I am two months into my Education Ph.D., Instructional Technology track at University of Central Florida. For one of my first-semester courses, IDS 7501: Issues and Research in Education, I’ve selected Meyer and Land’s threshold concept model as a research interest, as applied to doctoral students in Ph.D., Ed.D., or other research-oriented degree programs. Below is my early draft of the purpose of this investigation, a concept map, and an annotated bibliography of the existing literature. There are thousands of articles on threshold concepts (a term introduced by Meyer and Land in 2003), but I only found 23 so far that apply to doctoral student researchers. Most existing research is qualitative; I may seek to add a quantitative contribution to the field.
Threshold Concepts and the Doctoral Process: A Concept Map and
Annotated Bibliography Based on an Initial Literature Review
Richard Thripp
University of Central Florida
October 20, 2016
Abstract
This concept map and annotated bibliography helps guide exploration of how threshold concepts apply to doctoral students and candidates, with a primary focus on research doctorates such as the Ph.D. and Ed.D. Threshold concepts are skills that may be difficult to acquire, but their acquisition is transformative—much like learning to ride a bicycle. Potential threshold concepts for the doctoral student include tasks at the create level of Krathwohl’s (2002) revised Bloom’s taxonomy, such as designing a research study, writing a research report, and conducting a literature review. Frequently, these skills are not explicitly taught to doctoral students—in fact, academics may not even consciously consider them, or may be dismissive toward students who have not yet acquired them. The purpose of this paper is to gather and draw insights from the literature to guide the design of a research study that measures threshold concepts in doctoral students. Ultimately, this will contribute to our understanding of the doctoral process, and perhaps suggest practices and policies that scaffold threshold concepts for doctoral students and candidates, thus minimizing periods of uncertainty (liminality) in the doctoral process and reducing attrition, including the “all but dissertation” (ABD) phenomenon.
Keywords: threshold concepts, conceptual threshold, doctoral studies, scholarly research, Bloom’s taxonomy, higher education, higher-order thinking skills, cognitive strategies, doctoral attrition
Threshold Concepts and the Doctoral Process: A Concept Map and
Annotated Bibliography Based on an Initial Literature Review
Gaining a threshold concept is a transformative and somewhat dichotomous experience. Learning to ride a bicycle is a prime example, because one cannot generally go back to not knowing, nor acquire only part of this skill. In the doctoral student’s journey, he or she is expected to cross or have already crossed many thresholds—for example, the ability to effectively organize strands of evidence and weave them into a special type of written prose distinctive to academia (Kiley, 2009). While many professors and academic departments view this skill and others as prerequisites for the doctoral journey, closer examination reveals that many doctoral students lack—and struggle to acquire—these skills (Kiley, 2015; Johnson, 2015). Threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2005), augmented by Bloom’s taxonomy, may be a viable way to explain the struggles and triumphs of the doctoral journey, and to inform the practices of professors and other academic staff, particularly regarding their attitudes and approaches to instruction, supervision, and advisement of doctoral students and candidates who may spend long periods in limbo (dubbed doctoral liminality by Keefer, 2015). Bloom’s taxonomy—specifically, including Krathwohl’s (2002) revisions—is especially relevant to the doctoral process because its pinnacle, create, is specifically related to the ultimate purpose of the research doctorate: making a significant contribution to the research base. Although threshold concepts are supported by a large corpus of research, as of 2016, only a handful of researchers have examined them in a doctoral-studies context. Therefore, while threshold concepts may ultimately have explanatory power for why some doctoral students excel while others never complete their dissertations, this literature review and the resulting research prospectus will seek only to examine and extend the modest amount of research that has been done.
