The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1467-6370.htm

Systematic
Transformative learning in the literature
field of sustainability: a review

systematic literature review

(1999-2019) 993
Jorge Gustavo Rodríguez Aboytes Received 16 May 2019
Revised 20 September 2019
Robert Bosch Research Group, Faculty of Sustainability, 25 February 2020
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany, and 13 May 2020
21 May 2020
Accepted 22 May 2020
Matthias Barth
Institute of Integrative Studies, Faculty of Sustainability,
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate how transformative learning has been conceptualised and
operationalised in education for sustainable development (ESD) and sustainability learning and to collect
evidence on how to support transformative learning in formal and non-formal environments.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a systematic literature review to provide a
structured and replicable search and analysis of the relevant literature to produce a bibliometric overview that
combines a quantitative description of the body of literature and qualitative analysis of the learning
processes, outcomes and conditions.
Findings – The convergence between transformative learning and sustainability has become an
emerging field of inquiry, despite the superficial use of transformative learning theory in many studies.
By examining the learning process, outcomes and conditions in the core sample of studies, this study
demonstrates that transformative learning theory – if carefully studied – can contribute to the design
and implementation of educational interventions and assessments of learning towards sustainability.
Furthermore, the sustainability context provides an empirical grounding that highlights the fact that
social learning, the role of experience and the development of sustainability competencies are inherently
part of transformative learning.
Originality/value – To date, few attempts have been made to better understand how transformative
learning theory has been used in sustainability learning and ESD research. This systematic review allows for
a better comprehension of how concepts and mechanisms elucidated in transformative learning theory
are operationalised in sustainability learning and ESD research and serves as a source of inspiration for those
researchers and practitioners who aims to make sustainability education, teaching and learning more
transformative.
Keywords sustainability, transformative learning, critical reflection, systematic literature review,
education for sustainable development, learning outcomes
Paper type Literature review

International Journal of
We want to thank the reviewers for their constructive critics to this manuscript. This research was Sustainability in Higher Education
made possible within the graduate school “Processes of Sustainability Transformation”, which is a
Vol. 21 No. 5, 2020
pp. 993-1013
cooperation between Leuphana University of Lüneburg and the Robert Bosch Stiftung. The authors © Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-6370
gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Robert Bosch Stiftung (12.5.F082.0021.0). DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-05-2019-0168
IJSHE 1. Introduction
21,5 In the field of sustainability, transformative learning is gaining increasing impetus and
recognition and is considered critical to enhancing and catalysing social transformations
towards sustainability (Boström et al., 2018). Consequently, the field of education for
sustainable development (ESD) has embraced transformative learning to overcome a
conventional approach of ESD and to support learning that leads to the transformation of
994 unsustainable mindsets and the adoption of a paradigm towards sustainability (Balsiger
et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2018). At the same time, transformative learning influenced
through many other disciplines (e.g. psychology and sociology) has evolved from an
alternative perspective of learning to a learning theory characterised by its diversity of
perspectives and discourses (Kitchenham, 2008; Cranton and Taylor, 2012; Hoggan, 2015;
Laros et al., 2017). Thus, the question remains as to how transformative learning theory has
been used and put into practice in sustainability learning and ESD research, and how
research on learning and sustainability can contribute to the further development of the
understanding of transformative learning.
To date, few attempts have been made to investigate these questions. By using a
systematic literature review (SLR), we aim to close this gap in the literature and provide a
reliable account and an accurate overview of how the theory of transformative learning is
applied in the sustainability context.

2. Transformative learning theory

Transformative learning evolved from the concept of perspective transformation (Mezirow,
1978) into an established learning theory based on concepts from constructivism as well as
humanist and critical social theory (Cranton and Taylor, 2012; Tisdell, 2012).
Transformative learning can thus be defined as:
[. . .] learning that transforms problematic frames of reference – sets of fixed assumptions and
expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets) – to make them more inclusive,
discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change (Mezirow, 2003, p. 58).
Mezirow (1981) also described some key characteristics of such learning by focusing on
learning processes (how people learn), outcomes (what they learn) and conditions (how to
best support their learning). In this paper, we will refer to the above definition of
transformative learning and use its structure of learning processes, outcomes and conditions
for the exploration of the data.

2.1 Process of transformative learning

Based on Mezirow’s ten stages of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1994), the learning
process encompasses a series of elements that are evolving, recursive and spiral in nature
(Taylor, 1997). Prior learning is considered to be the accumulation of interpreted experiences
in meaning structures or frames of reference, which “selectively shape and delimit
expectations, perceptions, cognition, and feelings. They set our ‘line of action’” (Mezirow,
1997, p. 5). These structures are the result of a dynamic adaptation of human needs to the
cultural and economic conditions of a society in a given historical period (Fromm, 1941).
Situations in which meaning structures are challenged to the extent that they are no longer
useful to fit the interpretation of some experiences are captured as disorienting dilemmas. A
personal life crisis can trigger these disorienting dilemmas, or they can come from a series of
circumstantial events (Laros, 2017).
A further element focuses on the act used to critically analyse an individual’s
unexamined meaning structures and how these structures were constructed when someone
tries to render meaning from a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1998). This critical reflection Systematic
can be differentiated according to its object of content, process and premise (Lundgren and literature
Poell, 2016); moreover, it is also possible to distinguish whether the subject includes only the
review
premises of the external world or also her/his own premises, the latter case being an example
of critical self-reflection (Mezirow, 1981, 1998). Discourse is described as a:
[. . .] special kind of dialogue in which we focus on content and attempt to justify beliefs by giving
and defending reason and by examining the evidence for and against competing viewpoints 995
(Mezirow, 1994, p. 225).
Discourse occurs as a dialogue between at least two people and is triggered and enhanced
through critical and critical self-reflection reflection.
Finally, transformative learning is not merely an intellectual process, and individuals
cannot remain in the pure reflection phase. They have to show action engagement by
negotiating or exploring new relationships or roles, planning a course of action, testing
solutions and integrating these solutions into their lives (Calleja, 2014).

2.2 Learning outcomes in transformative learning

The term “learning outcomes” refers to what learners are capable of doing and thinking by the
end of the learning period after having been embedded in disciplinary and professional contexts
(Caspersen et al., 2014) – that is, it refers to the results of the learning process. In the case of
transformative learning, learning outcomes are difficult to be determined as many learning
experiences tend to be labelled as transformative (Hoggan, 2016). On the one hand, learning
outcomes from transformative learning processes have been categorised and classified according
to Mezirow’s (1981) domains of learning framework (instrumental, communicative and
transformative/emancipatory). On the other hand, Hoggan (2016) created a typology in which
changes in an individual’s worldview, epistemology, self, ontology, behaviour and capacity are
the most common learning outcomes from transformative learning endeavours and introduced
criteria of breadth, depth and relative stability to differentiate among these outcomes.
To identify and determine when transformative learning happens, researchers have reviewed
ways to evaluate transformative learning outcomes in both research and practice (Cranton and
Hoggan, 2012; Romano, 2018). They have analysed qualitative instruments such as observations,
checklists, journals, interviews, self-evaluation and narratives, and quantitative ones such as
surveys and questionnaires [e.g. the Learning Activity Survey (King, 2009), the Critical Reflection
Questionnaire (Kember et al., 2000) and Transformative Learning Survey (Stuckey et al., 2013)].

