Quality as Transformation: Educational Metamorphosis
By Ming Cheng
Learning and Teaching Centre, University of Glasgow, Scotland
Introduction
Quality as transformation is a main theme of quality enhancement in the UK higher
education sector (QAA, 2009). It emphasises student-centered learning and encourages
students to take a leading role in assuring the quality of their own education (Harvey, 2006).
Quality as transformation is closely related to the notion of ‘transformative learning’, which
grows out of a confluence of post-60s radicalism and critical pedagogical theories (Giroux,
2001), and an interest in adult education as part of social welfare (Mezirow, 1990, 2000).
Students are expected to not only engage with knowledge but also develop their capacity to
understand and question existing ideas and assumptions that inform their experiences and
understandings of society (Herod, 2002).
Harvey and Knight (1996) developed the concept of transformative learning by arguing that
quality could be transformation. Harvey (2009) interpreted transformation as more than a
significant cognitive change towards a more rational frame of thinking as Mezirow
suggested, but as a continuing process of students becoming more confident, challenging
assumptions, developing new understandings and acting upon them. The change in
conceptualisation was described as either an accumulation of meaning transformation, or a
disorienting dilemma, triggered by a life crisis or major life transition.
Transformation has been perceived as the most appropriate definition of quality in higher
education. For example, Srikanthan & Dalrymple (2003) argued that it could address the
concerns of all stakeholder groups. However, both transformation and quality are elusive
terms. They are subjected to different interpretations. For example, the academic community
tends to see quality as external, alien and separate from their work (Barnett, 2003). Quality
is perceived as power (Morley, 2003), and as bureaucratisation, impression management
and conformity (Newton, 2002). By contrast, students are more pragmatic and understand
quality as leading to them being able to ‘pass exams’ rather than as transformation of their
thinking processes (Cheng, 2011).
Despite academics’ lack of enthusiasm for embracing quality as a management idea, quality
has been seen and used by the Government as a tool for addressing issues of teaching and
learning in higher education (Harvey & Askling 2003). Quality was regarded as meeting the
expectations of customers (DfES, 2003). It has been used to evaluate teaching performance
and the provision of learning resources. Moreover, rising fees produce a challenge for
universities in delivering quality as ‘value for money’ (Molesworth et al, 2009). This has led to
an impression that quality is essentially pragmatic and outcome-driven.
One explanation for these different interpretations is that understanding of what quality
means is originally derived from business and industry, so it triggers discussion within
academia about its applicability to higher education (Owlia & Aspinwall 1996). Another
explanation is that the complexity of higher education increases the difficulty in
conceptualising quality. For example, its different component parts, like teaching and
research, will have different requirements for quality (Sahney et al, 2004). Despite the
complexity and difficulties in understanding the concepts of quality, quality as transformation
has become the main agenda in the current quality enhancement process in the UK.
However, very little research has examined the relationship between quality and
transformation. There is little indication of how quality can be equated to transformation
during the learning process. This research addresses the gap in the literature and explores
how to understand quality as transformation, and how quality and transformation are
perceived as interrelated at doctoral level education. The complexity of the learning process
(Barnett, 2007) will be considered, as learning has different dimensions which relate to
different notions of quality and transformation. These learning dimensions include: the
learning of knowledge and skills, the emotions and motivation, and social communication
and cooperation (Illeris, 2004). Another reason is that learners, especially undergraduates,
may be unaware that they are going through a process of transformation, until after the
actual transformation has taken place. By contract, doctoral students are mature learners
who are more capable of reflecting on and interpreting their transformative learning
experience than undergraduates (Fenge, 2012).
Understandings of transformation
This paper considers that various approaches have been adopted to conceptualise
transformation. They include: Freire’s (2000) view of social transformation; Jack Mezirow’s
(1990, 1991, 2000) notion of rational and psychocritical transformation; Daloz’s (1986; 1999)
approach of developmental transformation; Dirkx’s (1998) linking transformation with
spirituality; and a neurobiological perspective of transformation by Janik (2005; 2007).
