912219

research-article2020
AEQXXX10.1177/0741713620912219Adult Education QuarterlyMoyer and Sinclair

Article
Adult Education Quarterly

Learning for Sustainability:

2020, Vol. 70(4) 340­–359
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Considering Pathways to sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0741713620912219
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713620912219
Transformation journals.sagepub.com/home/aeq

Joanne M. Moyer1 and A. John Sinclair2

Abstract
Social-ecological systems face increasing disruptions and challenges, many deriving
from human actions, and learning is frequently touted as “the way out” for addressing
them. Using a systematic review of 26 studies that span about 20 years and cover
four continents, this article interrogates the link between learning, action, and societal
transformation toward sustainability. Transformative learning theory provides the
analytical framework. Studies indicated abundant instrumental learning outcomes, and
substantial communicative learning, while personal transformation was less common.
Individual, interpersonal, and collective sustainability action resulted from various
kinds of learning, underscoring the important role that learning can play in shaping
individual sustainability behavior. Instrumental learning, in particular, provided the skills
and knowledge necessary for action. While study findings confirm the fundamental
importance of learning, actions were largely individual and had lesser impact at the
societal level.

Keywords
transformative learning theory, sustainability, natural resource management

Introduction
In their seminal book, Adult Education at the Crossroads, Finger and Asún (2001)
argue that industrial societies must “learn their way out” of the global crises that indus-
trial development and turbo-capitalism are wreaking. In the realm of environmental
sustainability, learning at the individual and social levels has become a normative

1
The King’s University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
2
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Joanne M. Moyer, The King’s University, 9125-50 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 2H3, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Moyer and Sinclair 341

approach, through environmental education programs, public education campaigns,

and natural resource governance processes that favor participatory, learning-based
approaches (e.g., Boström et al., 2018; Suškevičs et al., 2018; Wals, 2011). Such
approaches are favored because they address the foundational worldviews and prac-
tices that shape action and behavior (Finger & Asún, 2001; Sterling, 2010). Learning
is also more democratic and emancipatory than legislation and other “command and
control” approaches and is argued to be more effective and just in achieving sustain-
ability goals (Blackmore, 2007; Diduck et al., 2015; Wals, 2011). Finally, learning-
based governance approaches have the potential to mitigate the complexity, uncertainty,
and conflict characteristic of sustainability problems by encouraging experimentation,
innovation, and adaptability (Baird et al., 2014; Boström et al., 2018).
Researchers we have worked with, including graduate students and colleagues,
have studied learning for sustainability for about 20 years through numerous applica-
tions and contexts. These studies used transformative learning theory (TLT) as a theo-
retical lens, because it offers a promising theoretical frame for understanding learning
and promoting individual and social change necessary for action on sustainability
through its focus on transformation that produces far-reaching change in learners.
Furthermore, the theory was designed for adult learners, and despite its focus on class-
room learning, can be applied in both formal and nonformal settings. Among others
testing TLT outside the classroom (e.g., D’Amato & Krasny, 2011; Taylor et al., 2012),
the scholars we considered are contributing a critical mass of such studies, in the field
of sustainability generally, and particularly in natural resource and environmental
management (NREM).

Purpose and Approach

In promoting learning as a “way out,” Finger and Asún (2001) advocated for evalua-
tion and reform of adult learning processes that may not be achieving the goals they
were purported to achieve. In this spirit, our purpose in bringing together insights
gained through these TLT studies is to critically reflect on whether individual adult
learning and personal transformation can act as a foundation for encouraging more
environmentally sustainable behavior in society through both individual and social
action.
Our review includes 26 studies conducted by ourselves, graduate students, and with
academic colleagues, including 18 published journal articles, one dissertation, and
seven master’s theses, and involving 25 researchers (Table 1). We included in our
sample any studies addressing learning through TLT related to environmental sus-
tainability completed by ourselves, associated graduate students, and studies with
colleagues. Sustainability is defined broadly as promoting the flourishing of social-
ecological systems and the individuals and communities within them. These studies
focused on the intersection of social and ecological systems. The published studies
range from 2001 to 2019, reflecting the period of this ongoing work. The coauthors
worked collaboratively to summarize the study results in tabular form, detailing the
learning outcomes as they relate to TLT domains, actions and implications for
342 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

Table 1. Areas of Application.

Areas of application No. of studies Publications

Natural resource Environmental 8 Sinclair & Diduck, 2001;
governance assessment processes Fitzpatrick Sinclair, 2003;
and community Sinclair et al., 2008;
conservation Spaling et al., 2011;
Vespa, 2013; Walker
et al., 2014; Boerchers,
2016; Dennis, 2017
Agricultural extension 3 Sims & Sinclair, 2008;
Dunne, 2013; Najjar
et al., 2013
Watershed management 3 Sinclair et al., 2013;
Walker et al., 2015;
Almudi, 2019
Forestry/forest 2 Sinclair et al., 2011;
conservation Richardson, 2008
Fisheries 1 Marschke & Sinclair, 2009
Hydroelectric project 1 Diduck et al., 2013
planning
Resources management 1 Diduck et al., 2012
Individual lifestyle Sustainable food and 3 Kerton & Sinclair, 2010;
and experience agriculture Looy, 2016; Leonard,
2015
Faith-based development 2 Moyer et al., 2014; Moyer
and environmental & Sinclair, 2016
NGO workers
Personal sustainable 2 Moyer et al., 2016; Quinn
clothing practices & Sinclair, 2016
Total 26

Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.