2.3 Learning conditions

The learning conditions in transformative learning originally appeared as ideal conditions
of discourse (Mezirow, 1991). Although these conditions are challenging to achieve in reality,
Mezirow (1994) stated that a learner should have the capacity to evaluate arguments
objectively, opportunities to participate, accurate information, and should also be open to
alternative perspectives, free from coercion and able to reflect on presuppositions critically.
Nonetheless, these ideal conditions of discourse overlap with the different phases of
transformative learning and their potential learning outcomes, thereby rendering an
analysis of the impact of the learning conditions in the whole learning process rather
difficult. Further research in transformative learning has found more concrete conditions for
transformative learning including learning environments with meaningful relationships,
partner facilitation, purposeful work and supported action (Franz, 2005, 2010; Southern,
2007). In the present paper, we define learning conditions as the set of external and internal
IJSHE factors, such as partner facilitation and openness to alternative perspectives, respectively,
21,5 that influence the learner’s capacity to engage in a learning situation.

2.4 Transformative learning and sustainability

Conceptualisations of transformative learning encompass different individual and social
996 purposes, such as autonomy, individuation, empowerment, ecological consciousness, social
action, citizenship and democracy (Mezirow, 1997, 2003; Cranton and King, 2003), and are
applied in a diversity of contexts (Taylor, 2009). Research on transformative learning can be
seen in many areas ranging from personal transformation to organisational change and
includes (but is not limited to) intercultural learning, participatory processes, lifestyle,
educational settings and social and community transformation (Taylor, 1997; Mezirow and
Taylor, 2009).
The broad understanding and general aims of transformative learning are to contribute
to a more significant social change (or transformation) through education, which makes it
appealing to ESD and sustainability learning. ESD is considered to have a robust
transformative approach as it seeks -contrary to to other instrumental approaches- to
empower individuals by encouraging them to critique status-quo values and social norms
and to adopt sustainable principles and ethics by addressing unsustainable practices (Barth
and Michelsen, 2013; Barth, 2015; Schneidewind et al., 2016). However, while the discourse
around transformative learning offers a rich diversity of perspectives (e.g. planetary, race-
centric and cultural-spiritual) (Taylor, 2008), the term “transformative” has simultaneously
taken on a looser meaning because it is often used to tag any learning experience (Tisdell,
2012). This looseness has affected the understanding and practice of transformative learning
in sustainability learning and the field of ESD. Although there is only one review in the area
of participatory processes of resources and environmental management (Diduck et al., 2012),
there is no general systematic link between transformative learning and sustainability and
ESD. We, therefore, investigated the extent to which transformative learning has been
conceptualised and operationalised in ESD and sustainability learning and collected
evidence on how to support transformative learning in these scenarios.

3. Methods
To better understand the relationship between transformative learning and sustainability, a
SLR was carried out on all peer-reviewed articles available in English that focus explicitly
on transformative learning and sustainability. Systematic reviews represent a typical
method of mapping the field and tracing recent developments in both educational science
(Petticrew et al., 2013) and sustainability science (Spangenberg, 2011) and have become a
systematic method of investigation in their own right (Light and Pillemer, 1984; Littell et al.,
2008) [see Foster and Hammersley (1998) for a meta-review].
In the present study, we followed the systematic review approach outlined in Fink (2014)
to provide a systematic and replicable search and analysis strategy that is fully documented
and transparent. Our steps include:

data collection;

data processing and coding; and

data analysis, which yielded a bibliometric overview that combines a quantitative
and qualitative analysis of the learning process, outcomes and conditions.
 Systematic
literature
review

997

Figure 1.
Data collection
procedure

3.1 Data collection

To provide a complete possible sample universe, we searched three databases (Scopus, Web
of Science and ERIC) that broadly cover the social sciences and educational science,
specifically. A literature search was conducted using the following search string:
(transformational OR transformative) AND (learning OR education*) AND (“sustainable
development” OR sustainability).
Even though each database has different interfaces, settings and search engines, we applied
the search string to all of them with the following initial settings (Figure 1): peer-review journal
publications (article, review and article in press) and full text in English. The period of this
research comprised all years until 2019.
We obtained a raw data set from each database consisting of 1,307 publications, which
included numerous duplicates as the databases feature significant overlap. After eliminating
duplicates, we retrieved a gross sample of 786 publications. The gross sample then went through
an initial screening process with predefined criteria for inclusion and exclusion to ensure that the
articles focused explicitly on transformative learning and sustainability. The inclusion criteria
were papers, which either in their title, abstract or keywords, contained the terms of:

“transformative/transformational learning/education”; and

“sustainable development” or “sustainability” explicitly.

Some variations of these criteria included terms such as “transformative social learning”
and “transformational sustainability education”. This procedure led to a final sample of 236
articles, another 10 of which were removed because they did not meet the inclusion and
exclusion criteria after full text screening.

3.2 Data processing and coding

The general research question was: What is the contribution of transformative learning
theory in sustainability learning and ESD research, and vice versa? To answer this question,
two specific research questions were posed (Table 1). RQ1 allowed for a better
IJSHE understanding of the types of articles in our sample universe and was a precondition for the
21,5 subsequent in-detail analysis in RQ2.
For the analysis, a database was created out of the sample universe (n = 226) that
included all available bibliographic data, the abstract and the full text. Additional variables
were added to capture better the nature of the contributions (e.g. research area and
application of transformative learning theory). Coding was done iteratively by screening the
998 abstracts and then the full papers with an inductive coding approach, using Citavi 6 and
Microsoft Excel software. Descriptors for each variable were assigned throughout the
coding process and clustered according to patterns of similarity.
While the full sample universe in this way was captured for descriptive analysis, full
text analysis was then carried out with the core sample of papers in which transformative
learning theory is used in the argumentation, or it functions as the main framework
(Table 3). These papers were coded qualitatively using MAXQDA as qualitative data
analysis software. In an iterative coding process, the a priori established concepts of prior
learning, disorienting dilemma, critical reflection, discourse and action engagement
(Table 1) were applied to the full text body, and relevant themes were coded accordingly
(Saldaña, 2013).