Believing that education was for the purpose of liberation, Freire argued that if empowered
by new perspectives, people could act upon them to transform their world into a more
equitable place to live. Sharing the notions of emancipatory education, Mezirow (1991; 1996;
2000) interpreted transformation as a process of individualisation and a lifelong journey of
understanding oneself. Rational thought, reflection, emotion and social context are the key
factors to achieving transformation (Mezirow, 2000). Daloz (1986; 1999) suggested a
developmental approach to foster transformation. He believed that education could help
students to make sense of their lives, because they could learn to negotiate developmental
transitions and become changed in the process. Dirkx (1998) related transformation to
imagination in that it would lead to a deeper self-understanding and mindfulness. Janik
(2005; 2007) proposed neurobiological transformation. His approach explains that
transformation: requires discomfort before discovery; is rooted in and strengthened by
students’ experiences, needs, and interests; and demands that educators understand the
knowledge base of neurobiological systems.
Depending on the emphasis on individual or social change, the above views can be
classified as personal and emancipatory transformation. The neurobiological and
psychocritical perspectives focus on individual change, and little is considered of context and
social change and their relationship to transformation. By contrast, social, developmental,
and cultural-spiritual transformations are emancipatory, given that they consider social
change and see the individual and society as one.
Promoting transformation
Transformation has been promoted through developing transformative learning in the
international higher education sector (Lange, 2004; Fetherston & Kelly, 2007; and Canton &
Wright, 2008). The essential conditions and techniques for transformative learning to take
place have been extensively researched. For example, Cranton (2000; 2006) revealed that
transformative learning could be uncomfortable and complex because academics were not
trained educators and students might not have the skills required for reflection. Berger
(2004) explained that it was because transformative learning involved the development of an
acute awareness of students’ attitudes, personalities and preferences over time. Cranton
recommended that providing opportunities for students to articulate their assumptions and
recognising their learning styles would help students critically question their perspectives
and then revise and act upon them.
However, there were criticisms on the limitations of transformative learning. They include the
argument that transformative learning is too narrowly connected with the formal field of adult
education (King, 2004), and is mainly concerned with the rational process of learning (Dirkx,
1998), ignoring the psychological drives and the role of intuitive and emotional processes
(Boyd & Myers, 1988; Taylor, 1998). Ball (1999) pointed out that strong emotions instead of
rationality often accompany students’ transformation.
According to Moore (2005), academics express their difficulty in embracing transformative
learning in practice. One reason is that it could take place only when students are mentally
and emotionally ready, and when the institutions are able to foster and nurture these
transformative experiences. Another reason is that the complex nature of transformative
learning (Cranton, 1996) makes it is hard for academics to know when students are ready to
be transformed, and what they could transform students into. The third reason is that
transformation is not designed to have a particular endpoint, but embedded with the purpose
of empowerment and freedom of thought, so might be invisible during the learning process.
In spite of the concerns with transformative learning, transformation has been related to the
concept of quality in the UK quality enhancement process. Prompted by the consideration
that little research has been carried out into how to apply quality as transformation to
educational practices, this paper will analyse and interpret these concepts at PhD-level. It is
based on the belief that doctoral students are more likely than other students to possess the
meta-cognition to reflect on their own learning (Green & Macauley, 2007). Therefore, they
are in a good position to identify and understand their own transformation.
Research methods
Two English universities were selected as research sites. The two institutions were chosen
on the basis of their difference in research intensiveness. One institution is an ‘ancient’
world-renown university and the other is a pre-1992 institution, ie. it possessed university
status before the enactment of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. An interpretative
research design was employed to address two research questions:
1. How can quality as transformation be applied to PhD education?
2. How are ‘quality’ and ‘transformation’ interrelated at PhD level?
The interpretative approach (Holliday, 2002) enabled the researcher to consider in depth
how PhD supervisors and PhD students understood quality and transformation. Supervisors
were in a unique position to interpret the quality of PhD education, as they were able to
observe and facilitate their students’ progress. PhD students could produce insider
perspectives on transformation through reflecting on their own transformative experiences.