sustainability. We also communicated with eight randomly chosen study authors from
the 18 journal articles and asked for their reflections on key learning triggers and
action outcomes identified in their research. These reflections helped to shape the
results and discussion below. We focus on this body of knowledge because it is the
largest longitudinal collection we know of engaging TLT and its literature outside of
the classroom setting, we had access to the data and researchers, and sustainability was
a common focus of the research done. Studies by others were incorporated into the
analysis of the data across the work with which we have been engaged.
Table 1 captures the areas of field application of the studies. Studies in the natural
resource governance and community conservation category investigated participants’
learning within structured NREM programs. Many of these considered new forms of
governance in resource management contexts (e.g., community forestry, participatory
irrigation management, strategic environmental assessment) as potential platforms of
Moyer and Sinclair 343

learning, as well as decision making about projects that gathered people in potentially
deliberative forums where learning could occur. They include grassroots conservation
projects facilitated by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Farmer Field
Schools and eco-tourism initiatives. Studies in the individual lifestyle and experience
category either considered disconnected individuals learning through sustainability
lifestyle choices, or individuals learning through work with NGOs on sustainability
and livelihood issues. The research took place in various jurisdictions: Half of the
projects were conducted in Canada, and the other half were conducted overseas in
Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The studies consisted of two conceptual articles (Diduck et al., 2012; Sinclair et al.,
2008) and 24 empirical studies, which were almost exclusively qualitative, involving
case study designs and semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and document
reviews. They ranged in size from seven to 130 participants, with a combined total of
more than 900 participants and used qualitative data analysis software to identify and
analyze grounded and literature-based themes.

Transformative Learning Theory

TLT considers the process of learning as individual learners evaluate and refine their
perceptions, worldviews, and meanings (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 2012) and can be
applied to diverse social settings in which learning occurs (Merriam, 1993; Merriam
& Caffarella, 1991). The theory identifies categories for different domains of learning:
instrumental learning, concerned with learning about how the world works and how to
accomplish desired ends (e.g., water management techniques); and communicative
learning, which involves interpreting, understanding, and conveying meaning in social
interactions, including negotiating norms and desired ends (e.g., resource conflict
resolution).
Personal transformation occurs when a learner evaluates the outcomes of instru-
mental and communicative learning, reaching a deep level of assumptions and under-
standings, and experiences a tangible, profound change in their perception of self and
the world. Ideally, personal transformation should result in changed behavior, though
this does not always occur (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1991). The primary learning
processes described by the theory are rational discourse and critical reflection. Through
these mechanisms, assumptions and beliefs are questioned and improved so they can
be applied more effectively to future action (Mezirow, 1991, 2012).
TLT holds a prominent position within adult learning studies (Finger & Asún, 2001;
Taylor, 2007) and is gaining recognition within the learning for sustainability dis-
course (e.g., Boström et al., 2018; D’Amato & Krasny, 2011; Taylor et al., 2012).
Despite its stature, it remains a theory-in-progress and continues to be reenvisioned
(e.g., Cranton & Taylor, 2012; Dirkx et al., 2006; Taylor, 2007; Taylor & Cranton,
2013). The theory’s treatment of the link between learning and action, which largely
takes for granted the process through which individual transformation interacts with
societal change (Collard & Law, 1989; Cranton, 2006; Finger & Asún, 2001; Taylor &
Snyder, 2012), is an enduring gap and a fundamental link in achieving sustainability.
344 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

We also considered the interactions between instrumental and communicative learn-

ing, which are often theorized in a simpler relationship than we found in the field
(Hart, 1990).

Learning for Sustainability

The tables that follow outline selected results of the studies, highlighting documented
learning and action outcomes. The studies used various themes to describe learning
outcomes within each of the learning domains, most of which were grounded in the
individual studies’ data. Some later studies used themes from earlier studies, while
others created their own categorization schemes. In the tables that follow, we have
included themes that generated the most attention from respondents and provided
descriptive examples to illustrate the data collected. Many of these examples are cross-
cutting and appear in more than one study. Because different studies used different sets
of themes, some themes have been combined and renamed. For example, some
researchers had separate themes for obtaining “information,” “skills,” and “knowl-
edge,” and others combined them as we have done.
Table 2 documents the instrumental outcomes for individual learners, which are
numerous given the sustainability/natural resources and environmental management
contexts of the research. The examples illustrating the themes were selected to demon-
strate the breadth of instrumental learning outcomes from the studies but do not cap-
ture all instrumental learning outcomes for all research participants.
The instrumental learning domain revealed multiple outcomes for participants in
the 24 empirical studies. Participants learned specific knowledge and skills across a
variety of sustainability and natural resource management areas, as illustrated in
selected quotes from interviews and focus groups:

. . . a rotational water delivery technique was introduced to farmers in IWUG [integrated

water user group] meetings and farmers learned to make decisions about water delivery
patterns deliberately. Ditch drainage and ditch excavation techniques were commonly
exchanged between public irrigation staff and farmers at IWUG meetings, and farmers
learned to maintain ditches properly (Sinclair et al., 2013, p. 60).

. . . participants developed a familiarity with issues related to sustainability and clothing.

Knowledge of the negative aspects of clothing included an awareness of workers’ rights
violations (e.g., unsafe work conditions, poor pay), cotton production practices (e.g.,
excessive use of pesticides, farmer suicides), the distance clothing travels, and the wide
use of chemicals in textile production (Quinn & Sinclair, 2016, p. 205).

