Learning to Transform Through Interplay Between the Confucian and Western Cultural Heritages: A Case Study of School Leadership Development in Beijing,China
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2020
Learning to Transform Through Interplay Between the Confucian and Western Cultural Heritages: A Case Study of School Leadership Development in Beijing,China
Taking a case study approach and utilizing Hoggan’s transformative learning (TL) typology and criteria as a framework, we examined the self-reported TL experiences of 12 local school leaders in Beijing, China. These local school leaders gained cross-cultural learning from a school leadership development program that was designed to prepare school leaders for education internationalization. Our data analysis indicated that these 12 local school leaders had experienced significant changes in their educational epistemology, self-identity, and school leadership practices. Further examining these changes at the intersection of the Confucian and Western cultural heritages, we discovered that these school leaders had developed an integrated approach to education, started to consciously reflect on what their social- and self-identities entail, and began the process of transitioning from conservative to appreciative school leadership practices.
BrewerM. B. (1999). Psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.
2.
ChuangS. F. (2011). The relationship between cultural values and learning preference: The impact of acculturation experience upon East Asians. International Journal of Training and Development, 16, 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00391.x
3.
CrantonP.RoyM. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 86–98. doi:10.1177/1541344603001002002
4.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
6.
GlasmanN. S.GlasmanL. D. (1997). Connecting the preparation of school leaders to the practice of school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 3–20.
7.
GoodrickD. (2014). Comparative case studies: Methodological briefs. Impact evaluation No. 9 (No. innpub754). Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research.
HodkinsonC. S.PoropatA. E. (2014). Chinese students’ participation: The effect of cultural factors. Education & Training, 56, 430–446.
10.
HogganC. (2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66, 57–75. doi:10.1177/0741713615611216
11.
KeganR. (2000). What “form” transform? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In MezirowJ. (Ed.), Learning as transformation (pp. 35–53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
KnightJ. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
13.
LindemanE. C. (1989). The meaning of adult education. Norman: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing and Higher Education.
LuW. (2010). Teacher training: Learning from adult learning theories. Continued Education and Research, 1, 104–105.
16.
MerriamS.CaffarellaR.BaumgartnerL. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
MezirowJ. (1997). Transformation theory out of context. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 60–62. doi:10.1177/074171369704800105
18.
MezirowJ. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
MezirowJ. (2009). An overview on transformative learning. In IllerisK. (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists—In their own words (pp. 90–105). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
MezirowJ. (2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In TaylorE.CrantonP. (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 73–95). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
ParmanS. (1991). Dream and culture: An anthropological study of the western intellectual tradition. Westport, CT: Praeger.
22.
RogersC. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
23.
RossmanG.RallisS. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
SmithM.TaylorK. (2010). Adult development. In KaswormC.RoseA.RossGordonJ. (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 49–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
StakeR. (1995). The art of vase study research: Perspective in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
TajfelH. (Ed.). (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
27.
TaylorE. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse.
28.
TaylorE. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173–191.
29.
TianH. (2012). From task-oriented to self-development: Rethinking and reconstruction of middle and elementary school principal training. Educational Science and Research, 1, 18–23.
30.
TriandisH. (2018). Individualism and collectivism. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
WangL. (2013). Going global: The changing strategy of internationalization of education in China. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, 305–315.
