Refusal and Withdrawal From a Transformative Learning Process—Three Cases From Finnish Teacher Education

Abstract

Transformative learning is often a long and difficult process, during which learners may express many forms of resistance. To investigate such resistance, a 2-year qualitative study was conducted on Finnish teacher education. Field diary notes and students’ writings were collected from a group of teacher students (N = 11). The analysis focuses on the whole group and two of its members. Using a phenomenological–hermeneutic methodology and the theories of Ziehe, Illeris, and Agamben, three interpretations of why and how students said no to transformative learning were formulated: regressive no (the need to rest from the process), defensive no (the lack of resources/motivation needed for the process), and emancipatory no (saying yes to something else). The reasons for refusal and withdrawal are based on case examples that do not cover all possible reasons. Thus, future studies should complement these, given the relevance of how resistance is interpreted during transformative learning.

Transformative learning is typically viewed as a forward-looking phenomenon—a change toward a new direction usually considered “better” than the previous one (Hoggan, 2015; Mezirow, 2000). Undoubtedly, in times of multiple crises, there is a need for new and better ways of being together and organizing our lives. However, an opposite trend of refusal and withdrawal has been observed at the local and global scales. Instead of seeking new ways of thinking and being, forming new solutions, and opening up to new networks, people seek the company of like-minded individuals, fall back on existing and often black and white answers, and retreat into their own bubbles. Why would people want to refuse and withdraw from a process that could lead to personally meaningful outcomes?

Both transformative learning studies and adult development models have noted that profound learning and transformation processes often include some sort of discomfort, resistance, or stalling (Buechner et al., 2020; Kegan, 1994; Mälkki & Green, 2014; Perry, 1968; Son, 2026). While it has not yet been thoroughly examined, transformative learning is often a long and difficult process, during which learners may encounter many forms of resistance (Illeris, 2014; Matikainen, 2024). This may pertain to the difficulties of liminality of transformative learning processes (Buechner et al., 2020; Mälkki & Green, 2014). As Lewis (2011) describes, learning, in general, is “both ‘no longer’ and ‘not yet’ simultaneously” (p. 592). Being on the verge of transformation can arise a desire to quit transformative learning (Berger, 2004; Mälkki & Green, 2014). However, in educational contexts, such as those specializing in teacher education, withdrawal and refusal are typically considered “problems” that should be overcome in some pedagogic way (Bronkhorst et al., 2014).

The focus of the current article is refusal and withdrawal from transformative learning in the context of Finnish teacher education. Specifically, the different meanings acquired by one’s refusal and withdrawal during the transformative process from the perspectives of learners (i.e., teacher students) are analyzed. This study addresses the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How and why do learners refuse or withdraw from transformative learning?

RQ2: What are the meanings of refusal and withdrawal in the context of transformative learning?

Theoretical Background

Hoggan (2015) defines transformative learning as a process leading to fundamental changes in how learners act in and interpret the world. These changes can take place in learners’ worldviews, the self, epistemology, ontology, behavior, or capacity (Hoggan, 2015). To analyze withdrawal from and resistance during transformative learning, I draw on Thomas Ziehe’s (1991) notion of resisting learning processes, Knud Illeris’s (2014) different types and outcomes of transformative learning processes, and Giorgio Agamben’s (1999) concept of impotential. These three perspectives helped me analyze—from different angles—the data used in this article.

For Ziehe (1991), learning is characterized by two ambivalent interests. On the one hand, learning involves a progressive interest that drives it forward. The term “progressive interest” describes the human desire to progress and the motivation to try new things—even difficult ones. On the other hand, learning includes a regressive interest that causes people to stay put, retreat to previous states of satisfaction, catch their breath, or even refuse altogether. Hence, the regression interest enables rest and recuperation during psychologically, cognitively, and socially draining learning processes (Ziehe, 1991).

Illeris (2014) also uses the terms “regression” and “progression,” but in a slightly different way than Ziehe. Specifically, Illeris describes different kinds of transformative learning processes, whereas Ziehe describes the tendencies involved in all types of learning. For Illeris, progressive transformative learning process is clearly forward looking. Here, the learner is motivated to change, which, in turn, leads to a “better” state of being, such as being more developed, open, or real. In comparison, in regressive transformative learning process, learners ultimately retreat to their previous states of being because they do not have the strength or resources to go through a progressive process. However, a regressive transformative learning process does not mean that transformative learning has not taken place at all—the experience may have been very meaningful for the person, even if it did not lead to progressive changes. Illeris also describes restoring transformative learning that has features of the previous two. A person involved in a transformation feels that the process is not for them and withdraws from it. However, this may help clarify the direction in which they want to move; hence, the progressive process replaces the regressive one (Illeris, 2014).