Concept Map
Concept Map Hierarchy
Guided by: Krathwohl’s (2002) Overview of a Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
I. Skills and Strategies
A. Information Literacy (Hofer, Townsend, & Brunetti, 2012; Townsend, Brunetti, & Hofer; 2011)
1. Writing Ability (Humphrey & Simpson, 2012; Johnson, 2015
2. Literature Reviews (Wisker, 2015; Wisker & Robinson; 2009
B. Research Skills (e.g., Rowe & Martin, 2014)
1. Understanding a Scientific Theory (Kiley, 2015)
2. Research Design (Exner, 2014)
a. Doctorateness (Trafford & Leshem, 2009)
II. Self-Beliefs and Epistemology (Meyer & Land, 2005)
A. Growth Mindset (Boyd, 2014)
B. Personal Conceptual Frameworks (Berman & Smith, 2015)
C. Meta-Awareness (Harlow & Peter, 2014)
1. Threshold Awareness by Students (Harlow & Peter, 2014; Kiley, 2009)
III. External Influencers
A. Doctoral Supervisory Practices (Johnson, 2014)
1. Liminality and the Doctoral Transition (Keefer, 2015; Kelly, Russell, & Wallace, 2012; Adorno, Cronley, & Smith, 2015)
2. Threshold Awareness by Supervisors (Kiley & Wisker, 2009)
B. Supervisory Attrition (Wisker & Robinson, 2013)
1. Conflicts and Lack of Involvement (Ismail, Majid, & Ismail, 2013)
Annotated Bibliography
Adorno, G., Cronley, C., & Smith, K. S. (2015). A different kind of animal: Liminal experiences of social work doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 632–641. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.833130
Abstract
Evidence suggests that social and academic integration is a vital factor in doctoral student retention. This paper describes findings from a qualitative study which explored the experiences of a cohort of social work doctoral students during the first year in their programme of study. We used the anthropological concept of liminality which describes disorientation through transformative rites of passage, as a sensitising concept, through which to interpret the data. Thematic analysis indicated that the transition into new doctoral student was characterised by uncertainty and chaos and left the participants in an ambiguous position, betwixt and between socially prescribed roles. The findings demonstrate the need for anticipatory guidance and structured, sustained support, particularly within students‘ first year. Efforts to enhance cohort relationships and mentoring may also help.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
This quote from a student in this study (p. 635) embodies the Ph.D.’s challenges:
I think it’s just the level of work is completely different … I knew, that it would be difficult, but, I did very well with my masters. I flew through my masters. Ph.D. is a different animal. It’s a lot more work, a lot more reading, and if you read every second of your day, I don’t think that you’re completely done with everything that you’ve been assigned. Ah, you know, it is just a lot of work and there is no way to really prepare for that or know what it is like, until you’re there.
Students felt the first year of their Ph.D. required a personal transformation.
Learning itself may be a threshold concept. Some students reported faculty who “normalize ‘not knowing’” (p. 636), perhaps helping students to not feel bad about being ill-prepared.
Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process: A pedagogical model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 125–136. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.809011
Abstract
This paper contributes to consideration of the role of conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process. Through reflection on the two authors’ own conceptual frameworks for their doctoral studies, a pedagogical model has been developed. The model posits the development of a conceptual framework as a core element of the doctoral research process that will support the extended abstract thinking (SOLO Taxonomy) essential at this level of postgraduate research. The model articulates the need for alignment between the ontology, methodology and epistemology of doctoral research, with specific articulation of aspects of each dimension. The use of the model involves construction of an explicit conceptual framework, which will ensure a conceptually valid research project and will focus the social and cultural activity of the process, supporting the student learning, the research project and the supervisory relationships.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
The authors posit that building a personal conceptual framework for the doctoral research process is an example of a threshold concept (p. 132).
This quote from page 132 surmises the uniqueness of the dissertation process:
Pedagogically, the three or four year process of supervision is more intense than any other teaching-learning situation, other than perhaps that between parents and an infant in the first few years of life. In all other situations, there are multiple learners and one teacher. In this doctoral process there is usually one student and up to three supervisors.
The authors argue that Ed.D. students bring “sophisticated practical knowledge” yet “relatively naïve academic knowledge” to the table (p. 131). My input: Ph.D. students have the opposite problem. What an interesting dichotomy!
Boyd, D. E. (2014). The growth mindset approach: A threshold concept in course redesign. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning, 6, 29–44.
Abstract
Growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) is the simple but powerful belief that intelligence is not fixed, but dynamic, and can develop over time. When faculty and students embrace the idea that learning is elastic, it permanently transforms how we approach learning and, thus, is a “Threshold Concept,” a transformative and irrevocable way of thinking about something (Meyer, Land, & Cousin, 2006). This combined approach to course design workshops (growth mindset and threshold concepts) provides a lens through which faculty developers at small colleges can view student learning and faculty development because it illuminates bottlenecks or sticking points for faculty in the course design process and helps them shift their focus away from content delivery to active, transformative learning. The author argues that the growth mindset approach is a powerful concept in learning and academic development, describes specific workshop activities that help promote a growth mindset for faculty, and contends that such an approach represents a threshold concept for them and, thus, their students.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
These are prime 21st-century educational buzzwords: growth mindset and threshold concepts. However, both are built on a lengthy and solid research foundation. These new labels merely aid popular appeal of these constructs (or theories, if we may be so daring as to call them that).
The idea of mindset itself as a threshold concept is intriguing. From my exhaustive review of recent research, The Implications of Mindsets for Learning and Instruction (Thripp, 2016), it was clear that growth mindset can represent a threshold that fundamentally changes the way teachers and learners look at the instructional and learning processes. However, I do not recall authors labeling it as such, even though I was reviewing only the latest research (2009–2016).
