Abstract
The Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale (TOTL) is an objective, 40-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess individuals' attitudes, pedagogical preferences, and theoretical endorsements regarding the integration of transpersonal psychology and holistic epistemologies within educational environments. Developed by Stewart B. Shapiro and L. Fitzgerald in 1989, the scale measures whether educators, students, and counselors value intuitive, meditative, transcendent, and imaginative modalities of knowing alongside conventional logical-rational frameworks. The TOTL comprises four distinct 10-item subscales: (a) Fantasy Techniques Applied in Schools, (b) Mysticism Preferred to Science as an Epistemology, (c) Mystical/Occult/Paranormal Techniques Applied to Schools, and (d) Transcendent Consciousness. Items are administered on a 5-point Likert scale spanning from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), scored unidirectionally such that elevated total scores denote stronger endorsement of transpersonal methodologies. Psychometric evaluation of the instrument demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, yielding an overall Cronbach's alpha of .96 and a split-half reliability coefficient of .98. Subscale reliabilities range from .82 to .93. Factorial validity has revealed dual structural interpretations, demonstrating an overarching general transpersonal factor under varimax orthogonal rotation, alongside a viable four-factor model under equamax rotation explaining 53% of total variance, or alternatively a bi-dimensional partition separating theoretical perspectives from applied pedagogical interventions. Criterion-related validity is supported by significant mean differentiation across academic cohorts (ANOVA F[3, 61] = 14.08, p < .001) and meaningful convergent correlations with humanistic orientation (r = .46) and intuitive-feeling psychological temperaments (r = .38). The TOTL remains an influential psychometric operationalization bridging transpersonal psychological tenets and curriculum theory.
Keywords
Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale, transpersonal education, psychometrics, confluent education, altered states of consciousness, guided imagery, epistemology, mystical experience, educational psychology, humanistic psychology, scale validation
Authors
The Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale was developed and validated by Stewart B. Shapiro, Ph.D., and L. Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
At the time of the instrument's development and publication, both researchers were affiliated with the Department of Education within the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Santa Barbara, California, United States. Dr. Stewart B. Shapiro was a prominent scholar in humanistic and confluent education, focusing on experiential learning, instructional values, and the integration of affective, spiritual, and cognitive dimensions in educational pedagogy.
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale (TOTL) is to provide an empirical, standardized measure of an individual's disposition toward transpersonal concepts, epistemological assumptions, and pedagogical methodologies in learning environments. Prior to the creation of the TOTL, educational research lacked a psychometrically sound, objective instrument capable of quantifying the degree to which educators, teacher trainees, school counselors, and graduate students endorsed non-traditional, contemplative, and transpersonal learning paradigms.
In contemporary educational theory, standard curricula predominantly prioritize empirical, analytical, reductionist, and active-rational modes of information processing. In contrast, transpersonal education posits that human development encompasses higher states of consciousness, direct spiritual intuition, receptive awareness, and holistic inner experiences. Shapiro and Fitzgerald conceptualized the TOTL to investigate whether educators regard these non-rational and non-linear faculties as complementary and essential components of holistic development or, conversely, whether they dismiss them as unscientific or inappropriate for formal academic institutions.
The TOTL serves several fundamental research, administrative, and clinical purposes across educational psychology and teacher education:
- Pedagogical and Curricular Assessment: Evaluating prospective and practicing educators' openness to incorporating techniques such as guided fantasy, somatic relaxation, biofeedback, contemplative meditation, and dreamwork into elementary, secondary, and post-secondary classrooms.
- Epistemological Stance Exploration: Disentangling an individual's relative trust in empirical, scientific inquiry versus non-discursive, mystical, or intuitive pathways to knowledge.
- Comparative Cohort Profiling: Differentiating ideological orientations across various academic specializations, such as contrasting humanistic counseling cohorts with traditional single-subject academic trainees.
- Professional Training and Counselor Supervision: Facilitating self-reflection among educators and psychologists concerning their tacit metaphysical worldviews, epistemological presuppositions, and tolerance for altered states of consciousness in therapeutic and learning contexts.
- Religious and Contemplative Education Research: Measuring the alignment between student learning styles and transpersonal learning modalities in programs emphasizing mindfulness, spiritual formation, and holistic education.
