CHAPTER 18
Camille Kandiko Howson and Saranne Weller
Abstract
In the humanities, reflection is often a tacit practice, and more explicit strategies for engaging and scaffolding reflection can be used. This chapter draws on data from three studies in the humanities that use innovative pedagogical practices, including concept mapping, critical reading, and co-development to evidence reflection. These studies in Classics, history, English, and other humanities fields integrate activities of staff and students, bringing perspectives together and encouraging them to consider the educational experience from other viewpoints. Engaging in such activities can trigger critical thinking and critical reflection, and such reflective practices can act as a mechanism for transformational learning, which enables a sense of agency, intellectual and emotional growth, and flourishing.
Key Words: reflection, transformative learning, concept mapping, co-development, student engagement, pedagogy, threshold concepts
In his seminal 1984 report for the National Endowment for the Humanities, William Bennett recalled Kant’s famous four questions: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? and What is the human being? (1963, p. 538) as the essence of the humanities. Three decades on, questions about how to effectively teach and learn to address such questions remain a cause for concern. For students to be able to engage in dialogue with the humanities, they need to reflect on written, spoken, and non-literary texts and works. Through this process of personalizing their learning, and through reflecting on Kant’s questions, they may become transformed themselves, developing a greater sense of self-awareness, self-efficacy, and purpose, bedrocks of flourishing and well-being.
Introduction
Reflection “is a deliberate and conscientious process that employs a person’s cognitive, emotional and somatic capacities to mindfully contemplate on past, present or future (intended or planned) actions in order to learn, better understand and potentially improve future actions” (Harvey, Coulson, & McMaugh, 2016, p. 9) and in an educational context “can be understood as a mechanism by which experience is transformed into learning” (Kandiko, Hay, & Weller, 2013, p. 80). Reflection is a broad term in education studies, used as “a noun, a verb, an adjective, a process and/or an outcome” (Rogers, 2001, p. 40), across various levels (Ryan, 2013) and fields of study (Kreber & Castleden, 2009). Yet while “soft” humanities disciplines such as English, history, or philosophy are more likely than sciences to be oriented toward “student character development” (Neumann, 2001, p. 137), that is, an outcome of student critical reflection on personal experience and perspective, the process of reflection is more likely to be recognized as fundamental in health and social care professions education and much harder to build explicitly into the curriculum of non-practice-based programs such as the humanities (Smith, 2011). However, the placement of reflection in summative assessments can lead to emotional performativity, sidestepping the intended transformational learning (Macfarlane & Gourlay, 2009).
The challenge to embed reflection into non-practice-based disciplines is evidenced in the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Subject Benchmark Statements that are designed to define the scope and nature of the disciplines at undergraduate and some postgraduate levels in the UK system. In a practice-based discipline such as Education Studies, the statement is explicit that graduates will demonstrate the “ability to reflect on their own and others’ value systems” and “locate and justify a personal position in relation to the subject” (QAA, 2019a, p. 11). Likewise, in the statement for Social Work, reflection is one of four fundamental learning processes whereby “a student reflects critically and evaluatively on past experience, recent performance, and feedback, and applies this information to the process of integrating awareness (including awareness of the impact of self on others) and new understanding, leading to improved performance” (QAA, 2019d, p. 19).
Conversely, the statement for Philosophy defines reflection only within a set of generic skills as an outcome of studying the discipline (“reflect clearly and critically on oral and written sources”) (QAA, 2019c, p. 8). Similarly, for students graduating with a degree defined in the History of Art, Architecture and Design, the capacity to “reflect on one’s own learning” is one of a number of generic intellectual skills rather than positioned as being central to the nature of learning the discipline (QAA, 2019b, p. 10). For Tay et al. (2018), reflectiveness in the arts and humanities is hypothesized as a fundamental mechanism for generating the positive and long-lasting outcomes of human growth. Yet while practice-based disciplines explicitly locate reflection as central to the imperative of changing as a person in the process of becoming, say, an educator or social worker, the capacity to reflect on experience, values, and perspective is only peripheral to what it means to become a graduate of philosophy or history. For example, in reviewing teaching and learning in history, Timmins, Vernon, and Kinearly (2005) suggest that while “reflexivity” is a “gateway to the serious study of history” (p. 19), few institutions develop this learning experience explicitly.
This chapter argues that in the humanities, reflection is often a tacit practice and that more explicit strategies for engaging and scaffolding reflection can be used to enhance it as a mechanism for transformational learning, which enables a sense of agency, intellectual and emotional growth, and flourishing.