Exner, N. (2014). Research information literacy: Addressing original researchers’ needs. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 460–466. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.06.006
Abstract
Information literacy for faculty, doctoral students and other research-based graduate students, post-docs, and other original researchers is complex. There are fundamental differences between the processes of inquiry used by original researchers as compared to students or even faculty who are synthesizing information to find answers. Original research is different from information synthesis for discovery. Therefore, the information literacy processes to train and support those researchers are different. Analysis of the inquiry-oriented parts of the current and emerging information literacy Standards and Framework shows significant differences in the approach needed for teaching research information literacy. Promising instructional outcomes for information literacy training based around original research include gap analysis, theoretical and methodological discovery, and practical skills like funding search and analysis.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
The author, writing as a librarian for librarians, proposes an Information Literacy Framework with threshold concepts at its core! Exner proposes a concept-oriented learning structure informed by the threshold concept model. Exner’s example is a series of increasingly difficult seminars to train students to review literature and find a gap to research:
1. Literature review for original research
2. Reviewing the literature for methods and designs
3. Theoretical frameworks
4. Project definition and refinement by gap analysis
Harlow, A., & Peter, M. (2014). Mastering threshold concepts in tertiary education: “I know exactly what you are saying and I can understand it but I’ve got nowhere to hook it.” Waikato Journal of Education, 19(2), 7–23. http://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v19i2.95
Abstract
International interest is growing in the hypothesis that a focus on teaching threshold concepts can engender transformation in the epistemological and ontological dimensions of learning. According to threshold concept theory (Meyer & Land, 2003) concepts that are troublesome to learn are also transformative when mastered: the acquisition of threshold concepts is conducive to the change in the student’s understanding of a discipline, and what it means to be a disciplinary expert, engendering in the student deep knowledge and learning throughout the student’s life span. Our project explored how threshold concept-focused pedagogies and assessments can afford opportunities for student learning of hard-to-grasp concepts. The impact of a threshold concept-informed curriculum was examined through two cycles of collaborative action-research, in doctoral writing, leadership, a Bachelor of Arts foundation course and an electronics engineering course. Results revealed that although the direct impact of changed teaching practice on students’ short-term learning could not always be uniquely identified, results from student surveys confirmed that their learning experience had been enhanced. Results also suggest that by focusing teaching on identified threshold concepts, lecturers can attend to what they consider the keys to deep learning and ways to best enable it. The explicit teaching of these integrative troublesome concepts offers students somewhere to hook their disciplinary understandings as they continue to learn new concepts.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Threshold concepts are often “tacit knowledge,” not taught explicitly by lecturers, which is a pity (p. 9).
The authors looked at a handful of education practitioners in this qualitative-leaning study with quantitative elements. This may inform my eventual research design.
“Stuckness” in writing is a big problem for doctoral students (p. 15). They often come in unprepared, not even knowing what academic writing is. Advanced students may fly by with few problems, suggesting academic writing may be a threshold concept.
Hofer, A. R., Townsend, L., & Brunetti, K. (2012). Troublesome concepts and information literacy: Investigating threshold concepts for IL instruction. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12, 387–405. http://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2012.0039
Abstract
The article discusses the challenges faced by students while trying to understand and apply information literacy concepts. The findings of a survey to query information literacy instructors on student struggles are described. Data collected from the study resulted in the proposal of seven threshold concepts for information literacy including Metadata=findability, Good searches use database structure, Format is a process, Authority is constructed and contextual, and Information as a commodity.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Information literacy emerges again as a problem area for doctoral students. The authors propose these ideas as threshold concepts (list copied verbatim from p. 402):
Metadata=findability
Good searches use database structure
Format is a process
Authority is constructed and contextual
“Primary source” is an exact and conditional category
Information as a commodity
Research solves problems
Humphrey, R., & Simpson, B. (2012). Writes of passage: Writing up qualitative data as a threshold concept in doctoral research. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 735–746. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.678328
Abstract
Effective writing is an essential skill for all doctoral students, yet it is one that receives relatively little attention in training and supervision. This article explores extensive feedback from participants in a series of workshops for doctoral candidates engaged with writing up qualitative data. The themes arising from the data analysis are discussed in terms of the affective domain of writing, and the main claim is that writing up qualitative data has been identified as what Meyer and Land would call a threshold concept for doctoral candidates employing qualitative analysis. Drawing on Turner’s notion of liminality, the article concludes that interdisciplinary workshops can be instrumental in helping doctoral candidates understand the role of writing, and of writing up qualitative data in particular, in their development into independent, autonomous researchers.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
The authors suggest academic writing is a threshold concept, and that interdisciplinary workshops may help students cross the threshold. This could be an idea for a Pathways to Success workshop series at University of Central Florida.
A participant states: “As someone with a natural science background, qualitative data is still new to me and analysing and writing up ‘words’ rather than numbers is a daunting process” (p. 740).
