Introduction

Maureen O’Hara (2006), in the conclusion of her article In Search of the Next Enlightenment, proposes that a new stage of human evolution be the organizing goal of education for the global 21^st century (p. 116). I thoroughly agree and in response present this paper with a model for education that is systemic and integral, and which contains elements that offer a transformation in learning and consciousness. O’Hara referenced Robert Kegan (1994) in her revelation of the gap between the quality of consciousness, habits of mind and ways of being needed today in our complex world and where most people are operating. Like Kegan, O’Hara notes that what is required today is beyond the psychological development level of most people. I would add that it appears to be also beyond our spiritual, emotional, physical and mental development.

Our current educational goals and practices are insufficient to the level of complexity, the ability to deal with uncertainty, flexibility, creativity, dialogue, understanding, wisdom, etc. being asked of the 21^st century journeyer. What is being called for, as O’Hara clearly articulates, is “the cultivation of levels of consciousness and habits of mind that go way beyond” (p. 112), the mental capacities canonized in the Western industrialized world (p. 111). This article introduces the systemic, integral approach as a method of developing the whole person, including consciousness, habits of mind and ways of being.

Transformative Learning

Transformative learning is the kind of learning that shifts the definition or locus of the self, from content; i.e., having to have a position or a fixed point of view, to context; i.e., not having to have a position, - an ability to hold multiple points of view, having a systemic or integral worldview (Elias, 1997). Education that is transformative provides learning distinctions that shift who a learner considers themselves to ‘be’ from identifying one's self as a point of view, a story or history, a personality, an ego, or a body, to recognizing one's self as context - as an observer and participant, and a ‘clearing’ in which a different order of thought, feeling, conversation or action, etc. can take place. The individual’s capacities ‘reach beyond’ any narrowly personal and individual perspective (Wilber, 1998, p. 72). 

In transformative learning one is able to create new meaning structures and shift worldviews (Mezirow, 2000), which, according to Dirkx, manifest in an enhanced awareness and consciousness of one’s being in the world, (Dirkx, Mezirow & Cranton, 2006, p. 137) and a profound change in one’s cognitive, emotional, or spiritual way of being (p.133). Transformative learning challenges what we know and frees us from distorted notions of the world and who we think we are (Merriam & Caffarella, 1998). It generates an environment in which our consciousness can dramatically shift (Boyd, 1989), and one in which our minds, bodies, feelings, spirits and subsequent actions can permanently alter (O’Sullivan, n.d.).

Systemic Integral Education

A systemic, integral approach to education contains the elements to transform learning and consciousness. A system is an integrated whole whose essential properties arise from the relationship between its parts which are interconnected and interdependent (Capra, 1996). An integral approach to education incorporates the development and integration of the mental, emotional, physical and spiritual intelligences throughout an individual’s learning process (Ghose, 1990). To think systemically means putting things into a context and establishing the nature of the relationships (Capra, 1996). To think integrally means to nurture the development of the whole, i.e., the whole person, the whole community, group, country, planet, etc, (Miller, 1991) and be comprehensive, inclusive and balanced in the process (Wilber, 2003). The systemic, integral worldview is emerging as a response to the evolutionary and at times revolutionary advances in a multitude of disciplines. It contributes a transdisciplinary and panoramic quality to our epistemology and a new understanding of the nature of reality, values and relationships.

From this vantage point, the educational process is viewed as a dynamic, integral system. The interconnectedness and interdependency of the stages of human development from a child’s conception to their school graduation are viewed through the lens of the physical, emotional, spiritual and mental intelligences and their integration. Systems philosophy brings forth a reorientation of thought and worldview (Banathy, 1996), and paired with an integral worldview creates an educational environment in which transformative learning can occur.