Psychological Construct
The TOTL operationalizes the overarching construct of a transpersonal orientation to learning, which encapsulates an individual's willingness to transcend the boundaries of conventional ego-based, purely rational-discursive cognition to embrace intuitive, contemplative, and unitive frameworks of human development. Although the instrument may be conceptualized as measuring a unified global orientation, the construct is formally delineated across four substantive dimensions:
Factor I: Fantasy Techniques Applied in Schools
This dimension assesses attitudes toward the pragmatic utility of receptive cognitive processes—such as guided imagery, visualization journeys, creative daydreaming, and metaphoric fantasy exercises—in classroom environments. Rather than viewing fantasy as escapist or unproductive, this construct positions creative internal representations as indispensable tools that augment traditional verbal-logical instruction. Representative items capture the belief that guided visualization enhances instructional efficacy, supports human emotional growth, and enables learners to connect subjective affect with objective curricular materials.
Factor II: Mysticism Preferred to Science as an Epistemology
This subscale evaluates an individual's epistemological critique of scientific reductionism and posits direct mystical or spiritual knowing as a superior or deeper route to absolute truth. It measures the extent to which a respondent believes that empirical science is inherently limited, incomplete, or incapable of resolving existential questions, intrinsic values, and questions of human meaning. Endorsement of this dimension reflects the perspective that mystical experiences reveal the ultimate nature of reality more authentically than analytical, empirical methodologies.
Factor III: Mystical/Occult/Paranormal Techniques Applied to Schools
This applied dimension assesses support for the inclusion of esoteric, contemplative, and psycho-spiritual practices within public schooling and university programs. Topics operationalized include self-hypnosis, yoga, Eastern psychology, breathwork, meditation, psychic phenomena, voluntary control over autonomic physiology, and holistic healing. It reflects a radical educational philosophy advocating that schools actively instruct students in altering their states of consciousness, cultivating self-transcendence, and accessing holistic mind-body systems.
Factor IV: Transcendent Consciousness
This theoretical dimension measures beliefs concerning ontological and metaphysical constructs that extend beyond the physical organism and conventional space-time constraints. It assesses convictions regarding the continuation of individual consciousness after biological death, the reality of non-local psychic interconnectedness, the developmental potential of superconscious awareness, the parity between modern theoretical physics and ancient mystical traditions, and the axiom that macroscopic social transformation is intrinsically driven by inner psychological self-transcendence.
Theoretical Framework
The conceptual foundation of the TOTL is anchored in transpersonal psychology, humanistic psychology, and the confluent education model pioneered during the human potential movement at institutions such as the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Esalen Institute.
Transpersonal psychology emerged in the late 1960s through the contributions of theorists such as Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Grof, Anthony Sutich, and later Ken Wilber. Maslow posited that traditional psychoanalysis focused excessively on pathology, while behaviorism reduced human agency to mechanistic reflexes. Consequently, humanistic psychology emerged as a 'Third Force,' prioritizing self-actualization, subjective meaning, and autonomy. However, Maslow soon recognized that fully developed individuals frequently report experiences that transcend the personal ego—phenomena he termed peak experiences and transhuman needs. This prompted the articulation of a 'Fourth Force': transpersonal psychology, defined by the empirical and phenomenological study of ultimate human capacities, spiritual development, cosmic unity, and altered states of consciousness.
In educational theory, these tenets directly influenced confluent education, an instructional paradigm developed by George Isaac Brown, Stewart B. Shapiro, and colleagues. Confluent education sought the deliberate, simultaneous integration of the affective domain (feelings, emotions, intuitive fantasies) with the cognitive domain (intellect, analytical reasoning, factual knowledge). Shapiro and Fitzgerald extended this framework by asserting that an authentic transpersonal education does not merely attend to emotional affect, but actively cultivates transcendent, intuitive, receptive, and spiritual modes of human consciousness alongside logical-rational cognition.
Theoretical controversies within the field are also embedded within the scale. For instance, while classical transpersonal educational statements emphasized that intuitive and receptive modes are equal in importance to rational modes, several TOTL items explicitly deprecate the power of science relative to direct mystical apprehension. Furthermore, the inclusion of parapsychological and occult concepts reflects earlier, broader definitions of transpersonal psychology, even though later structural theorists like Ken Wilber caution against equating anomalous parapsychological states directly with developmental spiritual enlightenment.
Validity
The construct, criterion, and factorial validity of the TOTL were rigorously examined during its initial scale construction and psychometric validation process:
Content Validity
To ensure high initial content representation, the scale developers conducted an exhaustive content analysis of published literature across 25 seminal humanistic and transpersonal authors in psychology and education. This thematic extraction yielded an initial pool of 222 items reflecting core theoretical assertions. A panel of nine academic experts specializing in confluent and humanistic education independently evaluated these candidate items for conceptual relevance, syntactic clarity, and theoretical alignment. Items failing to achieve inter-judge consensus or exhibiting minimal response variance during a pilot administration were eliminated, refining the instrument to 67 items. Subsequent item-total correlation screens removed 19 additional items exhibiting insufficient discrimination, and a preliminary factor analysis eliminated eight further items deemed substantively redundant, finalizing the instrument at 40 items.