In this article, Agamben’s idea of impotential is also used—the flip side of human potential. Agamben (1999) defines “potential” as the creative ability of humans to act, learn, and change. While people have the potential to do something (e.g., to undergo transformative learning), Agamben argues that it is at least as important to be able to not do something to harness one’s potential, that is, to refuse and withdraw. This is what Agamben calls “impotential” (Agamben, 1999; see also Lewis, 2011).

Methods

Research Context

This qualitative research was conducted within a teacher education program called The Critical Integrative Teacher Education (CITE) at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Finnish teacher education takes a total of 5 years, as all teachers are required to have a master’s degree. CITE is part of classroom teacher education that qualifies students to work as classroom teachers teaching all subjects in Grades 1–6 of basic education (ages 7–12). Finnish teacher education is typically based on studies in educational science (e.g., educational psychology, educational sociology, and educational philosophy) and pedagogic and didactic studies in different subject areas (e.g., mathematics, visual arts, and history). Traditional studies in class teacher education are commonly organized as courses in which assignments are mainly done independently or in small groups that vary from one course to another. In comparison, CITE is an alternative teacher education model wherein education is based on the principles of an explorative community (Nikkola et al., 2013; Räihä et al., 2011, 2018).

CITE studies are organized as a long-term (2 years) small group (N = 11–16) program based on the concepts of democracy and dialog. Its aims are to move beyond a traditional understanding of teaching and learning and to study educational phenomena on a deeper level (e.g., reviewing the unconscious aspects of learning). CITE is theoretically grounded in psychodynamic and psychosocial theories; thus, studies are not organized by subject matter but as larger integrated study projects. It operates on the central idea of investigating the learning processes of individuals and groups. In this way, students become more interested as they reflect on and take responsibility for their personal meaning systems as well as their own and their group’s learning (Nikkola et al., 2013; Räihä et al., 2011, 2018). CITE students study with their group for the first 2 years of their teacher education, after which they move on to courses common to all teacher education students. Previous research has demonstrated CITE’s profound and transformative impact on students’ ideas and perceptions of learning, school, and studying (e.g., Matikainen, 2024; Matikainen et al., 2018; Räihä et al., 2011).

Participants

In this study, one CITE group as a whole and two students in particular were examined. The whole group consisted of 11 students (four men and seven women), all of whom were white ethnic Finns and native Finnish speakers. When they started their CITE studies, they were aged between 19 and 24 years, and all of them had graduated from general upper secondary school before applying to teacher education. In the Results section, typical Finnish pseudonyms are used to maintain these students’ anonymity. In the author’s previous studies, it is suggested that these CITE group members went through a highly transformative learning process over the course of 2 years (Matikainen, 2024; Matikainen et al., 2018). However, during that process, there were considerable instances of refusal and withdrawal within the group, which manifested in different forms over the 2-year course of the program. Eventually, two students—Mikko and Otso—quit CITE after their first year. In this article, the whole group and the cases of Mikko and Otso are analyzed as three different examples of refusing and withdrawing from a potentially transformative learning process.

Data

The data used in this study were collected by conducting a phenomenological close observation (Van Manen, 1990) of the CITE group over two academic years. To ensure anonymity, the exact time of data collection is not disclosed. During their first 2 years of teacher education, every week, two consecutive days were reserved for CITE work, which consisted of the group working with and without their teacher educators. During the first year, all the group meetings were observed, while during the second year, approximately half of the meetings were observed. The field data (320 pages of a Microsoft Word document, font Calibri size 11, single spaced) consists of observation notes and a research diary in which I narrated the events of the observation days and my preliminary interpretations. Other data (124 pages) includes all the writings (essays and reports) produced by the students over 2 years and texts collected for research purposes only such as few reflective texts about the students’ relationship to CITE and learning. In this article, all the data is analyzed, especially those passages where the desire to withdraw and refuse was clearly manifested, whether in the whole group or in the individual cases of Mikko and Otso.

Analysis

The analysis of this research relies on the phenomenological idea that general patterns can emerge from individual cases and experiences (Van Manen, 1990). This generality is explored by using a phenomenological–hermeneutic approach, which is defined as the study of experiences and their meanings (Friesen et al., 2012; Laverty, 2003; Van Manen, 1990). Here, the aim is to understand and interpret the experiences of refusing and withdrawing from transformative learning. The objective is to develop an interpretation that is credible and consistent enough to attain generality (Friesen et al., 2012; Laverty, 2003; Van Manen, 1990). This enables the interpretation to be transferable to other contexts as well, despite its foundation in individual cases (Ahmed, 2024). During the 2-year data collection period, the data began to saturate, indicating sufficient engagement in the field, which in turn contributes to ensuring the trustworthiness of the analysis (Ahmed, 2024).

