesting location to test out
some of these assumptions and arguments, given our preceding comments and vari-
ous changes that have happened in the country through, for example, globalisation.
Of particular interest are changes in relation to the cultural and economic situation
(e.g. documenting uneven and varied levels of economic development across
regions), but also the preparation and development of teachers, the shift in focus of
national legislation and curriculum, and the expectations for and investment in ECE
at the local level. For this study, we focus on the latter considerations. To illustrate,
we note that the Turkish early childhood curriculum (MoNE 2013) is now predi-
cated on a whole-child approach, and within this context, it aims to provide DAP
with three core areas of knowledge (what is known about child development and
learning, what is individually appropriate, and what is culturally important, see
NAEYC 2009b), alongside problem solving and play-based experiences. The cur-
riculum also aims to support young children’s development in five different
domains, focused on cognitive, motor, language, social-emotional and self-care
skills.
In this, early childhood teachers throughout Turkey are expected to plan and
individualise curriculum objectives based on the needs of young children between
36 and 66 months of age. Although these objectives and their indicators are not
specifically prepared to reflect topics related to local, national or international envi-
ronmental concerns and sustainability, a mandated ‘flexible approach’ to curriculum
planning does allow local teachers to plan and implement different types of
educational activity, and decide upon the type and nature of activities planned in
accordance with their educational objectives (Olgan 2014). In other words, since the
pre-school curricula in Turkey now affords the necessary flexibility for teachers to
integrate attention to sustainability in their work, teachers have the potential to make
an impact on the overall education process and on EfS, through explicitly addressing
this curriculum perspective in their work.
The aim of this small-scale, exploratory study therefore, was to investigate how
teachers might help develop a ‘learning experience of a different kind’ in the context
of EfS for early childhood educators, using Mezirow’s 10-stage transformative
learning approach (Mezirow and Associates 2000) to facilitate this. Coupled with
investigating the contributions and effects of transformative learning to participants’
perspective transformation, the study addressed the following key questions:
(1) How does a transformative learning experience shape the early childhood
teachers’ perspectives of sustainability?
(2) What are the components of transformative learning that facilitate a perspec-
tive transformation in the early childhood teachers towards addressing EfS
too?
Key features of the research

Participants
Twenty-four early childhood educators volunteered for the study, all of who were
working in various public schools in a town located in the north-western part of Tur-
key. As presented in Table 1, most of the teachers (95.8%) of this study were
female, strongly reflecting the overall gender distribution of early childhood teachers
in Turkey: 95.2% female, and 4.8% male (OECD 2012). All of the participants had
a university degree and were familiar with the idea and ideals of reflective practice,
but they had neither formal nor extensive EfS experience in their teacher education
or subsequent professional development. Almost all of them (95.8%) were less than
40 years old,3 and almost 50% had teaching experience of between 5 and 9 years.
Finally, almost all of the participants had participated in in-service training in the
last 18 months.4
Research design
The study utilised mixed methods for data collection and analysis within an explana-
tory research design framework (Creswell 1998). The data collection focused on col-
lecting and analysing quantitative data from participants and then obtaining
qualitative data as a follow-up, before refining the quantitative and qualitative
findings (Fraenkel and Wallen 2006).
Mezirow and Associates (2000) 10-stage transformative learning theory (Table 2)
was used to develop a series of teacher training workshops for the participants,
while most of the content of the EfS activities was designed by the first author
(‘the trainer’) under the banner title, ‘Education is the Key to a Sustainable Future’.
The activities were in four main sections, and addressed as follows: (1) the state of
the planet and lifestyle patterns; (2) relations and networks as well as causes and
effects, plus an introduction to cradle-to-cradle thinking (McDonough and Braungart
2002)5; (3) sustainability, its integration into education and EfS projects; and (4) the
integration of sustainability into one’s life (Table 2). Each session had a common
structure, based on Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model. We also note that in
Table 1. Profile of participants.

Characteristic Frequency
Gender Male 1
Female 23
Education University degree 24
Marital status Single 3
Married 21
Age 25–29 14
30–39 9
40–49 1
Professional experience (years) 1–4 7
5–9 11
10–14 5
15< 1
In-service training Yes 1
Participation in last 18 Months No 23
Note: n = 24.
Table 2. Mezirow’s stages of transformative learning and corresponding EfS context.

Perspective transformation
stages (Mezirow and
Associates 2000) EfS context EfS practice
Stage 1 and 2 – disorienting Nine dots: thinking out of the DAY 1: state of the planet
dilemma and self- box and our behavioural patterns
examination Data discussion: undertaking
analysis of sustainability
situations of the planet
Ecological footprint:
understanding the impact of
consumption patterns on the
planet
Stage 3 – a critical Stations of cause: DAYS 2, 3 and 4:
assessment of epistemic, understanding the causes of exploration of relations and
socio-cultural or psychic unsustainability networks as well as causes
assumptions Commercials: deciding whether and effects. Introduction of
the needs are born out of cradle-to-cradle thinking
necessity or they are merely
taken-for-granted assumptions
Reading assignment-
technology prisons in China:
reflecting basic assumptions on
production processes
Circles: perceiving interaction
amongst society, economy and
ecology
Story of stuff/video film:
finding out the facts behind the
current system
Trading game: understanding
how economic activity in
society has come to dominate
the other components of the
system
Stage 4 – recognition of Recognising other’s discontent
one’s discontent and during the sharing of the
sharing of transformation process of transformation
Stage 5 – exploration of Life of a chair and an apple
new roles, relationships tree: discussing the production
and actions patterns of simple materials we
use in our daily lives
Cradle-to-cradle thinking/
reading assignment:
discovering details of cradle-to-
cradle thinking and its
application to real life
situations
Stage 6 – planning a course We are building sustainable DAYS 5 and 6:
of action schools: discussing sustainable sustainability and its
school models integration into education +
EfS Projects
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued).
Perspective transformation
stages (Mezirow and
Associates 2000) EfS context EfS practice
Stage 7 – acquisition of Ecological intelligence/reading
knowledge and skills for assignment: learning about the
implementing one’s plans concept of ‘ecological
intelligence’ developed by
David Goleman
Characteristics of a sustainable
lesson plan: deciding on
components and characteristics
of a sustainable lesson plan
Who told us that we cannot fly
planes?: Constructing our own
descriptions of ‘sustainability’
Sustainability eyeglasses:
making relations between
sustainability and the pre-
school learning outcomes
prepared by the Ministry of
National Education
Stage 8 and 9 – provisional Micro-teaching: reflecting and
trying of new roles & applying what was learnt by
building of competence presenting a lesson in the
and self-confidence in context of sustainability
new roles and Traffic lights: discussing
relationships possible pre-school
sustainability projects
Stage 10 – reintegration Expectation that participants DAY 7: integration of
into new perspective will move to stage 10 as a sustainability into one’s life
result of 7-day-training process
this training programme, experiential learning was recognised by the participants as

an ‘unconventional structure’ for their professional development, since while they
were familiar with ideas and ideals of reflective practice, this focus necessitated
engaging with unfamiliar techniques and approaches compared to their usual
experiences (see Cranton 1994).
The prepared content of the EfS practice was submitted for panel review to a
group of fourteen ECE, adult education and EfS experts. Based on feedback
received from 10 experts in this group, the initial EfS content was revised.
Instruments
The following instruments were used for data collection: a Learning Activities Sur-
vey (LAS), Learning Diaries (LD) and Interview Forms (IF). The LAS and IF used
in this study were composed of items structured and sequenced by King’s (2009)
recommendations. The instruments were developed through a two-stage process. In
the first, both the LAS and the follow-up IF were translated into Turkish. During the
translation process, additional clarity of meaning was brought into the items with
the help of further explanations and examples. In the second, the adapted
Table 3. Content of Learning Activities Survey (LAS).

