OK, I have now read everything I can find by Meyer and Land on Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (with the exception of one text which I am trying to get via inter-library loan, as it is pricey even for my endless book buying binge–Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge).

There are two other things (loosely) I learned about this framework:

• While learners struggle with this sort of conceptual knowledge, once they “get” it, their transformative, irreversible, and integrative experience will change their conceptual framework, while it is bounded within a disciplinary terrain and there is a discursive nature that is demonstrated when we use a different language to describe the concept or its results (Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Smith, J. (2008). Editors’ Preface. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• This framework is intended to assist “teachers in identifying appropriate ways of modifying or redesigning curricula to enable their students to negotiate such epistemological transitions, and ontological transformations, in a more satisfying fashion for all concerned” when these concepts are located within “disciplinary knowledge” (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 386).
• This framework is intended for higher education, though the authors want to see it spread to other sectors of education (Land, Meyer, & Smith, 2008).

With this, I now have a few open questions to explore as next steps:

• How do disciplinary Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge fit if one has a postmodern or post-structural worldview?

This issue arose from a comment made in David Perkins’ article when he spoke about John Dewey and Neil Postman’s work (Perkins, D. (2008). Beyond understanding. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers).

• Whose knowledge can be determined to be troublesome to whom?

This issue arose from a comment about a Foucauldian perspective and how power within a curriculum is wielded, used, and understood (Meyer & Land, 2003).

• How is this framework something distinctive from Jack Mezirow’s work in Transformative Learning

The only reference to Mezirow’s work on perspective transformation that I located was in the original 2003 article (Meyer & Land). I found this a bit surprising, in that the transformative learning literature (based on Mezirow, Brookfield, Cranton, Taylor, et al.) is increasing (with courses on it within adult education, a conference, dedicated journal, and entire programs of study built upon it), and there seem to be many similarities with enough differences tocomplement one another.

OK, now to use this (as it does interest me) as the conceptual framework for my research design, which I now want to begin to develop. Has anybody used this framework in any research?

Tags: Jack Mezirow, Jan Meyer, Ray Land, threshold concepts, transformative learning, troublesome knowledge

As I am reading my way through the literature about threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge for my next research project, I am reading this work through the lens of Jack Mezirow’s Transformative Learning framework. However, this does not seem to be what Jan Meyer and Ray Land (2005) are talking about, though there are certainly similarities between the two. More about this later.

Meyer and Land focus their threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in a disciplinary-specific manner, where there seems to be support to suggest that common experiences related to a field of study present a threshold to fully entering into the conversations in the field itself. One example they give is hegemony, which is a threshold concept within cultural studies. Learners often struggle with this concept, though once the “get” it, their transformative, irreversible, and integrative experience will change their conceptual framework.

Now, I am still working my way through this, and have a lot more to read about it. However, why should these concepts live only within certain disciplines? Isn’t that a rather traditional way of looking at learning, only through the perspective of what fits within this or that field? For those of us who are transdisciplinary (especially within the world of the social sciences) and don’t want to live within a silo or in a box, it seems a bit limiting to hinge this framework within a specific discipline. My field is not cultural studies, though when I (as an educational researcher) finally “got” hegemony, I had that transformative, irreversible, and integrative re-framing of a worldview. The difference is I like to give attention to hegemony from the perspective of how people learn, rather than how they live and express themselves within a culture.

Thinking about this from another perspective, perhaps this related to how some people, such as Foucault, Baudrillard, Gramsci, and the like are used within several of the social sciences, as their works seem to transcend a single, narrow, area of human study and endeavor? Will have to play with this a bit more later as well.

I think there may be value in recognizing how some fields have these elements, while others have other ones. Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable in having a clearly definable list of these (though, to be fair, there are some concepts that fit better within some disciplines, but not as readily as others). Mezirow’s work is not discipline-specific at all, and certainly I have more reading to do to claim I really understand what Meyer and Land are proposing.

How have others struggled with the issue of threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge being discipline specific?

Tags: hegemony, Jack Mezirow, Jan Meyer, Ray Land, threshold concepts, transformative learning, troublesome knowledge

As I am beginning to look at Ray Land’s work in Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (which I first became aware of last year, though I went in a different direction then) as an element of the research design I am working on, I just became aware of the 3rd Biennial Threshold Concepts Symposium in July of 2010 in Australia. The conference site is here, and while the airfair from the East Coast in the US is astronomical at that time of the year, perhaps others may find this useful.

Now, to try to distinguish this from Jack Mezirow’s Transformative Learning theory. Anybody see anything that tries to show the similarities and differences?

Tags: Jack Mezirow, transformative learning, troublesome knowledge

It is now time for me to begin formulating my reserach idea for my Module 3 research project at Lancaster University. I so appreciate the feedback I received on my previous projects, and hope to receive some of the same support with this project as well.

 I have been thinking a lot about this, though find that I really organize it and learn about it (and myself) when I begin to write it out (cf. Richardson, Writing: A method of inquiry, 2000), as the notion of writing as a form of inquiry is valuable for me. I learn as I write, and then the feedback along the way from my distributed community is invaluable.

