1177-threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning

TRANSCENDING DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIESA REFLECTIVENESS / DEFENSIVENESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:THE PROPOSED THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONThis section introduces the conceptual framework of reflectiveness and defensiveeness.A lay person’s view of the two is summarized first. A deeper analysis follows,after being set in context.Reflective vs. Defensive Responses: the Layperson’s ViewFrom the layperson’s perspective, reflectiveness and defensiveness are understoodas radically different from each other. Defensiveness is associated with an incidentspecificincrease in emotion that overshadows other aspects of an encounter andeffectively prevents further discussion of the topic at hand; in shorthand, an ad hocreaction of: “NO, DON’T”. Reflectiveness is associated with diminishment ofemotional investment, a kind of long-term stepping back to see better; in shorthand,an attitude of: “Hmmm, I wonder...” Though widely held, these definitions byassociation do not provide any insight into the origins, operations, or mechanismsof reflectiveness and defensiveness. A deeper analysis follows.Setting Context: Diverse Sources and Multiple ValuesExtending a metaphor from Plack and Greenberg (Plack & Greenberg 2005 p. 3],learning comprises two main aspects, and can be likened to the double helix of DNA.One strand holds the cognitive content specific to a particular domain or discipline; itis acquired by cognitive effort, including memorization. One strand, the focus of thisproposal, is composed of context, meaning, and their interplay; it is acquired throughreflectiveness, a practice common to all fields of learning. As befits the crossdisciplinarynature of TC, for this paper I draw on literature from a number ofdisciplines and professions, all directed toward the second strand of learning.TC practice bespeaks an approach to teaching that is value-laden with respectto reflectiveness, because educators want students to respond reflectively.However, that value-laden orientation may blind one to the possibility of exploringand examining the absence of reflectiveness (a circumstance of many students’experience, and one that must be accounted for by any explanatory theory). Thus,(the search for) a theoretical foundation must take a value-neutral orientationregarding reflectiveness – and defensiveness: rather than being concerned withhow one can engender a particular (reflective) response, one explores how studentsactually do respond to existentially unfamiliar, educationally critical material withina discipline. Following Segal’s example (Segal 1999), this sort of exploration intheory produces information epistemologically prior to – and useful for – engenderingin practice the desired reflectiveness.Elements of Explication for Reflectiveness and DefensivenessThis subsection draws primarily on the work of three individuals to explore theroles of meaning and awareness: Jack Mezirow served as an Education DepartmentChair at Columbia University and reported on both his own research and a wide29