1177-threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning

DAVID PERKINSFOREWORDEntrance…and entrance. Am I repeating myself? Not if you listen really hard. Thefirst ‘entrance’ has the accent on the initial syllable and the second on the ultimate –EN-trance and en-TRANCE. Such pairs are called heteronyms, same spelling,different pronunciation. Both words trace their ancestry back to the Latin transire,to go across, albeit by quite different routes. And both words apply quite well tothe notion of threshold concepts, launched through seminal articles by Ray Land,Jan Meyer and their colleagues a few years ago and explored and extended here, aswell as in two previous volumes (Land et al 2005, Land, Meyer and Smith 2008,Meyer and Land 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, Meyer, Land and Davies, 2008).Meaning 1: EN-trance. When learners acquire a threshold concept, they enterinto a new realm of understanding. Quick examples include the concepts of ‘limit’in mathematics, ‘gravity’ in physics, ‘depreciation’ in accounting, and ‘deconstruction’in literature. Innumerable other instances populate the chapters of this volume.Many of these transformative ideas are not concepts in any strict sense but variedways of thinking and practicing with a threshold-like nature, all of them affordingentrance in one sense or another.Meaning 2: en-TRANCE. This volume and its predecessors give ample evidencethat threshold concepts entrance -- they entrance scholars and teachers concernedwith the nature and challenges of learning in the disciplines. Discourse aroundthreshold concepts has proven to offer something of a common language, provokereflection on the structure of disciplinary knowledge, and inspire investigations oflearners’ typical hangups and ways to help. Indeed, it’s been my pleasure to add tothis conversation from time to time on the theme of troublesome knowledge, thecharacteristic ways in which learning poses challenges (e.g. tacit knowledge,conceptually difficult knowledge, ritual knowledge) and the value of constructing"theories of difficulty" for the disciplines that chart where the cracks and chasms oflearning lie and suggest ways of bridging them.So why the entrancement? What is it that so many educators have found alluringabout threshold concepts? One answer touched on in the upcoming introductionwas suggested by Glynis Cousin (2007) a couple of years ago – threshold conceptsinvite instructors to examine their disciplines rather than looking directly at theirteaching practice, both a more comfortable and a more interesting journey formany.Another related reason seems to be the very fecundity of threshold concepts, theevolutionary proclivity of the idea toward adventurous and fruitful mutation. As anoccasional participant in these conversations, I am always struck by howproductively imprecise the notion is.xliii