The data for this study were collected as part of a larger dissertation in which the author analyzed how a transformative way of becoming a teacher occurs in teacher education. The analysis process of this article continues from the dissertation analysis, which is why the main findings of the dissertation are briefly summarized next (for details, see Matikainen, 2024).

In the studied group, the transformation process proceeded in four phases. In the (1) starting point, the students entered CITE with their previous, rather traditional meaning systems of learning, teaching, and schools, equipped with the idea that learning and teaching were informative and practical practices. Teachers were seen as responsible for learning and facilitating learning situations. Hence, the students expected to get the “right answers” from teacher educators on how to be a good and proper teacher. In the next phase, (2) a crack appeared in these meaning systems because CITE did not work with the same logic as the students were used to in their previous school experiences. In CITE, students had greater agency and responsibility for their own learning. Additionally, learning took place in a small group, and the teachers did not give them the right answers because they did not see that there were any to give.

Naturally, the second phase led to a phase of (3) ambivalence in which the students simultaneously worked toward and resisted the transformation that was occurring. At this point, transformative learning was split into two different but equally important interests: progressive and regressive (Ziehe, 1991). Working through this ambivalence eventually led to (4) transformation in which the students’ meaning systems about teaching, learning, and schools were qualitatively and profoundly transformed. They now understood learning and teaching as a kind of intellectual work requiring reflective thinking and as a collaborative, situational, and interdependent process wherein teachers and students worked together toward a desired goal. The students had also begun to question the normative ways in which educational institutions delivered education and reflect on their own roles as future educators.

Of the 11 people studied, the majority described this learning process as personally meaningful—one that helped them “grow as a human being.” Nevertheless, throughout the 2-year program, there was a strong sense of withdrawal and resistance to transformative learning (regressive interest). In addition, Mikko and Otso dropped out of CITE after the first year. To analyze the meanings and means of resistance and withdrawal, I used a hermeneutic–phenomenological approach (Friesen et al., 2012; Van Manen, 1990) and established three descriptions of why and how the students said no to transformative learning.

The analysis began by carefully reading the cases of Mikko and Otso, as well as the passages where instances of resistance among the entire group were evident. The data was read first with one question in mind in particular: how did they resist and withdraw? To understand this all the examples of resistance and withdrawal were collected. These included, for example, absences, tardiness, failure to complete or forgetting assignments, conflicts within the group and with educators, voiced criticism of the CITE model, and quitting CITE altogether (in the cases of Mikko and Otso).

Next question to understand was, why did they resist and withdraw in these ways. In the data, the students themselves occasionally provided answers to this question. For example, they described feeling tired or anxious and discussed factors related to their own motivation or lack thereof. Using all the different types of data collected, three different story lines were conducted that consider place, time, and personal motivations as far as it was possible for an outside researcher. In the three cases, resistance seemed to arise for distinct reasons. The group’s general withdrawal seemed to be due to the profundity of the ongoing process, for which, quite simply, rest was needed. For Otso, the process seemed too much, and he appeared to be defensive in his desire to withdraw from the process altogether. Meanwhile, Mikko abandoned the process because he found a more meaningful study path.

Lastly, theoretical literature was consulted, particularly Ziehe, Illeris, and Agamben, to provide more in-depth descriptions of the meanings of refusal and withdrawal from transformative learning. I named the meanings of refusal and withdrawal from transformative learning as regressive no, defensive no, and emancipatory no. These include descriptive (phenomenological) and interpretative (hermeneutic) elements (Van Manen, 1990) that are reported together in the Results section. The phenomenological element “focuses on the structure of experience, the organizing principles that give form and meaning to the life world” (Laverty, 2003, p. 27), whereas the hermeneutic aspect is more interpretative of the actual participants and events, focusing on “historical meanings of experience and their developmental and cumulative effects on individual and social levels” (p. 27).

The study incorporated triangulation—a methodological approach to enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative research—involving the examination of the research subject through the utilization of multiple instruments or from diverse perspectives (Ahmed, 2024; Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). In summary, the results were obtained by triangulating the data (field observations, research diary, and the students’ own writings), methodology (phenomenology and hermeneutics), as well as theoretical literature (Illeris, Ziehe, and Agamben).