4. Findings
4.1 Understanding the sample universe
Transformative learning theory played a minor role in sustainability learning and ESD
research from 1999 (the earliest year of articles published according to the search string and the
databases used) to 2007, with less than five publications per year. From 2008 onwards, articles
examining transformative learning theory and sustainability learning and ESD research began
to increase, with an average of 18 publications per year (standard deviation = 11.7), and

Research question Specific elements of analysis A priori categories

RQ1: How has transformative learning Specific research areas –

been utilised in sustainability learning Theoretical use of –
and ESD research? transformative learning
RQ2: How has transformative learning Learning processes Prior learning,
theory been operationalised in disorienting dilemma,
sustainability learning and ESD critical reflection,
Table 1. research? discourse and action
Research questions engagement
and elements of Learning outcomes –
analysis for the SLR Learning conditions –

Research area N (%)

Table 2.
Higher education in general 88 39
Specific research
Teachers education 24 10.5
areas in the field of Other formal learning 16 7
transformative Non-formal and informal learning 58 25.5
learning and Policy and guidelines 40 18
sustainability Total 226 100
reached its peak in 2019, with 41 published articles (see the link in the Appendix for the set of Systematic
references within the sample universe). literature
The sample universe itself constitutes a heterogeneous field of articles on transformative
learning and sustainability. Within the sample universe, we identified five distinctive
review
research areas, as outlined in Table 2. A research area illustrates a domain in which a
common topical focus best describes the various papers. Because of space constraints, all the
citations provided henceforth in this section are only indicative, that is, they are only
examples of articles. 999
The first research area – higher education in general – covers all contributions at the
university level in either undergraduate or graduate programmes. Articles focus on the role
of the curriculum (Winter et al., 2015), teaching and learning in different settings (such as
interdisciplinary environments; Noy et al., 2017), field studies (Owens et al., 2015) and study-
abroad programmes (Ritz, 2011; Bell et al., 2016). The second research area – teacher
education – includes research on educational programs for teachers as such, as well as on the
role of (pre-service) teachers as societal agents of change for transformative learning and
sustainability (Iliško, 2007; Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2010). As teacher education played a
significant unique role in a large body of research and as it also spans from pre-service
education to in-service training, we singled out this area from higher education in general.
Other formal learning refers to transformative learning and sustainability in settings other
than higher education, such as K-12 (Goulah, 2011), for which the topics of ESD and
curriculum figure prominently (E. Dyment et al., 2015).
In contrast to formal learning, a fourth research area focuses on non-formal and informal
learning. This area encompasses research in learning environments that are not directly
linked to educational institutions and formal programs. Research in this area predominantly
covers how learning processes unfold in experiences of public participation, such as in
resources and environmental management (Diduck et al., 2012), sustainable tourism
(Coghlan and Gooch, 2011) and intercultural exchange (Lloyd et al., 2015). The fifth and final
research area – policy and guidelines – encompasses mostly conceptual elaborations on
policy and general discourses on education and their links to ESD (Bell, 2016; Mochizuki,
2016), sometimes including more radical and novel perspectives (de Angelis, 2018; Lange,
2018) related to policy implications of specific topics, such as the role of technology
education in ESD (Pavlova, 2013).
A closer examination of the role that transformative learning theory plays in the sample
universe allowed us to further distinguish between publications. By analysing the
understanding of the concept of transformative learning in the sample universe, we could
cluster four different groups, as outlined in Table 3.
The first group – buzzword – (approximately one-third of the final sample) comprises
articles that display an imprecise use of the term “transformative learning” by either not
defining it at all or describing it superficially without direct bibliographic references to
transformative learning theory. Almost 30% of the articles in this group have

Table 3.
Research area N (%) Classification of the
sample universe
Buzzword 76 33.5
Supportive framework 52 23 according to the
Alternative approaches 15 6.5 theoretical use of
Central framework 83 37 transformative
Total 226 100 learning
IJSHE transformative learning as a keyword and include highly cited articles that are relevant to
21,5 the field of ESD (Wiek et al., 2011).
The second group – supportive framework – is defined by articles that explicitly refer to
transformative learning theory or some of its elements yet do not feature it as a central part
of the narrative of the articles’ main argument. Instead, transformative learning in these
articles is part of the theoretical foundations of broader models, such as the INDICARE
1000 model (Disterheft et al., 2016), or it serves to strengthen the theoretical rationale for different
topics, such as innovative pedagogical models in ESD (Thomas, 2009).
In the third group – alternative approaches – the concept of transformative education is
conceptualised as an approach opposite that of a transmissive approach in ESD, the latter
having a more instrumental view (Lu and Zhang, 2014; Mogren and Gericke, 2017) that
highlights the more radical and critical features of the former (Bell, 2016). This
conceptualisation represents a different understanding than that of the classical stream of
transformative learning (i.e. Mezirow and colleagues); however, links and similarities are
used to underpin the authors’ arguments.
The fourth and most significant group (with 37% of all contributions in this
classification) is the central framework, in which transformative learning is the leading
theory in the argumentation or the main framework of the article. Of the papers in this
group, 73% are empirical and were framed either as qualitative case studies or as
intervention studies in which some sort of change in the learner is the goal, sometimes
supported by a specific instructional design.

4.2 Analysis of the core sample

In our further analysis, we focused on the group of key articles that used transformative
learning as a central framework. Insights from these articles can be structured according to
their description and explanation of the learning process, learning outcomes and relevant
learning conditions. The themes that emerged from the analysis of the data (a posteriori) are
compiled below (Table 4).
4.2.1 Learning process.
4.2.1.1 Prior learning. While only a few articles explicitly investigated the learners’ prior
perspectives and worldviews, the majority mentioned prior learning as part of learners’
general background and sustainability-related experiences and thus as a general
precondition for transformative learning. Learners’ general background refers to expertise
in a specific field or discipline and past experiences regarding the performance of specific
tasks and socio-cultural interactions during educational interventions (Ritz, 2011; Lloyd
et al., 2015; Kalsoom and Khanam, 2017; Sims, 2017). Sustainability-related experiences
encompass learners’ previous related knowledge from a formal academic background or
their work experience as manifested in conceptual literacy or practical skills (Bell et al., 2016;
Piasentin and Roberts, 2017; Cottafava et al., 2019). Moreover, individuals sometimes bring
along predispositions, expectations and attitudes for a change in sustainability because of
their differing life experiences (Kerton and Sinclair, 2010; Burns, 2016).
4.2.1.2 Disorienting dilemma. In the reviewed articles, disorienting dilemmas can occur
in three different ways:
(1) Non-structured and unintended situations: The disorienting dilemma is not
contrived by the educator but occurs naturally. For instance, individuals may face
an existential conflict or a difficult moral decision (Ball, 1999; Lange, 2004; Kerton
and Sinclair, 2010), or they may have experienced socio-ecological problems in
their own or foreign communities (Marschke and Sinclair, 2009; Quinn and
Sinclair, 2016; Quang et al., 2019).
Elements of
Systematic
analysis A priori categories A posteriori themes literature
review
Learning Prior learning Learners’ general background
process Sustainability-related experiences
Predispositions and expectations
Disorienting dilemma Non-structured and Facing existential conflicts or
unintended situations moral decisions 1001
Having suffered socio-ecological
problems in the past
Structured and Entering new learning environments
unintended situations Forming new social relations
Structured and intended Presenting contrasting information
situations Raising critical questions
Designing educational programmes
abroad
Exposing students to
unfamiliar methodologies
Critical On Information, values and norms
reflection content Teaching practices
Resource management practices
On Participation in individual or group activities
process Assessment of own performance and understanding
On Thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, actions and behaviours in the context of:
premise Higher education
Teacher education
Environmental and resources management
Intercultural exchange
Discourse Sharing of sustainability-related knowledge and practices
Commenting experiences of participation in community activities
Challenging others’ assumptions
Making meaning together
Action Adoption of sustainable behaviours
Development of new habits
Formulation of new plans of actions
Participation in decision-making
Initiation of group activities
Creation of community-based organisation
Learning Increase of new knowledge and practical skills
outcomes Reconstruction of values, norms and perspectives
Increase in the sense of, self-awareness, agency and empowerment
Development of critical, systems and complex thinking
Social learning (reinforcement of social relationships, social
mobilisation and activism)
Learning Power relations
conditions Time and space for reflection and discourse Table 4.
Social interaction among learners Summary of themes
Educational experiences beyond formal settings found in the
Readiness and openness for a transformative experience core sample