Many of the customers of the TMF CSA [Community Supported Agriculture] were new
to eating organic food [. . .]. Therefore, many of them learned a lot about the administration
of the CSA, and the standards related to organic farming (Kerton & Sinclair, 2010,
p. 407).

The following quotes illustrate examples in some of the theme areas.

Moyer and Sinclair 345

Table 2. Instrumental Learning Outcomes.

Instrumental learning
themes Examples
Scientific, technical, General environmental awareness/knowledge/appreciation
and ecological Forests, forest species, and forest ecology
knowledge and skills Species of crops ideally suited to local climate
Understanding the potential impacts of a resource/
development project
Harnessing new resources from waste through recovery and
recycling
Implementing flood and erosion control through drainage
restoration
Composting food waste as organic manure in crop cultivation
Understanding environmental management systems and the
remediation of mine impacts
Relationship between agricultural practices and watershed
management
Water conservation and management techniques
Clothing construction: knitting, sewing, crocheting, weaving
Farming techniques: conservation agriculture, bee keeping,
horticulture
Birding research techniques: measuring biometrics; attaching
leg bands
Social and economic Trade and market economies of scale
knowledge and skills Consequences of globalization on clothing production
Effects of consumerism
Mining economics and the local meaning of sustainability
Skills for purchasing sustainable apparel and buying local
The benefits of organic agriculture, especially during periods
of climatic stress
Legal, administrative, Applicable resource management laws (e.g., fishing, forest
and political harvest)
procedures and Organic certification requirements
strategies Protest action to register dissatisfaction
Environmental legislation (e.g., environmental assessment)
Political will and political cycle for initiating action
Meaningful consultation and participation
Cause and effect Connection between deforestation and aridity
relationships Benefits of cooperation for water management
Relationship between forest degradation and climate change
Connection between extreme weather, climate change, and
agricultural practices
Task-oriented Farmers adapting projects to suit their needs
problem solving Developing a management plan and resolving implementation
conflicts in participatory irrigation management
Importance of group formation for securing project funding
Actions for adapting to floods and climate variability
(continued)
346 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

Table 2. (continued)
Instrumental learning
themes Examples
Risks and impacts Risk of industrial agriculture to personal health
Risks of resource development projects
Positive impacts of technical training and employment
Impacts of the fashion industry
Sharing ideas/ Ways of teaching and information diffusion
community work Relating to others and managing groups
Project design, planning, and evaluation
Doing community work as a church organization
Effectiveness of leading by example

Scientific, technical, and ecological knowledge and skills:

We learned about conserving by planting trees so that we can easily get either firewood
or money after selling. We were taught to plant the trees on the shambas and by that part,
we can conserve [the forest] (Walker et al., 2014, p. 5).

Learning about soil fertility was related to the usage of artificial and organic fertilizers.
The learning that participants stressed as being the most useful was related to adding
manure to planting holes, which many participants mentioned had increased their yields
(Najjar et al., 2012, p. 469).

Cause and effect relationships:

I see the results. I get more and more excited that planting with organic fertilizer can have
a good result, and we can eat what we harvest with no chemicals. I’m more and more
convinced because each day I see that the earth is improving, that the hill has better
quality crop (Sims & Sinclair, 2008, p. 157).

Sharing ideas/community work:

I’ve learnt more on how to work with communities [. . .]. What brings them together, the
cohesion, that group approach. So it has really forced me to go into serious studies to
understand groups. How do you work with groups? How do they behave (Moyer et al.,
2014, pp. 364-65)?

In most studies, instrumental learning outcomes were the most frequent. The prom-
inence of instrumental learning is not surprising within the contexts of these studies,
given that sustainability work was often new, whether people were learning different
agricultural practices, understanding links between deforestation and climate change,
or learning about how environmental assessments work. In many cases, these skills
and knowledge were essential on-ramps to participation in sustainability/NREM pro-
cesses and activities.
Moyer and Sinclair 347

Table 3. Communicative Learning Outcomes.

Communicative
learning themes Examples
One’s own values Interrelationships between farmer actions and watershed health
and interests Realizing the importance of trees, forests, and conservation
Personal drivers for consumption
Company relationships and appearances
Understanding one’s own thinking regarding community opportunities
Value of sharing resources in times of crisis
Others’ values Farmers sharing alternative approaches with each other
and interests Recognition of shared or differing values
How other companies/organizations work
Resource needs and use practices of neighbors
Understanding of those living more sustainably
Business interests (e.g., clothing, mining)
Cultural norms/ Questioning beliefs about gender roles in society
values Navigating cross-cultural interactions
Societal norms regarding beauty
The role of development
Cooperation and Developing cross-cultural relationships
collaboration Designing group dialogue opportunities; improving interaction and
cooperation
Importance of community/team bonding to achieve common goals
Communication Ways of sharing knowledge with others
strategies and Attending meetings is critical to good governance
methods Importance of information sharing to become more competent
problem solvers
Building personal relationships early and sustaining them for problem
solving

Table 3 reveals the communicative learning outcomes documented across the stud-
ies. The table summarizes examples of the learning outcomes documented and illus-
trates the breadth of these outcomes but is not an enumeration of all the communicative
learning outcomes found.
All 24 empirical studies revealed a fairly substantial amount of communicative
learning. For example, a significant number of participants reported learning outcomes
related to insights into values and interests—their own and those of others—as well as
cultural norms and values:

Farmers have never had a chance to know the constraints of fellow farmers. They are then
concerned with only their own problems. Participating in an IWUG general meeting
helps us to understand the situation of others and initiates empathy among farmers
(Sinclair et al., 2013, p. 63).