Dimensions Item Related research question
First dimension: 1. Thinking about your educational (1) How (which stages)
stages of experiences at this training, check transformative learning
perspective off any statements that may applya experience shapes ECE
transformation 2. Since you have been teachers’ perspectives of
participating in this training, do sustainability?
you believe you have experienced
a time when you realised that your
values, beliefs, opinions or
expectations had changed?b
3. Briefly describe what happened
5. Thinking back to when you
realised that your views or
perspective had changed, what did
your being in this training have to
do with the experience of change?
Second dimension: 4. Which of the following (2) What are the components
components of influenced this change? of transformative learning that
transformative (a) Was it a person who facilitated facilitate perspective
learning the change? transformation to sustainability
(b) Was it a part of training content of ECE teachers?
that facilitated the change?
(c) Was it a significant change in
your life that facilitated the
change?
6(a) Would you characterise
yourself as one who usually thinks
back over previous decisions or
past behaviour?
6(b) Would you say that you
frequently reflect upon the meaning
of your studies for yourself,
personally?
7. Which of the following has been
part of your experience at this
training?c
Third dimension: Sex, marital status, prior education, (1) and (2)
demographic age
characteristics Total year of professional
experience
Total number of participated in-
service trainings taken in last
18 months
a
There are 13 subitems listed in Item 1 that addresses Mezirow’s 10-stage perspective transformation.
b
If respondents did not have perspective transformation, they are directed in Item 2 to go directly to the
last two sections of the assessment tool.
c
Components of in-service training activity were divided into 13 categories.
instruments were submitted for review to the aforementioned expert panel. Based on
the feedback received from 10 of the experts, the LAS and IF were also revised.
Further validation of the original instruments was undertaken in line with recom-
mendations in King (2009). A brief outline of each instrument is now provided.
Learning Activities Survey. This instrument was designed to produce quantitative

data focused on 3 dimensions and 34 items (13 main and 21 sub items) associated
with the learning activities (Table 3). The first dimension utilised Mezirow’s 10
stages of perspective transformation and helped document the participants’ experi-
ences. The second dimension solicited views of what might have caused perspective
transformation experiences, in relation to the impact of training activities, the influ-
ence of other people or the support received, and changes that occurred in the per-
son’s life. Lastly, the third dimension generated information on the demographic
characteristics of the sample (Table 3).
Findings from the LAS were scored through a perspective transformation [PT]
index scale. This was calculated based on the free responses (items 3 and 5) as well
as items 1 and 2, to determine a score on a scale of 1–3 to indicate whether partici-
pants were experiencing a particular level of ‘perspective transformation’. A PT
index of 3 meant that the learner had a perspective transformation attributable to the
training programme, 2 meant a perspective transformation occurred that is not
associated with the training, and 1 meant that the learner did not have any
perspective transformation experience (King 2009).
Interview Form. The interview protocol was developed to extend the scope and
depth of themes from the survey. The IF was comprised of two dimensions corre-
sponding to the two research questions for the study. Thus, similar to LAS, the first
dimension of IF related to Mezirow’s 10 stages of perspective transformation (e.g.
‘Thinking back over your training experience, have you experienced a time when
you realized that your values, beliefs, thoughts and expectations had changed?’),
while the second explored attributions in perspective transformation (e.g. ‘What
caused the change, please explain’). Accordingly, dimension 1 of the IF had two
open-ended questions, and dimension 2 had one closed question with six sub items,
and four open-ended questions with five sub items.
Learning Diaries. The diaries were primarily intended to support reflective learning.
Participants were encouraged to use the diaries as a space to document thinking about
the workshop issues, ask and explore critical questions, consider the integration of the-
ory with practice and vice versa, and promote reflexive professional development
(Brown and Sorrell 1993; Patton, Wood, and Agarenzo 1997). In addition to enhancing
participants’ learning through the process of writing and thinking, the diaries were also
used to corroborate and/or elaborate data collected through the LAS and IF. The partici-
pants completed their LD at the end of each workshop session, responding to the fol-
lowing four open-ended questions: What were the issues that kept my mind busy today?
What did I do today? What did I learn today? How can I use this experience?
Implementation
Participants were briefed about the aims and key features of the project before pro-
ceeding, in line with the ethical considerations for the training and research. The
EfS workshops took place in a state run pre-school located in Sakarya in the north-
west of Turkey in 2013. The training consisted of a series of 21 sessions (each of
about 90 min), 28 h in total, taking place over 7 consecutive days. The activities for
each day were developed according to the perspective transformation stages targeted
for that particular part of the programme (Table 2).
Data collection
Data collection through the LD took place throughout the workshop period, while
for the other instruments (LAS and IF), data were collected after the completion of
the workshop and training activities, at the end of the seventh day.
Each interview was conducted by the trainer at the training venue. The language
used for interviews was Turkish and lasted approximately 10–20 min. Interviews
were conducted with six participants immediately after the initial analysis of LAS
data in order to explore and contextualise the findings from the survey. The purpose
of each interview was explained to the participant before conducting the interview.
Each interview session was audiotaped with the permission of the participant and
transcribed.
Data analysis
The study used quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques. For the former,
basic descriptive statistics were derived using PASW Statistics 18. During the initial
analysis of the LAS data, a PT index was assigned to each completed questionnaire
while the final analysis of quantitative data focused on the frequencies, proportions
and coding of free responses. The analysis of qualitative data was driven by content
analysis methods sensitised by concepts and themes associated with each of the
perspective transformation stages.
The interview data were coded by two researchers, in Turkish, using NVivo ver-
sion 8.0 software. Coding focused on the presence and quality of material related to
the themes derived from the participants’ comments and literature review themes.
Concepts and stages in Mezirow’s theory of perspective transformation were used
for systematic coding, coupled with an open coding phase, based on established
grounded theory techniques (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The examination of data
was undertaken on the basis of sentences and paragraphs, or by a holistic analysis of
an entire section or document. The first and second authors coded the statements
and sought agreement on code names and the way data were coded. The percentage
of agreement calculated after the independent coding of two interviews was found to
be 80%. Afterwards, the interview texts and the codes were translated into English
for reporting purposes, by the trainer who is a fluent English and Turkish speaker.
Quotes (and the reporting of the study) were checked for accuracy, for example of
translation, communication and explanatory power, by a native speaker (the fourth
author).
As mentioned earlier, the LD collected at the end of each training day also
enabled the trainer to monitor progress on the multi-dimensional qualities of per-
spective transformation, such as reactions and responses emerging from challenges
built into the training activities. This feedback was then used during the programme
to revise the ensuing training sessions, such as to provide further opportunities for
the participants to share concerns or challenges to their thinking and practice in later
sessions.
Findings
A summary of the ECE teachers’ levels coded against stages of perspective
transformation is presented in Tables 4 and 5. The following subsections illustrate
Table 4. Results related to Mezirow’s perspective transformation stages.

Mezirow’s perspective
transformation stages Item in LAS Frequency
1 – Disorienting dilemma 1(a) I had a training experience that caused 24
me to question the way I normally act
1(b) I had an experience that caused me 20
to question my ideas about social roles.
(Example of social roles includes how a
teacher, a mother, a father or a child
should act.)
2 – Self-examination* 1(c) As I questioned my ideas, I realised I 14
no longer agreed with my previous beliefs
or role expectations
1(d) As I questioned my ideas, I realised I 7
still agreed with my beliefs or role
expectations
3 – A critical assessment of 1(g) After the training, I felt 22
epistemic, socio-cultural or uncomfortable with traditional role
psychic assumptions expectations (values, habits, behaviour
patterns)
4 – Recognition of one’s discontent 1(e) I realised that other participants also 19
and the process of transformation questioned their beliefs
are shared
5 – Exploration of new roles, 1(f) Before participating the training, I 12
relationships and actions was thinking that I should be acting in a
different way because of my usual beliefs
and roles
6 – Planning a course of action 1(i) I am planning to try to figure out a 16
way to adopt these new ways of acting
7 – Acquisition of knowledge and 1(j) I have an intention to gather the 17
skills for implementing one’s information I needed to adopt these new
plans ways of acting
8 – Provisional trying of new roles 1(h) I am planning to try out new roles 24
so that I would become more comfortable
or confident in them
9 – Building of competence and 1(k) I began to think about the reaction 13
self-confidence in new roles and and feedback from my new behaviour
relationships
10 – Reintegration of a new 1(l) I took action and I am fully adapted 18
perspective into one’s life to these new ways of acting compatible
with sustainability
Diagnosis and interpretation 1(m) I do not identify with any of the 0

statements above
Note: n = 24.
*Since item 1(c) and (d) represent two opposite ends of a single statement, participants were expected
to choose either one of them. However, three respondents choose not to answer this question. Research-
ers examined Items 3 and 5 to verify this situation and decided that the respondents left these items
unanswered due to the lack of full understanding regarding those statements.
features of the day-by-day transformation processes drawing on results from the

quantitative data and extracts from the qualitative data, followed by a general
discussion of the findings.
Table 5. Results of the qualitative analysis: codes, descriptions and frequencies.