Transformational Learning
Reflection is part of engaging in the teaching and learning process. Transformation can be an outcome of the process of critical reflection and critical self-reflection (Mezirow, 1991). Critical reflection is a “claim for autonomy, for personhood and for self-actualization” (Barnett, 1997, p. 94). The agential and transformative potential of reflection is manifested through creative exploration and discovery (Brockbank & McGill, 1998), a foundation of study in the humanities. Transformative learning is “a deep, structural shift in basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions” (Transformative Learning Centre, 2004, 2nd paragraph), drawing on the work of Habermas (1984) and Freire (1970, 1973). “It is the kind of learning that results in a fundamental change in our worldview as a consequence of shifting from mindless or unquestioning acceptance of available information to reflective and conscious learning experiences that bring about true emancipation” (Simsek, 2012, p. 201).
… transformation can lead developmentally toward a more inclusive, differentiated, permeable, and integrated perspective and that, insofar as it is possible, we all naturally move toward such an orientation. This is what development means in adulthood…. A strong case can be made for calling perspective transformation the central process of adult development.
(Mezirow, 1991, p. 155)
It is important to consider the content and the process of reflection. Content focuses on the information upon which students reflect and the process of reflection on the mechanisms for doing so. Transformative learning has been widely used as a theory and practice in educational research, capturing outcomes on spirituality (Tolliver & Tisdell, 2006), sustainability (Moore, 2005), civic education (Kreber, 2016), and global connectedness (Lehtomäki, Moate, & Posti-Ahokas, 2016).
Meaning-making through critical reflection, triggering transformative learning (Mezirow, 1990), has been widely evidenced through many pedagogical practices, including team-based learning (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink 2004), reading fiction (Hoggan & Cranton, 2015), experiential learning (Harvey, Coulson, & McMaugh 2016), service-learning (Bamber & Hankin, 2011; Kiely 2005), and peer mentorship (Preston, Ogenchuk, & Nsiah 2014). Such activities and actions lead to changes in frames of reference: “sets of fixed assumptions and expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)” (Mezirow, 2003, pp. 58–59). For Ryan (2013), the failure to teach learners how to reflect and scaffold their reflection in disciplinary pedagogy will ultimately lead to superficial outcomes that have little transformational impact. This highlights the importance of diversity and differentiation in pedagogical practices and the need to go beyond teaching content with the expectation that learners will be reflective in response to explicitly developing the students’ awareness of their frames of reference and how these can support successful learning.
Reflection and Transformation in the Humanities
The tacit nature of reflective activities in the humanities means that many of the personally transformative outcomes from learning in the disciplines are not made explicit. We use the outcomes from three research projects set in humanities fields which through different approaches explore innovative pedagogical activities to draw out what students, and staff, gain from reflecting. These longitudinal studies provided opportunities for reflection and for any change in perception to be captured, showing the possibilities for transformative learning to occur through such practices. All three studies were based at an urban research-intensive university in the United Kingdom, working with early-career staff and early-years undergraduate students in humanities departments.
Concept Mapping in Classics
Concept mapping was used to collect data to assess students’ learning experiences over time. Students were asked to create concept maps at the beginning, midpoint, and end of a university Classics course. Concept mapping as developed by Novak (1998) has been widely used to visualize, measure, and assess learning. Concept mapping is based on a hierarchical structuring of knowledge, with concepts linked to form propositional statements. Concept mapping can be used as a research and pedagogical tool. How students’ personal understandings are constituted and how understanding corresponds with achievement are among the most important issues for higher education. Fundamentally, learning is about change in personal understanding (Jarvis, 2006), but how personal understandings change are rarely visualized through a university course.
Findings from the study have been previously reported (Kandiko et al., 2013). This research identified the use of concept mapping as a reflective tool for externalizing personal understanding in a dialogic model and explored the development of the relationship between public and personal learning through reflection. The study found that concept maps can be the beginning of a reflective dialogue with the public texts of teaching, students’ personal understanding, and the teacher, and identified concept mapping as a vehicle for visualizing reflective learning. “By the end of the course, the students’ maps showed a personal understanding and an engagement with the discipline through the concentration and development of an argument … through continual processes of rehearsal, revision and reflection among theory, argument and debate” (pp. 76–77).