I think that when someone has made the commitment to grow food organically they’ve
also made the commitment to protect the land, protect the community they live in. [. . .] I
348 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

think that it goes into having a deeper understanding of our relationship with the earth and
our natural resources and basically it comes down to being able to responsibly manage
the natural resources that you come across or that you have in your surrounding area
(Kerton & Sinclair, 2010, p. 408).

I remember reading about Nike in [No Logo] and it was studying the sweatshop conditions
and things and I was really horrified. Many corporations are engaged in “cultural
manipulation,” and this isn’t all by chance that it came about this way. There are certain
people that are trying to manipulate cultural values, because they want certain results out
of it (Quinn & Sinclair, 2016, p. 207).

I don’t have anything against Hudbay at all—you need to have a very solid relationship
with the mining company but you need to understand that they aren’t there for you. The
only one who is there for you is you. The mining company has shareholders, stakeholders,
they have an agenda of their own that involves—you are only one part of their agenda . . .
and you are probably in no way the most important part (Boerchers, 2016, p. 113).

Communication strategies and methods were also a common theme as people

worked together and learned from communicating with each other:

I learned the importance of sharing experiences with people from other areas. Other
communities have similar problems and they may have different solutions to the
problems. This is a way of exchanging ideas (Walker et al., 2014, p. 6).

I realized that it doesn’t matter if you can connect with somebody on the Internet, if you
haven’t sat with them and drank tea for a while and spent some time in their community
then you aren’t getting anywhere. You have to have a personal contact (Boerchers, 2016,
p. 113).

Despite evidence of robust communicative learning, fewer study participants noted

communicative outcomes, particularly compared with instrumental learning out-
comes. This was consistent across all studies, regardless of the mix of participants or
location. Given that many of the cases studied involved groups of people, this sur-
prised us. Some studies (e.g., Almudi, 2019; Boerchers, 2016) revealed that communi-
cative learning underpinned people’s desire to get involved and therefore led to much
of the instrumental learning that followed. We discuss further below how learning in
each of the domains is often intertwined.
As defined by TLT, personal transformation occurs when learning processes involve
reflective evaluation and result in profound change in an individual’s framework for
understanding themselves and the world (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1991). Given that
the motivating concern in these studies is societal transformation, these profound
changes have been a particular focus. Personal transformation outcomes were identi-
fied in 15 of the studies, and Table 4 provides examples of these.
Both the literature and our field experience indicate that personal transformation
outcomes are more difficult to identify consistently than other types of learning (Cranton
& Taylor, 2012; Hoggan, 2016). Personal transformations also occur less frequently
Moyer and Sinclair 349

Table 4. Personal Transformation Outcomes.

After an epiphany about the importance of food, MLOO-05 began changing what he ate,
shifting to an organic and vegetarian diet. Changing his perspective and behavior about
food acted as a catalyst for engaging other macro-environmental issues and participating in
community organizations and activism (Kerton & Sinclair, 2010).
Over several stints working on organic farms, Sara abandoned the expectation of a 9
to 5 desk job she had grown up to expect, and shifted to a career more oriented to
relationships and tangible outcomes (Looy, 2016).
James’s involvement in a community forest conservation project changed his view of the
forest, leading to questioning of cultural norms, intervening in illegal forest activities, and
proselytizing about the importance of the forest (Sinclair et al., 2011).
A community leader was initially in favor of a hydroelectric project near his village. After
the project resulted in extensive negative impacts and he lost his home, he was personally
devastated. He reversed his position on this kind of development, personally taking the
blame for the damage to the community (Diduck et al., 2013).
Staff and volunteers at the Rural Service Programme in Kenya experienced profound personal
development, gaining confidence and broadened perspectives of themselves and their
community through the training and empowerment they received to deliver community
development projects (Moyer et al., 2014).
Through participation in a strategic environmental assessment for the Kenya Coastal
Development Project, members of the Watha community learned that they could have
a voice and an impact in decision-making processes, increasing their cultural pride as a
minority ethnic group, and increasing their enthusiasm for future participation in similar
processes (Walker et al., 2014).
Learning about the link between his Christian faith and his passion for wildlife increased
and deepened Henry’s commitment to protecting habitat because he now sees his
environmental work as a way of serving God (Moyer et al., 2014).

than other kinds of learning. Yet, as the quotations above highlight, there were instances
of transformation within about two thirds of the studies, and across different types of
cases. Transformation was most evident in individual lifestyle and experience cases
(e.g., Kerton & Sinclair, 2010; Leonard, 2015; Quinn & Sinclair, 2016) but also
appeared in natural resource governance (e.g., Dennis, 2017; Walker et al., 2014) and
community conservation (e.g., Sims & Sinclair, 2008; Sinclair et al., 2011).
Sixteen of the studies considered explored action data derived from a variety of
instrumental, communicative, and transformative learning outcomes. Moyer et al.
(2016) examined action the most systematically, distinguishing between three types of
social action:

1. Individual action: “a single person acting on something they learned. Although

this type of social action is executed by individuals, they are not necessarily
acting in isolation” (Moyer et al., 2016, p. 317-318).
2. Interpersonal action: “a single person acting in a way that transfers what he or
she had learned to other people” (Moyer et al., 2016, p. 318).
3. Collective action: “action taken by groups of people applying learning
together” (Moyer et al., 2016 p. 319-320).
350 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

Table 5. Action Outcomes.