There were two stages in the data collection. Stage one comprised semi-structured
interviews with 16 PhD supervisors and 16 PhD students drawn from three disciplinary areas
in the two universities - education, physics and engineering. The subject differences allowed
both academic and practice-based dimensions of learning to be explored. A semi-structured
interview was adopted because it is flexible and explores perspectives in depth
(Denscombe, 2003). The researcher adapted the interview questions to suit the
interviewees’ roles, and explored their understandings of quality and transformation.
Stage two consisted of a follow-up workshop. Previous interviewees exchanged their views
of quality and transformation by employing methods of collage making (Butler-Kisber &
Poldma, 2009). This workshop stimulated different perspectives of quality and transformation
using both words and images. Content analysis (McKee, 2001) was used to analyse the
data. It assessed the importance of a particular idea, such as the meanings and dimensions
of quality and transformation, by how frequently it appeared in the text. NVivo software was
used to facilitate the coding of the qualitative data (Welsh, 2002). It maximised the extent to
which the data could be analysed in a rigorous and transparent manner (Cresswell, 2006).
Findings
This research revealed that interviewees held different attitudes towards the concept of
quality as transformation. University type appeared as a factor that had little influence on the
attitudes. Two out of 32 interviewees did not perceive ‘quality as transformation’ as a
relevant model to doctoral education. They regarded higher education as an enabling
process, instead of producing designated changes in learner states of knowing or being.
Eight interviewees supported the idea of quality as transformation. Their argument was that
if students had not been changed through the process of doing the PhD, then it was not a
successful experience. They related quality as transformation to new information, knowledge
and skills, the ‘right attitude’ to learn, and the capability to do research.
The other 22 interviewees believed that quality as transformation was a laudable ideal but
they doubted its applicability to all subject areas especially, for example, engineering. They
regarded the phrase as educational jargon. For example, one supervisor interviewee
explained why it was mainly applied to educational studies:
I suppose it’s a trend or an approach in education to make an emphasis on the
change of behaviour and attitudes in a learning process. (PhDS8)
There was perceived difficulty in applying quality as transformation to PhD education. Most
interviewees expressed the belief that both quality and transformation could not be
measured through identifying changes in students’ states of knowing or believing. For
example, a student interviewee in education argued against the ‘quantification’ of quality by
the frequency of supervision:
I suppose if one looks at the DPhil certainly you’d not just want to look at the
quantification of the education you receive, um, you look at the quality. I don’t have to
see my supervisor for two/three months, I’m happy with it, until I produce whatever
product I want their comments on …. (PhDS10)
This comment suggests that while there is increasing emphasis on contact hours in higher
education, at PhD level the extent of supervisor-supervisee contact does not necessarily
equate with an increase in quality. More than half of the interviewees interpreted quality and
transformation as different. One distinction was that transformation could be unplanned,
while quality was normally related to indicators in practice or to expectations. Another
difference was that quality and transformation could be two parallel processes. For example,
a student interviewee pointed out that quality in the engineering discipline was closely
related to standards and criteria, due to its concern for the quality of life and safety. But the
concept of transformation was linked with the images of change and uncertainty. He
therefore described quality and transformation as completely unrelated in engineering:
I think it’s possible that someone could have a really good quality learning experience
… and not necessarily have a transformation. (PhD2)
The third perceived difference was that quality and transformation were related to different
types of knowledge acquisition, either instrumental or emancipatory (Haberma, 1971). In
other words, if quality is outcome-oriented, the call for quality is likely to lead to instrumental
knowledge. This differs from the expectation that the call for students’ transformation would
easily lead to emancipatory knowledge, because it would free learners from conforming to
indicators and standards.