This method uses semi-graphic methods to externalize and structure verbal explanations of personal understanding in a dialogical fashion (Bakhtin, 1981), since it facilitates successive rounds of internalization and external representation through dialogue with the self and with others. Findings indicate that maps can be used as learning and discussion tools, combining the simultaneous facilitation of internal and external dialogue in disciplinary contexts. They enable the simultaneous development of personal understanding and external representation of ideas that are appropriately contextualized and discipline specific. And they allow individuals to represent and self-prompt for explanation and development of their personal understanding in dialogue with the self or with others. In this study, the teacher identified greater student creativity and transformation of understanding in the mid-term maps, as the final maps were more directed toward the final assessment exams and essays, highlighting the importance of how reflective exercises are embedded within the curriculum for directing student learning.
This method of facilitated reflection through mapping provided pedagogical outcomes for both the teacher and the students. The teacher was able to gain insights into students’ progression of understanding during the course, rather than having to wait until the final assignment at the end of the module. Furthermore, the role and timing of the assessment in relation to students’ approaches to learning were illuminated through the mapping exercise. Students showed the sense of self-awareness of the educational process in their strategic approach to refining their argument to match the assessment. The mapping showed students’ creativity in their thinking during the course, evidencing personal reflection with the texts.
Reading in the Humanities
The capacity to read texts critically to identify both author and multiple reader points of view and frames of reference is fundamental to the practice of the humanities. This is usually achieved through an apprenticeship pedagogy whereby the learners “observe” the performance of these reflective practices by their teachers in lectures and seminars and engage in this through their participation in dialogue with their peers to explore and test out their interpretations. Yet ultimately, as discussed in a comparative study of student and lecturer acts of reading by Weller (2010), the conceptualization of what criticality is and how it is performed significantly diverges between experienced lecturers and their novice student readers. In this study, students and their lecturers in American Studies, Comparative Literature, and Theology participated in semi-structured interviews about their disciplinary practices and articulated their differing understandings of what it meant to read critically. For the lecturers, their understanding of texts was palimpsestic, with multiple readings, interpretations, and lenses overlying each other in ways that they could consciously visualize and manipulate as expert readers. Conversely, their students reported a more linear and temporal perspective, with an understanding of the practice of critical reading as seeking to master the capacity to determine which of the different readings of the text over time was in fact the “correct” reading of the text.
In analyzing the student strategies, Weller (2010) argues that “in circumscribing different readings as the expression of ‘opinions’ or the adopting of ‘angles’ from which to perceive the text, students evade the necessity to determine the interrelationship between different, sometimes contradictory, critical accounts of a text” (p. 95). This is also to evade the fundamental practices of the discipline founded on the process of critical reflection. It is only in being able to recognize that “rather than seeing their encounter with a discipline as an all-or-nothing acquisition of an ‘object’ ” (Anderson & Hounsell, 2007, p. 467), students have to identify their own and others’ repeated textual encounters as experiential practice moments that are central to the development of their disciplinary identity. It is that experience of a text in a fixed moment in time that constitutes the “practice” that is the focus for reflection and evaluation for learners. Analysis of the experience and the perspectives on that experience are comparable to reflecting on practice in clinical or classroom settings for healthcare or education students. In revisiting that experience or evaluating the perspectives that they have brought to understanding that experience, students in the humanities subjects can put under scrutiny the values that have shaped that time-bounded first or second encounter with a text and the point of view or frames of reference and make them subsequently open to change.
Reflective Practices in English and History
This project evaluated a model of student-engaged educational development through reflection by new teaching staff and students on the role of students in the educational development and enhancement process, and the impact on identity and power relations (Kandiko Howson & Weller, 2016). In this study, students were paired with a new lecturer. Each student led a teaching observation, with one new lecturer participating on a development course, facilitated by an experienced educational developer with the aim to engage in collaborative dialogue about observed teaching practice. The students also participated in one program seminar linked to the observation activities. Students, new lecturers, and developers were asked to create concept maps facilitated by the researchers at each stage of the process (before, during, and after interventions) to elicit conceptions of teaching and learning “expertise” and the role of “student voice” in learning and teaching enhancement.
This approach provides benefits for teacher reflective practice and professional learning (Cook-Sather, 2008) and, for students, can provide a transformational lens to consider their own agency and responsibilities toward their learning. Student participation in enhancement activities with faculty is a threshold concept—a “conceptual gateway” that leads to a transformed view or understanding (Meyer & Land, 2006) for both staff and students (Werder, Thibou, & Kaufer 2012). Kandiko Howson and Weller (2016) reported on the distinctive perspective that students can bring through reflecting on the education process and engaging in dialogue about it. The new lecturer identified how students, with their fresh perspective, could “react emotionally” to the teaching they observe, and that the experience of receiving feedback helped build confidence in new lecturing staff. Students found that the reflective exercise allowed them to think creatively, to be innovative, and to develop coping skills and personal responsibility.