Ethical Considerations and Limitations

The limitations of this study include the limited cultural (Finnish) and institutional (teacher education) research context, as well as the small, relatively homogeneous group of research subjects in one educational program (CITE). As is the case with qualitative research in general, the subjective nature of interpretation is one limitation (Ahmed, 2024). These limitations have been mitigated through extended fieldwork, thorough documentation, and triangulation (Ahmed, 2024). The European code of conduct for research integrity was followed in all stages of this research (ALLEA, 2023). The process under investigation may have been very personal to the participants. Therefore, it was treated with respect while acknowledging that the researcher’s knowledge could never fully match theirs. The participants were informed about the research when they entered CITE. All 11 students gave me permission to carry out the research and observe them during their studies. Concerning their written data, the students were allowed to decide whether or not they should send their written outputs to me for research purposes. I am aware that my presence in the study sessions might have had an impact on students’ actions. However, when asked to reflect on this after the first year of data collection, all of them said my presence was negligible such that, after a couple of weeks, they had even forgotten I was there. It is also essential to note that my involvement with the group was exclusively that of a researcher: I did not function, for example, as their teacher educator or a mentor at any point.

Results

In the following, the three cases are presented (the whole group and those of Otso and Mikko, respectively) and the different meanings that refusal and withdrawal—saying no—can have for transformative learning are interpreted.

Regressive No

Throughout the ambivalence phase (phase 3), the CITE group began to exhibit behaviors and traits that were interpreted as a rise in resistance (see Merkle, 2014; Nikkola et al., 2013; Scheid-Gerlach, 2014). They refused, withdrew from, postponed, and resisted the process metaphorically and concretely by using modes of resistance that were both unconscious and intentional. They said no to transformative learning multiple times and in many forms.

When the group started and met for the first few times, all the students were always present at the agreed time. However, the number of late arrivals and absences, first in group meetings and later in their consultations with their teacher educators, increased markedly during the first autumn.

[...] Most of the students are late a lot. Varpu is annoyed. She said, “Never have we had such a sliding start and people [who were] very late.”

Tytti: They must have taken it easier because there are no educators [present].

Varpu: It doesn’t matter. (October 20th, 1st year)

The instances of refusal and withdrawal crept into the students’ work very subtly. At first, tardiness and absenteeism were simply explained by some students as carelessness or illnesses that “can’t be helped.” For example, when Varpu asked why there were many absences in the group, Miisa and Aleksi replied that “these were just due to illnesses” (December 7th, 1st year). Being ill was not a choice, so it was easy to excuse absences in the public consciousness of the group. However, absences due to illness also appeared to be partly questionable. For example, in a situation wherein one student was absent from a meeting because of a sore throat, others had information that the same student had “returned an essay at 4 am the night before.” Hence, these students commented, “No wonder she got a sore throat” (December 2nd, 1st year). It seemed that at least part of the sickness-related absences may have been due to truancy, after all.

As the first autumn progressed, the resistance became increasingly concrete and visible. For example, Vilja questioned the possibility of working as a whole group altogether by suggesting that they should just work in pairs on a task assigned to the whole group, saying, “Let’s do this in pairs; how could we even plan this with the whole group?” (October 8th, 1st year). Thereafter, the students began to avoid working as a group, not only by being late and absent but also by postponing and canceling meetings, ending them earlier than planned, and failing to find alternative working times for canceled and prematurely ended meetings (see Merkle, 2014; Nikkola et al., 2013). Varpu described the atmosphere in the group, saying, “Sometimes I feel that this group is in a hurry to get to another place. Let’s get out of here quickly” (December 7th, 1st year). Although some students like Varpu occasionally raised problems with the group’s work, the group as a whole seemed unable or unwilling to discuss these forms of resistance. They did not see them as ways of resisting but as more “logical” ways of working in the group, even though they actually did not work as a group.

While it was impossible to reflect critically on one’s own and the group’s actions—or inactions—the resistance still needed to be channeled into something that could be dealt with. As a result, the criticism shifted to issues outside the group (Nikkola et al., 2013), namely, the tasks assigned, the educators, and even the CITE model. The forms of opposition to these included vocal criticism and questioning. For example, in the following citation, the students criticized both the assignment (“It is too loose and difficult, and too little time is given for it to be completed”) and, more indirectly, the educator who gave it. The assignment had been to make an intervention in society on an issue that they would like to influence, and the intervention needed to be related to the theory and the book they were reading at that time.