The authors propose that writing up qualitative data is a threshold concept. Where does one begin? With quantitative data, it may be easy enough to begin with the numbers. Qualitative, however, can be harder for the uninitiated.
Ismail, H. M., Majid, F. A., & Ismail, I. S. (2013). “It’s complicated” relationship: Research students’ perspective on doctoral supervision. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 165–170. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.078
Abstract
Within a doctoral learning journey, research students go through a process of exploration and experimentation when faced with ‘troublesome knowledge’ (Perkins, 1999) before they are able to cross threshold concepts. However they need to tranform their ‘ways of thinking and practising’ in order to overcome the tensions caused by these barriers (Meyer & Land, 2006). Hence effective doctoral supervision is required to train students how to investigate, conceptualise and create new solutions (Barnett, 2004). The study examined the role of supervision from the perspective of research students, which is a departure from previous literature that centres more from the perspective of supervisors and institutions. Specifically, the study examined tensions that arose between research students and their supervisors when faced by troublesome knowledge at different stages of their doctoral learning journeys. This case study involved four participants from various higher learning institutions in Malaysia. Semi-structured interviews contributed to the overall volume of the data collected in the study. Findings from the study identified three major issues reported by the research students when dealing with their supervisors; namely lack of positive communication, lack of necessary expertise to give support and power conflicts. Findings from this study inform research on doctoral learning and supervision, particularly in providing support in students’ crossing of threshold concepts during their doctoral learning journey. In addition, identifying tensions described by research students can help supervisors to improvise their supervisory skills and deliver effective supervision throughout the various stages of students’ research development.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
The word “stuckness” appears again in this article (p. 165), once again describing the doctoral journey. Also, once again, qualitative, small-sample methods were used: the authors did case studies on four Malaysian individuals who completed their Ph.D.s in Education within the past two years.
This study looked at student–supervisor relations: “The study identified three major issues reported by the research students when dealing with their supervisors; namely lack of positive communication, lack of necessary expertise to give support and power conflicts” (p. 167).
The competitive environment of academia is hard to adjust to. Having multiple supervisors (perhaps similar to having multiple dissertation committee members in American academia) is stressful, and something doctoral students are not prepared for. Reconciling their competing comments, beliefs, and perspectives can be overwhelming, particularly when they are all piling contradictory feedback on you.
Johnson, E. M. (2014). Doctorates in the dark: Threshold concepts and the improvement of doctoral supervision. Waikato Journal of Education, 19(2), 69–81. http://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v19i2.99
Abstract
The overall goal of this qualitative research case study into doctoral writing was to determine if there were knowable threshold concepts and, if so, to develop effective strategies for helping students overcome them. In addition, it was understood that such strategies could have change implications for supervisory practice. Interview and survey data were collected from students and supervisors. From the student data two threshold concepts had emerged: “Talking to think”–a strategy for developing clarity in writing; and self-efficacy–the belief in one’s ability to overcome writing barriers and become an independent academic researcher. In this paper, those two threshold concepts provide an organising framework for the presentation of supervisor findings and for discussion of supervisor professional development needs. The paper concludes with insights into how supervisor professional development could be improved and extended beyond its current focus on regulations and compliance issues.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Looking at doctoral supervisors in a non-American context (New Zealand), Johnson proposes these threshold concepts: talking to think, meaning the integration of “reflection and understanding” (p. 74) in writing (perhaps similar to the principles proposed in They Say, I Say), and developing self-efficacy through writing—the “belief that understanding will emerge as new ideas emerge and are discussed, clarified, written, and refined” (p. 74). Many of us know from personal experience that we were very vulnerable before developing this assuredness.
Johnson, E. M. (2015). “He just told me to get on with it”: Insights into transforming doctoral writing development. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 8, 147–152.
Abstract
This paper reports on the results of a two-year study into threshold concepts (TCs) in doctoral writing. The findings informed the development of a thinking to write strategy (the 4×4) that has been implemented as part of a pan-university doctoral writing programme at a New Zealand university.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
In this second article by Johnson, like Humphrey and Simpson (2012), a workshop-type model is proposed, based on the doctoral writing conversation (DWC). If academic writing is a threshold concept, this example of strongly-guided instruction seems a tenable way to cross the threshold.