Student engagement in educational development offered an alternative model of student feedback which operates under an “ethics of care” moral framework (Bozalek et al., 2014). It provides evidence of the importance of “critical-dialectical discourse” for transformative learning to occur, which can lead to development of metacognitive skills (Mezirow 2003). However, expectations from both students and staff about the appropriate role for students in the development process limited the possibilities for students to be agents of transformative change beyond their own experience. As with the study of critical reading discussed earlier, student perspectives on practice were framed by both students and lecturers as specific and personal expressions of points of view, rather than as opportunities for abstraction, critique, and change through reflection on the observation of disciplinary practices.
Discussion
The three studies together identify the importance of the tacit and undervalued element of reflection in the humanities disciplines and how vital it is that students and teachers develop reflection as the basis for transformative learning to evolve disciplinary ways of thinking and practicing. It is reflection, or becoming capable of reflection, that constitutes the “disorienting dilemma” for students in the subjects (Mezirow, 1991). Concept mapping and metaphoric visualization enable learners to stand outside the discipline and see it more explicitly in terms of ways of thinking and practicing. Moreover, it shows how some of the personal and internalized ways of seeing and describing within humanities disciplinary contexts become visible in a dialogical mapping-record, even when they remain largely opaque to other assessment methods.
This issue has important bearing for the future reflective assessment methodologies, but it is also important for the development of Threshold Concept Theory (Meyer & Land, 2006) since it means that the “specific lenses” or “windows on a disciple” can be visualized. Together, these studies show that reflection and reflective thinking can be seen as a threshold concept in humanities subjects, indicating that once it is learned, it cannot be unlearned and that the process of learning it not always clear. This indicates the need to make this tacit practice more visible, identifiable, and knowable.
The three studies highlight the role of reflection in different levels of learning: (1) instrumental (Classics); (2) practical (reading) and (3) self-reflective (history). These studies show different opportunities for reflection to support communication, through mapping, feedback, and dialogue. This allows for “the intersubjective relation that speaking and acting subjects take up when they come to an understanding with one another about something” (Habermas, 1984, p. 392). The capacity to recognize a frame of reference is central to change for students in becoming expert in those fields, and pedagogically we need to promote learning experiences that expose students to reflection in ways these disciplines do not always articulate. The studies highlight the need to define experiential practice in the humanities as a basis for enabling reflection and growth and to raise awareness of reflective practices, offering a process for supporting the development of reflectiveness in the humanities.
The studies identified broad outcomes from reflection and developing reflectiveness, facilitating growth and flourishing. Reflection develops a sense of agency in individuals, and personal learning raises levels of critical awareness. Through engaging in dialogue about teaching and learning, in Kandiko Howson and Weller (2016) a student identified “enjoyment and pride in their own work” as reflective practices that support them in understanding the purpose and potential benefits of their work, and found that such practice can provide “a sense of purpose and direction” (p. 58) through linking university study to their next steps in life. This also offered possibilities for career planning, as students gained insight into academic practices from a different perspective.
Reflection in pedagogy in the humanities is about bringing about transformation for students and lecturers. However, students and staff need sufficient preparation to support the reflective process (Boud & Walker, 1993). The effect of transformational learning on student and staff well-being can be multifaceted, and not necessarily positive. Critical reflection can also be troubling, due to a loss of previous sense of self and place in the world. The studies indicated ways to bring student and lecturer perspectives together to create positive pedagogical experiences, but such efforts need to be supported through professional development, which can be positioned as a transformative learning experience in itself (Cranton, 1996).
This highlights the need for more research on ways to build reflectiveness, despite it being a tacit skill in the humanities, and whether unmediated encounters with different frames of reference are sufficient for transformative learning to occur. Areas for future research include how to embed experiential practices in the curriculum and how to shift reflection from a tacit skill to something more explicit, while avoiding the pitfalls and bureaucracy found in mandated reflection exercises in other disciplines (Maben et al., 2006; Lakasing, 2013).
Conclusion
As Bennett’s (1984) report noted, learning in the humanities requires good teaching and a good curriculum. As the three studies evidence, the non-practice-based ways of thinking and engaging that define humanities disciplines neglect the messy, personalized and human encounters that students have as they learn, and the potential for these to be rich experiential sources for reflection and growth. A more explicit defining of the experience of argumentation, critical reading, and pedagogic engagement, as outlined in the three studies, is fundamental if students are to integrate the personal and the disciplinary through experience and reflection in ways that are distinctive to the humanities as a practice and vital for graduates from these disciplines.
