Month: December 2009

Trying to Make Sense of My Research Status Quo

Based on these open questions I have been developing over the past few days, I think I may ultimately locate my research problem.

So, where am I now?

  1. I am thinking about questions of identity, especially how one formulates one’s online identity.
  2. As my previous two research papers (for Modules 1 and 2) explored the experiences and meaning-making expressions of those who engage in autoethnographic inquiry, I am still interested in exploring some element of this.
  3. I know that I see a connection between autoethnography and identity (as this seems a way of exploring and expressing this identity development), though I have not found much of this done in an online context (yet). I believe this is coming, though have not yet found it.
  4. There is increasing work in exploring online identity formation through blogging and liveblogging (among other social media, Web 2.0, etc.), though much of it seems to be from the perspective of people studying another phenomenon in the process — I am interested in how those who engage in this develop their own self concepts. I do not have a model for what I think this self-conception should or does look like — I have not yet identified if such a think exists.
  5. I see a great connection between threshold concepts and transformative learning, and wonder why they are seen a separate, and not related.
  6. There are networked learning possibilities here as well . . .
  7. Since my work comes from adult education, critical theory, (atheoretical for now) identity formation, and increasingly communities of practice, I want to explore some way of bridging some of these elements (that may seem disparate, though are all interrelated from my perspective) into a research design that will build upon my previous modules and work toward the final program thesis.

I really need to have this sorted out by the end of this week, since while I want to conduct solid research and learn something in the process, I do have to meet my course requirements (which do, of course, have a tight timeline).

Any thoughts on how to narrow this down, especially within the scope of work with threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge?

Jeffrey’s Twitter Updates for 2009-12-05

  • Now, it is snowing and raining in the city, and I am working moving my research design forward. #
  • Bloomingdale's was very busy today. #
  • Another good sign of economic recovery: Bloomingdale's is mobbed. #
  • 2 new comments on "Silence and Voice" and more http://bt.io/BLXf #
  • About to leave for Michael Storrings' ornament signing this afternoon at Bloomingdales http://bit.ly/6Vffpn #
  • Bacon, egg, and cheese. O my. #

Powered by Twitter Tools

Learnings & Questions about Threshold Concepts

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?

Are Threshold Concepts Discipline Specific?

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?