Stage and code labels Code description Frequency
Stage1 Critically reviewing the current state of the planet in a 6
Realisation of comparative manner, experiencing a vastly different
unsustainability world view from their own and becoming disoriented
about their own beliefs and life choices
Stage 2 Outcomes of the activity: attaining an awakening 5
Ecological footprint about formative assumptions, values, beliefs and
activity actions; realisation of no longer being in agreement
with formative assumptions
Fear and concern Uneasy feelings generated by a new worldview 6
Self-examination Realisation of disagreement with previous beliefs 10
or role expectations
Stage 3 Outcomes of the reading: critically reflecting on 2
Technology prisons in basic assumptions regarding production processes
China-reading
assignment
Stage 4 Sharing own discontent with others, sharing newly 13
Interaction with others acquired information with others
Stage 5 Outcome of the activity: realisation of new ways of 8
Chair and apple tree acting
Exploration of new Realisation of possible alternative ways to move 7
options forward in life
Stage 6 Subcode-home-based environmental action plans: 2
Environmental action plans to become more environmentally conscious
plans at home
Subcode-society-based environmental action plans: 4
plans to contribute to the immediate community in
terms of becoming more environmentally conscious
Stage 7 Gathering information to implement one’s plans 6
Undertaking research
Stage 8 Subcode-home-based actions: Actions that have 8
Home-based tendency to be environmentally conscious related
environmental actions to the home such as composting waste, recycling,
saving energy and water
Subcode-environmentally conscious purchase: 3
Actions to become environmentally conscious in
making purchases such as buying organic food,
environmentally friendly products, reading the
labels of the products
Stage 9 Increased confidence and autonomy 11
Empowerment
Note: n = 6.
Learning experience of a different kind: perspective transformation for

sustainability
DAY 1: living in an unsustainable system: how will my child survive?
The first part of the training focused on Mezirowian Stage 1 activities. These were
designed to help participants question their frames of reference and the effects of
their different roles in life in constructing those frames. Activities included partici-
pants experiencing a disorienting dilemma to examine the ‘Self’ (Table 2).
The results of quantitative analysis showed that all the participants agreed that
the activity had caused them to question the way they normally act in particular sus-
tainability-related situations. Of the 24 participants, 20 stated that the activity caused
them to question their ideas about social roles (Table 4). During the interviews, all
six participants elaborated that they compared and contrasted the current state of the
planet with situations from the past, and this resulted in them experiencing a sense
that a profoundly different lifestyle pattern was possible and desirable in contrast to
their initial perspective, and that they could begin to question their existing beliefs,
frameworks and the life choices they had made, from a sustainability perspective.
Stage 2 of the training, in accordance with Mezirow, focused on coming to dee-
per realisations about their formative assumptions, values, beliefs and actions. Thus,
the training activities were designed to anticipate that participants would arrive at a
state in which they no longer felt it necessary to agree wholeheartedly with their
previous assumptions.
More than half the participants agreed with the item in LAS that stated, ‘As I ques-
tioned my ideas, I realised I no longer agreed with my previous beliefs or role expecta-
tions’ (Table 4). The results of the interview analysis, however, showed that Stage 2
was the most frequently mentioned by all participants as most formative for changing
the focus of their ECE practice (21 times). The following extracts from the participants’
evaluations illustrate some of their initial self-questioning during the interviews:
P3: When I realised that we are living in an unsustainable system, I was terrified
and I was very pessimistic. We cannot continue like this. How will my child
survive?
P5: I wasn’t aware of my negative effect on the planet. For example, I didn’t
know the concept of an ecological footprint.
P6: Calculating our own ecological footprints resulted in important changes in my
perspective. I realised that my decisions support the unsustainable situation of
the planet. I looked at myself in this activity. I evaluated my actions and saw
that I am doing wrong. I started being aware of the impact of my actions on
the planet.
The participants’ evaluations in their LD further supported such comments,

expressing a sense of anxiety, moralised and/or ethically concerned discourse, and the
ways in which they had started to examine or redirect their behaviours. For example:
LD5: I was living in angst with the perspective that our children would be facing
the prospect of a planet that would be impossible to live in. Under these cir-
cumstances, giving birth to a child does not seem rational to me.
LD18: I realised that I am approaching the issues within limited boundaries defined
by society and myself.
DAY 2, 3 & 4: awakening: how could we be so blind?

The second tranche of training activities was designed to assist the participants’
perspective transformation journeys through the testing and exploration of new
frames of reference related to sustainability.
To start, the aim of Stage 3 was to foster a stage in perspective transformation
that led to critically assessing internalised role assumptions (Table 2). Within the
participants’ responses in the LAS, 22 of 24 of the participants agreed with item 1 g

that stated, ‘After the training, I felt uncomfortable with traditional role expectations
(values, habits, behaviour patterns)’ (as shown in Table 4). The interview results
revealed that the texts in the reading assignment, that is ‘Technology Prisons in
China’, and the ‘Trading Game’, were most significant for the teachers’ critical
assessment of internalised role assumptions:
P4: I read the reading assignment [Technology Prisons in China] and I was horri-
fied. This is a humanitarian crisis, mass killing. I read it to my husband, and
to my landlord who also lives in my building. I was badly affected and
thought that we should disseminate the content to everyone.
P8: The Trading Game showed me that money dominates everything and affects
all the other components of the system in an ill-balanced way. We should stop
and look at ourselves because we have forgotten what really matters.
Statements in the LD provided further evidence in illustrating the ways that par-
ticipants had become uncomfortable with traditional role expectations, for example:
LD7: I thought that I should be more critical of my consumption patterns and thor-
oughly reconsider them.
During activities associated with Stage 4, the participants shared their discontent
with others in the group, in order to recognise that some of their concerns might be
shared. The LAS results revealed that 19 of 24 participants realised that the other
participants also questioned their own beliefs (Table 4). In the interviews, most of
the participants stated that they no longer felt alone when trying to cope with their
disorienting dilemmas. For example:
P6: I had the opportunity to hear things from other participants that I hadn’t
thought of until then. I started to learn new things from other participants
which had never occurred to me before. This has motivated me to undertake
further research since I did not take the statements of the other participants at
face value. Only if I could corroborate their views with my research would I
change my views.
Interactions amongst the group members were often seen to further their
individual journeys of perspective transformation, as explained by one participant:
LD3: I noticed the positive impact of collaborative working when discussing and
creating ideas with my group mates.
Additionally, some participants reported they had decided to share the learning
experience beyond the group:
P1: We started evaluating ourselves. At the end of the day, I shared everything I
gained from this training with my husband. He also gave his comments.
P3: As soon as possible, I plan to meet with the parents. I will also share with my
students the things that I’ve learned with my students.
Relaying their concerns and discontent to others also seemed to help the teachers
continue their transformative journeys, including assisting in the exploration of new
roles, relationships and actions (Stage 5). However, not all of this could be attributed
to the programme: half of the participants suggested that before participating in the
training, they had thought they already considered it necessary to act in different
ways to their usual beliefs and roles, even if this was not necessarily in relation to a
sustainability perspective.
The Chair and Apple Tree activities were identified by the participants as the most
significant aspects of the training that helped them at this stage. In these activities, the
participants discussed production patterns of simple materials used in daily life. Their
comments showed they realised that prevailing production patterns and priorities
were unsustainable and that both producers and consumers have a responsibility for
challenging this outcome. The training session also compared cradle-to-grave with a
cradle-to-cradle approach. Participants responded to this recognising that, for
example, nature itself offers a very unique model for ‘production cycles’ and hence
for sustainable living, for example through biomimicry. Also, they understood that all
stages of production can be designed according to cradle-to-cradle principles:
P6: While doing the life of an apple tree activity I asked myself following
questions: ‘why don’t we observe nature?’ and ‘how could we be so blind?’ I
realised that natural systems were very well designed and balanced. Our real
intention should be maintaining such balance. Even though I was raised in a
village, in the countryside – not being aware of these facts I mentioned hurt
me a lot.
P3: Later, with the perception I gained through this training and my own parallel
research, I became aware of the existence of new options and possibilities. I
thought that we can move on in a more optimistic and hopeful way. I have
positive feelings at the end of the training.
One participant openly stated in her LD that through the training, she had
discovered a reliable model for understanding what is required to live sustainably,
commenting ‘‘Cradle-to-cradle thinking has been a source of hope for me’’ (LD5).
DAY 5 and 6: empowerment: it’s time for action