Vesa: Does anyone really have a grievance in mind in this society that they would like to influence? → Many say “no.”

Aila: This [assignment] should have been given at the beginning of autumn, and the time to complete the task should have been a whole year, so that we would have noticed such things.

[...] The students ponder that it would be nice to break into a library and mess it up [as an implementation of the assignment]. “Think if we would have to go to prison. We would blame [educator’s name], and he would end up in prison.” “The instructions were not concrete enough.” (Students laughed loudly). A slight increase in seriousness.

Vesa: This is a hell of a broad [assignment]. You could do an intervention on anything, but when it needs to be linked to that [refers to a book and a theory they were studying], it gets more difficult.

Aila: I feel anxious. (November 23rd, 1st year)

Many forms of resistance that emerged in the group were directed specifically at the new ways of organizing education under CITE. Hence, the tactics of withdrawal and resistance in the regressive interest allowed the group to rest from the demanding and difficult nature of this specific learning process. Siru shared that CITE had caused her “frustration toward the learning process, because I have not been able to rely so much on the way I am used to and like” (Writing, May 1st year). Some students’ typical perceptions of studying and their corresponding practices had “worked” in previous education settings, but in CITE, they no longer worked as such.

Tytti: Maybe it’s because never before has my way of working been bad, and now for the first time, I get the feeling that it might not work. (February 6th, 2nd year).

The regression interest plays a role in transformative learning. Specifically, the possibility of refusing and withdrawing from the learning process was important for achieving transformative learning outcomes in CITE (Ziehe, 1991). In other words, while the learning process was meaningful, it was also difficult for the students cognitively and socially; refusal brought rest and respite from that process. Hence, regressive no is a human yearning to take a break from an exhausting process, a desire to return to the familiar and repeat what one already knows, because it is impossible to move progressively forward all the time. Even if transformative learning was important for the students, they still needed to distance themselves from it on several occasions, paving the way for regression. Thus, what might have been a momentary refusal to go forward actually facilitated learning in the long run.

During the transformative learning process in the studied group, some students thought about leaving CITE—yet another manifestation of regressive no—and two students actually did. Mikko and Otso had different reasons for dropping out of CITE, but the timing was roughly the same: before the second CITE year started.

Defensive No

Otso continued his studies in teacher education but quit CITE after the first year. He dropped out rather abruptly without telling the group, the educators, or the researchers the reason for his decision. Even though Otso might have communicated his reasons to (some of) his study colleagues during their unofficial meetings, the whole group was officially informed by one educator. In Otso’s case, quitting CITE studies appeared to be due to his defensive refusal to undergo a potentially transformative learning process (a defensive no). Here, saying “no” is a way to defend oneself from a transformation they do not want or do not have the resources for (yet). For Otso, this process unfolded gradually over the course of a year, but from the beginning, it was already clear that being in CITE was challenging and somewhat unpleasant for him.

Since the beginning of the program, Otso had been unsure whether he wanted to work as a classroom teacher in the future. For example, in one of the very first CITE meetings, he revealed that he did not know what his vocation profession—one that he would feel a personal calling to—was. He thought that a classroom teacher profession “might be nice” (September 8th, 1st year). During the first practicum period, he had also set the goal of “finding out whether this field was for me in the first place, as I had strong doubts about it when I started my studies” (Writing, May 1st year).

Throughout the first year, Otso was visibly withdrawn from the group’s activities. He described participating in the group as one of the most difficult aspects of CITE, saying, “I am used to being alone a lot in my life, so working in a group all the time is challenging for me” (Writing, December 1st year). He often sat in a slightly detached place, browsed his mobile phone during meetings, was late or absent in many meetings, and did not participate as much as the others in the group discussions. He also described himself as a more general withdrawer, saying, “If the theme is closer to heart, I react more strongly; if it doesn’t matter, I withdraw. Maybe I’m more the withdrawing type” (December 1st, 1st year).

In addition to participating in groupwork, Otso found that maintaining motivation and dealing with the “vagueness” of CITE were the most difficult aspects of CITE:

The first and biggest difficulty for me has been maintaining motivation in the autumn. Somehow, this autumn was so different from what I imagined... Whether it’s my imagination or what, but somehow, it has been really hard to maintain motivation. I like “normal” studying much more, so that’s probably the main reason. Another reason is the lack of clarity. From the very beginning, it has bothered me that no one seems to really know what CITE is. It also seems as if there are no adequate answers or guidance on anything, and although I know that this is partly the idea, it still frustrates me from time to time. (Writing, December 1st year)

Otso also wrote about his own “imaginings,” which was interpreted as his preconceived expectations about teacher education based on his previous meaning system. He states that he likes “normal studying,” which would be learning according to his previous perceptions: more teacher-led and independent completion of assigned tasks. Otso also associated CITE with more problems than the others in the group. For example, he asked other group members to read an article about a school reform where “they have done the same as we do here [CITE], the students are allowed to explore for themselves” and continued “it has gone badly there” (April 26th, 1st year).