(2) Structured and unintended situations: They refer to planned learning activities in
which the educators do not deliberatively trigger a dilemma but – because of the
nature of the activity – the learners nevertheless experience such a dilemma.
Examples include new learning environments – such as interdisciplinary settings
IJSHE (Kokkarinen and Cotgrave, 2013; Noy et al., 2017) – or learners being asked to
21,5 participate in change processes and establish new social relations (Burns, 2016;
Chao, 2017; Yeo and Yoo, 2019).
(3) Structured and intended situations: They refer to cases in which the disorienting
dilemma is planned and induced deliberatively during educational interventions to
challenge learners’ frames of reference by either presenting contrasting information
1002 (Davis and Boulet, 2016; Piasentin and Roberts, 2017), raising critical questions
(Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2010), designing educational programmes abroad (Bell et al., 2016)
or exposing students to unfamiliar assessment methodologies (Saravanamuthu, 2015).

4.2.1.3 Critical reflection. Three different types of reflections mentioned in the theoretical
framework section could be identified. Reflection on content encompasses the analysis of
information, concepts, values and norms (Sims and Sinclair, 2008; Quinn and Sinclair, 2016)
or individuals’ practices in teaching (Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2010) or resource management
(Bull, 2013; Lankester, 2013). It also covers reflection on relationships within and among
organisations and communities (Walker et al., 2014; Young and Karme, 2015). Reflection on
process refers to assessing the way learning experiences unfold. Examples include situations
in which learners reflect on their participation in a particular individual or group activity
(Wahr et al., 2013; Chao, 2017) that involved a form of assessment of their performance and
understanding (Quinn and Sinclair, 2016; Piasentin and Roberts, 2017). Finally, reflection on
premise is the deepest level of reflection and occurs when learners assess the assumptions
that underlie their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, actions and behaviours in the context of
higher education (Brunnquell et al., 2015), teacher education (Feriver et al., 2016), resource
and environmental management (Sims, 2012) and intercultural exchange (Ritz, 2011; Young
and Karme, 2015).
4.2.1.4 Discourse. Some authors refer to the stage of discourse as a process of sharing
knowledge and practices related to sustainability (Sims, 2012; Lankester, 2013) or
experiences of participation in a community activity (Chao, 2017). Discourse is also shaped
in processes of conflict and problem resolution in which challenging others’ assumptions
and beliefs and meaning-making together form the key features that transcend the simple
process of sharing information (Iliško, 2007; Vanasupa et al., 2014; Davis and Boulet, 2016).
An interesting example of the above is the conceptual tool of “making (non) sense”
developed and applied by James (2019) in a South African urban context.
4.2.1.5 Action engagement. The transformation process is sometimes followed by
adopting sustainable behaviours as part of designed experiments (Bentz and O’Brien, 2019)
or implementing new behaviours that are consistent with the insights acquired in
transformation experiences. These experiences include the development of new individual
habits (Bell et al., 2016) or to the formulation of new plans of action in the context of teaching
(Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2010) and community-resource management (Marschke and Sinclair,
2009). Action takes place not only individually but also in groups of learners who engage in
social action by participating in decision-making processes (Sims, 2017), initiating group
activities to raise critical awareness regarding sustainability issues (Kerton and Sinclair,
2010; Quinn and Sinclair, 2016) or creating community-based organisations (Westoby and
Lyons, 2017).
4.2.2 Learning outcomes. The most prominent learning outcome is the increase of new
knowledge and practical skills linked to sustainability-related issues, which range from the
understanding of concepts and technical information to the ability to implement
environmental management practices (Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Sims and Sinclair, 2008;
Chao, 2017; Phuong et al., 2019). Reflection and the reconstruction of values, norms and
perspectives represent another learning outcome in which learners become more empathetic Systematic
and compassionate (Young and Karme, 2015), move away from self-interest to more literature
collective concerns (Sims, 2012), give more importance to environmental resources
and social justice (Moyer et al., 2016) and sometimes gain a sense of unity and
review
interconnectedness with their natural and social surroundings (de Angelis, 2019). The latter
is also related to changes in life perspectives and worldviews (Feriver et al., 2016; Papenfuss
and Merritt, 2019).
Learners also experience self-awareness (Papenfuss and Merritt, 2019), gain personal 1003
confidence and develop a more integrated identity, which increases their sense of agency and
empowerment, as manifested by a willingness to make a change in their communities,
promoting sustainable actions (Iliško, 2007; Bell et al., 2016; Piasentin and Roberts, 2017; Probst
et al., 2019), expressing feelings of responsibility towards climate change (Bentz and O’Brien,
2019), assuming active roles in communal and management activities and communicating
change (Bull, 2013; Davis and Boulet, 2016; Sims, 2017). This sense of agency and empowerment
is also complemented by the acquisition and improvement of different managerial related skills,
such as business modelling, leadership and design thinking (Cottafava et al., 2019).
A fourth learning outcome is the development of critical, systems and complex thinking,
through which learners can see the interconnectivity of cultural, economic, social and
environmental systems (Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2010; Kalsoom and Khanam, 2017) and thus
comprehend the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability problems (Piasentin and Roberts,
2017). Learners are also able to recognise everyday situations, such as contested social
constructs under the influence of power structures (Iliško, 2007). Finally, social learning
outcomes throughout this review manifest in the reinforcement of social relationships within
and among groups and organisations (Ritz, 2011; Bull, 2013; Westoby and Lyons, 2017;
Quang et al., 2019). These outcomes also refer to social and political action, such as social
mobilisation and activism (Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Marschke and Sinclair, 2009), in
which individuals become part of community-based environmental organisations (Lange,
2004; Sims, 2017) or initiate projects to promote sustainable consumption in their
communities (Sims and Sinclair, 2008; Moyer et al., 2016).
4.2.3 Learning conditions. Among external conditions, power relations are reported as a
crucial factor in management and decision-making processes in which participation processes
are controlled by influential external stake holders who limit proper access to information and
constrain opportunities for participation, thereby triggering a sense of futility and a lack of
agency among the public (Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Walker et al., 2014).
One of the most often-mentioned conditions for fruitful transformative learning processes
is providing time and space for reflection and discourse. Through this process, learners can
express their emotions, narratives and thoughts freely and ultimately reflect upon their
beliefs and assumptions via anything small, informal, genuine conversations to formal and
structured gatherings (Ritz, 2011). As part of the transformative learning process, social
interaction among learners is of rather importance – especially for the stages of discourse and
action – as it enhances the understanding of the self and others (Lankester, 2013; Westoby
and Lyons, 2017). Furthermore, this social interaction also manifests in the creation of a
supportive social environment for learners, where they can feel safe and trustful, such as
peer-, network- and community-based support to cope with disorienting dilemmas (Sims,
2012; Saravanamuthu, 2015).
Educational experiences beyond the formal settings are reported as being valuable to the
transformative learning process and include activities in nature (Blake et al., 2013) and study-abroad
programmes (Ritz, 2011; Winter et al., 2015; Bell et al., 2016). Similarly, hands-on experiences have
been able to leverage the transformative learning process by enabling learners to experiment with
IJSHE sustainable behaviours and art projects (Bentz and O’Brien, 2019), or to implement ecological-
21,5 related techniques and resource management plans (Burns, 2016; Sims, 2017).
The primary reported internal factor is that learners display readiness and openness for a
transformative experience (Ball, 1999; Lange, 2004). This predisposition has multiple
manifestations: excitement at taking part in new and challenging educational experiences
(Blake et al., 2013), a willingness to be an active part of management and decision-making
1004 processes (Sinclair et al., 2013) and an interest in experiencing alternative tourism activities
(Lloyd et al., 2015; Chao, 2017). Another manifestation is that, before the learning experience,
individuals have already changed their frames of reference to contribute to sustainability
both individually and socially (Kerton and Sinclair, 2010; Lankester, 2013).