The third section of the training was designed to affirm participants’ newly explored
frames of reference and connect sustainability with education and daily practices, so as
to help reach a perspective that integrated sustainability into personal and professional
considerations. Thus, Stage 6 of the training included planning a course of action that
would accord with a new and more sustainable worldview (Table 2). The results of the
quantitative data analysis revealed that 16 of 24 participants went through this stage suc-
cessfully. During the interviews, environmental action plans were framed mainly within
a home/relational and social/peer framework, rather than, say, an industrial/economic
one. 7.5% of the interview codes were found to be related to this stage:
P1: We (my husband and I) have some projects. We’ll make an effort together. I
used to do my best regarding recycling, but still I used to throw away food
leftovers. I wasn’t able to think about alternative ways. After this training, my
husband and I decided to put a bucket of soil on our balcony, we will throw
our organic waste into this bucket of soil and we’ll use this soil as organic
compost, fertiliser for the trees in our garden. We have already started to be
active in this way.
As anticipated in Stage 7, participants would need to acquire knowledge and

skills to implement their plans in tune with sustainability imperatives. The results of
the LAS revealed that 17 of 24 participants expressed an intention to gather the

information they needed to adopt new ways of acting. The interviews demonstrated
that the participants often expected they would need more information and support
about the topic and action strategies than provided in the training:
P5: I have started reading about sustainability and its applications on real life
situations. Also, I am planning to become a member of an organisation work-
ing in this field (sustainability). I prefer to take an action with support of a
group to expand my sphere of influence.
In an LD, one participant explained that the training had encouraged them to
undertake research in order to construct a new perspective:
LD22: From the first day of the training, I started to search the internet for informa-
tion to complement my actual experience during the training. I concluded that
we live in a huge interactive network system, where every component func-
tions in interaction with others. I am now occupied with how to enrich this
interaction.
Stage 8 was focused on the provisional trialling of new roles. In this stage, par-
ticipants were encouraged to try out possible new roles and ways of behaving. All
the participants completing the LAS checked the item ‘I’m planning to try out new
roles so that I will become more comfortable or confident with them’. The inter-
views revealed that while trying out new roles through a transformative learning
approach, the participants were largely practicing home-based actions focused on
composting waste, recycling, saving energy and water as well as engaging in envi-
ronmentally conscious purchases, such as buying organic food, environmentally
friendly products, and reading labels of the products:
P4: I don’t want to use the products I have at home. Right after the training, I
started doing some research in my home. I realised that I had an environmen-
tal education book, I’ve recently noticed that. I visited the web addresses you
(the trainer) provided. Now, I don’t use the dishwasher unless it is fully
loaded. I started reading product labels. I actually started reading more thor-
oughly. I used to buy things because they were cheap rather than paying atten-
tion to whether I needed them. I won’t do that anymore and I won’t let that
be done either.
P3: I started using less energy and less water. At home, I replaced regular bulbs
with energy saving bulbs. I started noticing the product itself rather than the
price while shopping. I don’t buy too much food, I buy food as much as I
need. I don’t let food decay.
The statements in the LD supported the participants’ claims, largely signalling

they were planning home- and lifestyle-based actions:
LD12: Configuring a sustainable life is not a dream. We can start with our own pat-
terns, family and daily routines. I became an attentive product label reader
thanks to this training.
One of the main objectives of the training was to empower participants in

building their competences and self-confidence in new roles. Thirteen of the twenty
four participants stated that they had begun to think about the reaction to their new
behaviours and feedback from others. The qualitative data findings revealed that at
the end of the training, four of six interviewees said they had ‘more power’ to
review their assumptions and became more courageous in terms of taking action:
P1: I am very excited. I feel that I am productive once again. I am now sure that I
can take many steps for the betterment of humanity in my humble capacity.
This excites me a lot.
Statements in the LD also revealed that participants were exploring new ways of
acting in order to integrate EfS into the ECE curriculum:
LD4: I was surprised to see how many opportunities exist in terms of planning and
applying EfS projects in my school. I will start working on one of the EfS
projects as soon as possible.
LD20: I have noticed that most of the ECE learning outcomes are compatible with
the perspective of EfS, and that this training showed me how to integrate this
perspective into the curriculum. Now, I have a long ‘to do’ list as a mother,
wife and teacher.
LD14: We, teachers, are the engines of the education system. We are the role models
for our students. If we want to affect our students’ lives to improve them, we
have to change our mindset to reach our ‘inner selves’.
DAY 7: full adaptation to sustainability

The last section of the training aimed to move the participants towards an under-
standing of the final stage of perspective transformation, namely the reintegration of
sustainability into one’s life (Table 2). Eighteen of twenty four participants stated
that they had taken action and they were fully prepared to pursue new ways of
acting. Unsurprisingly though, the findings from the qualitative analysis of the
interviews or the LD revealed that all the participants mentioned plans or small-scale
actions rather than full adoption at this point in time.
Facilitators of perspective transformation

Findings about the facilitation of perspective transformation fell into two major cate-
gories: (1) the role of support and challenge and (2) the content and structure of the
training.
Role of support and challenge

Unsurprisingly, both the qualitative and quantitative data showed that the trainer and
other participants had major impacts on the individual’s journey of transformation
(Table 6). Even though only five of the participants had stated that they had accepted
support from another participant as one of the contributors to perspective trans-
formation, according to the results from the LAS, the number of participants who
accepted support was 21. For example:
P1: I felt confident when I realised that I am not the only one who thinks in this
or that way. I do not feel isolated anymore. My thoughts are not trapped in
my mind any longer; they can be a part of other people’s lives. It was great to
realise this fact. This training gave me the chance to experience this feeling.
Table 6. Facilitating transformation – ranking of support (LAS).

Facilitating transformative learning-support Frequency
Support of the trainer 21
Challenge from the trainer 10
Support of a participant 5
Other person 5
Note: n = 24.
Both the IF and LD revealed that the trainer was considered to be one of the
main contributors to any perspective transformation. As the results from the LAS
demonstrated, 21 of 24 participants stated that the support of the trainer was one of
the key factors that facilitated their transformative learning experiences. During the
interviews, however, all the participants elaborated the positive effects of the
trainer’s involvement on the transformation process; for example:
P5: I observed your role as a trainer and realised that you walk your talk. You
believe in what you say. You have made it (sustainability) the main principle
of your life. You affected us with this way of behaving. This is very critical.
In our culture we say ‘do what the wise man says, don’t do what he does’.
You break this taboo. Your sincere approach gave us the impression of ability,
encouragement and confidence. Once you get the message from a person you
respect that ‘you can do something’, it’s easy.
Structure and content of the training

Equally unsurprising was that the structure as well as the content of the training had
important implications for the participants’ perspective transformation processes.
Most of the LAS responses (18) openly stated that the structure of the training trig-
gered and scaffolded their transformation experience. In addition, all interviewees
mentioned the structure of the training as a key facilitating factor of continuing
learning experience:
P2: Thanks to the unconventional structure of the training, I got immersed into
the training and as a result, I took part in it with enthusiasm.
P5: The moment I met you, I realised that I would go through an unconventional
experience. Unlike similar training, where attendees take part as mere passive
participants, I realised that I would be an active participant in this one. Your
classroom management style and the curriculum you prepared made me think
that way. For me this is very important.
As a result, it can be seen that the in-service training content designed and
implemented in this study shaped the ECE teachers’ perspectives of sustainability as
expected. This experience began with a degree of fear and uncertainty and continued
through to testing and exploration. Participants then sought affirmation of the knowl-
edge and attained a degree of empowerment, and finally, some of them partially
achieved a new perspective in harmony with sustainability. One of the interviewees
summarised her experience as follows:
P4: The training as a whole made a lot of difference in terms of how I look at
myself and my profession. All the activities complemented each other and
guided us throughout the process. At the beginning, I was terrified, now I am

hopeful and full of energy to change my conventional point of view.
The quantitative data analysis revealed that most frequently mentioned

