1177-threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning

TRANSCENDING DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIES[a clarity illuminates] relations of interdependence between considerations previouslyunorganized and disconnected ... binding isolated items into a coherent singlewhole (Dewey 1991 p. 80). Using Gurwitsch’s framework, the field of consciousnesschanges as a result of transformative learning: elements formerly not foundin any domain of consciousness, possibly including component parts of elementsformerly classified as nondecomposable, now occupy the thematic focus or residein the thematic field, and some elements formerly found there are now relegated tothe margin.The operation of reflectiveness corresponds to steps 2, 3, and 4 in Barer-Stein’sphenomenological analysis of learning as a five-step process of experiencing theunfamiliar: [ 1) ], being aware ... [characterized by the dominant question,] What isthis?; [ 2) ], observing ... How does this compare with what I know?; [ 3) ], acting ...Shall I try it?; [ 4) ], confronting ... Do I know this?, Do I want to?; [(if yes), then][ 5) ], involving ... How did this come to be?, What are the possibilities, and whichmakes sense?, What [meaning] is relevant for me? (Mezirow 1991 p. 84, Barer-Stein1987). As an example, consider the second possible response attributed to the traveler.The mechanism of reflectiveness is not well understood; it remains perhaps ...permanently inscrutable (Kuhn 1996 p. 90). It might be described briefly (andvaguely) as follows: Once explicitness forces the inadequacies – and the existence –of one’s meaning frame into (at least somewhat) conscious awareness, one engagesin some combination of conscious and unconscious (Dewey 1991 p. 217) examinationof the frame, to determine its inadequacies and correct them. The process isterminated by ... a relatively sudden ... unstructured event [experienced as] a gestaltswitch (Kuhn 1996 p. 122), corresponding to the newly reformulated meaningframe that is required in order to accommodate the (now formerly) troublesomeknowledge. The five-step sequence is thus compressed to: discontinuity reflectiveness new meaning frame, or (conforming more to case study coursestudent data): confusion struggle expanded knowing.Revisiting the TC / tc Central Question(s)In light of the proposed theoretical foundation, TC central question(s) can bereformulated.1+) from the TC practitioner teacher: How to ensure students’ reflective responseto an encounter with the existentially unfamiliar, educationally critical contentof the discipline?2+) from the TC describer scholar: How to describe students’ (reflective) responseto an encounter with the existentially unfamiliar, educationally critical contentof the discipline?3+) from the TC theoretician, (who is tasked with addressing epistemologicallyprior considerations (Gurwitsch 1974), which here means understanding howstudents actually do respond to such encounters and the mechanism(s) of theirresponses): What actually occurs in an encounter with the existentiallyunfamiliar, educationally critical content of the discipline? How does it lead – ornot – to learning?35