Type of action Examples of action outcomes

Individual Participating in bird monitoring activities
action Planting climate appropriate trees and crops
Engaging in sustainable lifestyle activities (e.g., water conservation,
buying sustainable apparel, energy conservation)
Modifying travel behavior
Food choices (e.g., reducing/eliminating meat, dumpster diving)
Life choices (e.g., more time outdoors)
Confronting those involved in illegal activities related to resource use
Interpersonal Informing/sharing informally with others (e.g., sustainable practices,
action company profiles, organic food options)
Challenging family and friends to question cultural norms, such as
gendered practices
Teaching others through NGO programs (e.g., appropriate technology;
tree planting techniques; bird banding)
Educating neighbors/friends that could not participate in trainings (e.g.,
cropping, composting, alternative farm practices)
Collective Community organization (e.g., community cooperatives, urban green
action team, master composting, farmer field schools)
Advocacy and awareness raising through mobilized networks:
protesting consumerism in malls; letter writing campaigns; farmers
and eaters pushing government for fewer barriers to small-scale
farms, boycotting producers, environmental and social justice
awareness campaigns
Sustainable fashion shows, clothing swaps
Building brooder stoves in community
Shared labor (e.g., Fruit Share picking; cooperative gardening)

Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.

Table 5 provides examples from the studies considered, applying Moyer et al.’s (2016)
analytical categories.
Individual action was the most common action outcome in most studies. This result
is not surprising given the abundance of instrumental learning outcomes related to
information and skills across the studies, which naturally lead to the types of action
described in the following quotes:

KCDP [Kenya Coastal Development Project] participants primarily demonstrated

individual action by putting newly acquired information and skills into practice. “We
didn’t consider it before. After the meetings, we knew the importance of planting trees on
our shamba and how it can change our lives . . . We have planted many Casuarina. And
we are also planting beans and cowpeas” (Walker et al., 2014, p. 6).

[T]he ICE [Instituto Cotsarricense de Electricidad] WMAP [Watershed Management

Agricultural Program] resulted in action through farmers adopting sustainable farming
practices that protect the watershed. Learning has resulted in changes in the condition of
Moyer and Sinclair 351

mind and also in individual and social action. This has promoted sustainable development,
such as farmers and ICE taking a more purposeful role in protecting the watershed by
reducing manure and other contaminants from getting into the rivers (Sims & Sinclair,
2008, p. 116).

Interpersonal action was also common across numerous studies, involving sharing
new skills, information, and ideas with others. For example:

As a local leader committed to education, James saw the effect that conservation
organisations like ASSETS [Arabuko-Sokoke Schools and Eco-Tourism Scheme]
were having on schools and students in his area and decided to take action. An
ASSETS parent himself and a participant in many local organisations, James took up
the cause of forest conservation and began spreading the word. When he became
aware of local residents involved in illegal activities in the forest he, along with one
or two friends, began visiting these residents to tell them about the benefits of the
forest and warn them of the consequences of being caught poaching (Sinclair et al.,
2011, p. 48).

An emerging pattern among various studies was participants’ emphasis on sharing

their learning and being a model for others as an important response to learning. For
instance:

Among Kenyan participants, this desire to be a model appeared to be instigated by a

strong sense of service to the community, by the awareness that one cannot teach
something one does not do oneself, and an evangelistic zeal to share knowledge in the
community. There was an assumed imperative that those who have gained learning and
knowledge should share it with others. There was also a sense of responsibility as staff
within organizations that served the community to extend this role beyond their work
hours (Moyer et al., 2016, p. 319).

Collective action was the least common type of action across the studies but was
still evident. It took the form of communal organizing, political advocacy, and groups
working on projects together:

After being threatened by the government of Manitoba over food safety practices, OB
Farm invited their “food community” to come work on the farm, to butcher a pig together,
and to discuss what their collective approach would be to advocate for their right to an
alternative food system. The food community used this time to plan how they would
engage the Province of Manitoba, including the creation of a phone chain to mobilize the
food community to come to the farm if the farm was raided. The community wrote letters
to their local MLAs [Members of the Legislative Assembly], found legal assistance, and
discussed potential long-term solutions that would allow them to continue to directly buy
food from the farm (Leonard, 2015, p. 85–86).

Building on earlier studies that reflected on barriers to action, Moyer et al. (2016)
formally explored barriers to action across two cases. They identified seven barriers
that prevented study participants from acting on what they had learned:
352 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

•• Situational barriers: for example, limited finances (Walker et al., 2015)

•• Personal/psychological barriers: for example, self-esteem and self-image
(Almudi, 2019)
•• Interpersonal barriers: for example, pressure from family to meet social norms
•• Lack of knowledge and skills (Dennis, 2017)
•• Sociocultural barriers: for example, traditions, customs, and cultural taboos
(Najjar et al., 2013)
•• The human-built environment: for example, dearth of retailers supplying sus-
tainable products
•• The Biophysical Environment: for example, climate and weather (Almudi,
2019)

Review of the 14 studies that addressed barriers confirms this list, as indicated by the
additional citations above. This review also revealed the necessity of adding barriers
related to governance at various levels, including factors limiting engagement within
environmental governance processes (e.g., Sims & Sinclair, 2008; Walker et al., 2014)
and government policy and regulation that constrain sustainability action (e.g., Dennis,
2017; Leonard, 2015).