5. Discussion
The field of transformative learning theory in sustainability learning and ESD research has
become an emerging field of inquiry, as demonstrated by the growing number of publications
over time – a common trend in numerous areas of research not only in sustainability and ESD
(Barth et al., 2016; Figueiro and Raufflet, 2015; Aikens et al., 2016) but also in adult learning and
transformative education (Lange and O’Neil, 2018). Within this body of literature, several
distinctive features of how transformative learning theory is used can be found.
Firstly, our findings indicate that transformative learning has become an attractive
theory that is used in the field of sustainability but is far too often implemented without a
critical exploration of the underlying theory. Transformative learning was a buzzword and a
catchphrase among many publications in the review – a phenomenon that is also evident for
other concepts, such as social learning (Reed et al., 2010). There are at least three possible
explanations for this occurrence:
(1) the term “transformation” is widely used in the sustainability discourse without
further systemic characterisation, which renders it a buzzword for any process by
which any change takes place (Feola, 2015; Few et al., 2017);
(2) as a result of the influence of other disciplines (e.g. psychology), transformative
learning is used as an adjective to tag different human experiences, thereby
rendering the term meaningless (Tisdell, 2012); and
(3) many different perspectives and discourses have emerged within transformative
learning, thus leading to a fragmentation of the theory rather than its unification
(Cranton and Taylor, 2012).

Secondly, the findings of this review reveal that researchers identify a broad spectrum of
potential learning outcomes for transformative learning; however, what often remains
somewhat unclear and unspecified is whether transformative learning represents a learning
outcome in itself or a means of achieving cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes to enable
transformative actions. Moreover, the different frameworks reported in the literature to classify
transformative learning outcomes (Sipos et al., 2008; Diduck et al., 2012) do not address this
issue. The complexity of this problem could lay in the unpredictability and subjectivity of the
outcomes of such life-changing experiences as well as the methodical and ethical implications
in evaluating them. Nonetheless, recent efforts in evaluating transformative learning outcomes
and levels of reflection through surveys and questionnaires were found in this review
(Papenfuss and Merritt, 2019; Probst et al., 2019; Brunstein et al., 2019).
Thirdly, this review makes self-evident that transformative learning shares common
elements to both experiential and social learning (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). From the
experiential learning cycle, concrete experience and active experimentation figure
prominently in the results from this review, as exemplified by situations in which learners Systematic
have hands-on experiences or are in contact with the natural environment or experiment literature
with specific techniques to solve environmental problems. However, these activities also
involve engagement in social interaction, reflection and dialogue in the form of discourse
review
and thereby complete the experiential learning cycle: abstract conceptualisation and
reflective observation. Furthermore, transformative learning involves two distinctive
elements in social learning, as highlighted by Barth et al. (2017):
1005
(1) social learning as the social environment that surrounds the learning process or
learning that occurs via social interaction; and
(2) social learning as a learning outcome of a group, community or society.

Several times during this review, social learning as social interaction and as a learning
outcome was identified: the social interaction component was seen in the transformative
learning process, especially in discourse and action engagement, and social learning as an
outcome was visible in non-formal and informal learning, especially in the context of
environmental and resource management. Therefore, although transformative learning
theory has received critiques of focusing solely on individual change rather than on social
change (Hoggan, 2015), individual transformative learning increases the likelihood of social
change (Quang et al., 2019) within, among and beyond communities and organisations,
sometimes even involving political action towards sustainability.
Finally, systems-thinking competencies, as well as normative and interpersonal
competencies (Wiek et al., 2011), can be related to the learning outcomes identified in this
review. As an analytical meta theory (Hoggan, 2015), transformative learning can provide
valuable insights into the process of developing these competencies. The development of
each competency can be conceptualised as a transformative learning journey that involves
several disorienting situations that require critical (self-) reflection efforts and that are put
into practice through action engagement.
What can we learn from this review? Transformative learning holds valuable insights
into informing and supporting the design and implementation of learning and educational
interventions for sustainability. In ESD literature, the need for reorienting pedagogical
practices from the “conventional” ones is repeatedly emphasised when seeking impactful
learning outcomes both individually and socially. There are a variety of pedagogical efforts
to accomplish this goal, from specific approaches, such as problems and project-based
learning (Brundiers and Wiek, 2013) and art methods (Bentz and O’Brien, 2019; Walshe and
Tait, 2019), to broad settings, such as interdisciplinary and intercultural learning
environments (van Dam-Mieras et al., 2008); nonetheless, the introduction of these methods
and settings can provoke unexpected dilemmas. Hence, it is essential to consider both the
disorienting dilemmas that can emerge during the learning interventions (whether they are
planned as transformative or not) and the prior learning of individuals before embarking on
these processes. Moreover, the normative orientation and inherent emotional charge in
environmental and sustainability issues are also drivers of disorienting situations. The
findings reveal the importance of planning these educational interventions to create
supportive learning conditions such as those identified in the review (e.g. power relations,
time and space for reflection and discourse, social interaction and support; see findings
section). The most important precondition for coping with disorienting situations is to have
the proper social support mechanism without precluding the triggering of learning.
Additionally, the review highlighted the importance of being aware of individuals’ readiness
and openness to change and to learn, especially in the designing of the disorienting
dilemmas, as not all individuals are ready to participate in these learning events.
IJSHE 6. Concluding remarks
21,5 The field of transformative learning and sustainability will continue to grow as researchers
and practitioners in the field are searching for more transformative approaches to find better
ways to promote sustainability transformation through learning and education. This
systematic review allows for a better understanding of how the concepts and mechanisms
explicated in transformative learning theory are used in sustainability learning and ESD
1006 research. We acknowledge the limitations of this paper regarding the inclusion of all core
sample articles in the findings and discussion section, the depth of the discussion of the
categories and themes presented, and a detailed elaboration of some elements and
perspectives present in transformative learning theory. We consider our work to be
exploratory and to serve as a point of departure for debates in the field. Our intention with
this review is to set a point of reference from which potential articles that we might have
missed (as well as future articles) can be integrated into the sample universe.
We found with this review that transformative learning theory has been used extensively in
sustainability learning and ESD research, yet there is considerable superficial use of it. With the
majority of studies concentrated in the higher education in general area, transformative learning
in sustainability has become an emergent field of inquiry, supporting theoretical production as
well as teaching and learning practices towards sustainability. Moreover, by examining the
learning process, outcomes and conditions in the core sample of articles, we demonstrated that
transformative learning – if carefully studied – could contribute to the design and implementation
of the assessment of learning as well as to educational interventions towards sustainability.
Furthermore, research on sustainability learning has contributed significantly to the further
development of transformative learning theory. The sustainability context provides an empirical
grounding that helps to highlight the fact that social learning, the role of experience and the
competencies for sustainability are inherently part of transformative learning. Moreover,
approaches in the assessment of learning outcomes in the field of ESD can contribute to
completing and strengthening the evaluation methods of transformative learning.
Even though there is no direct impact in practice with this review, it serves as an
organised literature source to support further knowledge in the field of transformative
learning theory and sustainability. Especially for those dabbling in the field, both
practitioners and researchers, this paper contains essential literature references to
transformative learning theory and references of its application in sustainability-related
contexts. Future research in transformative sustainability learning would be wise to note
that more empirical research is needed in the areas of teacher education and formal learning
other than in higher education. Finally, there is a need for better methods and tools that can
provide insights into the processes and outcomes of transformative sustainability learning.