To this end, I am beginning to look at the concept of Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, as it seems related to the concept of transformational learning (something that I think may be related to autoethnographic inquiry). Lots of relationships here. A lot to process, though I just accessed these two articles and a book section that my faculty tutor suggested I read for some ideas. This is now my reading for the remainder of the week.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framewok for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 378-388.

Marshall, J. (1999). Living life as inquiry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(2), 155-171.

Perkins, D. (2008). Beyond understanding. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

I will begin tracking and developing my research idea here, and look forward to some feedback along the way.  Any suggestions to help me process this are most appreciated!

Tags: Autoethnography, threshold concepts, transformative learning, troublesome knowledge

In case you are planning to submit an abstract for the 6th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2010), time is running out — you have until tomorrow, 12/1! The call for papers / posters / panels and submission guidelines is here, and the actual submissions area is here.

After attending the conference for the first time last year, I am really looking forward to attending the same again. Thus, will hope my 2 abstracts get accepted!

One of the things I so liked about this conference was the interdisciplinary nature of the participants–educational researchers, social scientists, communications theorists, sociologists, technology researchers, nursing researchers, and many others who engage in qualitative research. Looking forward to connecting with old friends and new colleagues alike. 

Anybody else submitting and hoping to attend?

Tags: QI2010, qualitative research

I just used Tweet Cloud to generate a cloud of the most frequently used words of mine over the past year, and think this is a nifty way of offering a (quantitative) visual snapshot of what I tend to talk about.

The words are, in order of most used, are:

• blog
• post
• research
• time
• office
• class
• thank
• project
• online
• finally
• morning
• tonight
• conference
• week
• getting
• paper
• people
• learning
• night
• home
• tomorrow
• evening
• love
• outside
• comment
• rain
• hope
• lunch
• comments
• autoethnography
• meeting
• email
• wonder
• wonderful
• late
• nice
• practice
• course
• dinner
• finished
• updates
• qualitative
• music
• feedback
• coffee
• enjoy
• wish
• sounds
• wine
• busy
• blackberry
• teaching
• waiting
• little
• jeffreys
• feel
• final
• read
• business
• manhattan

Tags: Twitter

I have spent the past 2 hours catching up with colleagues and (perhaps) soon to be colleagues in the CP2 Community, where there have just been 2 Research and Dissertation Fests this week (one I could attend, and one I could not), as well as on Twitter.

Between reading and chatting on Twitter about Nancy White’s amazing recipe, seeing how other people I know were doing the same, discussing ways of using social media for community building (some direct Tweets I received and replied to about this topic), reading how Lilia Efimova had an idea and how she is considering blogging about this still unformed topic as she knows the benefits (and then she finally did blog about these thoughts), not to mention my chats with Jacquie McDonald, chatting about a research idea around Communities of Practice with Etienne Wenger (who did a discussion and co-facilitated the CP2 Foundations course I recently completed), and getting other ideas from colleagues via Direct Tweets, I realize I have a lot of interests and like reaching out to this distributed community.I also like their reaching out to me.

With all this, I wonder why I struggle with consciously enlarging my own community of practice. I tend, for example, not to look for people on Twitter and Facebook, but rather process all this if “friended” first. Perhaps I do not want to be pushy? rejected? or even seem needy? Ironic, as more and more of my work is in the area of communities of practice; perhaps more of my life should be there, too?

Tags: Community of Practice (CoP), cpsquare, Etienne Wenger, Jacquie McDonald, Lilia Efimova, Nancy White, social network

I am beginning to work on revising one of my doctoral papers for a journal article (which will hopefully be my first, single author article), and am happy with the new text I just found to assist and help organize the process — Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success, by Wendy Laura Belcher. She writes in a friendly and encouraging style, while clearly remaining focused on the goal of publishing the article.

Right now, I am working my way through the first week, which is Designing Your Plan for Writing. She has a few handy templates for the process, including a Twelve-Week Calendar for Planning Article Writing Schedule and Weekly Calendar for Planning Article Writing Scheduling, both freely available on her website. While I often think just having the templates is enough, I know that remaining focused and having a guide / mentor to assist in the process is well worth the time and efforts. You may be surprised at all her useful suggestions in the 350-page workbook.

Today I will work on my 12 week schedule, so I can finally take one of my ideas and bring it to light . . .

Tags: writing

I have been working all day on issues around assessment for my doctoral course of study (the one I am taking, this time!). It is amazing how some issues that seem so straight-forward at first are really very complicated and involved.

One of my colleagues recommended this current article from Sue Bloxham: Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources, (Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209 – 220) which I read with great interest. With issues around teacher / learner power, whether we can assess if learning is done at all, how issues meant for the natural sciences is problemativ when applied to the social sciences, and how (if?) to objectively measure students in a consistent manner, she gave me a lot to think about. I think the author ended her work in a significant way for those of us considering assessment in the social sciences:

at heart this is an epistemological issue; how is the knowledge of what is a good exam answer,  essay, project or piece created? It is created through a social process involving dialogue and experience and using artefacts such as assignment guidance and assessment criteria but, in essence, it remains essentially an individual construct, heavily influenced by traditions in the subject discipline (p. 218).

Now, what to do with this for my own online class?!

Tags: assessment