Otso’s defensive no may have been caused by a kind of “destructive friction,” which arises from the demands of teaching being too high for students’ abilities and skills at that moment (Bronkhorst et al., 2014). Destructive friction can also arise from teaching that is too simple for students’ abilities and skills. However, in Otso’s case, the preceding quotation points to the fact that the demands of the CITE educational model were too high. Indeed, he described himself as preferring “normal” learning (i.e., learning that is typically more teacher-led). For Otso, the challenges of CITE were too different from the normal ones he had grown accustomed to, and he did not feel that he had received adequate answers or sufficient guidance to help him navigate the learning process (Bronkhorst et al., 2014).

Based on the examples above, Otso was unable to cope with the ambivalence of transformative learning in CITE. It seems that the regression interest became too strong for him and eventually “won.” In regressive transformative learning, learners retreat to their preprocess states because they do not have the strength or resources to go through the demanding learning process (Illeris, 2014). Nevertheless, this experience may have been meaningful for Otso, even if it did not lead to major changes. Similarly, Agamben (1999) argues that saying “no” can sometimes have the biggest effect for a person.

Although Otso remained distant and critical of CITE throughout the year and eventually dropped out, he noticed some changes in himself. For example, he noticed that, in relation to working in a group, “somehow a kind of bravery has improved; that [my ability] to dare, has improved” (May 3rd, 1st year). When asked to reflect on his relationship with learning, he stated:

I guess I can now think about learning with more depth. People learn in different ways, and efforts should be made to take all these ways into account when teaching [...] learning is a continuous process, and that people are constantly learning things as they live. (Writing, May 1st year)

Otso’s case demonstrates withdrawal as a way to get away from or defend oneself from something that does not feel good or meaningful for oneself. Although, at the beginning, he had described his uncertainties of his future working as a teacher, quitting CITE did not mean quitting this career path altogether. He actually continued his studies in teacher education in a way that, for him, followed a more normal way of studying. Otso’s decision to drop out seemed to be influenced more by regressive interest—the desire to withdraw from CITE and go back to the normal way of studying rather than move on to a new destination, as was in Mikko’s case.

Emancipatory No

For Mikko, quitting CITE was a way to direct his transformative learning process to a new direction (emancipatory no). Here, saying “no” leads the transformative learning process to a more meaningful direction for the learner. Like Otso, the process was gradual in Mikko’s case, and he reflected on it several times and from many angles during his first year. He announced toward the end of the first year that he was more interested in another field of study than teacher education. He told the group that he was applying to study in this field and, if accepted, would start the following autumn, meaning he would no longer continue in CITE. The following describes what happened.

At the start of the first year, Mikko was a bit cautious and skeptical about CITE. He expressed concerns about whether they would learn “enough” about the “right things.” He did not explicate what he thought would be the right things to learn in teacher education or what would be enough, but like Otso, it is likely he had some ideas about what studying normally should be that he cannot verbalize. Unlike Otso, however, Mikko seemed more willing to dive into the new way of studying in CITE:

I’m nervous about what we’ll get out of this. The others [students not in CITE] are going crazy doing assignments [...] I guess this [CITE] requires a kind of indulgence—trust in the unknown. (September 22nd, 1st year)

Despite his initial concerns, Mikko was an active group member from the start. He clearly worked hard to learn and participated in group work and discussions. Early on, he was already reflecting on his motivations for working. For example, he pondered on “whether to work for money or whether you want to work with people, and do these [goals] converge” (September 8th, 1st year). Similarly, he later wondered about “the idea that work is just something you must do to get money, having got used to thinking that work is where you can fulfil yourself” (March 7th, 1st year).