Mezirowian stages were 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10. According to the qualitative results
presented above, the participants mostly experienced Mezirowian stages 1, 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 and 9. The LD, however, demonstrated that throughout the learning
experience the participants cycled through all stages except 10.
Discussion
In discussing the implementation of a transformative learning programme for an
‘education of a different kind’, we will now focus on two themes from this group of
ECE teachers: how transformative learning shapes ECE teachers’ perspective of
sustainability, and how it facilitates their perspective of sustainability.
Transformative learning for shaping ECE teachers’ perspective of sustainability

The programme drew heavily on Mezirow’s stages of transformative learning as an
instrument to frame and facilitate an understanding of the perspective transformation
experience of ECE teachers towards sustainability.
Our first observation, in line with that of Cranton (1994), is that, in terms of
practical applications, it is very difficult to make distinctions between stages and it
is possible to move back and forth between stages in addition to experiencing stages
(or elements thereof) concurrently. Similarly, King suggested that this whole process
can be seen as a ‘cycling through’ (2004, 92) as new ideas are tested, affirmed, con-
nected and new perspectives are formed. Therefore, even though we have presented
the results of transformative learning through concrete stages, we argue that it is
impossible to form clean-cut boundaries between them.
Secondly, given what we observed and analysed in the LD of participants, it is
little surprise that the process of transformative learning varies from person to per-
son. This is in also similar to Cranton’s findings (1994, 69), who commented that,
‘all learners do not go through the same stages at the same time’. Dirkx (1998) also
reminds us that adults are a highly diversified group of individuals with different
abilities as well as educational and cultural backgrounds, and to expect uniform out-
comes from training predicated on transformative learning principles is short-sighted
and ill-founded.
Thirdly, the results showed that the teachers in this study had an experience that
did not fit their pre-existing meaning structure (i.e. it lacked a sustainability perspec-
tive) and this situation resulted in a disorienting dilemma. Such findings are typical
of such training; as reported by Ison and Stowell (2000, 3), when confronted with
sustainability perspectives, the risk is ‘each learner goes through a period of chaos,
confusion and is overwhelmed by complexity’. However, Taylor (2007, 174) consid-
ered that the disorienting dilemma can be perceived as ‘catalyst for change’. For
Newman (2012) and Daloz (2000), although a single event, under certain circum-
stances, it may start and catalyse the change, but this does not constitute a steady
pattern. Nor is it a necessary condition for the process to have a clear beginning.
Consistent with these wider findings, we also observed that participants experienced
the disorienting dilemma at various times; at the beginning in many cases, but also
in later stages, and at other times throughout the study. Furthermore, according to
the interview findings, we saw that the dilemmas experienced by our participants
could be both epoch-making and incremental. Clark’s (1993) proposal explains this
situation in suggesting that there are two types of transformation: a change can occur
gradually or form a sudden and powerful experience. The latter is reflected in the
comment made by one of the participants:
P6: While we were calculating our ecological footprints, we were confronted by
some facts. I realised that I was also a part of it (unsustainability). I just
stopped and looked at myself. Why hadn’t I seen this, why didn’t I realise
them [the facts]? I evaluated myself, this moment was my revival.
Fourthly, it was also found that the perspective transformation experience in our
study was often triggered by critical thinking activities, especially through self-
examination and critical assessment of internalised role assumptions. This finding is
parallel with the core assumptions of transformative learning, in that a perspective
transformation experience involves a critical questioning of beliefs and assumptions
as learners review the framework through which they have viewed their world (King
2009). Accordingly, our findings support the assumption made by Mezirow (2009)
and Taylor (2007) that critical reflection is best perceived as a central component of
transformation. Qualifying critical reflection as a rational thinking process, Mezirow
(2009, 29) terms this as ‘transformative rationality’. The process does, however,
exclude other ways of knowing (Walter 2013), for example that predicated on
experiential learning beyond a transformative framework. However, in our study, the
LD provided us with evidence of work taking place in the affective domain as part
of the participants’ critical reflection (see quotations above).
In particular, throughout the EfS activities, we observed that participants began
taking risks, trying out new perspectives related to sustainability, engaging in
self-reflection and also, sometimes, self-doubt. All the participants stated that they
no longer agreed with their previous beliefs or role expectations after questioning
their earlier ideas.
Bawden and Packham (1993, 6) try to differentiate this: as ‘seeing our world-
view’ from ‘seeing with our world view’, but such a perspective shift does not
always consider the affective dimension if the focus is on the cognitive aspects of
worldview. Thus, we note in this project, at this particular juncture, sharing their
feelings and reasoning about discontent with others often helped the teachers to
continue their journey to transformation.
It is possible to explain these findings with King’s (2004) hypothesis that, if
learners can gain confidence, then they test and explore new options and they do it
when they receive support. While as indicated in other recent research, the role of
relationship in transformative learning is very significant (Taylor 2007). For exam-
ple, it has been argued that Mezirow’s perspective transformation is often positioned
as a ‘lonely’ process in nature (Daloz 2000, 105 and it has less emphasis on collec-
tive activity as recommended in Paulo Freire’s ‘conscientisation’ (1972a, 1972b).
However, parallel to the criticisms presented by Newman (2012) and Schugurensky
(2002), we have observed that the participants in our study, more often than not,
were intent on exhibiting collective action towards sustainability. They constantly
shared their process and insights, reactions and questions with their family and
friends. They explained that they wanted to become members of civil society
organisations to make a difference. While in the LD, almost all participants declared
their intention to organise parent involvement activities to create collective projects.
A fifth point that emerged from our analysis and reflection on the data is related
to environmental action plans. It was interesting to discover that all participants had
plans to expend effort in trying out new roles and ways of behaving. We reached the
conclusion that participants’ focus on action plans were home-based and society-
based (a closed circle such as kin and neighbours) activities. One possible explana-
tion for these preferences can be the fact that pro-environmental actions in and
around the home constitute little threat to accepted social norms (Barr, Gilg, and
Shaw 2011). Another is that the training had not specifically modelled alternatives
spheres of action (Levy and Zint 2013).
Through the analysis of LAS, interviews, the LD and the reactions of the partici-
pants throughout the practice, we concluded that this experience had mainly encour-
aged most participants to learn more. Most of the participants wanted to gather and
engage information that would help them develop new ways of acting with sustain-
able living in mind. The later stages of activities helped them to realise that they can
connect their knowledge to their new roles, relationships and actions with their own
lives. This situation also encouraged them to inhabit the initial stages of trying out
new roles. The typical outcome pathway of this new knowledge was that individuals
envisaged they would begin to change their consumption patterns.
Evidently, ‘home’-based behaviours represented a relatively convenient and sim-
ple way of making minor lifestyle changes. In the field of environmental education,
these pro-environmental behaviours (such as recycling), often link with and rein-
force positive attitudes towards resource conservation and reuse (Heimlich and
Ardoin 2008). The overwhelming focus of participants’ intended actions in the train-
ing programme was behaviours that could be related to daily and weekly practices
of consumption. In our study, we also acknowledge that the training aimed to guide
the participants towards understanding and building new perspectives that will
change their lifestyle to incorporate environmental concerns, but as explained by
Shove (2003), this type of change was encouraged in ways closely related to exist-
ing, everyday practices that are best understood as minor adaptations to purchasing
habits, resource use and management of the waste, rather than being framed around
specific environmentally related practices (Barr and Gilg 2006).
The qualitative data clearly showed that the introduction to EfS also brought an
increased sense of autonomy and empowerment amongst participants. King (2000)
stated that learner empowerment is one of the predominant goals of adult education,
while Cranton (1994) added another component to this argument by claiming that
learner empowerment is also a specific goal for transformative learning. The
empowered learner, as Cranton (1994) explained, is more likely to feel free to par-
ticipate in critical discourse, while empowerment is predicated on the ability to
assess evidence and engagement in critical reflection.
A final point on this returns us to the debate regarding the timing and experience
of the last stage of transformative learning. In our study, given the programme’s
duration and the data collection schedule, it is of little surprise that there is no evi-
dence of the reintegration of a new perspective. In particular, Stage 10 (reintegration
of a new perspective into one’s life) requires the participants to reach beyond
conceptual boundaries to see possibilities that they have not previously conceived.
In this stage, learners are able to reflect and develop new ideas, view learning and
meaning in new ways, as well as reintegrate the new perspective into their own lives
(King 2004). In this study, it can be concluded that the results of the qualitative
measures revealed that participant’s actions are only partial examples of ‘reintegra-
tion of sustainability into one’s life’. Behaviours that demand lifestyle and habit
changes require a greater sense of self-efficacy and are more complex (Winfield and
Whaley 2002). As explained above, engagement with the EfS activities only took
place during a week. Both the one-shot implementation and duration of the study
are likely to be the main factors behind the absence of building competence and
self-confidence in new roles and relationships, as well as reaching a wider and dee-
per engagement with sustainability. This possibility brings us to the conclusion that
system-wide strategies rather than single short-term attempts may help teachers to
achieve wider transformative learning experiences.
Although this research might be regarded as a promising implementation of the
Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, the above-mentioned results also
remind us of some criticisms that the theory have received recently. For example,
Newman (2012) has argued that transformative learning is not an identifiable phe-
nomenon; rather it is a collection of good learning because transformations can only
be verified through the learners’ statements. Besides, both Newman (2012) and
Schugurensky (2002), have criticised the non-linear character of transformative
learning in that it lacks a clear start or an end, and it is seldom experienced as either
a sudden or a disorienting process.
Other criticisms of Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning are linked to the
nature of its relationship to the emotional and affective aspects of learning (Miles
2002; Taylor 2008) owing to Mezirow’s over-emphasis of individual transformation.
The reasoning behind these criticisms mainly reflects a concern for the core features
of learning, in that it can be identified in relations (Wilson 1993) within collective
settings and reactions (Newman 2012), and that these can be strongly gendered,
rather than simply a matter of age or stage.
In fact, transformative learning is also defined by King (2009) as an experience of
critical questioning of beliefs and assumptions as learners review the framework
through which they view their world. According to King (2002, 199), participants
who experience the journey of transformation often start with (1) fear and uncertainty,
go through the experience of, (2) testing and exploration, (3) affirmation of the
knowledge and autonomy, and finally reach, (4) a new perspective in harmony with
new frame references. Referring to the model used in this training programme, King’s
model of the learning experience can be evaluated as an integrative demonstration of
Mezirow’s 10-stage transformative learning theory (Mezirow and Associates 2000).
Transformative learning for facilitating ECE teachers’ perspective of