Keefer, J. M. (2015). Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use it. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 17–28. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981839
Abstract
Doctoral students face numerous challenges along the path toward achieving a doctorate. With the experience likened to a rite of passage, many face periods of confusion and disorientation, liminal periods of being betwixt and between. Threshold concept theory, reconceived as conceptual thresholds when experienced on the doctoral level, can inform how they are understood. The aim of this research is to explore liminal experiences during the doctoral journey and offer suggestions for how supervisors can better support their learners. This qualitative narrative inquiry explored doctoral liminality amongst 23 participants coming from five countries and 19 different disciplines. Findings cut across the diversity of the participants, with their liminal experiences comprising a sense of isolation, lack of confidence and impostor syndrome, and research misalignment. Periods of liminality were rarely discussed, even after long periods of time. Findings are offered to provide guidance for supervisors to help support and scaffold their learners.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Getting “lost in [the] shuffle” (p. 18) seems to be a recurring theme—dubbed liminality, it is also described as “stuckness,” confusion, et cetera. The learner’s experiences and transitions are often given little heed. It is no wonder that doctoral students often suffer from imposter syndrome and practice “mimicry via oscillation” (p. 20). Making “ontological and epistemological shifts” is critical in the doctoral journey—yet when only tacitly addresses, these shifts may never occur.
Kelly, F., Russell, M., & Wallace, L. (2012). Trouble in mind: Supporting the transition to graduate research in English. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11, 418–433. http://doi.org/10.1177/1474022211416779
Abstract
This article considers the ways in which entry-level graduate students in the discipline of English begin to understand themselves as researchers within a particular disciplinary formation. Analysing data from student and staff reflections on the experience of undertaking a supervised research project, we argue that the ontological shifts and identity transformations that occur at doctoral level are also observable in the transition from undergraduate coursework to graduate research but only in the right conditions. We compare participant accounts of two supervised research projects that, although offered within the framework of a single fourth-year unit, created very different opportunities for transformative learning. This comparison of graduate research experiences raises a number of questions about threshold concepts in English and cognate disciplines, particularly those that have been transformed by the encounter with theory.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Even out-of-context, you just know this was written by English professors (p. 419)—and how deftly they address the potential oversaturation of educational buzzwords:
Owing to their sheer usefulness and applicability across a range of learning contexts, these two conceptual clusters – troublesome knowledge and threshold concepts – are in danger of reification as indexical keywords that lose their power to persuade even as they are cited more and more frequently across an increasing bandwidth of scholarship. This article provides an opportunity to reflect on the utility and nuance of these terms within a disciplinary context that is necessarily responding to transformations in the wider tertiary and research environment.
The authors conclude that threshold concepts are a poor lens for identity formation in English graduate students, due to their lack of granularity. Further, they contend that other “less charismatic because less pedagogically personalized concepts” (p. 432) like skills and professionalization may be more important. Although this paper is written in flower, meandering, somewhat pretentious language, the contention is nonetheless well represented.
Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 293–304. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069001
Abstract
In this article I argue that doctoral candidates undertake a form of rite of passage, generally incorporating several shorter rites of passage, during their candidature of three to five years. Furthermore, there are times during their research education when many candidates demonstrate through their writing, presentation, discussion, and even demeanour, that they have undergone a change in the way they understand their learning and themselves as learners. These changes, it is suggested, indicate that the candidate has encountered a threshold concept and has crossed that threshold. Encountering these concepts can be a challenging experience for candidates as they transform their ways of viewing knowledge and themselves. For many doctoral candidates there is at least one stage during candidature when they could be described as being ‘stuck’ as they encounter a particular threshold concept which challenges them. The experience of being ‘stuck’ can manifest as depression, a sense of hopelessness, ‘going round in circles’ and so on. This sense of being ‘stuck’ occurs at the time when a candidate can be described as being in a liminal state, the state prior to the crossing of a threshold. Having established this context I then discuss the role of communities of learners and research culture as ways to assist candidates in recognising this ‘stuckness’ and to assist them to become ‘unstuck’ and move on with a new sense of confidence and appreciation of themselves as learners and researchers.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
The doctoral journey as a “rite of passage” (pp. 294–295) shows up here and in other articles.
The author explains a position that blames programs rather than students for dropping out in this quote (pp. 295–296). However, I would advocate for a more nuanced view:
However, in their study of US non-completers Lovitts and Nelson (2000) argued that attrition is a result of poor fit and poor programmes and not poor students. Poor fit, they suggest, relates to candidates not feeling that they belong to the department and its research environment, and poor programmes are those that fail to include intellectual and academic support.
The above argument is seminal to belongingness mindsets. While I reviewed research on intelligence mindsets (of which there is far more), believing your abilities can grow may be of little use if your belongingness and sense of purpose mindsets (the latter is yet another proposed type of mindset that is backed by much less research than intelligence mindsets) are deficient.
The author argues that learners should be engaged in the learning environment, work with senior peers, and learn the cultural expectations through organic rather than didactic methods (p. 302).