In the CITE program, Mikko started to see school as a place that should generate autonomous thinking and a genuine interest in things. He began to question school as a place through which students would simply pass with their “eyes closed,” and the result would be “robots” who would do as they were told without thinking for themselves:

Maybe it’s a good thing that school wouldn’t give you the opportunity to live in a tube but should educate more thinkers than doers. (January 26th, 1st year)

The notion that educational institutions were places of genuine interest was reflected not only in what Mikko thought of basic education and its pupils but also in how he began to see his own personal interests in teacher education. Mikko described how he realized the importance of his own interests when studying in the university and how he moved away from the “performance learning mode”—a mode where the focus was on performing tasks rather than learning. This was reflected in his self-evaluation writing:

As a whole, the [studied project] was a door for me to at least partly get out of the performance learning mode. [It] also opened my eyes more strongly to what I really want to learn, how important my own interest in things is, and how much more interest gives. (Writing, May 1st year)

However, it became clear to Mikko that he was actually interested in something other than becoming a classroom teacher. It seemed that his progressive interest during the ambivalence phase led him to pursue a personally more interesting field of study and future career. Illeris (2014) calls this kind of transformative learning a “restoring process.” During the spring semester of the first year, Mikko started to talk about possibly changing his major study subject. This was not an easy decision for him, as shown in the following reflection:

When you don’t know exactly what you want, it’s very difficult. When you get so much for your own learning from this [CITE], you’ve only just begun to realize how important your own interest is for learning [...] How great it is to see from others that they’re interested in the topic. It feels important that the subject matter is such that you also want to read and discuss it in your free time. (April 26th, 1st year)

Although Mikko’s commitment to the field of teacher education in general was lower than others, his commitment to the CITE group in particular was strong. In fact, when considering his plans for a career change, Mikko often wondered what it would mean for the group if he left it or stayed but did not have the motivation to study further:

And then there is this group. I understand that if I leave the group, it’s away from the group also. I have not dropped out but tried to invest. It would be so much easier if I could give my all [...] There are two overlapping themes: Do I terrorize the group or do I terrorize myself? (April 26th, 1st year)

Eventually, Mikko decided to follow his passion and change fields. However, by being part of CITE for 1 year, he gained an understanding of his personal interests. He even described how he had realized his own potential for the first time:

You get so much out of your own potential here; you didn’t realize your own potential until you came here [...] When you have realized your own potential in doing things here. (March 15th, 1st year)

Mikko also described CITE as a place for growing as a human being. He described it as a time of “empowerment”—emancipation toward becoming his more authentic self and acting more in accordance with his personal interests and desires in terms of career choices. Considering that Mikko was critical at the beginning of his studies and asked what the takeaway from CITE’s different studying styles could be, the change in his thoughts was significant. It seemed his ideas about learning and studying had almost turned on their head: he no longer considered it important to complete assignments, but instead, to learn genuinely from his own interest.

This [CITE] has given me a lot [related] to teaching and everything really, even though I was a bit critical at first. This has been a great and rewarding time for growing as a human being, [and gaining] empowerment. (March 15th, 1st year)

According to Illeris (2014), such a change of direction is not atypical in transformative learning. A learner involved in a transformation may feel that the process is not for them and may thus decide to withdraw from it, but this may nevertheless clarify the direction in which the learner wants to move (Illeris, 2014). This seemed to happen to Mikko during his year in CITE. So, even though he dropped out of CITE and quit the learning process happening there, this did not completely interrupt his transformative learning but redirected it toward a more meaningful direction.

Discussion

Ziehe, Illeris, and Agamben approach refusal and withdrawal from different angles: Ziehe as a natural part of all learning processes, Illeris as one type of transformative learning process, and Agamben as a way of emancipation. It is not my intention to place the three example cases presented in this study into these categories, but rather to explain which elements of these approaches are exemplified in the case studies. From the perspective of transformative learning, the many forms of refusal and withdrawal shown by the CITE students or the decision to drop out altogether did not necessarily interrupt the learning process (Illeris, 2014). Instead, they only slowed it down (the case of the whole group), stretched it out to continue some other time and place (the case of Otso), or pushed it in a new direction (the case of Mikko).

In transformative learning, the learner is confronted with new ways of doing and interpreting things, thereby creating uncertainties that, in turn, generate regressive interest (Ziehe, 1991). In CITE, new and unfamiliar ways sometimes collided with the group’s (mental, cognitive, and social) resources and capabilities (also Bronkhorst et al., 2014). In those moments, regressive interest manifested in one way or another. However, guidance was available on request and organized systematically.

Judging from Otso’s case, the students may have hoped for an even clearer structure of learning and faced challenges in grasping the structure provided (also Räihä et al., 2018). Certainly, there is no guarantee that easing uncertainty by providing a clearer structure would have led to a similar transformation process (if a at all possible) for the group. Still, for Otso, the feeling of being left without answers and instructions in an otherwise uncertain situation further generated negative emotions, which contributed to his eventual withdrawal from CITE.

