Numerous scholars have further developed Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, some of them together with Mezirow, others without him. Therefore, the ideas have developed in many directions, and come to focus on several aspects of the basic theory or to emphasize new directions. The theory has even been fragmented (Cranton and Roy 2003). As alternatives to Mezirow’s mainly cognitive approach, transformative learning now focuses on holistic, extra rational and integrative perspectives (Merriam and Bierema 2013), highlighting embodied and intuitive knowledge, and individuals in social relations (Lange 2009). Some of the new perspectives are influenced by depth psychology, post-structuralism, and posthumanism (Cranton and Roy 2003). Thus, fundamental discussions have dealt with if transformative learning is rational or extra-rational; imaginative, cognitive, or emotional; as well as if it is individual or social (Cranton and Roy 2003). According to Kovan and Dirkx (2003), Mezirow’s approach is too cognitive and rational. Therefore, they put emphasis on emotions, spirituality, and imagination in a broader sociocultural learning context. Transformative learning can awaken strong emotions and feelings of vulnerability. Of this reason, the educator needs to be responsive and aware of the students’ comfort levels (e.g., King and Heuer 2009). Since the roots of transformative learning partly have the same foundation as Bildung, there are also overlapping between the Bildung and the transformative learning theory. The idea of Bildung is based on the assumption that humans are capable of acting in a way that exceeds the immediate present. The notion of Bildung discusses what it means to be human (Fuhr, 2017). There are increasingly views, implementation methods, and interpretations of transformative learning that connects the theory to sustainability. To meet the needs of sustainability education, transformative learning is a complicated theory that must be developed, tried out, and evaluated methodically (Wolff 2022). Yet, like Bildung it might even be impossible to assess (Buttigieg and Calleja 2021), and it is definitely not a quick fix. In this paper, we will critically discuss various views on transformative learning and the relevance in relation to sustainability education, make comparisons to Bildung approaches, and present a few examples on experiences from a sustainability project (SveaSus) aiming at transformative learning. We will especially focus on embodied place-based learning methods, the role of emotions in learning processes, and the creation of safe spaces.

Buttigieg, K., & Calleja, C. (2021). Bildung and transformative learning theory: Two peas in a pod? Journal of Transformative Education, 19(2), 166–185. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541344620971673. Cranton, P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1541344603001002002. Fuhr, T. (2017). Bildung: An introduction. In A. Laros, T. Fuhr, & E. W. Taylor (Eds.),Transformative learning meets Bildung: An international exchange (pp. 3-15). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. King, K. P., & Heuer, B. P. (2009). Transformative learning in adult basic education. In J. Mezirow, E. W. Taylor, & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 172–181). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). “Being called awake”: The role of transformative learning in the lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 5 3 (2), 99 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741713602238906. Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco: Wiley. Wolff, L-A. (2022). Transformative learning. In S. Idowu, R. Schmidpeter, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, M. del Baldo, & R. Abreu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sustainability management. Cham: Springer Nature.