1177-threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning

PERKINSPut the matter this way – Is ‘threshold concept’ itself an ideal threshold concept?For sure, it has brought many scholars to a new view of things. But a trulyprototypical threshold concept perfectly fills a critical slot in a mature homediscipline, as with the cases mentioned above. Novices may get confused andconfounded, but not experts.In contrast, ‘threshold concept’ itself seems to have the heart of a nomad. In thechapters to come, it gets stretched, challenged, revised, reconsidered. Back to theevolutionary metaphor, consider today’s biological concept of a bird, preciselydemarcated by features such as feathers, toothless beak, hard shelled eggs, fourchambered heart, etc. All very neat! Now imagine a biologist roaming around inthe Jurassic, 150 to 200 million years ago. “Is this a bird?” the biologist asks. –“But it has teeth!” “Is that a bird? -- But those aren’t really feathers!” The diversitywas startling and the boundaries not yet formed when small theropod dinosaursfluttered across the threshold of flight into the new world of the air. Moreover,contemporary paleontology suggests that many of the features that today we takeas distinctive of birds developed before flight...including feathers.The flock of ideas around threshold concepts seems to me more analogous to thebird-like-creatures of yesteryear than to Aves of today, more exploratory andeclectic than categorical and taxonomic. All to the good! -- the richness of thisvolume testifies to that. So welcome to Jurassic Park! Here we are at the ENtrance.Prepare to be en-TRANCED.REFERENCESCousin, G. (2007). Exploring threshold concepts for linking teaching and research. Paper presented tothe International Colloquium: International Policies and Practices for Academic Enquiry, Winchester,April. Retrieved on 1 September 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://portal live.solent.ac.uk/university/rtconference/2007/resources/glynis_cousins.pdf.Land,R.,Cousin, G., Meyer, J.H.F. & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3):Implications for course design and evaluation. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning 12 –Diversity and Inclusivity. OCSLD, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, 53-64. See http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/isl/isl2004/abstracts/conceptual_papers/land.htmlLand, R. & Meyer, J.H.F. (2009). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (5): Dynamics ofassessment. Chapter 4, this volume.Land, R., Meyer, J.H.F and Smith,J. (Eds) (2008) Threshold Concepts Within the Disciplines. Rotterdam:Sense.Meyer, J.H.F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways ofthinking and practising within the disciplines. This seminal paper was published electronically (seehttp://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/ETLreport4.pdf) and was later republished as a book chapter:Meyer, J.H.F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages toways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning.Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice – 10 years on, OCSLD, Oxford, 412-424.Meyer, J.H.F. & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemologicalconsiderations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49 (3)373-388.Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold conceptsand troublesome knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.xliv