From the point of view of impotentiality, refusing CITE and the transformative learning that may take place in it represents precisely the free use of the ability to not do. In Otso’s case, this may have enabled learning better than if he had completed his studies under CITE. Indeed, it is often the situation in which a person has refused something that has taught them the most (Illeris, 2014). For Mikko, the desire to fulfill his potential led him to another field of study. For Otso, the accumulated feelings of anxiety and his criticism of the educational model eventually led to his withdrawal from CITE. However, both Otso and Mikko can be described as having undergone a certain emancipation in relation to their own goal setting and aspirations: for Otso, it led to saying “no” to CITE, while for Mikko, it led to saying “yes” to something else. For the rest of the group, being able to say “no” (consciously or unconsciously) from time to time ensured that the learning process kept going without having to stop completely.

Conclusions

In this study, three cases and the corresponding descriptions of saying “no” to transformative learning have been presented: regressive no, defensive no, and emancipatory no. Notably, these are not mutually exclusive. Thus, refusing and withdrawing from transformative learning can have all these features at the same time, and there is no single correct interpretation in any given situation. Refusal may be interpreted differently from various perspectives, such as those of teachers or students (Bronkhorst et al., 2014). Furthermore, the one refusing and/or withdrawing may also have several reasons for doing so (consciously or unconsciously), even at the same time.

From the perspective of education and training, however, withdrawal and refusal are often viewed as “problematic” (Bronkhorst et al., 2014), because the educational tendency is that one should always aim forward. Although the legitimate need for rest and retreat is fundamental for human beings, its manifestations are often interpreted as “inefficiency” in educational contexts. It could also be construed that the interpretations, for example, teachers make of resistance in educational institutions, may be viewed as political in nature. For example, according to Agamben, the concept of “lifelong learning” in modern society is a traditional way of looking at the concept of “potential,” which sees people as realizing their potential only when—in a neoliberal spirit—they agree to develop themselves continuously (to maximize results). However, in Agamben’s view, true freedom, including the freedom to transform I would add, also lies in the possibility and ability to refuse this constant realization of one’s potential (Agamben, 1999; Lewis, 2011).

Notably, the ability to say “I would prefer not to” is an essential part of impotentiality, and while students who say this may appear passive, indifferent, or unproductive at first sight (in terms of potential transformative learning), the statement can also be interpreted as a refusal to engage in exploitative or self-defeating work (Agamben, 1999; Lewis, 2011). Indeed, the requirements for transformative change can be exploitative or harmful for students if they are not willing or ready for change (Illeris, 2014). Thus, considering dropping out as simply passivity, withdrawal, indifference, or unproductivity may hide a relevant and pertinent critique of the learning process, as well as downplay the right of individuals to make decisions that affect their own lives.

Furthermore, as Bronkhorst et al. (2014) remind us, resistance in teacher education is not a quality of the student; rather, it is something that happens as a result of interactions between the student and teacher education. In other words, students are not responsible for their resistance, nor are they the only ones who need to “get over” it. It is also a critical task for teacher educators to reflect on their actions and the teaching models they use (Bronkhorst et al., 2014). At the same time, I have argued in this article that resistance during transformative learning is not something that must be overcome but something that emerges almost automatically because of that process. Therefore, there is a need to gain a deeper understanding of how resistance is actually an essential part of transformative learning.

Yet, it is typical for schools and training programs to overemphasize progression over regression. Certainly, educational institutions place great importance on going forward, but according to Ziehe (1991), for there to be progression, there must also be regression. Hence, the educational context might need more room for the regressive no. As it is human nature to require rest, education should include more balancing time, repeating the familiar, and staying in learners’ comfort zones. While I would argue that transformational processes do not require a sense of security to take place, it is nevertheless an ethical obligation of educational institutions to ensure that learners feel safe enough to cope with the existential uncertainties associated with such processes. This sometimes requires retreating to one’s comfort zone. Alongside this, process facilitators should have a particularly clear vision and the ability to support learners throughout these processes.

Transformative learning should also be consistently based on willingness and voluntariness. Forcing transformation is not only unethical but also unproductive (Illeris, 2014). Arguably, forcing transformation is even impossible as it then moves from transformation to indoctrination (Moilanen & Huttunen, 2025). Therefore, participants must have the right to withdraw from the process or change its direction if they wish to do so.

The limitation of this study is that it is based on isolated case examples that certainly do not cover all possible interpretations of refusal and withdrawal. However, this study is a new opening for the interpretation of refusal and withdrawal from transformative learning processes, which will hopefully be complemented by more studies in the future.