Kiley, M. (2015). ‘I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about’: PhD candidates and theory. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 52–63. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981835
Abstract
Existing literature suggests that a particular learning challenge for some doctoral candidates is coming to an understanding the concept of theory, that is the use of theory to frame research as well as theorising findings. The concept of theory has been identified as a Threshold Concept taking into account the characteristics of these concepts outlined by Meyer and Land. However, there has been little work that has focused on strategies that supervisors and candidates adopt to help them move from the liminal ‘stuck’ space of not understanding, to crossing the conceptual threshold following insight and the ‘Aha!’ moment. This paper draws on a Threshold Concepts framework, particularly liminality and being ‘stuck’, in the analysis of interviews and discussions with 21 experienced supervisors and 10 doctoral candidates. It focuses on how participants witnessed and experienced ‘stuckness’ regarding theory and theorising and strategies adopted to assist with understanding and becoming ‘unstuck’.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
This more recent article by Kiley analyzes interviews with Ph.D. supervisors and candidates, finding that doctoral students often have problems with using theory and generalizing specific results to theoretical models, and proposing that these are threshold concepts. Group discussion, exploratory writing, and structured reading are proposed as antidotes.
Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 431–441. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903067930
Abstract
Most work on threshold concepts has hitherto related to discipline-specific undergraduate education, however, the idea of generic doctoral-level threshold concepts appeared to us to provide a strong and useful framework to support research learning and teaching at the graduate level. The early work regarding research-level threshold concepts is further developed and reported in this paper using research carried out with supervisors into their identification of threshold concepts and research students’ crossing of these thresholds. The research was conducted in two stages involving 65 experienced research supervisors across six countries (Australia, England, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand and Trinidad) and across Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering and IT and the Sciences. The first stage involved written responses from 26 experienced supervisors related to the learning challenges experienced by research students and their supervisors. The second stage of the research involved in-depth interviews with 39 supervisors regarding student learning challenges and successes at the research level. Responses were analysed, resulting in the identification of six possible generic research threshold concepts, which evidence themselves in the quality and level of the students’ work at different stages in that work: argument; theorising; framework; knowledge creation; analysis and interpretation; and paradigm. The data analysis also suggests a number of indicators that signal when learners have crossed conceptual thresholds to gain, articulate and put into practice one or more of these threshold concepts in their research learning.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Kiley and Wisker, through qualitative research on doctoral supervisors in many fields and countries, propose six higher-order cognitive skills as vital to the successful academic, painted in the dichotomizing lens of threshold concepts.
One supervisor noted that students have crossed a threshold when they begin to forward literature they find important to you, rather than asking you for suggestions (p. 435). A defining characteristic of expertise is the ability to explain and teach others, according to my instructional systems design course with Dr. Atsusi Hirumi. This may be an example of that.
Being rigorous and disciplined in academic processes is quite important (pp. 438–439).
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41. 212–218. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Opening:
THE TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES is a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction. The framework was conceived as a means of facilitating the exchange of test items among faculty at various universities in order to create banks of items, each measuring the same educational objective. Benjamin S. Bloom, then Associate Director of the Board of Examinations of the University of Chicago, initiated the idea, hoping that it would reduce the labor of preparing annual comprehensive examinations. To aid in his effort, he enlisted a group of measurement specialists from across the United States, many of whom repeatedly faced the same problem.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
This revised model of Bloom’s taxonomy, which divides knowledge into factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive categories, may be useful to my approach to threshold concepts. Many threshold concepts examined in a doctoral-studies context are likely to be metacognitive in nature. However, one can picture procedural knowledge being needed for such things as APA format and literature searches, factual knowledge being needed to efficiently read jargon-laden journal articles, and conceptual knowledge being needed to tie all this together.
The cognitive process dimension has, in its upper half, analyze, evaluate, and create. These are critical to the doctoral process. The “create” category is often the distinctive feature of the research doctorate and may be more important than the others. One can get all the way to a Master’s degree contributing to the knowledgebase, but the research doctorate does not allow this lack of contribution to continue.
Meyer, J. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 373–388. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
Abstract
The present study builds on earlier work by Meyer and Land (2003) which introduced the generative notion of threshold concepts within (and across) disciplines, in the sense of transforming the internal view of subject matter or part thereof. In this earlier work such concepts were further linked to forms of knowledge that are ‘troublesome‘, after the work of Perkins (1999). It was argued that these twinned sets of ideas may define critical moments of irreversible conceptual transformation in the educational experiences of learners, and their teachers. The present study aims (a) to examine the extent to which such phenomena can be located within personal understandings of discipline-specific epistemological discourses, (b) to develop more extensively notions of liminality within learning that were raised in the first paper, and (c) to propose a conceptual framework within which teachers may advance their own reflective practice.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
This is a seminal article for the field of threshold concepts that builds on Meyer and Land (2003) by fleshing out troublesome knowledge and liminality. A prime example of a threshold concept is learning to ride a bicycle. A prime example of troublesome knowledge is learning to understand irony (p. 374). Once achieved, many possibilities are opened, much like getting a new item in a video game that allows you to backtrack and explore previously inaccessible paths (e.g., paths behind boulders or cracked walls after adding the Bombette character to your party in the 2000 single-player role-playing adventure, Paper Mario). One’s identity is often transformed after acquiring crossing a threshold and acquiring troublesome knowledge. Liminal space, the limbo in between making these acquisitions, is a vulnerable state with increased probability of unhappiness and desertion.