References
Aikens, K., McKenzie, M. and Vaughter, P. (2016), “Environmental and sustainability education policy
research: a systematic review of methodological and thematic trends”, Environmental Education
Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 333-359.
Ball, G.D.S. (1999), “Building a sustainable future through transformation”, Futures, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 251-270.
Balsiger, J., Förster, R., Mader, C., Nagel, U., Sironi, H., Wilhelm, S. and Zimmermann, A.B. (2017),
“Transformative learning and education for sustainable development”, Gaia – Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 357-359.
Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M. and Thomas, I. (Eds) (2016), Routledge Handbook of
Higher Education for Sustainable Development, Routledge International Handbooks,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Barth, M. (2015), Implementing Sustainability in Higher Education: Learning in an Age of Systematic
Transformation, Routledge Studies in Sustainable Development, Routledge, London.
literature
Barth, M., Lang, D.J., Luthardt, P. and Vilsmaier, U. (2017), “Mapping a sustainable future. Community
learning in dialogue at the science – society interface”, International Review of Education, Vol. 63
review
No. 6, pp. 811-828.
Barth, M. and Michelsen, G. (2013), “Learning for change: an educational contribution to sustainability
science”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 103-119.
Bell, D.V.J. (2016), “Twenty-first century education: transformative education for sustainability and
1007
responsible citizenship”, Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 48-56.
Bell, H.L., Gibson, H.J., Tarrant, M.A., Perry, L.G., I.I.I. and Stoner, L. (2016), “Transformational learning
through study abroad. US students’ reflections on learning about sustainability in the South
pacific”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 389-405.
Bentz, J. and O’Brien, K. (2019), “ART FOR CHANGE: transformative learning and youth
empowerment in a changing climate”, Elem Sci Anth, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Blake, J., Sterling, S. and Goodson, I. (2013), “Transformative learning for a sustainable future: an
exploration of pedagogies for change at an alternative college”, Sustainability (Switzerland),
Vol. 5 No. 12, pp. 5347-5372.
Boström, M., Andersson, E., Berg, M., Gustafsson, K., Gustavsson, E., Hysing, E., Lidskog, R.,
Löfmarck, E., Ojala, M., Olsson, J., Singleton, B.E., Svenberg, S., Uggla, Y. and Öhman, J. (2018),
“Conditions for transformative learning for sustainable development: a theoretical review and
approach”, Sustainability ( Sustainability), Vol. 10 No. 12.
Brundiers, K. and Wiek, A. (2013), “Do We teach what we preach? An international comparison of
problem- and project-based learning courses in sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 1725-1746.
Brunnquell, C., Brunstein, J. and Jaime, P. (2015), “Education for sustainability, critical reflection and
transformative learning. Professors’ experiences in Brazilian administration courses”,
International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9 Nos 3/4, pp. 321-342.
Brunstein, J., Sambiase, M.F., Kerr, R.B., Brunnquell, C. and Perera, L.C.J. (2019), “Sustainability in
finance teaching: evaluating levels of reflection and transformative learning”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 179-197.
Bull, M. (2013), “Transformative sustainability learning: cultivating a tree-planting ethos in Western
Kenya”, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Burns, H.L. (2016), “Learning sustainability leadership: an action research study of a graduate
leadership course”, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
Vol. 10 No. 2.
Calleja, C. (2014), “Jack Mezirow’s conceptualisation of adult transformative learning: a review”, Journal
of Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 117-136.
Caspersen, J., Frølich, N., Karlsen, H. and Aamodt, P.O. (2014), “Learning outcomes across disciplines
and professions: measurement and interpretation”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 195-215.
Chao, R.F. (2017), “Using transformative learning theory to explore the mechanisms of citizen
participation for environmental education on the removal of invasive species: the case of green
island, Taiwan”, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 2665-2682.
Coghlan, A. and Gooch, M. (2011), “Applying a transformative learning framework to volunteer
tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 713-728.
Cottafava, D., Cavaglià, G. and Corazza, L. (2019), “Education of sustainable development goals through
students’ active engagement: a transformative learning experience”, Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 521-544.
IJSHE Cranton, P. and Hoggan, C.D. (2012), “Evaluating transformative learning”, in Taylor, E.W. and
Cranton, P. (Eds), The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice,
21,5 Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, Calif,
pp. 520-535.
Cranton, P. and King, K.P. (2003), “Transformative learning as a professional development goal”, New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2003 No. 98, pp. 31-38.
1008 Cranton, P. and Taylor, E.W. (2012), “Transformative learning theory: seeking a more unified theory”,
in Taylor, E.W. and Cranton, P. (Eds), The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory,
Research, and Practice, Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, John Wiley and Sons,
San Francisco, Calif, pp. 3-20.
Davis, K. and Boulet, M. (2016), “Transformations? Skilled change agents influencing
organisational sustainability culture”, Australian Journal of Environmental Education,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 109-123.
de Angelis, R. (2018), “Entwining a conceptual framework: transformative, Buddhist and Indigenous-
community learning”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 176-196.
de Angelis, R. (2019), “Social, transformative, and sustainable learning in a Jamaican school and
community”, The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social
Sustainability: Annual Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Diduck, A. and Mitchell, B. (2003), “Learning, public involvement and environmental assessment. A
Canadian case study”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 339-364.
Diduck, A., Sinclair, A.J., Hostetler, G. and Fitzpatrick, P. (2012), “Transformative learning theory,
public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management”, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 55 No. 10, pp. 1311-1330.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S.S., Leal Filho, W. and Azeiteiro, U.M. (2016), “The INDICARE-model –
measuring and caring about participation in higher education’s sustainability assessment”,
Ecological Indicators, Vol. 63, pp. 172-186.
E. Dyment, J., Hill, A. and Emery, S. (2015), “Sustainability as a cross-curricular priority in the
Australian curriculum. A Tasmanian investigation”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 1105-1126.
Feola, G. (2015), “Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of
emerging concepts”, Ambio, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 376-390.
Feriver, S ., Teksöz, G., Olgan, R. and Reid, A. (2016), “Training early childhood teachers for
sustainability. Towards a ‘learning experience of a different kind’”, Environmental Education
Research, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 717-746.
Few, R., Morchain, D., Spear, D., Mensah, A. and Bendapudi, R. (2017), “Transformation, adaptation
and development: relating concepts to practice”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Figueiro, P.S. and Raufflet, E. (2015), “Sustainability in higher education: a systematic review with
focus on management education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106, pp. 22-33.
Fink, A. (2014), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 4th ed., SAGE,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Foster, P. and Hammersley, M. (1998), “A review of reviews: structure and function in reviews of
educational research”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 609-628.
Franz, N. (2010), “Catalyzing employee change with transformative learning”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 113-118.
Franz, N.K. (2005), “Transformative learning in intraorganization partnerships: facilitating personal,
joint, and organizational change”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 254-270.
Fromm, E. (1941), Escape from Freedom, 1st ed., Farrar and Rinehart, Oxford, England.
Goulah, J. (2011), “Ecospirituality in public foreign language education: a critical discourse analysis of a Systematic