sustainability
In our study, two factors (the role of support and challenge, and content as well as
the structure of the EfS practice) were found to be the main facilitators of the ECE
teachers’ perspective of sustainability.
Receiving support was found to be an influential factor affecting the perspective
transformation experience. Participants claimed that they shared their journey of
transformation with other group members and this helped them continue their critical
exploration of new perspectives. One of the reasons for support being such an
influential factor is related to the context of the EfS practice: we used group work
settings throughout the practice as a tool to connect the social experience and social
actions of participants (Brookfield 1987; Imel 1996). Therefore, parallel to the

findings of Cranton (1996) that transformative learning groups focus on critical
reflection in order to testify their expectations, assumptions and perspectives, the
participants of our study received feedback from other learners and the trainer while
exploring alternatives and questioning assumptions.
Equally, the role of trainer was found to be another influential factor affecting
perspective transformation. The majority of LAS respondents (21) and all of the
interviewed participants recognised the support of the trainer as one of the main
contributors of perspective transformation. This is also found in the literature. For
example, Mezirow (1991) defined the role of the trainer as the promoter of trans-
formative learning, and from this perspective, the trainer is both co-learner and
provocateur during the process (Mezirow 1997). The provocateur helps learners
become aware of distorted assumptions and helps them handle the gaps between
the expressed values and their actions (Mezirow 1991). In this respect, the trainer
in this study intentionally interfered with the participants’ taken-for-granted
assumptions to help them to ‘move towards inclusive, permeable, integrated
meaning perspectives’ (Lange 2004, 134). Hence, we can infer as a result that, if
a trainer truly cares about the learner, this attitude should encourage further
self-reflection (Cranton 1994).
In the literature, support is viewed as a key facilitator of transformative learning
primarily because it provides emotional, psychological or educational assistance to
the learners (Bloom 1995; Boyd 1991; Daloz 1987; Dirkx 1997; King 2005). In
transformative journeys, there is often evidence of powerful emotional experiences
(Dirkx and Smith 2009), illustrations of which are hinted at in the quotations above.
The characteristics of both the learner (Cranton 1994) and the instructor (Cranton
1994; Mezirow 1997; Taylor 2008) are considered the other key factors that trigger
a perspective transformation. In addition, life experiences of change are also listed
as important factors leading the transformational changes (King 2009). Therefore,
understanding more about the participants, their life histories and experiences of
change is a priority for future work. In this, it is often expected that individuals may
also transform their perspectives due to trigger events in their lives (Merriam,
Caffarella, and Baumgartner 2006; Mezirow and Associates 2000). While according
to Mezirow (1997), transformational learning can be stimulated through a variety of
ways, such as journal writing, metaphors, life history exploration, group projects
and role-play – techniques and approaches also suited to further work and
development.
Our final point about facilitation concerns the content and the structure of the
EfS training. As noted above, most of the LAS respondents and all the interviewees
mentioned that they found this experience unconventional while the structure and
sequencing of activities positively contributed to their journey of perspective trans-
formation. Therefore, it should be restated that while Kolb’s (1984) experiential
learning cycle was taken as the model for the unconventional structure, the design
of the training could be developed further if different parameters were available,
such as to encourage more hands-on experiences, cyclical pattern of learning over
more extended time periods, and revisiting various components and stages in a ser-
ies of loops, as inspired by the suggestions made by previous researchers (King
2004; Litfin 2005; Taylor 1997).
Conclusions
In Turkey, as in many other parts of the world, EfS has not yet gained the
profile in ECE that it requires to achieve the goals expected of EfS. Equally,
Turkish teachers still do not receive sufficient exposure to EfS during their pre
and in-service training (e.g. Feriver 2010). Thus, possibilities such as those pre-
sented in this research, should be explored further, including independent studies
of their potential to build additional capacity, raise further awareness and foster
new ideas related to sustainability in pedagogical practice of ECE teachers.
However, since EfS is a virtually untouched concept in the Turkish ECE dis-
course, especially in the countries with no EfS strategy such as Turkey (Feriver
2010), this study was designed to explore possibilities for introducing EfS to the
practice of ECE teachers.
We have argued in the introduction that a sustainable future can be realised
through ‘education of a different kind’. We also argued that teachers should be
encouraged to view pedagogy from an ‘education of a different kind’ perspec-
tive, which focuses on the aesthetic, moral, physical and spiritual needs of their
students, as well as their cognitive attainment. Transformative learning, in a
framework of sustainability, may provide educators and teachers with opportuni-
ties to critique and change conventional approaches to ECE teaching and learn-
ing. Our research into implementing a transformative learning approach to EfS
for ECE teachers has revealed that transformative learning experiences might
well produce major shifts in the ways ECE teachers’ understand their lives and
the world, as they relate to concepts of sustainability. We also found that to
achieve a successful perspective transformation requires ample opportunities for
discussions, group projects, critical thinking activities and self-evaluation; but
most importantly, that the process became most meaningful in an experientially
focused setting.
Teacher preparation and expertise are widely regarded as the most important
ingredients in education reform (NCTAF 1996), and this research adds to the grow-
ing body of evidence challenging Turkish teacher educators to revisit the values and
processes underpinning the professional preparation and development of ECE tea-
chers. From a Merizowian perspective, most crucially, in both the systematic plan-
ning and the implementation stages of this process, active participation of the
participants must be ensured. Only if educators are aware of the value and experi-
ence of a participatory approach can we expect them to encourage their prospective
students to take a similar approach.
Finally, the major recommendation for future work coincides with the major lim-
itation of the study, namely, the time and spaces set aside to develop EfS practice.
We recommend the implementation of wider transformative learning experiences
and/or system-wide strategies in place of one-off attempts or interventions, confident
from this study that these may help build competence and the self-confidence of
early childhood teachers in transformative learning, and perspective transformation
geared towards sustainability.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank James Hindson, Özgül Yılmaz-Tüzün and Zafer Levent Soyhan for
being a source of knowledge and inspiration.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. The most educated populations tend to be in countries where spending on all levels of
education is amongst the highest. The United States, for example, spent 7.3% of its gross
domestic product (GDP) on education in 2010, the sixth highest amongst the countries
reviewed by the OECD’s Education at a Glance study. Eight of the 10 most educated
countries spent more than the OECD average on education, both as a percentage of GDP
and in dollars per capita. For http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag.htm.
2. This is not to ignore other key factors, such as home life, but to recognise these are not
the focus of this study.
3. According to OECD (2012), 69% of teachers in Turkey are less than 40 years old.
4. In OECD (2009), it was found that 74.8% of teachers in Turkey stated that they partici-
pated in in-service training in the previous 18 months.
5. William McDonough and Michael Braungart popularised the phrase ‘cradle to cradle’
with their 2002 book bearing the same name. The concept was first introduced by Walter
Stahel in the 1970s. When applied to production modelling, ‘cradle to cradle’ entails
understanding the production process in ways such that all material inputs and outputs
are considered as either technical or biological nutrients. In contrast to ‘cradle to grave’-
type approaches, where the responsibility of the company is limited to the disposal of the
produced goods, ‘cradle to cradle’ expects the process to involve technical nutrients
being recycled or reused with no loss of quality, and biological nutrients being
composted or consumed.
Notes on contributors
Şebnem Feriver is a PhD candidate of Early Childhood Education at Middle East Technical
University. She has been working as project manager and senior trainer for various national
and international projects. Her research interests are transformative learning, lifelong learning,
teacher education and education for sustainability.
Gaye (Tuncer) Teksöz is associated professor in Education for Sustainable Development at