The Researched Integral Education Programs

The nine researched programs were selected because of their commitment to an integral approach to education. An integral education addresses the whole person by creating an environment in which students engage in learning processes and experiences that focus on developing and integrating the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual intelligences, from Pre School through 12th grade. Five of the schools were located in The United State: The Oakgrove School, (Krishnamurti) in Ojai, California, The School of the Woods, (Maria Montessori) in Houston Texas, The Moorestown Quaker School, (George Fox) in Moorestown, New Jersey, The Waldorf School, (Rudolf Steiner) in San Francisco, California and The Living Wisdom School, (Yogananda) in Nevada City, California. Four programs were found in India: The Sri Atmananda Memorial School (Sri K.P. Menon) in Kerala, India, The Auroville Schools (Sri Aurobindo) in Auroville, India, The International Centre of Education (Sri Aurobindo) in Pondicherry, India and CMS (Jagdish and Bharti Gandhi) in Lucknow, India.

Research Population

The research participants reflect a diverse population. Religious affiliations include Judaism, Hinduism, Baha’i, and Christianity, e.g., Quaker, Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, as well as shared spiritual practices with communities created by sages from India, e.g., Sri Aurobindo, Sri Atmananda, Yogananda, and Krishnamurti. Some students and their parents engaged in spiritual practices of an eclectic nature, which included a variety of expressions. Participants were American, American /European/Russian/Polish, German, Scottish/Chinese, Swedish/American, Latin American/American, and Indian (Telegu, Malayalee and Northern Brahmin).

Themes from the Physical, Emotional, Mental, Spiritual Intelligences

From the interviews, six areas that most stood out as major contributors to the developing of the four intelligences were designated. One combined area, the school, its philosophical and pedagogical approaches, parents, families, teachers and friends, appeared in every participant’s response to the development of their intelligences. This is a very consistent finding given the nature of the programs.

What follows represents the participants’ responses in each domain. For the physical, 1) the connection of the physical aspects of a person with the physical world and nature; 2) somatic consciousness, being ‘present’ in the body; 3) centeredness; 4) energy; 5) and healthy habits/nutrition were chosen. For the emotional, 1) safety, belonging, relationship, love; 2) being known and self expressed; 3) serving; 4) being responsible, 5) and mentoring were selected.

For the mental, 1) the encouragement and ‘space’ to love learning, be curious and follow a passion, 2) have learning be experiential, embodied and relevant to ones life; 3) be respected and honored as an individual and think and learn for oneself; 4) be given choices, trust and responsibility for learning; 5) and knowing the context in which learning is taking place were the preferred responses.  For the spiritual, 1) being educated in ways that spirituality could show up in their lives, i.e., seeing oneself in relation to a larger world, feeling connected to oneself, others and nature;  2) learning and participating in practices that brought them in touch with themselves, through internal experiences, e.g. meditation, yoga, exercises, self-reflection, journaling, silent time, connection with a higher power; 3) experiencing congruency throughout their life; 4) having conversations about spiritual insights and experiences; 5) and understanding and honoring the world’s religions and learning the distinction between spirituality and religion best represented the participants responses.

Transformative Learning Frameworks

The transformative learning frameworks from both Jack Mezirow (1997, 2000) and Edmond O’Sullivan (n.d.) and contributions from Neuman (1996) and Boyd & Meyers (1988) emphasize aspects of transformative pedagogy that are demonstrated in integral educational programs. Mezirow’s goal for education is “to help the individual become a more autonomous thinker by learning to negotiate his or her own values, meanings, and purpose rather than uncritically acting on those of others”(1997, p. 11).  For O’Sullivan (n.d.), transformative learning involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and permanently alters our way of being in the world (p. 7).

O’Sullivan (n.d.) identified five themes that he found to be fundamental to transformative learning.

1. The relationship/connection that humans have with the natural world; consciousness of the environment;
2. World citizenship; peace, equality, conscious world citizens, interconnectedness, interdependency, narratives of inclusion;
3. Integral curriculum; integral development–from the personal to the planetary, contextual-holistic vs. content-informational;
4. An experience of belonging: community, a place, roots;
5. A sense of the sacred: integrative dimension of experience, awe, respect for life, connections to the spirit (pp. 1-6).

