A critical comparison of transformation and deep approach theories of learning

Abstract

This paper reports a critical comparative analysis of two popular and significant theories of adult learning: the transformation and the deep approach theories of learning. These theories are operative in different educational sectors, are significant, respectively, in each, and they may be seen as both touching on similar concerns with learning that is profound in its nature and impact on the learner—hence the case for a critical comparison. The critical analysis focused on similarities and differences between the two theories on a set of general criteria. It found that, while there are unacknowledged similarities, the differences are complementary, each theory suggesting a different way of considering the same territory, without excluding the other theory. The analysis strongly suggests the imperative for research findings from each theory to be used to inform practice and research through the other, although the literature reveals a lack of such cross-fertilization.

Keywords:

• adult learning
• deep approach to learning
• Biggs
• higher education
• Mezirow
• transformative learning
• transformation theory

Notes

1. The brief outlines provided for each theory are not comprehensive but allow for an overview of the theory. Criticism and counter-criticism of each theory have been excluded for reasons of economy.

2. Italics here identify terms commonly used in transformation theory writing.

3. Consciousness-raising, in the case of transformation theory, means learners becoming more inclusive, discriminating, reflective, open, and emotionally open and able to change (Mezirow, 2012).

4. The conative domain refers to the domain of intention, drives and motivations, and here we are interested in the drives that lead a person to undertake study or learning (Hilgard, 1980; Snow & Jackson III, 1997).

5. Goodness-of-fit is a concept that relates the needs, rights, capacities and aspirations of individuals as having either a favourable, minimally adequate or unfavourable fit (hence goodness-of-fit) with the qualities of their sociocultural and physical environment, in the case in question: their university (Germain & Bloom, 1999, p. 20).

6. Types of knowledge described herein are, following Fantl (2012): descriptive, declarative, propositional or conceptual knowledge, or ‘knowing that’, which identifies knowledge about reality; procedural or operational knowledge or ‘know how’, which identifies a person’s knowledge about how to act or how to operate in different situations and contexts; dispositional knowledge, which identifies a person’s drives, attitudes, values and interests in or towards other realities; and normative knowledge, which identifies idealized knowledge of what it is good to be and right to do.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Peter Howie

Peter C Howie is a phd candidate with Griffith University, Australia, 0411 873 851. His research is into the psychodramatic concept of warm-up and he is reconceptualizing and evaluating the concept and developing a process for evaluating the soundness of a concept.

Richard Bagnall

Richard G Bagnall is a professor in the Arts, Education and Law academic group, Griffith University, Australia. His work is in the social philosophy of adult and lifelong education and he has published over 100 books and papers in that field.