1177-threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning

TRANSCENDING DISCIPLINARY BOUNDARIESA DEFINED EXPLANATORY THEORY: CONSIDERATION OF ROLESIn this section, the explanatory theory defined by the proposed theoretical foundationis considered in light of the roles a TC explanatory theory should play.Understanding Student Experience: Authenticity / InauthenticityIn phenomenological terms, Segal is examining elements in the realm of the takenfor-grantedunseen, and their transition to a realm of the (seen) explicit, i.e., thedevelopment of new phenomenological awareness. Such an orientation relegatesdiscipline content to the sidelines. It thus reduces the complexity – but not thesophistication – of conceptually framing the investigation into student experience.Analysis founded in a reflectiveness/defensiveness conceptual construct becomes atool for investigating what occurs outside awareness.One view from psychology holds that defensiveness arises from an individual’sinadequacy to manage a situation, and the inadequacy dictates that individual’sdecisions. Heidegger’s phenomenology frames the situation differently: [He]calls defensive responses to rupture inauthenticity (Segal 1999 p. 87). Studentfeedback data from the case study course provides compelling evidence that whatI call the will to authenticity – an inclination to address the real problem and not bedeflected by one’s anxiety at doing so – can exert great influence, even in the faceof significant difficulty. Consider this student’s end-of-term excerpted interview:(S_m107): [The course appears] very different [to me at the end than at thebeginning or middle] ... I’m understanding it better at the end. ... the importance ofit is making more sense to me, ... how important it is to have a rational designprocess. I think if [developers of real software used this approach], the failure ratewould not be so high. They’d know exactly where to ... look for [the source of a]problem. I never thought of software that way before. It’s fatal: not just with lives(it can be), it also can be fatal economically. ... After realizing it’s not just about[code in a particular computer language], I actually went back to the [first designdocument] – because I didn’t understand it; then the [next design document, inorder to understand the decomposition of functionality] and what changes mightoccur, to be prepared for. Second, [I turned to] the [next design document],thinking about procedures (I hadn’t thought ... about procedures before realizingit’s not just about [code in a particular computer language]), what it does, how todo it. ... I had to keep going back again and again. ... It took awhile for me to get it,I kept talking about [code in a particular computer language] instead of[procedures] with team mates. It was frustrating and difficult. ... [Before I couldfinish the project], first I had to understand it [my]self. It took 2 weeks; I looked atit each day, and talked with [a team mate] often.An ‘inadequacy/adequacy’ frame and an ‘inauthenticity/will to authenticity’ framestand in sharp contrast. The former doesn’t explain the student’s comments, orsuggest any way to cultivate similar experience in others. The latter explains thecomments perfectly, and indicates possibilities for subsequent teaching throughexamination of what motivated this student.39