Mezirow (2000) has also specified ten elements that provide a potent foundation for transformative learning.

1. A sense of safety, openness, trust; egalitarian, nonjudgmental and non-competitive environment;
2. A learner centered approach;
3. Critical reflection and explorations of alternative personal perspectives;
4. Affective learning, emotions and feelings discussed;
5. Solitude, self dialogue;
6. Handling disagreement, confronting rather than avoiding;
7. Experiential learning;
8. Acknowledging many ways of knowing and learning; multiple intelligences;
9. Questioning our assumptions, beliefs;
10. The use of rational discourse, dialogue (p. 312).

Neuman (1996) expands the acknowledgment of the importance of feelings and emotions to the transformative aspects of learning experiences. Boyd and Meyers (1988), in promoting transformative learning, include supporting students to recognize their “spirit”–a knowing or a truth that resides in them (p. 282). .

Comparative Tables

What follows are five displays of the correlations found between the integral education interviewees’ responses and the transformative learning frameworks of O’Sullivan (n.d.), Mezirow (2000), Neuman (1996), and Boyd and Meyers (1988). They are an indicator of the transformational distinctions these integral educational programs are contributing to the transformative learning discourse and their parallels to these theoretical frameworks.  Each table represents one domain of intelligences which identifies many congruencies.

New Bodies, Emotions, Minds and Spirits for the 21^st Century

O’Hara (2006) remarked, “We now have the kind of responsibility for the future of the planet that was once thought to belong to beings of a higher order- [and thus] it seems to me urgent that we consider what kind of education this unprecedented level of responsibility requires” (p. 111). It calls for people being educated as wholes; people able to relate to the world as an integrated human being, e.g. individuals consciously in their bodies aware of the partnership and wisdom of their physical intelligence; individuals connected to their emotional intelligence and its relational significance to everyone and everything; people aware that their mental intelligence is contextual as well as ‘contentual,’ and whose spiritual intelligence provides them with a sense of connection and belonging with themselves, other people and nature.  The integral consciousness that includes the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual qualities of a human being embraces the qualities necessary to respond responsibly to the challenges of the 21^st century. It is the development and integration of these essential intelligences that provides the scope of awareness necessary to expand the consciousness of our species. We need all of us as individuals to evolve all of us as collective.

References

Adams, A. (2006). Education from conception to graduation: A systemic, integral approach, Unpublished doctorial dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.

Banathy, B.H. (1996). Systems inquiry and its application in education.In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (chap. 3). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Boyd, R. D. & Meyers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 4, 261-284.

Boyd, R. D. (1989). Facilitating personal transformation in small groups, Part 1. Small Group Behavior, 20, 459-474.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor Books.

Dirkx, J.M., Mezirow, J. & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow, Journal of Transformative Education, (4) 2, 123-139.

Elias, D. G. (1997). It’s time to change our minds. Revision, 20, 2-6.

Ghose, A. (1990). On education. Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S.(1998). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide, (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranston (Ed.), Transformative Learning in Action: Insights from Practice, (pp. 5-12). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, R. (1991). New directions in education: Selections from holistic education review. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.

O’Hara, M. (2006). In search of the next enlightenment? The challenge of education in uncertain times, Journal of Transformative Education, (4) 2, 105-117.

O’Sullivan E. (n.d.).Integral education: A vision of transformative learning in a planetary context.Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://tlc.oise.utoronto.ca/insights/integraleducation.html.

Neuman, T. P. (1996). Critically reflective learning in a leadership development context. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57A (12), AAT 9708282.

Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul. New York: Random House.

Wilber, K. (2003). Integral. Retrieved September 30, 2003 from http://www.integralnaked.org/integral.shtml.