Criterion-Related & Known-Groups Validity
The scale's criterion-related validity was confirmed using a known-groups design among 166 graduate students enrolled in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The sample was drawn from four distinct programs hypothesized to possess varying affinities for humanistic and transpersonal methodologies: Confluent Education, Counseling Psychology, Multiple Subject (Elementary) Teaching Credential, and Single Subject (Secondary) Teaching Credential.
A one-way analysis of variance revealed highly significant group differences: F(3, 61) = 14.08, p < .001. Post hoc pairwise contrasts via the Steel-Torrie extension of Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test demonstrated that:
- Students enrolled in the Confluent (Humanistic) Education program obtained the highest mean score (M = 152.0), significantly exceeding Counseling Psychology students (M = 139.0, p < .05).
- Both the Confluent and Counseling cohorts scored significantly higher than the Single Subject Credential students (M = 127.0) and the Multiple Subject Credential students (M = 129.0).
- The two standard credential cohorts did not differ significantly from one another, precisely mirroring theoretical expectations regarding curricular traditionalism versus experiential humanism.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating TOTL composite scores with established psychological and educational instruments:
- Humanistic Instructional Orientation: A significant positive correlation of r = .46 (p < .05) was observed with Shapiro's (1985) Orientation to Learning Scale, confirming that affinity for transpersonal methodologies overlaps substantially with humanistic instructional values.
- Intuitive-Feeling Temperament: A significant correlation of r = .38 (p < .05) was demonstrated with the Intuitive-Feeling (NF) temperament dimension of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, substantiating the theoretical hypothesis that intuitive, visionary personalities are naturally inclined toward transpersonal concepts.
- Experiential Learning Styles: Modest convergence was documented with the Concrete Experience subscale of David Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (r = .22, p < .05), illustrating a mild association between transpersonal orientation and preference for immediate, feeling-based experiential learning.
- Discriminant Null Correlation: The TOTL showed a non-significant correlation with Kolb's Divergent Learning Style dimension (r = .15, p > .05), confirming that the transpersonal orientation construct is not merely a generic proxy for cognitive divergence or open-ended thinking styles.
Reliability
The TOTL exhibits robust psychometric reliability across internal consistency and split-half parameters, established using sample cohorts within educational psychology settings.
For the complete 40-item instrument, the overall internal consistency measured via Cronbach's alpha reached .96, indicating an exceptionally cohesive latent construct with minimal random measurement error. Furthermore, a split-half reliability coefficient of .98 was demonstrated, confirming equivalence across subdivided item halves.
Reliability estimates for each of the four 10-item subscales likewise surpass conventional psychometric thresholds for research instruments:
- Factor I (Fantasy Techniques Applied in Schools): Cronbach's α = .83
- Factor II (Mysticism Preferred to Science as an Epistemology): Cronbach's α = .82
- Factor III (Mystical/Occult/Paranormal Techniques Applied to Schools): Cronbach's α = .93
- Factor IV (Transcendent Consciousness): Cronbach's α = .82
In the pilot standardization sample (N = 166), composite scores ranged from a minimum of 69 to a maximum of 198 out of a theoretical range of 40 to 200. Normative percentile benchmarks were established at: 10th percentile = 109, 50th percentile (median) = 137, and 90th percentile = 165.
Factor Analysis
The internal latent dimensionality of the TOTL was evaluated through principal component analysis (PCA) utilizing orthogonal rotations. The structural findings revealed two legitimate interpretations:
Unidimensional Solution
When rotated using an orthogonal varimax rotation—which attempts to maximize the variance of the squared loadings of a factor on all variables, thereby polarizing high and low loadings—the mathematical solution demonstrated strong item clustering on an initial primary dimension. This finding supported the psychometric unidimensionality of the scale, suggesting that the TOTL effectively captures a coherent, singular construct: a generalized affinity for a transpersonal approach to learning and human consciousness.
Four-Factor Solution
Conversely, when an orthogonal equamax rotation—a compromise rotation that simultaneously simplifies both variables and factors to distribute shared variance more evenly—was executed, a clear four-factor structure emerged. This four-factor solution accounted for 53.0% of the total cumulative variance, distributed across the components as follows:
- Factor I (Fantasy Techniques): Accounted for 16.0% of the total variance, reflecting concrete classroom tools involving guided visualizations, daydreaming, and creative mental imagery.