Understanding quality
In order to explore the relationship between quality and transformation, this research
examined how interviewees interpreted these two concepts separately. It reveals that quality
was described as abstract, personal, and dependent on the institutional ethos. Most
interviewees from the ‘ancient’ world-renown university were satisfied with the quality of their
PhD education. They equated quality to their university brand. They believed that the quality
of learning would be guaranteed in a top university, because it was more likely to have more
learning resources than other less prestigious universities.
Nearly all of the interviewees agreed on the complex nature of quality, which has been
extensively discussed in previous research (Barnett, 2007; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003).
They emphasized their uncertainty about the purpose of quality and issues connected with
who benefits from it. Eleven interviewees felt that there was no shared understanding as to
what students were entitled to do to achieve quality in learning, and how they could support
students to achieve that, as the standards of quality varied with institutions and supervisors.
The managerial approach to assessing quality was described as a political game, because it
might reduce the quality of PhD education, if it created a rigid structure for what could be
done within the programmes. The concern of quality requirement corresponds closely with a
view expressed by Harvey & Askling (2003), Morley (2003) and Newton (2002) that the
concept of quality could become a control over academic work. This critical view of quality
was strongly shared by interviewees, in particular, from the discipline of education.
In the collage-making workshop, participants used a variety of images to represent quality.
The images of a razor and a tiger were frequently used to express their concern that the use
of quality for management purpose might reduce the quality of PhD education (See Pictures
1 & 2). Despite the concerns, more than half of the project interviewees acknowledged
quality as being meaningful and valuable. They translated quality as meaning ‘good’,
because good was a word that forced them to take sides and to be clear about what they
wanted. They argued that quality should be treated as a value to be pursued instead of
being used for evaluation purposes mainly.
Dimensions of quality
The complexity of quality was discussed during the interviews and the workshop. Eighteen
interviewees explained that complexity by illustrating its four main dimensions: university
dependence, resource availability, supervisory interaction and learning outcome. To be
specific, quality was perceived as higher education contingent, where there was a call for
quality. Resource availability means that quality depended on the availability of educational
inputs and learning resources, such as funding, library and computer facilities. This
dimension was perceived as linking closely with the university’s reputation and brand,
because the prestigious and research-intensive universities were more likely to get better
resources.
Most interviewees were aware that good provision did not necessarily produce a quality
experience for students, as students’ commitment in learning was a key factor. This is
because learning involves not only the acquisition of knowledge and skills, but also emotion
and motivation (Barnett, 2007; Illeris, 2004). Supervisory interaction was the third perceived
dimension of quality, in particular, the extent to which a PhD student was supported to
achieve their learning expectations. This dimension was viewed as very important in
achieving students’ transformation. The outcome of PhD education was defined as the fourth
dimension of quality. It referred mainly to publication, passing the viva, graduation rate, and
career options. However, most interviewees perceived a danger in using indicators to assess
quality because it would make quality appear as an outcome, as opposed to an ongoing
process to improve oneself, weaving its way through the PhD learning experience.
Understanding transformation
As for the concept of transformation, ten interviewees described this word as educational
jargon, used for institutional marketing purposes. Transformation was perceived as
contradictory to the call for quality, because the latter shaped the expectation of
transformation and made it appear as a deliberate outcome, but transformation is originally
related to realising learner’s potential. The development of transformative learning was
suggested as an effective approach to achieve transformation (Cranton, 2006; Lange, 2004;
Taylor, 2008). Most interviewees from engineering and physics backgrounds expressed little
interest in transformative learning. By contrast, the majority of interviewees in education had
more knowledge of this term, but they acknowledged that learning by any type could be
transformative.