Discussion
The summary of data presented above demonstrates the wide range of learning the
studies documented across a variety of settings, including environmental assessment
processes, community conservation projects, and individual sustainable lifestyle ini-
tiatives. Learning included gaining new information and knowledge, developing skills,
self-reflection that helped align actions with values, personal empowerment, and pro-
found transformation in worldview and commitment to sustainability principles.
Guided by the framework of TLT, researchers assumed that the most important kind
of learning for sustainability would be communicative, because personal transforma-
tion is thought to emerge from communicative rather than instrumental learning. Thus,
in early studies, researchers reported on the abundant instrumental learning outcomes
they found with a degree of disappointment. If most of the study participants were
mainly learning instrumentally, researchers were concerned that learning would not
result in the profound transformation that sustainability requires. As this trend contin-
ued, however, later researchers recognized the fundamental necessity of instrumental
learning in building a sustainable society as well as the important relationship of such
learning to other domains. Understanding how social-ecological systems work helps
individuals make sound decisions, particularly, when they embrace the connections
between this information and their personal lives and behavior. Similarly, developing
skills helps people implement sustainable action. Furthermore, the data showed that
these instrumental learning outcomes build confidence and empower learners, and this
can also lead to the deep and enduring transformation that sustainability requires.
Communicative learning outcomes were evident across the studies and play an impor-
tant role in creating understanding in complex, conflict-ridden situations, and developing
Moyer and Sinclair 353

skills necessary for participatory decision-making processes. While the two domains pro-
vided useful analytical categories for identifying and analyzing learning, researchers saw
increasing evidence of complexity in their relationship. The term “domain” suggests dis-
tinct, delineated territories, but many learning outcomes among the studies expressed
aspects of both domains, and the distinctions between them were difficult to disentangle
(Marschke & Sinclair, 2009; Moyer & Sinclair, 2016; Quinn & Sinclair, 2016; Sims &
Sinclair, 2008). While Mezirow (e.g., 2012) and other TLT proponents (e.g., Cranton
2006) do recognize an interrelationship between the domains, TLT has been criticized for
creating an analytical separation between them that does not reflect their origin in Jürgen
Habermas’s theory (Habermas, 1971; Hart, 1990). Taylor et al. (2012) also note how
instrumental and communicative learning work in tandem and build upon each other,
underscoring the value of both dimensions of learning (Moyer & Sinclair, 2016).
According to TLT, transformative learning is supposed to help individuals develop
better assumptions about the world that will guide their actions more effectively
(Mezirow, 2012); the focus is building good assumptions rather than the action out-
comes of learning. In the classroom, teaching for particular action outcomes is consid-
ered indoctrination and therefore is contradictory to the emancipatory aims of the
theory (Mezirow, 1989). In the sustainability context however, action outcomes that
arise from learning are fundamental. The summarized data highlight the complexity of
the relationship between learning and action. Learning can lead to action at the indi-
vidual, interpersonal, and collective levels. Action at the individual level was more
common, often manifested as acting on learned skills or information in the partici-
pant’s work or personal life. This learning was shared through interpersonal action,
and less frequently, applied as a collective. At the same time, learning is not necessary
for action to occur. People may act because legislation forced them, or a respected
authority directed them. In particular, profound personal transformation is not neces-
sary for sustainability action. Other types of learning can lead to (and are necessary
for) action. For example, as described above, instrumental learning provides skills that
enable and empower people to act (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). These actions may be
small, such as one farmer changing their methods, but many increments of small
changes do affect society. Thus, while personal transformation plays an important role,
it is not the sole route to personal and societal behavior change.
Conversely, learning and personal transformation does not necessarily lead to
action, because a variety of barriers may prevent it (Boström et al., 2018; Mezirow,
1989). As outlined above, a wide range of barriers were identified across the studies.
When situational, social, or environmental barriers exist, people will generally choose
to change their behavior only if necessary actions require little cost or effort. Even
when people understand and accept correct information, there is often a disconnect
between their attitudes and their actions (Pezzullo & Cox, 2018). This is where com-
municative learning and personal transformation become important—to help people
develop the level of commitment that brings change in their behavior (Sterling, 2010).
These disconnects between learning and behavior also underscore the importance of
collective action, which can empower people to behave counter to societal norms,
build a sense of solidarity, support, and accountability in community, and work toward
transforming societal barriers to sustainable ways of behaving.
354 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

The contexts in which the researchers conducted their studies have helped contrib-
ute unique insights to our learning reflections. Studies were conducted across four
continents, and in many cases wrestled with the cultural implications of the different
contexts encountered. TLT has been critiqued for its rootedness and consistent appli-
cation within White, middle-class North America and its “acontextuality,” lacking a
grounding of its analysis in cultural understandings (e.g., Taylor, 2007). These studies
provide a unique cross-cultural window on the theory. For instance, Taylor and Snyder
(2012) identify Sims and Sinclair (2008) as one of few studies that begins to identify
what in the learning process is culturally unique and what is universal in their Costa
Rican study. As noted in the tables of learning outcomes and transformations above,
other studies also considered cross-cultural implications and start to reveal that the
theory does have application in other contexts. Furthermore, learning outcomes will be
affected by the cultural context, such as degree of comfort with deliberative dialogue.
The studies also included both nonformal (e.g., farmer field schools) and informal
(e.g., interpersonal sharing) learning contexts, applying a formal learning theory out-
side the classroom. In these contexts, interpersonal interactions, through sharing infor-
mation and providing mutual support, were important components of the learning
process. These non/informal contexts highlighted that learning in life is an ongoing,
cyclical process. Profound learning experiences may happen in one sudden epiphany
or through many small increments. Researchers only get a snapshot of the study par-
ticipants’ lives and catch people at different points in the learning process. Sometimes
we see what may become a profound personal transformation, but it is not there yet.

