The Educational Sustainability Doctoral Program at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point was designed around six core principles: 1. Transformative Learning; 2. Futures Thinking; 3. Systems Thinking; 4. Diversity and Social Justice; 5. Ecological Thought; 6. Ethical Action. The adult learners that enter this program are working professionals that are re-entering higher education after launching their professional careers. Herein, we present the design, structure, and processes that target different phases of transformative learning during students’ doctoral journey and share the results of how students experience transformative learning. Through surveys, written reflections, and interviews completed by current and past EdD students, we explore the students’ experiences in the three to five years they are in the program. The research questions guiding this project are: To what extent do students experience transformative learning in the educational sustainability program? And what are essential factors that foster transformative learning? The results presented represent seven different cohorts from 2018 to 2025. The students that participated in the research are at different phases, including eleven respondents that have graduated, and 56 respondents that are in years 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the program. Four students participated in extended interviews about their experiences with transformative learning in the EdD.

The Educational Sustainability Doctoral program is an online program, with an in-person residency every summer (students are required to attend 3 in-person residencies). The program uses a cohort model, admitting one cohort every summer with 15-28 students per cohort and typically takes 3-5 years to complete. The students in this program are educators across a range of sectors—including K-12, higher education, community colleges, museums, libraries, and more. Our students live across the globe—including students in Indonesia, Italy, Japan, China, Brazil, Tawain, and across the United States. The online modality allows us to have an international scope, while supporting place-based research projects. The in-person residency is an essential component of the transformative learning model because that personal connection builds and strengthens bonds over the years, allowing for authentic communication and a safe space for vulnerability.

The key findings from this study indicate that teaching and learning on social justice is critical for transformative learning; transformative learning is a multi-year, non-linear process; having an in-person component is essential, even in programs that are largely online; and transformative learning is a collaborative process.  

With the growth of online programs, this paper contributes to our understanding of how to build connections, foster transformative learning, and support the vulnerability and courageousness necessary to advance sustainability. This paper also informs research practices by highlighting the need for multi-year studies when addressing educational impact. In this study, we found that transformative learning was not linear and was sometimes halting or reversing. If we had only studied one semester or one course, we could not have possibly understood how students experience transformative teaching and learning and what the sustained impacts are overtime.

The data collection methods included a survey, written reflections, and interviews. The survey was originally created as part of an essay/reflection assignment in a transformative learning course and was piloted with a cohort of students at the end of their first year in spring 2024. Next the survey was adjusted with feedback from alumni of the EdD program. Based on the feedback from the pilot groups, the survey was substantially changed to address the use of terminology, specifically in providing definitions for the different terms used, and the amount of time to take the survey (the original survey took around 30 minutes to complete, and the final version took on average 12 minutes to complete). The survey consisted of a set of questions on Mezirow’s 10 phases of transformative learning, Likert scale questions focused on Freire’s social-emancipatory theories of transformative learning, and Papastamatis’ holistic approach to transformative learning (Casebeer & Mann, 2017; Mezirow, 2000; Moore, 2005; Papastamatis & Panitsides, 2014; Sipos et al., 2008). Throughout the survey students were asked about different facets of transformative learning (for example: disorienting dilemma, trying new roles, learning that engaged their emotional self, learning that empowered them to be actors for positive change) and in open-ended response questions they were asked when and in what contexts they experienced these transformative experiences. The questions used skip logic, so if they didn’t experience disorienting dilemma, for example, then they were not prompted to follow-up on when/how, rather they were skipped to the next phase. The survey was disseminated through an alumni list-serv as well as on the EdD Canvas page. The survey was also sent to students enrolled in the Transformative Sustainability Teaching and Learning course. Current students, alumni, and even students that stopped out of the program were invited to participate. There were 56 responses to the survey and 11 of the respondents stated they had graduated from the program at the time of taking the survey. The interviews were conducted with 4 students and alumni and were recorded and transcribed using Zoom. The respondents were between the ages of 27 and 60 years old. The study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board.

In answering the research question: To what extent do students experience transformative learning in the educational sustainability program? —all students experienced some aspect of transformative learning during their years in the program. However, those that are still in the second or third year of the program experienced fewer phases. Many students wrote about the non-linear process and sometimes felt they were going backwards. For example, 70% of respondents experienced the disorienting dilemma in the first year, however, in the open responses, several students mention a return to the disorienting dilemma in year 3, when they were focused on their research and writing dissertations. The key findings related to the second research question: What are essential factors that foster transformative learning? are: 1. Social Justice is key: Focusing on social justice is essential for transformative learning, particularly connected to sustainability. Social justice activities expand our worldview, bond us together as we share injustices we have faced or struggle against, as well as the vulnerability with admitting where we are on our social justice journey. 2. There must be an in-person component: Even in an online program, an in-person component is essential to transformative learning. For example, in the open response, one student wrote: Self-examination & critical reflection happened during my 3rd residency. I went in one person and literally came out another. 3. Transformative learning takes years: There was not a single respondent that felt they experienced holistic transformative learning fully in the first year. 4. Transformative learning doesn’t happen in isolation: Every single respondent mentioned other people that contributed to their journey. The most frequently mentioned relationships were: 1. The relationship with their dissertation chairs; 2. Their relationship with their cohort members.

Adam, H., Barratt-Pugh, C., & Haig, Y. (2019). “Portray cultures other than ours”: How children’s literature is being used to support the diversity goals of the Australian Early Years Learning Framework. Australian Educational Researcher, 46(3), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00302-w Casebeer, D., & Mann, J. (2017). Mapping theories of transformative learning. In Cartographica (Vol. 52, Issue 3, pp. 233–237). University of Toronto Press Inc. https://doi.org/10.3138/cart.52.3.3956 Dawson, R., & Avoseh, M. B. (n.d.). FREIRE’S CONSCIENTIZATION AND THE GLOBAL STUDENT: TOWARDS EMANCIPATORY TRANSFORMATION. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-normal science. International Society for Ecological Economics (Ed.), Online Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics at Http://Www. Ecoeco. Org/Publica/Encyc. Htm. Mezirow, J. , & A. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in Progress. New York: John Wiley. Moore, M. J. (2005). The Transtheoretical Model of the Stages of Change and the Phases of Transformative Learning: Comparing Two Theories of Transformational Change. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(4), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344605279386 Papastamatis, A., & Panitsides, E. A. (2014). Transformative learning: Advocating for a holistic approach. Review of European Studies, 6(4), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v6n4p74 Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 68–86. Snyder, C. (2008). Grabbing hold of a moving target: Identifying and measuring the transformative learning process. In Journal of Transformative Education (Vol. 6, Issue 3, pp. 159–181). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608327813 Stuckey, H. L., Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). Developing a Survey of Transformative Learning Outcomes and Processes Based on Theoretical Principles. Journal of Transformative Education, 11(4), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614540335