Forms of transformation
Research suggests that transformative changes could be individual or social (Freire, 2000;
Mezirow, 2000; Daloz, 1999; Dirkx, 1998; Tisdell, 2003; and Janik, 2007). This project
revealed that most interviewees related PhD students’ transformative experience to
individual changes rather than social ones. Student transformation was classified under five
main types: intellectual, critical, personal, emotional, and physical. There was little evidence
that university type and subject differences affected interviewees’ understanding of
transformation.
Intellectual transformation was described as the development of thinking that led to changed
perspectives about life and subjects. It was perceived as an important pathway for students
to complete their PhD and to achieve the expected quality. It was interpreted as a cognitive
process, where learners’ knowledge became more integrated. Visions of caterpillars
emerging as butterflies were popular images for this. New ways to solve research problems
were mostly quoted.
Critical transformation was perceived as progressive, starting with uncertainty and
developing from students’ reflection and discussion. The changes produced could be either
positive or negative. Personal transformation was associated with a change in individuals’
opinions, behaviour and attitudes. Increased commitment to learning was frequently
mentioned by student interviewees. Emotional transformation was mainly referred as a
psychological change. It overlapped with intellectual and personal transformation in that
individuals felt motivated to learn and became committed to make changes. Physical
transformation was viewed as involving a change of environment or an age-related physical
feature change.
Discussion
The complexity of quality and transformation as separate concepts further explain why it was
perceived as difficult in applying ‘quality as transformation’ to PhD education. In order to
deepen the understandings of quality, this section is going to elaborate on the overlaps
between quality and transformation, and then illustrate why half of the interviewees
interpreted quality as a value to be pursued.
The outcome of PhD education was viewed as an overlap of quality and transformation. Its
underpinning belief was that if a PhD student was happy with his learning outcome, he would
probably become satisfied with the quality of his learning. Interviewees described the
outcome as the fourth dimension of quality, and referred them to publication, passing the
viva, graduation rate, and career options. The outcome intertwined with student
transformation through taking on the forms of intellectual, critical, personal, emotional and
physical changes.
Interviewees were well aware that PhD outcomes were subject to individuals’ expectation for
new information, knowledge and skills, the right attitude to learn, and the capability to do
research. In other words, some PhD students might push themselves harder in striving to be
excellent, so they might experience more transformation than those who are less hard
working. Moreover, a student might change his expectations upon the discovery of new
possibilities, so their learning outcomes would vary over time. This suggests that PhD
outcome is context contingent, depending on individuals’ specific expectations.
However, in the current higher education environment, the quality of PhD education is
measured by standards and criteria. This evaluation practice further widens the gap between
stakeholders’ beliefs concerning the quality of PhD education and what is evaluated as
quality. This gap explains why more than half of the interviewees experienced difficulty in
defining quality, but they described it as a value to be pursued. They emotionally attributed
goodness to quality. The term quality made them become clear about what they wanted from
PhD education. They therefore described quality as a value, ie, a common language to
express their expectations for something valuable and meaningful. According to Perry
(1914), value is a qualified satisfaction of interest (Perry, 1914). In this sense, the
interviewees’ desire to fulfil their interest and expectations for PhD education played an
essential role in their perceiving quality as a value.
Quality as a value seeks to capture the different motives and attitudes among these
interviewees, such as, scepticism about quality being used as an educational jargon and
expectation for a good PhD learning experience. The interviewees were sceptical about the
current practice of quality evaluation, because its focus on standards and criteria ignores the
intrinsic and hard-to-measure nature of individual learning. However, they still expected good
PhD education, so they felt that the meaningfulness and intrinsic nature of quality would be
recognised through viewing it as a value to be pursued.
Conclusion
To summarise, this research revealed that there were different attitudes towards the concept
of quality as transformation. Most interviewees found it a good idea, but they were not sure
about its applicability to all subject areas, for example, engineering. The difficulty in
measuring quality as transformation was expressed and there was a concern that it was
hard to quantify both quality and transformation.