Conclusion
Considering the data presented across the studies, it is evident that individual adult
learning and personal transformation can act as a foundation for encouraging environ-
mentally sustainable behavior. The many examples of instrumental and communica-
tive learning, the resulting (though fewer) personal transformations, and concrete
action outcomes highlight this, as does each of the individual studies. Contentions in
the literature about the importance of learning to sustainability outcomes (e.g., Boström
et al., 2018; Suškevičs et al., 2018; Wals, 2011) are robustly supported by these stud-
ies. Such learning is taking place in diverse settings and is directed toward a wide
range of personal, local, national, and even international sustainability issues and
actions. This further underscores the importance of recognizing the power of learning
when designing initiatives, whether educational or governance related, and of captur-
ing this potential in the planning phases, using, for example, the ideal conditions of
learning (Mezirow, 1991; Sinclair & Diduck, 2001).
While we feel that the learning outcomes we documented reveal learning as a foun-
dation for sustainability action, we are less confident about “learning our way out”
(Finger & Asún, 2001), at least in the shorter term. The data show that adult learning
can be part of, and an important outcome of, resource and environmental management
initiatives aimed at sustainability and that sometimes these can lead to profound
change within the learner. The data also reveal how different types of learning (e.g.,
Moyer and Sinclair 355

instrumental, communicative) play distinct roles in motivating sustainable behavior

and supporting individuals in enacting such behavior. However, much of the instru-
mental and even communicative learning and perspective transformation that occurred
resulted in actions that seem to satisfy only very basic aspects of sustainability (e.g.,
learning how to compost, buying organic, how to conserve soil). Learning and action
that would transform the unsustainable pillars within society were much less evident,
though documenting the degree to which individual or collective action made societal
level impacts was not the primary focus of these studies.
Finger and Asún (2001) and other sustainability learning proponents (e.g., Wals,
2011) question the assumption that simply more learning is the solution to building a
sustainable society and argue that a more strategic approach to learning is required.
Based on the insights of these studies, we suggest that in building a more strategic
approach, we need a better understanding of how learning at the worldview, value, and
attitude level is translated into action. An important component of this is assessing bar-
riers to action and overcoming them. In contrast to the approaches described in the
majority the studies, perhaps we need to look further at instances where societal change
has successfully occurred and investigate the role that learning played in those pro-
cesses, to better understand how individual learning “scales up” to the societal level.

Authors’ Note
The following are the related oral presentations:
Sinclair, J., Moyer, J. M., & Hostetler, G. (2019, February 6-8). Recognizing the potential for
and of transformative learning through existing resource and environmental governance
systems. [Paper presentation]. Leverage Points: International conference on sustainability
research and transformation. Lüneburg, Germany.
Moyer, J. M., & Sinclair, J. A. (2017, June 19-22). Transformative learning theory in the field:
Considering individual learning through natural resource and environmental management
[Panel presentation]. The International Symposium on Society and Resource Management,
Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Moyer, J. M., & Sinclair, J. A. (2016, May 30-June 4). Transformative learning theory in the
field: Considering individual learning through natural resource and environmental man-
agement [Paper presentation]. Canadian Association of Geographers. Dalhousie University
and St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank all the communities that participated in these projects, the collaborat-
ing researchers for their contributions to this work, and the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council for providing funding. Special thanks to Morrissa Boerchers and Justine
Backer for assistance in compiling data from the reviewed studies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
356 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada.

ORCID iD
Joanne M. Moyer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2924-2818

References
Almudi, T. (2019). Water up to our necks: Learning and adaptation to weather variability in
Brazilian Amazon floodplain communities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University
of Manitoba.
Baird, J., Plummer, R., Haug, C., & Huitema, D. (2014). Learning effects of interactive deci-
sion-making processes for climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change,
27(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.019
Blackmore, C. (2007). What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for address-
ing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(6),
512-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.007
Boerchers, M. (2016). Mining for sustainability: Examining the relationships among environ-
mental assessments, mining legacy issues, and learning [Unpublished master’s thesis].
University of Manitoba.
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., & Öhman,
J. (2018). Conditions for transformative learning for sustainable development: A theoreti-
cal review and approach. Sustainability, 10(12), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124479
Collard, S., & Law, M. (1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of
Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0001848189039002004
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educa-
tors of adults (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P., & Taylor, E. W. (2012). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified
theory. In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-20). Jossey-Bass.
D’Amato, L. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Outdoor adventure education: Applying transforma-
tive learning theory to understanding instrumental learning and personal growth in environ-
mental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 237-254. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00958964.2011.581313
Dennis, P. (2017). The roles of strategic environmental assessment and learning in planning
for successful community-based solid waste management in Kenya [Unpublished master’s
thesis]. University of Manitoba.
Diduck, A. P., Pratap, D., Sinclair, A. J., & Deane, S. (2013). Perceptions of impacts, public
participation, and learning in the planning, assessment and mitigation of two hydroelectric
projects in Uttarakhand, India. Land Use Policy, 33(1), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2013.01.001
Diduck, A. P., Reed, M. G., & George, C. (2015). Participatory approaches to resource man-
agement. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), Resource and environmental management in Canada:
Addressing conflict and uncertainty (5th ed., pp. 142-170). Oxford University Press.
Moyer and Sinclair 357