transformative world language learning approach”, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 27-52.
literature
Hoggan, C. (2016), “A typology of transformation: reviewing the transformative learning literature”,
review
Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 65-82.
Hoggan, C.D. (2015), “Transformative learning as a metatheory: definition”, Adult Education Quarterly,
Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Iliško, D. (2007), “Teachers as agents of societal change”, Journal of Teacher Education for
1009
Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-26.
James, A. (2019), “Making (non)sense of urban water flows: qualities and processes for transformative
and transgressive learning moments”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 23, pp. 1-21.
Kalsoom, Q. and Khanam, A. (2017), “Inquiry into sustainability issues by preservice teachers: a pedagogy to
enhance sustainability consciousness”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 164, pp. 1301-1311.
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P., Jones, A., Loke, A.Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K. and Yeung, E. (2000),
“Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking”, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 381-395.
Kerton, S. and Sinclair, A.J. (2010), “Buying local organic food: a pathway to transformative learning”,
Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 401-413.
King, K. (2009), The Handbook of the Evolving Research of Transformative Learning Based on the
Learning Activities Survey, IAP, Information Age, Charlotte, NC.
Kitchenham, A. (2008), “The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory”, Journal of
Transformative Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 104-123.
Kokkarinen, N. and Cotgrave, A.J. (2013), “Sustainability literacy in action. Student experiences”,
Structural Survey, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-66.
Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A. (2005), “Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning
in higher education”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 193-212.
Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2010), “Developing and applying a critical and transformative model to
address education for sustainable development in teacher education”, Journal of Teacher
Education for Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 17-26.
Lange, E.A. (2004), “Transformative and restorative learning. A vital dialectic for sustainable
societies”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 121-139.
Lange, E.A. (2018), “Transforming transformative education through ontologies of relationality”,
Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 280-301.
Lange, E. and O’Neil, J. (2018), “Introduction to special issue on transformative sustainability
education”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 275-276.
Lankester, A.J. (2013), “Conceptual and operational understanding of learning for sustainability: a case
study of the beef industry in North-Eastern Australia”, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 119, pp. 182-193.
Laros, A. (2017), “Disorienting dilemmas as a catalyst for transformative learning”, in Laros, A., Fuhr,
T. and Taylor, E.W. (Eds), Transformative Learning Meets Bildung: An International Exchange,
International Issues in Adult Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 85-95.
Laros, A., Fuhr, T. and Taylor, E.W. (Eds) (2017), Transformative Learnng Meets Bildung,
International Issues in Adult Education, Vol. 21, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Light, R.J. and Pillemer, D.B. (1984), Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass.
Littell, J.H., Corcoran, J. and Pillai, V. (2008), “Systematic reviews and meta-analysis”, Pocket Guides to
Social Work Research Methods, Oxford University, Oxford.
IJSHE Lloyd, K., Suchet-Pearson, S., Wright, S., Tofa, M., Rowland, C., Burarrwanga, L., Ganambarr, R.,
Ganambarr, M., Ganambarr, B. and Maymuru, D. (2015), “Transforming tourists and
21,5 “culturalising commerce”. Indigenous tourism at Bawaka in Northern Australia”, International
Indigenous Policy Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-21.
Lu, S. and Zhang, H.-S. (2014), “A comparative study of education for sustainable development in one
British university and one Chinese university”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 48-62.
1010
Lundgren, H. and Poell, R.F. (2016), “On critical reflection: a review of Mezirow’s theory and its
operationalization”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
Marschke, M. and Sinclair, A.J. (2009), “Learning for sustainability: participatory resource management
in Cambodian fishing villages”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 206-216.
Mezirow, J. and Taylor, E.W. (Eds) (2009), Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from
Community, Workplace, and Higher Education, the Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series, John
Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Mezirow, J. (1978), “Perspective transformation”, Adult Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 100-110.
Mezirow, J. (1981), “A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult education. First published
sep 1, 1981”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 3-24.
Mezirow, J. (1991), “Transformation theory and cultural context: a reply to Clark and Wilson”, Adult
Education Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 188-192.
Mezirow, J. (1994), “Understanding transformation theory”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 222-232.
Mezirow, J. (1997), “Transformative learning: theory to practice”, New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, Vol. 1997 No. 74, pp. 5-12.
Mezirow, J. (1998), “On critical reflection”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 185-198.
Mezirow, J. (2003), “Transformative learning as discourse”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 58-63.
Mochizuki, Y. (2016), “Educating for transforming our world: revisiting international debates
surrounding education for sustainable development”, Current Issues in Comparative Education,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 109-125.
Mogren, A. and Gericke, N. (2017), “ESD implementation at the school organisation level, part 2 –
investigating the transformative perspective in school leaders’ quality strategies at ESD
schools”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 993-1014.
Moyer, J.M., Sinclair, A.J. and Quinn, L. (2016), “Transitioning to a more sustainable society: unpacking
the role of the learning – action nexus”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 313-329.
Noy, S., Patrick, R., Capetola, T. and McBurnie, J. (2017), “Inspiration from the classroom: a mixed
method case study of interdisciplinary sustainability learning in higher education”, Australian
Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 97-118.
Owens, C., Sotoudehnia, M. and Erickson-McGee, P. (2015), “Reflections on teaching and learning for
sustainability from the cascadia sustainability field school”, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 313-327.
Papenfuss, J. and Merritt, E. (2019), “Pedagogical laboratories: a case study of transformative
sustainability education in an ecovillage context”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 14,
pp. 1-19.
Pavlova, M. (2013), “Teaching and learning for sustainable development: ESD research in
technology education”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 733-748.
Petticrew, M., Anderson, L., Elder, R., Grimshaw, J., Hopkins, D., Hahn, R., Krause, L., Kristjansson, E., Systematic
Mercer, S., Sipe, T., Tugwell, P., Ueffing, E., Waters, E. and Welch, V. (2013), “Complex
interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach”, Journal of
literature
Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66 No. 11, pp. 1209-1214. review
Phuong, L.T.H., Tuan, T.D. and Phuc, N.T.N. (2019), “Transformative social learning for agricultural
sustainability and climate change adaptation in the Vietnam Mekong Delta”, Sustainability
(Switzerland), Vol. 11 No. 23, pp. 1-15.
Piasentin, F.B. and Roberts, L. (2017), “What elements in a sustainability course contribute to paradigm 1011
change and action competence? A study at Lincoln university”, New Zealand, Environmental
Education Research, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 694-715.
Probst, L., Bardach, L., Kamusingize, D., Templer, N., Ogwali, H., Owamani, A., Mulumba, L.,
Onwonga, R. and Adugna, B.T. (2019), “A transformative university learning experience