Rowe, N., & Martin, R. (2014). Dancing onto the page: Crossing an academic borderland. Waikato Journal of Education, 19(2), 25–36. http://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v19i2.96
Abstract
The transition of performing artists into academia has become an increasingly popular yet fraught migration, as higher learning in artistic disciplines increasingly requires teachers with an applied practical knowledge, a capacity to undertake research, and to articulate the value of performing arts knowledge within scholarly discourse (Elkins, 2009). Transitioning dancers can be expected to sort through their embodied knowledge and transferable skill-sets in order to maintain a sense of identity and autonomy within the new academic terrain (Molloy, 2013). At the same time they are required to adopt new dispositions of enquiry and approaches to knowledge production in order to thrive within the new environment of the tertiary education sector. So how might postgraduate coursework be designed to support experienced practitioners across such an academic borderland, and into the formal research culture of higher education? When we consider how enriched higher education might become through the successful immigration of experienced professional practitioners, such postgraduate course design becomes a salient educational issue. Our own journeys across this borderland have subsequently informed our co-design and implementation of Dance 724, a postgraduate course in qualitative research methods and academic writing that prepares students for independent research projects within honours, masters and doctoral degrees in dance studies. In this article we write reflectively on how Threshold Concept Theory (TCT) has guided our curricula design and pedagogic practices in this lynchpin paper. We also discuss six key thresholds that can restrain dance practitioners as they enter academia. While the focus here is on dance practitioners entering postgraduate dance studies, we suggest that the transition across an academic borderland for professional practitioners from diverse disciplines may be supported by a threshold concepts approach to postgraduate curricula design.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Graduate students of dance enter research methods classes without the necessary background. They may feel bewildered and attribute their deficiency to being a “dumb ballet dancer” (Rosemary, p. 26)—which, as a fixed mindset, can easily stymie upward mobility.
Dance 724: Dance Writing and Research Methods might be compared, as an academic borderland, to college algebra (or, increasingly, remedial math courses), or, at the graduate level, EDF 6481: Fundaments of Graduate Research in Education at University of Central Florida. While academic borderlands are not the same as gateway courses, failure in such courses cuts off possible avenues and career paths. In this article, the authors propose that tackling the following troublesome beliefs might be the key to overcoming thresholds:
“I am not a writer” (p. 31)
“Writing is a product” (p. 31)
“Writing is a private matter” (p. 32)
What an interesting approach! These beliefs could easily hold a doctoral student back.
“Writing as a product” deserves some explanation. This is the idea that writing should come about beautifully, not messily—that words should emerge on the page in a structured, organized, non-haphazard and non-chaotic manner—that good writing emerges as a monolithic rather than iterative process. The blank page phenomenon (a term I just made up) follows. This is definitely no bueno.
Townsend, L., Brunetti, K., & Hofer, A. R. (2011). Threshold concepts and information literacy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11, 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2011.0030
Abstract
This study used the Delphi method to engage expert practitioners on the topic of threshold concepts-core ideas and processes in a discipline that students need to grasp in order to progress in their learning, but that are often unspoken or unrecognized by expert practitioners-for information literacy. A panel of experts considered two questions: First, is the threshold concept approach useful for information literacy instruction? The panel unanimously agreed that the threshold concept approach holds potential for information literacy instruction. Second, what are the threshold concepts for information literacy instruction? The panel proposed and discussed over 50 potential threshold concepts, finally settling on six information literacy threshold concepts.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
The authors write: “Threshold concepts allow the practitioner to use classroom observation and disciplinary knowledge to make decisions about meaningful and transformative instructional content, without necessarily being fluent in the wide-ranging discourse of information literacy” (p. 858).
The different ways students approach the library are interesting. Look at how students use the library databases that University of Central Florida makes available—many are not aware of advanced but highly valuable and necessary techniques to cross-reference, drill down, and ensure exhaustive coverage. Many are not even able to get through a session without having to repeat swaths of work due to lack of a reference management system, lack of understanding of how various databases and tools work, poor performance environment (it’s hard to do library research on a tablet or laptop), and bewilderment at how to organize their findings.
Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 305–316. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069027
Abstract
Achieving a doctorate presents candidates with certain challenges – undertaking the research, writing the thesis and defending both at their viva. Throughout that doctoral journey, candidates are expected to display doctorateness in their thesis via the characteristics of high-quality scholarly research. The blockages that occur and prevent candidates progressing in their learning are portrayed as ‘portals’ whose threshold has to be passed over for real development to take place. Vignettes from candidates, supervisors and examiners provide insights on the notions of doctorateness and threshold concepts both in theory and in practice. Evidence shows that candidates who do not know what is expected of them may not have had the implications and technicalities of doctoral study adequately explained to them.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
I love the word “doctorateness.” I’m going to start using it all the time. “My doctorateness is really showing through today.” “The doctorateness of this dissertation is impressive.”
Doctorateness might include “research design, presentation, coherent argument, quality of writing, outcomes, conclusions and contextualization” (p. 307). Conveniently, many of all of these can be theorized as threshold concepts!
Wisker, G. (2015). Developing doctoral authors: Engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 64–74. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981841
Abstract
The literature review is arguably the place in a thesis where doctoral authors convincingly engage with theory and theoretical perspectives underlying their research, situating their own contribution to knowledge in established and ongoing dialogues in the field. One difficulty doctoral candidates encounter in their learning to be researchers is articulating this understanding and engagement, how their work grows from literature informing and underpinning their research. Writing confidently at doctoral level in the discipline discourse, and breaking writing blocks are key features of engagement and articulation. Most research into academic writing concentrates on undergraduate writing development, while research on doctoral students looks at relationships with supervisors, communities and the doctoral learning journey. This research on doctoral writing in the literature review uses work on conceptual threshold crossings to identify ways in which doctoral students engage with and indicate their understanding of theoretical perspectives through successful doctoral writing.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Literature reviews are very important. One of the important thresholds one crosses is coming to the realization that you are the expert on the research. Having conducted a thorough literature review, you are more well-versed in the research than 95% of academics even in your field (like many statistics, I just made this one up). This transition to expertise (another term I just invented) might be a key threshold concept. Students who have conducted a thorough literature review but have not yet crossed this threshold are apt to be overly timid and yielding when discussing the field they reviewed—they may defer to other academics when the best course would be to lead the discussion.
Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2009). Encouraging postgraduate students of literature and art to cross conceptual thresholds. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 317–330. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069035
Abstract
Much research into postgraduate student learning focuses on generic issues of research development. Early work, reported here, uses threshold concept theories and theories of conceptual threshold crossing to focus on the learning and supervisory support of postgraduates researching in the fields of literature and art. This paper is based on interviews with postgraduate students, postdoctorates and supervisors. It considers effective practices supporting postgraduate students and explores the reporting of experience, textual examples and dialogues to determine some of the characteristics in practice of both bringing threshold concepts into play in students‘ research and supporting their crossing of conceptual thresholds. We argue that identifying and working towards the overcoming of blockages or ‘stuck places’ in research can lead to conceptualised, critical and creative work in literature and art PhDs.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
Wisker and Robinson again give a qualitative glimpse, through structured interviews and ample and revelatory quotes from participants, into conceptual thresholds for doctoral students, this time in the fields of literature and art. Looking at dance, social work, literature, art, et cetera may be valuable because these fields typically do not come with a strong research foundation at the undergraduate or even Master’s level. Therefore, they may be prime examples of threshold concepts. On the other hand, examining clinical psychology Ph.D. students might be less useful, because such students have a strong academic background in research design, methodology, report-writing, et cetera. At least at University of Central Florida, Elementary Education undergraduate majors, unlike Psychology B.S. graduates, are not mandated to take statistics and research methods courses. Therefore, a number of doctoral thresholds might be crossed at the undergraduate level for the latter, but not the former.
Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2013). Doctoral ‘orphans’: Nurturing and supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 300–313. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.657160
Abstract
Much research into doctoral student-supervisor relations focuses on developing positive interactions. For many students, however, the research experience can be troubled by breakdowns in communication and even the loss of the supervisor(s), turning the student into a doctoral orphan’ and impacting on their academic identity and ability and confidence in producing a sound doctoral-level contribution to knowledge. Our work with a range of UK- and internationally-based doctoral students looks specifically at reasons for supervisor loss and/or absence and the students’ experience of being doctoral orphans‘ in terms of identity, confidence and progress. In focusing on those who achieve successful completion, it suggests the need for institutional and community support and highlights the development of effective strategies leading to ownership, empowerment and emotional resilience.
Key Insights and/or Quotes
“The supervisor can make or break a PhD student” (Lee, 2008, p. 1 as cited by Wisker & Robinson, 2013, p. 304).
The “orphans” described here often emerge due to poor supervisory communication, supervisors being stretched too thin, supervisors not prioritizing their doctoral candidates highly, or supervisors moving to another institution. This can lead to ABD attrition. The relation to the threshold concept model is that Wisker and Robinson argue that candidates need to have taken ownership of their research and assumed the identity of a researcher—both being threshold concepts—in order to successfully navigate being orphaned.