the Middle East Technical University in Turkey. Her research interests are focused on the the-
ory and applications of Environmental Education, Education for Sustainable Development
and Climate Change Education for Sustainability. Her research has been published in a wide
range of international journals, including Environmental Education Research, International
Research on Geographical and Environmental Education and International Journal of
Science Education.
Refika Olgan is assistant professor of Early Childhood Education at Middle East Technical
University, Ankara-Turkey. Her research interests include science education in early years,
environmental education, education for sustainable development and assessment in early
childhood education.
Alan Reid is a member of the Education, Environment and Sustainability research group at
Monash University. His research interests focus on teachers’ thinking and practice in environ-
mental and sustainability education, and traditions, capacities and issues in environmental
and sustainability education theory, research and practice. Recent publications include A
Companion to Research in Education (Springer, 2014, co-edited with Paul Hart and Michael
Peters) and Major Works of Environmental Education (Routledge, 2015, co-edited with Justin
Dillon).
References
Barr, S., and A. Gilg. 2006. “Sustainable Lifestyles: Framing Environmental Action in and
Around the Home.” Geoforum 37 (6): 906–920.
Barr, S., A. Gilg, and G. Shaw. 2011. “‘Helping People Make Better Choices’: Exploring the
Behaviour Change Agenda for Environmental Sustainability.” Applied Geography 31 (2):
712–720.
Bawden, R., and R. Packham. 1993. “Systemic Praxis in the Education of the Agricultural
Systems Practitioner.” Systems Practice 6: 7–19.
Bloom, M. 1995. “Multiple Roles of the Mentor Supporting Women’s Adult Development.”
In Learning Environments for Women’s Adult Development: Bridges Towards Change.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 65, edited by K. Taylor and
C. Marienau, 63–72. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyd, R. D. 1991. Personal Transformations in Small Groups. London: Routledge.
Brookfield, S. 1987. “Eduard Lindeman.” In Twentieth Century Thinkers in Adult Education,
edited by P. Jarvis, 119–143. New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. N., and J. M. Sorrell. 1993. “Use of Clinical Journals to Enhance Critical
Thinking.” Nurse Educator 18 (5): 16–19.
Chawla, L. 1998. “Significant Life Experiences Revisited: A Review of Research on Sources
of Environmental Sensitivity.” Environmental Education Research 4 (4): 369–382.
Clark, M. C. 1993. “Transformational Learning.” In An Update on Learning Theory. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 57, edited by Sharan B. Merriam,
47–56. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, S. 1992. “Promoting Ecological Awareness in Children.” Childhood Education 68:
258–260.
Cranton, P. 1994. Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. 1996. Professional Development as Transformative Learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., and S. Edwards. 2013. “Toward a Model for Early Childhood Envi-
ronmental Education: Foregrounding, Developing, and Connecting Knowledge Through
Play-Based Learning.” The Journal of Environmental Education 44 (3): 195–213.
Daloz, L. A. 1987. Effective Teaching and Mentoring: Realization of Transformational
Power of Adult Learning Experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Daloz, L. A. P. 2000. “Transformative Learning for the Common Good.” In Learning as
Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress, edited by Jack Mezirow,
Davis, J. 2009. “Revealing the Research ‘Hole’ of Early Childhood Education for Sustain-
ability: A Preliminary Survey of the Literature.” Environmental Education Research 15
(2): 227–241.
Davis, J., and M. Gibson. 2006. “Embracing Complexity: Creating Cultural Change Through
Education for Sustainability.” International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change
Management 6 (2): 92–102.
Dirkx, J. 1997. “Nurturing the Soul in Adult Learning.” In Transformative Learning in
Action. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, No. 74, edited by P. Cranton,
Dirkx, J. 1998. “Knowing the Self Through Fantasy: Toward a Mytho-poetic View of
Transformative Learning.” In Proceedings of the 1998 Adult Education Research Confer-
ence, edited by E. Tisdell and J. Ross-Gordon. San Antonio, TX: University of Incarnate
Word.
Dirkx, J. M., and R. O. Smith. 2009. “Facilitating Transformative Learning in Small, Online
Contexts.” In Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace,
and Higher Education, edited by J. Mezirow and E. W. Taylor, 57–66. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Duhn, I. 2012. “Making ‘Place’ for Ecological Sustainability in Early Childhood Education.”
Environmental Education Research 18 (1): 19–29.
Feriver Ş. 2010. “Integrating Sustainability into Early Childhood Education Through