contributes to sustainability attitudes, skills and agency”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 232, pp. 648-656.
Quang, N.M., van Nhuong, Ho, T.T.H., van Hieu, T. and Phuc, T.C., N.T.N. (2019), “Transformative
learning as a ground-up approach to sustainable development: narratives from Vietnam’s
Mekong Delta”, Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 97-118.
Quinn, L.J. and Sinclair, A.J. (2016), “Undressing transformative learning: the roles of instrumental and
communicative learning in the shift to clothing sustainability”, Adult Education Quarterly,
Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 199-218.
Reed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond,
C. and Stringer, L.C. (2010), “What is social learning?”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 15 No. 4.
Ritz, A.A. (2011), “The educational value of short-term study abroad programs as course components”,
Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 164-178.
Romano, A. (2018), “Transformative learning: a review of the assessment tools”, Journal of
Transformative Learning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-70.
Saldaña, J. (2013), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
Saravanamuthu, K. (2015), “Instilling a sustainability ethos in accounting education through the
transformative learning pedagogy: a case-study”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 32, pp. 1-36.
Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., Augenstein, K. and Stelzer, F. (2016), “Pledge for a
transformative science: a conceptual framework”, Wuppertal Papers, No. 191, pp. 4-28.
Sims, L. (2012), “Taking a learning approach to community-based strategic environmental assessment:
results from a Costa Rican case study”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 242-252.
Sims, L. (2017), “Learning for sustainability through CIDA’s “community-based pest management in
Central American agriculture” project: a deliberative, experiential and iterative process”, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 538-557.
Sims, L. and Sinclair, A.J. (2008), “Learning through participatory resource management programs:
case studies from Costa Rica”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 151-168.
Sinclair, A.J., Kumnerdpet, W. and Moyer, J.M. (2013), “Learning sustainable water practices through
participatory irrigation management in Thailand”, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Sipos, Y., Battisti, B. and Grimm, K. (2008), “Achieving transformative sustainability learning:
engaging head, hands and heart”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 68-86.
Southern, N.L. (2007), “Mentoring for transformative learning: the importance of relationship in creating
learning communities of care”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 329-338.
Spangenberg, J.H. (2011), “Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons”,
Environmental Conservation, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 275-287.
IJSHE Sterling, S., Dawson, J. and Warwick, P. (2018), “Transforming sustainability education at the creative
edge of the mainstream: a case study of Schumacher college”, Journal of Transformative
21,5 Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 323-343.
Stuckey, H.L., Taylor, E.W. and Cranton, P. (2013), “Developing a survey of transformative learning
outcomes and processes based on theoretical principles”, Journal of Transformative Education,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 211-228.
Taylor, E.W. (1997), “Building upon the theoretical debate: a critical review of the empirical
1012 studies of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 34-59.
Taylor, E.W. (2008), “Transformative learning theory”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, Vol. 2008 No. 119, pp. 5-15.
Taylor, E.W. (2009), “Fostering transformative learning”, in Mezirow, J. and Taylor, E.W. (Eds),
Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education,
the Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series, John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-17.
Thomas, I. (2009), “Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education, and problem-
based learning in universities”, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 245-264.
Tisdell, E.J. (2012), “Themes and variations of transformational learning: interdisciplinary perspectives
on forms that transform”, in Taylor, E.W. and Cranton, P. (Eds), The Handbook of
Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult
Education Series, John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, Calif, pp. 21-36.
van Dam-Mieras, R., Lansu, A., Rieckmann, M. and Michelsen, G. (2008), “Development of an
interdisciplinary, intercultural master’s program on sustainability: learning from the richness of
diversity”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 251-264.
Vanasupa, L., Schlemer, L., Burton, R., Brogno, C., Hendrix, G. and MacDougall, N. (2014), “Laying the
foundation for transdisciplinary faculty collaborations: actions for a sustainable future”,
Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 2893-2928.
Wahr, F., Underwood, J., Adams, L. and Prideaux, V. (2013), “Three academics’ narratives in
transforming curriculum for education for sustainable development”, Australian Journal of
Environmental Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 97-116.
Walker, H., Sinclair, A.J. and Spaling, H. (2014), “Public participation in and learning through SEA in
Kenya”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 45, pp. 1-9.
Walshe, N. and Tait, V. (2019), “Making connections: a conference approach to developing
transformative environmental and sustainability education within initial teacher education”,
Environmental Education Research, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1731-1750.
Westoby, P. and Lyons, K. (2017), “The place of social learning and social movement in transformative
learning: a case study of sustainability schools in Uganda”, Journal of Transformative
Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 223-240.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L. and Redman, C.L. (2011), “Key competencies in sustainability: a
reference framework for academic program development”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 203-218.
Winter, J., Cotton, D., Hopkinson, P. and Grant, V. (2015), “The university as a site for transformation
around sustainability”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9
Nos 3/4, pp. 303-320.
Yeo, S.S. and Yoo, S.-S. (2019), “Cultural disequilibrium: struggles and strategies in intercultural
settings in the case of exchange teachers invited to Korea”, Multicultural Education Review,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 96-113.
Young, S. and Karme, T. (2015), “Service learning in an indigenous not-for-profit organization”,
Education þ Training, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 774-790.
Appendix Systematic
Set of publications of the sample universe (n = 226) organised according to the theoretical use of literature
transformative learning (see Table 3).
Link: www.researchgate.net/publication/335920777_Appendix_-_Final_sample_of_articles_
review
collected_in_a_systematic_literature_review_published_in_Rodriguez-Aboytes_and_Barth_2020_
submitted_Transformative_learning_in_the_field_of_sustainability_A_systema

About the authors 1013

Jorge Gustavo Rodríguez Aboytes is a PhD candidate at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg. He
is carrying out his doctoral studies within the Robert Bosch Research Group “Processes of
Sustainability Transformation”, at the Faculty of Sustainability. He is currently working on research
topics such as transformative learning, real-world laboratories, sustainability textiles and fashion
plus other research interest in education for sustainable development, curriculum design and
development, transitions and transformation research, etc. Jorge Gustavo Rodríguez Aboytes is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Matthias Barth is a Professor of Education for Sustainable Development at the Faculty of
Sustainability at Leuphana University of Lüneburg in Germany. His particular interest is in the
nexus of learning and sustainable development. His current research projects investigate the role of
formal education settings for competence development, transformation processes as learning
processes and how to support them and competence development in higher education for sustainable
development. Matthias is currently leading several sustainability science projects, including the
Institute for Sustainable Development and Learning, engaging with transformation processes and the
role of learning in these processes.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]