Diduck, A., Sinclair, A. J., Hostetler, G., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2012). Transformative learning
theory, public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10), 1311-1330. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09640568.2011.645718
Dirkx, J. M., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, con-
text, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack
Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1541344606287503
Dunne, L. (2013). Food security in the Kullu District: Perspectives, policies and learning in the
transition to commercial agriculture [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.
Finger, M., & Asún, J. M. (2001). Adult education at the crossroads: Learning our way out.
Zed Books.
Fitzpatrick, P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2003). Learning through public involvement in environmental
assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(2), 161-174. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00204-9
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Beacon Press.
Hart, M. (1990). Critical theory and beyond: Further perspectives on emancipatory education.
Adult Education Quarterly, 40(3), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848190040003001
Hoggan, C. D. (2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typol-
ogy. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216
Kerton, S., & Sinclair, A. J. (2010). Buying local organic food: A pathway to transformative
learning. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(4), 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-
009-9233-6
Leonard, D. (2015). Back-to-the-landers and the emergence of a peasant paradigm in Manitoba
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.
Looy, T. (2016). Action for sustainability through community gardening: The role of adult
learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba.
Marschke, M., & Sinclair, A. J. (2009). Learning for sustainability: Participatory resource man-
agement in Cambodian fishing villages. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1),
206-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.012
Merriam, S. B. (1993). Adult learning: Where have we come from? Where are we headed? New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1993(57), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ace.36719935703
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide.
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32(1),
3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101
Mezirow, J. (1989). Transformation theory and social action: A response to Collard and Law.
Adult Education Quarterly, 39(3), 169-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039003005
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory.
In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 73-95). Jossey-Bass.
Moyer, J. M., & Sinclair, A. J. (2016). Stoking the dialogue on the domains of transforma-
tive learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/07
41713615610625
Moyer, J. M., Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2014). Learning for sustainability among faith-
based organizations in Kenya. Environmental Management, 54(2), 360-372. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00267-014-0289-8
358 Adult Education Quarterly 70(4)

Moyer, J. M., Sinclair, A. J., & Quinn, L. (2016). Transitioning to a more sustainable soci-
ety: Unpacking the role of the learning-action nexus. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 35(3), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2016.1174746
Najjar, D., Spaling, H., & Sinclair, A. J. (2013). Learning about sustainability and gender
through Farmer Field Schools in the Taita Hills, Kenya. International Journal of Education
and Development, 33(5), 466-475.
Pezzullo, P. C., & Cox, R. (2018). Environmental communication and the public sphere (5th
ed.). Sage.
Quinn, L. J., & Sinclair, A. J. (2016). Undressing transformative learning: The roles of instru-
mental and communicative learning in the shift to clothing sustainability. Adult Education
Quarterly, 66(3), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713616640881
Richardson, K. (2008). A gendered perspective of learning and representation in forest man-
agement advisory committees in Canada [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of
Manitoba.
Sims, L., & Sinclair, A. J. (2008). Learning through participatory resource management pro-
grammes: Case studies from Costa Rica. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(2), 151-168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713607309802
Sinclair, A. J., Collins, S. A., & Spaling, H. (2011). The role of participant learning in commu-
nity conservation in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Conservation and Society, 9(1),
42-53. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.79187
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2001). Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative
learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(2), 113-136. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00076-7
Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A. P., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2008). Conceptualizing learning for sustain-
ability through environmental assessment: Critical reflections on 15 years of research.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 415-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2007.11.001
Sinclair, A. J., Kumnerdpet, W., & Moyer, J. M. (2013). Learning sustainable water practices
through participatory irrigation management in Thailand. Natural Resources Forum, 37(1),
55-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12012
Spaling, H., Montes, J., & Sinclair, J. (2011). Best practices for promoting participation and
learning for sustainability: Lessons from community-based environmental assessment
in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,
13(3), 343-366. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003924
Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary rec-
onciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research,
16(5-6), 511-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505427
Suškevičs, M., Hahn, T., Rodela, R., Macura, B., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2018). Learning for
social-ecological change: A qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature
in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
61(7), 1085-1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1339594
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the
empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2),
173-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475
Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). A theory in progress? European Journal for Research on
the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.
rela5000
Moyer and Sinclair 359

Taylor, E. W., Duveskog, D., & Friis-Hansen, E. (2012). Fostering transformative learning in
non-formal settings: Farmer-field schools in East Africa. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 31(6), 725-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.713035
Taylor, E. W., & Snyder, M. J. (2012). A critical review of research on transformative learning
theory 2006–2010. In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative
learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 37-55). Jossey-Bass.
Vespa, M. (2013). The Western Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area strategic envi-
ronmental assessment: Public participation and learning [Unpublished master’s thesis].
University of Manitoba.
Wals, A. E. J. (2011). Learning our way to sustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable
Development, 5(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340821100500208
Walker, H., Sinclair, A. J., & Kumnerdpet, W. (2015). Learning through participation in joint
management committee for reservoir-level irrigation governance in Thailand. International
Journal of Water Governance, 3, 17-36. https://doi.org/10.7564/14-IJWG72
Walker, H., Sinclair, A. J., & Spaling, H. (2014, February). Public participation in and learning
through strategic environmental assessment in Kenya. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 45, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.10.003
Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government
recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research
Letters, 12(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

Author Biographies
Joanne M. Moyer is an assistant professor of environmental studies and geography at The
King’s University in Edmonton, Alberta. She studies learning for sustainability and the intersec-
tion of faith and environmental issues, with a focus on civil society initiatives.
A. John Sinclair is a professor and director at the Natural Resources Institute, University of
Manitoba. His main research interest focuses on community involvement and learning through
processes of resource and environmental decision-making. His applied research takes him to
various locations in Canada, as well as Africa and Asia.
Copyright of Adult Education Quarterly is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.