This research further highlighted the complexity of both quality and transformation. Quality
was interpreted as abstract, personal, and institution dependent. There was a gap between
what interviewees expected of quality and what was evaluated as quality. More than half of
the interviewees acknowledged quality as a value to be pursued, in order to fulfil their
expectations for PhD education. There are potential benefits in perceiving quality as a value.
One is that it might generate stakeholders’ internal sense that the concept of quality is good
and important. Quality as a value will therefore positively influence their attitude and
behaviour towards learning. Another benefit is that quality as a value would encourage
stakeholders to use quality as a common language to collaborate to create a more positive
learning experience. The third benefit is that an improved quality management system would
emerge. This is because quality as a value fills the gap between stakeholders’ belief in PhD
education as developing knowledge and skills and the existing practice of evaluating quality
for management purpose. The gap would increase the attention to stakeholders’ belief in
quality, and consequently stimulate relevant actions to improve quality for more positive
learning experience.
Finally, this paper identifies that quality has been used mainly for assessment purposes in
real practice. The gap between perceiving quality as a value and the practice of evaluating it
by indicators makes quality appear as contradictory and confusing. This would further
produce barriers for stakeholders to fully understand the meaning of student transformation.
Transformation is originally associated with developing learners’ potential. However, if
measured for the purpose of quality evaluation, transformation would appear as a deliberate
outcome, rather than a progressive process where students produce changes and develop
their capability to understand these changes.
The difficulty in measuring quality and transformation produces a series of questions to be
considered. One is the purpose of quality as transformation in PhD study, for whom and for
what? Another question is whether higher education is ready for quality as transformation.
Could it provide a context to facilitate students’ transformation without being constrained by
quality indicators and standards? The third question is how to pursue quality as a value.
Who will be in the position to negotiate with stakeholders on the basis of their expectations?
And finally how do we encourage the fostering of quality as a value by stakeholders when
there is increasing demand for using the term quality only for a summative evaluation
purpose?
References
Ball, G.D.S (1999) Building a sustainable future through transformation. Futures, 31, pp
251–70.
Barnett, R (2003) Beyond all reason: Living with ideology in the university. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Barnett, R (2007) A will to learn. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education & Open University Press.
Berger, J. G (2004) Dancing on the threshold of meaning. Journal of Transformative
Education, 2, pp. 336–351.
Boyd, R. D and Myers, J. G (1988) Transformative education. International Journal of
Lifelong Learning, 7(4), pp. 261-284.
Butler-Kisber, L and Poldma, T (2009) The power of visual approaches in qualitative inquiry:
The use of collage making and concept mapping in experiential research. Proceedings of the
Design Research Society Experiential Knowledge SIG Conference 2009.
http://www.experientialknowledge.org/. (last accessed 20 August 2011)
Canton, P and Wright, B (2008) The transformative educator as learning companion. Journal
of Transformative Education, 6, pp. 33-47.
Cheng, M (2011) Transforming the learner’ versus ‘passing the exam’? Understanding the
gap between academic and student definitions of teaching quality. Quality in Higher
Education, 17 (1), pp. 3-17.
Cranton, P (2000) Individuation and authenticity in transformative learning. Paper presented
at the Third International Conference on Transformative Learning, in New York, N.Y.
Cranton, P (eds) (2006) Understanding and promoting transformative learning. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Cresswell, J. W (2006) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. London: Sage
Daloz, L (1986) Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of
adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Daloz, L. A (1999) Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Denscombe, M (eds) (2003) The good research guide: For small-scale research projects.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) The future of higher education. London: HESO.
Dirkx, J (1998) Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An
overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, pp. 1–14.
Dirkx, J (2000) Transformative learning and the journey of individuation. ERIC Digests 223.
Fenge, L. A (2012). Enhancing the doctoral journey: the role of group supervision in
supporting collaborative learning and creativity. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), pp. 401414.
