To me Mezirow’s theories on transformative learning aren’t simply based on the need for a different approach in adult education but also based around the politics of the use of pre- existing material in the education of adults, and in writing a theory for an established area the need to refer to those who came before you in order to give your theory more credence in your given field.
The focus of this theory is based upon the needs of adult learners when returning to education and their changing needs for their education, whether it be that the subject now needs to be able to be taught in conjunction with practical applications and using real life as an incentive for study.
The theory can be viewed as both daunting and comforting. Daunting as the subject focuses on the need to change the way you teach/ learn, depending on your view point, in order to make the language/ topics more approachable and applicable for adult learners or those that have returned to education after a period of time, however the theory itself includes quite a lot of theoretical jargon that left me stumped and took about five attempts at reading to be able to write this blog, and even at that my grasp of the content is shaky at best.
Kitchenam, in his writing of this article, seems more preoccupied with sounding academic and panders to his academic peers rather then making an informative evaluation of Mezirow’s theory for the average student. The article is very complex in it’s formatting and includes very little in the way of straight forward usable information for someone who is reading the article to gain a different perspective on the work of Mezirow in regard to Transformative Learning.