Informative/Transformative Learning versus Human /Social Capital Paradigms
This paper explores the parallels between informative and transformative learning to the human capital and social capital paradigms, as well as their relation to worklong and lifelong learning. Definitions and the theory for these concepts are introduced, followed by the implications of how the theories relate to one another. The paper then concludes with the author’s personal reflections as an adult learner and educator experiencing these theories in practice.
Theory
Burton (2006) defines informational learning as “the acquisition of knowledge… [and changing] the amount we know about something” (p. 2). In contrast, “transformational learning has affective, interpersonal, and moral dimensions… [and is thus] about how we know and not about what we know” (Burton, 2006, p. 2). Imel (1998) expands on transformational learning, claiming that there are “two views of transformative learning… one [Mezirow’s] advocates a rational approach that depends primarily on critical reflection whereas the other [Boyd and Myers’] relies more on intuition and emotion” (p. 4).
The human capital paradigm calls for lifelong learning that prepares individuals for their economic contributions to their organizations, communities, and society overall. The human capital paradigm thus focuses on building one’s storehouse of skills and knowledge in preparation for contributions to generating tangible goods and traditional forms of capital. Social capital is more subjective and holistic, being something developed and measured based on “social values and norms,…working for the common good,…[and] social well-being” (Kerka, 2000). Robison & Flora (2003) add that the social capital paradigm “describes the influence of relationships on social, emotional, and economic transactions” (p. 1187) and “combines our interest in transactions involving tangible goods and services created by traditional forms of capital [with] transactions involving intangible or socio-emotional goods created by social capital” (p. 1191).
Implications
In considering the connections between worklong learning and lifelong learning versus the human capital/social capital paradigms and informative/transformative learning, one can see particularly strong connections between worklong learning, the human capital paradigm, and informative learning. Informative learning is about increasing how much we know. Similarly, the goal of the human capital paradigm is to “build [one’s] ‘capital’ by developing skills and accumulating educational qualifications [whose] outcomes are measured in terms of income, productivity, and other economic indicators of success” (Kerka, 2000). This closely parallels the goals of worklong learning that “focuses on preparation for occupational goals” (Kerka, 2000). Worklong learning can be considered the focus of most workplace learning (or training), as well as many academic programs that have a pragmatic (rather than liberal arts) approach.
Similarly strong connections can be seen across lifelong learning, the social capital paradigm, and transformational learning. Lifelong learning encompasses many of the meta-learning skills that can be applied to everything that one learns over a lifetime, thus preparing “individuals for a variety of life roles, including citizenship” (Kerka, 2000)—very similar to the goals and purpose of the social capital paradigm. For example, this would include an individual’s ability to “take responsibility for learning, learn through research, reflect and evaluate, [and] use information and communications technology” (Kerka, 2001). Applied via critical thinking skills, lifelong learning also includes the “transformative learning [that] involves a questioning of assumptions and a fundamental rethinking of premises” (Kerka, 2001). Mezirow himself argued for the need for critical reflection as part of this process, arguing that “transformative learning occurs when individuals change their frames of reference by critically reflecting on their assumptions and beliefs and consciously making and implementing plans that bring about new ways of defining their worlds” (Imel, 1998, p. 3). Furthermore, “transformative learners move toward a frame of reference that is more inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of experience” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5).
To enhance social capital and foster an environment for transformational learning involves a shared responsibility between both the facilitator and the learners. The facilitator needs to establish “an environment that builds trust and care and facilitate the development of sensitive relationships among learners…[and] consider how they can help students connect the rational and the affective by using feelings and emotions both in critical reflection and as a means of reflection” (Taylor as cited in Imel, 1998, p. 4-5). It is important to note that the responsibility does not lie with the facilitator alone; learners also share in creating and supporting “the conditions under which transformative learning can occur” (Imel, 1998, p. 5). Furthermore, educators must “help learners become aware and critical of their own and others’ assumptions, … [and] assume responsibility for setting objectives that explicitly include autonomous thinking and recognize that this requires experiences designed to foster critical reflectivity and experience in discourse” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 10).
Practice
As an adult learner and workplace learning and performance improvement professional, I have experienced and been a part of numerous learning programs with a worklong, human capital, and informative learning approach. In many cases, transformative learning is something saved for executive and management development—and even that is often relegated to “special” topics and not woven into the overall program. Additionally, when discovery learning techniques are designed into a program, all too often it is the time for reflection and debrief/discourse that are the first to be cut from the agenda when time is tight. This unfortunately minimizes learning’s potential to truly transform.
Sadly, this experience extends to my academic experience as well; not until I began my doctoral studies did I begin to take part in more transformative learning opportunities that encourage critical thinking and reflection. While I am still a strong supporter of a very pragmatic approach to education, it is disappointing that even my graduate program experiences did not expose me to the necessary autonomous thinking skills for building social as well as human capital. Armed with this enhanced awareness, I hope to help others see the truth in the following statement from Mezirow and to take the necessary actions to ensure the development of these critical autonomous thinking skills: “For some, any uncritically assimilated explanation by an authority figure will suffice. But in contemporary societies we must learn to make our own interpretations rather than act on the purposes, beliefs, judgments, and feelings of others” (1997, p. 5).
References:
Burton, J. (2006). Transformative learning: The hidden curriculum of adult life. Work Based Learning in Primary Care, 4(1), 1-5.
Imel, S. (1998). Transformative learning in adulthood (ERIC Digest No. 200). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423426)
Kerka, S. (2000). Lifelong learning. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=mr&ID=97
Kerka, S. (2001). The balancing act of adult life. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=114
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 7(74), 5-12.
Robison, L.J., & Flora, J.L. (2003). The social capital paradigm: Bridging across disciplines. Americaon Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1187-1193.
- Robin
Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com