Fetherston, B and Kelly, R (2007) Conflict resolution and transformative pedagogy: A
grounded theory research project on learning in higher education. Journal of Transformative
Education, 5, 262-285.
Freire, P (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Green, R and Macauley, P (2007) Doctoral students’ engagement with information: An
American-Australian perspective. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(3), 317-332.
Giroux, H (2001) Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the
opposition. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Habermas, J (1971) Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harvey, L (2007) Quality culture, quality assurance and impact, embedding quality culture in
higher education. European University Association. Belgium.
Harvey, L (2009) A critical analysis of quality culture. Paper presented at the International
Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) Conference, New
Approaches to Quality Assurance in the Changing World of Higher Education, 30 March–2
April, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Harvey, L and Askling, B (2003) Quality in higher education. In R. Begg. Eds., The dialogue
between higher education research and practice (pp.69-83). Dorndrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Harvey, L and Green, D (1993) Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education: An International Journal, 18(1), 9-34.
Harvey, L and Knight, P. T (1996) Transforming higher education. Buckingham: Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Herod, L (2002) Adult learning from theory to practice. http://
www.nald.ca/adultlearningcourse/glossary.htm. (last accessed 17 March 2009)
Holliday, A (2002) Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Illeris, K (2004) Transformative learning in the perspective of a comprehensive learning
theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 2, pp. 79-89.
Janik, D. S (2005) Unlock the genius within. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Janik, D. S (2007) What every language teacher should know about the brain and how it
affects teaching. Paper presented at Wikipedia Conference on Foreign Language Pedagogy,
University of Helsinki, Finland.
King, K. P (2004) Transformative learning. In Connotative Learning, ed. S. Farmer. and S.
Stein. Washington, DC: IACET.
Lange, E (2004) Transformative and restorative learning: A vital dialectic for sustainable
societies. Adult education quarterly, 54, 121–139.
Lomas, L (2002) Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of
quality?. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), pp. 71-79.
McKee, A (2001) A beginner’s guide to textual analysis.
http://emsah.uq.edu.au/courses/ccst1000/supplementary/analysis.htm? (last accessed 20
August 2011)
Mezirow, J (1990) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and
emancipatory learning. San Francisco: CA, Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: CA, JosseyBass.
Mezirow, J (1996) Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46,
pp.158–172.
Mezirow, J (eds) (2000) Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Francisco: CA, Jossey-Bass.
Molesworth, M., Nixon, E. and Scullion, R (2009) Having, being and higher education: the
marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer.
Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (3), pp. 277-287.
Moore, J (2005) Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored
in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3, pp. 76–91.
Morley, L (2003) Quality and power in higher education. Maidenhead: SRHE & Open
University Press.
Newton, J (2002) Views from below: Academics coping with quality. Quality in Higher
Education, 8(1), 39-63.
Nicholds, J (2006) The implications of student contracts. The Oxford Student, 3 March, pp.
33–41.
Owlia, M and Aspinwall, E (1996) A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), pp. 12-20.
Perry, R. B (1914) The definition of value. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and
Scientific Methods, 11(6), pp. 141-162.
Quality Assurance Agency (2009) Higher Quality.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/higherquality/hq30.pdf. (last accessed 20 August 2011)
Sahney, S, Banwet, D.K and Karunes, S (2004) Conceptualising total quality management in
higher education. TQM Magazine, 16(2), pp. 145-159.
Srikanthan, G and Dalrymple, J (2003) Developing alternative perspectives for quality in
higher education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17 (3), pp. 126-36.
Taylor, E. W (1998) Transformative learning: A critical review. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education.
Taylor, E. W (2007) An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the
empirical research (1995-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), pp.173191.
Tisdell, E. J (2003) Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vickers, G (1968) Value Systems and Social Processes. London: Tavistock Publications.
Welsh, E (2002) Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative analysis process. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Available from: http://www.qualitativeresearch. net/fqstexte/2-02/2-02welsh-e.htm. (last accessed 20 August 2011)