- Factor III (Applied Mystical/Occult Techniques): Accounted for 15.5% of the variance, grouping applied curricular interventions involving meditation, biofeedback, parapsychology, and yoga.
- Factor IV (Transcendent Consciousness): Accounted for 11.0% of the variance, encompassing theoretical beliefs concerning non-local mind, life after bodily death, and cosmic superconsciousness.
- Factor II (Mysticism Preferred to Science): Accounted for 10.0% of the variance, isolating epistemological assertions that critique scientific empirical boundaries in favor of direct mystical knowing.
Alternative Theoretical Bi-Dimensional Model
In addition to the mathematical four-factor and single-factor structures, Shapiro and Fitzgerald highlighted a theoretically coherent two-dimensional model: a Theory-Oriented Dimension combining Subscales II and IV (evaluating ontological and epistemological assumptions regarding mysticism and transcendent consciousness) versus a Practice-Oriented Dimension combining Subscales I and III (evaluating tangible classroom interventions, fantasy exercises, and contemplative techniques).
Instrument / Measurement Tool
The specifications of the Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale are summarized below:
- Instrument Name: Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale (TOTL)
- Primary Authors: Stewart B. Shapiro, Ph.D., and L. Fitzgerald, Ph.D. (1989)
- Construct Assessed: Attitudes and philosophical endorsement toward transpersonal, intuitive, and contemplative approaches in education
- Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized survey
- Target Population: Adult educators, school counselors, graduate students in psychology/education, and educational researchers
- Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes
- Total Item Count: 40 items
- Item Distribution: Exactly 10 items per subscale across four subscales
- Response Scale: 5-point Likert rating format:
- 1 = Strongly Disagree
- 2 = Disagree
- 3 = Uncertain
- 4 = Agree
- 5 = Strongly Agree
- Scoring Procedure:
- All 40 items are keyed in a positive direction; there are no reverse-coded items.
- Subscale scores are calculated by summing the 10 item ratings corresponding to that subscale (score range: 10 to 50 per subscale).
- The Total TOTL Score is computed by summing all 40 item responses (theoretical range: 40 to 200).
- Higher scores indicate a progressively stronger endorsement of transpersonal theories, mystical epistemologies, and contemplative educational practices.
- Methodological Considerations: Because all items are positively phrased, administrators and researchers should remain cognizant of potential acquiescence response bias or social desirability effects among respondents sympathetic to alternative pedagogies.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Transpersonal Orientation to Learning Scale was formally published in 1989 in the journal Educational and Psychological Measurement (Volume 49, Issue 2, pages 375–385). The instrument was developed within an academic research context under the auspices of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The scale was placed in the public scientific domain for scholarly, academic, and non-commercial research purposes through its original publication. Researchers, educators, and clinicians wishing to employ the instrument in empirical investigations may administer and reproduce the 40 items without royalty fees, provided that appropriate formal academic citation is rendered to Shapiro and Fitzgerald (1989). Inquiries regarding commercial dissemination, specialized institutional adaptations, or derivative diagnostic tools should be directed to the corresponding author or the academic copyright holders of the journal.
References
Boucouvalas, M. (1980). Transpersonal psychology: A working outline of the field. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 12(1), 37–46.
Chaudhuri, H. (1975). Psychology: Humanistic and transpersonal. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216787501500102
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me: Character and temperament types. Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. McBer and Company.
Lajoie, D. H., Shapiro, S. I., & Roberts, T. B. (1991). A historical analysis of the statement of purpose in The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 23(2), 175–182.
Lehman, R. (1995). Statistics in the behavioral sciences: A conceptual approach. Brooks/Cole Publishing.
MacDonald, D. A., LaClair, L., Alter, A., & Friedman, H. L. (1995). A survey of measures of transpersonal constructs. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 27(2), 171–235.
Shapiro, S. B. (1985). Orientation to learning scale. Unpublished psychometric instrument, Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Shapiro, S. B. (1987). The instructional values of humanistic educators: An expanded, empirical analysis. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 25(4), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4683.1987.tb00311.x
Shapiro, S. B., & Fitzgerald, L. (1989). The development of an objective scale to measure a transpersonal orientation to learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900213
Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1993). On transpersonal definitions. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 25(2), 199–207.
Wilber, K. (1993). Paths beyond ego in the coming decade. In R. Walsh & F. Vaughan (Eds.), Paths beyond ego: The transpersonal vision (pp. 214–222). J.P. Tarcher.