References
Anderson, C., & Hounsell, D. (2007). Knowledge practices: “Doing the subject” in undergraduate courses. The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 463–78.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (Michael Holquist, Ed.; Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, Trans.). Austin; London: University of Texas Press.
Bamber, P., & Hankin, L. (2011). Transformative learning through service-learning: No passport required. Education+ Training, 53(2–3), 190–206.
Barnett, R (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bennett, W. J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy: A report on the humanities in higher education. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1993). Barriers to reflection on experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & D. Walker (Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 73–86). Bristol, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bozalek, V. G., McMillan, W., Marshall, D.E., November, M., Daniels, A., & Sylvester, T. (2014). Analysing the professional development of teaching and learning from a political ethics of care perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(5), 447–458.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2008). “What you get is looking in a mirror, only better”: Inviting students to reflect (on) college teaching. Reflective Practice, 9(4), 473–483.
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives for teachers of adults. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P., & King, K. P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional development goal. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (98), 31–38.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herter and Herter.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon.
Harvey, M., Coulson, D., & McMaugh, A. (2016). Towards a theory of the Ecology of Reflection: Reflective practice for experiential learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(2), 2.
Hoggan, C., & Cranton, P. (2015). Promoting transformative learning through reading fiction. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(1), 6–25.
Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning: Lifelong learning and the learning society. London, UK: Routledge.
Kandiko, C. B., Hay, D. B., & Weller, S. (2013). Concept mapping in the Humanities to facilitate reflection: Externalising the relationship between public and personal learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(1), 72–91.
Kandiko Howson, C. B., & Weller, S. (2016). Defining pedagogic expertise: Students and new lecturers as co-developers in learning and teaching. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 1–14.
Kant, I. (1963) Kant’s Introduction to logic and his essay on the mistaken subtilty of the four figures (T. K. Abbot, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.
Kiely, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 5–22.
Kreber, C., & Castleden, H. (2009). Reflection on teaching and epistemological structure: Reflective and critically reflective process in “pure/soft” and “pure/hard” fields. Higher Education, 57(4), 509–531.
Kreber, C. (2016). Educating for civic-mindedness: Nurturing authentic professional identities through transformative higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
Lakasing, E. (2013). Formative assessments in medical education: Are excessive, and erode the learning and teaching experience. British Journal of General Practice, 63(608), 145–145.
Lehtomäki, E., Moate, J., & Posti-Ahokas, H. (2016). Global connectedness in higher education: student voices on the value of cross-cultural learning dialogue. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 2011–2027.
Maben, J., Latter, S., & Clark, J. M. (2006). The theory–practice gap: Impact of professional–bureaucratic work conflict on newly‐qualified nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(4), 465–477.
Macfarlane, B., & Gourlay, L. (2009). The reflection game: Enacting the penitent self. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 455–459.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding. London, UK: Routledge.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, 1(20), 1–6.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63.
Mezirow, J., & Associates (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., and Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Moore, J. (2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 76–91.
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–46.
Novak, J. (1998) Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Preston, J. P., Ogenchuk, M. J., & Nsiah, J. K. (2014). Peer mentorship and transformational learning: PhD student experiences. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 52–68.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2019a). Subject Benchmark Statement: Education Studies. Gloucester, UK: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2019b). Subject Benchmark Statement: History of Art, Architecture and Design. Gloucester, UK: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2019c). Subject Benchmark Statement: Philosophy. Gloucester, UK: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2019d). Subject Benchmark Statement: Social Work. Gloucester, UK: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 37–57.
Ryan, M. (2013). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 144–155.
Simsek, A. (2012). Transformational learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 201–211). Boston, MA: Springer.
Smith, E. (2011). Teaching critical reflection. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 211–33.
Tay, L., Pawelski, J., & Keith, M. (2018). The role of the arts and humanities in human flourishing: a conceptual model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(3), 215–225.
Transformative Learning Centre. 2016. Retrieved from Transformative Learning Centre Web site: https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/tlcca/About_The_TLC.html
Timmins, G., Vernon, K. & Kinearly, C. (2005). Teaching and learning history. London, UK: Sage.
Tolliver, D. E., & Tisdell, E. J. (2006). Engaging spirituality in the transformative higher education classroom. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 37–47.
Weller, S. (2010). Comparing lecturer and student accounts of reading in the humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), 87–106.
Werder, C., Thibou, S., & Kaufer, B. (2012). Students as co-inquirers: A requisite threshold concept in educational development. Journal of Faculty Development, 26(3), 34–38.