In-service Training: An Effort Towards Transformative Learning.” Master’s thesis,
Middle East Technical University.
Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. 2006. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freire, P. 1972a. Cultural Action for Freedom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freire, P. 1972b. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Global Footprint Network. 2007. Ecological Footprint: Overview. Accessed March 10, 2013.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview
Haddad, L. 2008. “For a Specific Dignity of ECE: Policy and Research Issues Relating the
Education of Young Children and Sustainable Society.” In The Contribution of Early
Childhood Education to a Sustainable Society, edited by I. P. Samuelsson and Y. Kaga,
31–36. Paris: UNESCO.
Hanushek, E., S. G. Rivkin, and J. F. Kaim. 2005. “Teachers, Students, and Academic
Achievement.” Econometrica 73 (2): 417–458.
Hedefalk, M., J. Almqvist, and L. Östman. 2015. “Education for Sustainable Development in
Early Childhood Education: A Review of the Research Literature.” Environmental
Education Research 21. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.971716.
Heimlich, J. E., and N. M. Ardoin. 2008. “Understanding Behavior to Understand Behavior
Change: A Literature Review.” Environmental Education Research 14 (3): 215–237.
Huckle, J. 2000. “Education for Sustainability: Some guidelines for curriculum reform.” Con-
ference paper presented at South Bank University, UK. Accessed January 17, 2014.
http://john.huckle.org.uk/publications_downloads.jsp
Imel, S. 1996. “Summing Up: Themes and Issues Related to Learning in Groups.” In
Learning in Groups: Exploring Fundamental Principles, New Uses, and Emerging
Opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 71, edited by
S. Imel, 91–96. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ison, R., and F. Stowell. 2000. Systems Practice for Managing Complexity. Systems Practice
for Managing Complexity Network. Accessed February 2, 2014. www.first-pages.com/
ukss/spmc
King, K. P. 2000. “The Adult ESL Experience: Facilitating Perspective Transformation in the
Classroom.” Adult Basic Education 10 (2): 69–89.
King, K. P. 2002. “A Journey of Transformation: A Model of Educators’ Learning Experi-
ences in Educational Technology.” In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Adult Education
Research Conference, edited by J. M. Pettitt and R. P. Francis, 195–200. Raleigh: North
Carolina State University.
King, K. P. 2004. “Furthering the Theoretical Discussion of the Journey of Transformation:
Foundations and Dimensions of Transformational Learning in Educational Technology.”
New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 18 (4): 4–23.
King, K. P. 2005. Bringing Transformative Learning to Life. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
King, K. P. 2009. Handbook of the Evolving Research of Transformative Learning: The
Learning Activities Survey. 10th Anniversary ed. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally
and What are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education
Research 8 (3): 239–260.
Lange, E. A. 2004. “Transformative and Restorative Learning: A Vital Dialectic for Sustain-
able Societies.” Adult Education Quarterly 54 (2): 121–139.
Levy, B., and M. Zint. 2013. “Toward Fostering Environmental Political Participation:
Framing an Agenda for Environmental Education Research.” Environmental Education
Research 19 (5): 553–576.
Litfin, K. 2005. “Gaia Theory: Intimations for Global Politics.” In Handbook of Global
Environmental Politics, edited by P. Dauvergne, 502–517. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things. New York: North Point.
Merriam, S., R. Caffarella, and L. Baumgartner. 2006. Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive
Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1971. “Toward a Theory of Practice.” Adult Education Quarterly 21: 135–147.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1997. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education 1997 (74): 5–12.
Mezirow, J. 2009. “Transformative Learning Theory.” In Transformative Learning in Prac-
tice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education, edited by J. Mezirow,
E. W. Taylor, and Associates, 18–31. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J., and Associates, eds. 2000. Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives on
a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, A. 2002. “Feminist Perspectives on Globalization and Integrative Transformative
Learning.” In Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning, edited by
E. V. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell, and M. A. O’Connor, 23–33. New York: Palgrave.
MoNE (Ministry of National Education). 2013. Okul Öncesi Eğitim Programı [Early
Childhood Education Curriculum]. Ankara: MoNE.
NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). 2009a. Standards for
Early Childhood Professional Preparation Programs: A Position Statement of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
NAEYC. 2009b. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serv-
ing Children from Birth through Age 8: A Position Statement of the National Association
for the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
NCTAF (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future). 1996. What Matters
Most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future (NCTAF).
Newman, M. 2012. “Calling Transformative Learning Into Question: Some Mutinous
Thoughts.” Adult Education Quarterly 62: 36–55.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009. Creating Effective
Teaching and Learning Environments First Results from TALIS. Accessed December 20,
2013. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/43023606.pdf
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2012. Education at a
Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. Accessed September 4, 2013. http://www.oecdilibrary.
org/docserver/download/9612031e.pdf?expires=1384939023&id=id&accname=ocid43023
559&checksum=40CE16D3F34D1E8F66F7DA861AE8E265
Olgan, R. 2014. “Influences on Turkish Early Childhood Teachers’ Science Teaching Prac-
tices and the Science Content Covered in the Early Years.” Early Child Development and
Care. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.967689. Accessed November 10, 2014. http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03004430.2014.967689
Orr, D. 2004. The Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment and the Human Prospect.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Patton, J. G., S. J. Wood, and T. Agarenzo. 1997. “Enhancing the Clinical Practicum Experi-
ence Through Journal Writing.” Journal of Nursing Education 36: 238–240.
Rickinson, M. 2006. “Researching and Understanding Environmental Learning: Hopes for
the Next 10 years.” Environmental Education Research 12 (3–4): 445–457.
Samuelsson, I. P., and Y. Kaga, eds. 2008. The Contribution of Early Childhood Education
to a Sustainable Society. Paris: UNESCO.
Sauter, M. B., and Frohlich C. T. 2013. “The Most Educated Countries in the World.”
Accessed February 2, 2014. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/10/15/the-most-edu
cated-countries-in-the-world-2/
Schugurensky, D. 2002. “Transformative Learning and Transformative Politics: The
Pedagogical Dimension of Participatory Democracy.” In Expanding the Boundaries of
Transformative Learning, edited by E. V. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell, and M. A. O’Connor,
59–76. New York: Palgrave.
Schumacher, E. F. 1973. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Really Mattered.
London: Abacus.
Schumacher, E. F. 1997. ‘This I believe’ and Other Essays. Dartington: Green Books (essay
first published in 1974).
Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of
Normality. Oxford: Berg.
Sterling, S. 1996. “Education in Change.” In Education for Sustainability, edited by J. Huckle

and S. Sterling, 18–39. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Sterling, S. 2010. “Transformative Learning and Sustainability: Sketching the Conceptual
Ground.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 5: 17–33.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, E. W. 1997. “Building Upon the Theoretical Debate: A Critical Review of the
Empirical Studies of Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory.” Adult Education
Quarterly 48: 34–59.
Taylor, E. W. 2007. “An Update of Transformative Learning Theory: A Critical Review of
the Empirical Research (1999–2005).” International Journal of Lifelong Education 26:
173–191.
Taylor, E. W. 2008. “Transformative Learning Theory.” New Directions for Adult &
Continuing Education 119: 5–15.
UNESCO. 2005. Guidelines and Recommendations for Reorienting Teacher Education to
Address Sustainability. Technical Paper No. 2. Accessed December 20, 2013 http://unes
doc.unesco.org/images/0014/001433/143370e.pdf
Wals, A. E. J. 2006. The End of ESD … the Beginning of Transformative Learning – Empha-
sizing the E in ESD. In Seminar on Education for Sustainable Development, edited by
M. Cantell, 42–59. Helsinki: Finnish Unesco Commission. Accessed December 21, 2013.
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/353568
Walter, P. 2013. “Dead Wolves, Dead Birds, and Dead Trees: Catalysts for Transformative
Learning in the Making of Scientist-Environmentalists.” Adult Education Quarterly
63 (1): 24–42.
Wilson, A. 1993. “The Promise of Situated Cognition.” In An Update on Adult Learning
Theory, edited by S. Merriam, 71–79. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Winfield, E. B., and A. L. Whaley. 2002. “A Comprehensive Test of the Health Belief Model
in the Prediction of Condom Use among African American College Students.” Journal of
Black Psychology 28 (4): 330–346.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future.
England: Oxford University Press.

Training Early 2016 - Şebnem Et Al - Childhood Teachers For Sustainability - Towards A Learning Experience of A Different

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Training Early 2016 - Şebnem Et Al - Childhood Teachers For Sustainability - Towards A Learning Experience of A Different

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Training early childhood teachers for

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1027883

Published online: 20 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1986

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Training early childhood teachers for sustainability: towards a

In this study, we discuss ﬁndings from a small-scale project evaluating an

*Corresponding author. Email: sebnemferiver@gmail.com

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

The role of teachers in supporting social change

Transformative learning as a ‘learning experience of a different kind’

Perspective change towards sustainability

Key features of the research

Table 1. Proﬁle of participants.

Table 2. Mezirow’s stages of transformative learning and corresponding EfS context.

this training programme, experiential learning was recognised by the participants as

Table 3. Content of Learning Activities Survey (LAS).

Learning Activities Survey. This instrument was designed to produce quantitative

Table 4. Results related to Mezirow’s perspective transformation stages.

Diagnosis and interpretation 1(m) I do not identify with any of the 0

features of the day-by-day transformation processes drawing on results from the

Table 5. Results of the qualitative analysis: codes, descriptions and frequencies.

Learning experience of a different kind: perspective transformation for

The participants’ evaluations in their LD further supported such comments,

DAY 2, 3 & 4: awakening: how could we be so blind?

participants’ responses in the LAS, 22 of 24 of the participants agreed with item 1 g

DAY 5 and 6: empowerment: it’s time for action

As anticipated in Stage 7, participants would need to acquire knowledge and

the LAS revealed that 17 of 24 participants expressed an intention to gather the

The statements in the LD supported the participants’ claims, largely signalling

One of the main objectives of the training was to empower participants in

DAY 7: full adaptation to sustainability

Facilitators of perspective transformation

Role of support and challenge

Table 6. Facilitating transformation – ranking of support (LAS).

Structure and content of the training

guided us throughout the process. At the beginning, I was terriﬁed, now I am

The quantitative data analysis revealed that most frequently mentioned

Transformative learning for shaping ECE teachers’ perspective of sustainability

Transformative learning for facilitating ECE teachers’ perspective of

actions of participants (Brookﬁeld 1987; Imel 1996). Therefore, parallel to the

Gaye (Tuncer) Teksöz is associated professor in Education for Sustainable Development at

Feriver Ş. 2010. “Integrating Sustainability into Early Childhood Education Through

Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA:

Sterling, S. 1996. “Education in Change.” In Education for Sustainability, edited by J. Huckle

You might also like