1 Reflecting on the Threshold Concepts Phenomenon
This chapter focuses on the phenomenon of threshold concepts, its educational appeal and future potential. For the purposes of this chapter, the phenomenon is located within âlandscapes and timescapes of threshold conceptsâ, starting with a lightning talk at the eighth biennial conference.
2 Why Are We Here?
The organising committee of the eighth biennial conference claimed threshold concepts had become a world-wide âphenomenonâ but its full potential was yet to be realised (Davies et al., 2020). The committee went on to invite presenters to contribute to an honest appraisal of where we are, and where we want to go?
In response to their invitation, a lightning talk on âWhy Are We Here?â was offered for the 2020 conference, and was accompanied by an earlier version of this abstract:
The threshold concepts phenomenon is intriguing and yet disturbing. On the one hand, we see threshold concepts have immediate appeal to our university and Health Service staff taking STEMM-oriented MEd programmes. On the other hand, we find staff with a humanities orientation can grow with, rather than grow out of, threshold concepts over years of reading and reflection.
Ambiguities of the threshold metaphor seem to play a part in this, as do its detachment and promiscuity â evidenced by its easy cohabitation with diverse commitments and perspectives:
- âfrom learning to development, from the collective to the individual,
- âfrom disciplines to vocations, from knowledge to affect or identity,
- âfrom pathways and journeys to spaces, domains, levels, structures and stages, to liquids and flow.
(Riley, 2021)
Is all this imaginable because batteries arenât included? By being here, is it ourselves who provide threshold concepts with life, energy, and perpetual motion?
I expected the lightning talk to explore why threshold concepts appealed to so many, and why long-standing doubts and critiques have had so little impact, perhaps even adding to the mystery and appeal.
The talk had been expected to take place in a small room at UCL in July 2020, and to be attended by colleagues curious about the paradoxes of threshold concepts. In practice, a year passed before we met virtually in July 2021, where reasons for âbeing hereâ were shared in an online chat box. The unpublished transcript of the chat included participantsâ reasons like these:
âtransformation!â
âImproving learning and teachingâ
âThe community is greatâ
âbecause the TCPh makes us think, and think about being and becoming â¦â
âJoking aside, it is a fascinating take on pedagogical theorisationâ
âTo see what people think the ongoing challenges in L&T are.â
âItâs pattern oriented and focussed on identifying bottlenecks in educationâ
âIs it also something about we see we are part of a big and diverse network, which means we have more chance of connection in and across disciplines, fields, professions? Is the critical mass something of an additional appeal?â
The session ended with a brief online conversation, whilst Ray Land brought the chat to a close, typing: âBatteries arenât included, but other brands are available!â
2.1 Realising the Potential of Threshold Concepts
This chapter approaches the questions of where we are, why we are here, and where we want to go, by offering some exploratory reflections on threshold concepts, its times and spaces.
The chapterâs discussion of Rayâs âbrandâ is informed by the extensive literature on threshold concepts (Flanagan, 2018). I adopt the conventional distinction between individual threshold concepts (TC s), and the supporting framework (TCF) although I refer to frameworks in the plural (TCF s), to allow for future variants and offshoots.
The contexts in which TC s and TCF s are generated, critiqued, researched, and applied in teaching and learning, are accommodated in a third category.
Next, we must consider the spaces and times of threshold concepts. Where shall we locate the conference committeeâs âwhere questionsâ, and where will the potential of TC s, TCF s and the TCPh be realised and evaluated?
Mapping the development of individual threshold concepts within educational spaces is an attractive if challenging prospect. Creating a map of TC s would be a substantial and time-consuming project. There is also a temporal dimension to consider, with TC s being proposed, debated and falling into disuse over the years. A narrated seascape along the lines of Macfarlaneâs âIdeological Islands of Higher Education Researchâ comes to mind (Macfarlane, 2021), where TC s might surface as small volcanic islands, which differ in their position, shape and longevity above sea level.
The development of the threshold concepts framework, and potential variants, would be less challenging to chart. For instance, the associated claims, critiques and defences of the TCF might be presented in a modest number of argument maps (Davies, 2011). In contrast, charting the development of the TCPh would require a historical atlas or multi-dimensional hyperspace. Such a tracking of individuals, projects, practices and realised potential through educational spaces and times would be a daunting but potentially illuminative project.
3 Educational Landscapes and Timescapes
This section of the chapter reflects on the educational spaces we might invoke to address the conference committeeâs where questions. A socially and ecologically informed overview of the threshold concepts phenomenon is assembled by drawing on the works of Etienne Wenger, Ray Land, Barbara Adam, and Michael Quinn Patton. The resulting hybrid spaces are termed landscapes and timescapes of threshold concepts. It is suggested these social and material spaces will help us to evaluate the TCPh with respect to its claimed educational potential.
3.1 Professional Landscapes of Practice
Etienne Wengerâs communities of practice are familiar to educationists (Wenger, 1998), but are too localised and isolated to serve our purposes. A later account of professional landscapes of practice (LoPs), is closer to what we
Systems convener is the term we are using for people who forge new learning partnerships in complex landscapes. Our emphasis is on the systemic reconfiguring by which these types of conveners open new avenues for learning. (original emphasis)
Systems conveners can âunlock unexplored spaces, forging promising partnerships, building bridges, resetting boundaries, challenging established colonies, and creating new settlementsâ, (ibid., p. 100). This description of social innovation and entrepreneurship lends itself to stories about the emergence of threshold concepts as an educational phenomenon, and of the roles played by Meyer, Land and key colleagues. The notion of âsystems convenersâ deserves a place in our histories and historiographies of threshold concepts.
One criticism of the Wenger-Traynersâ LoPs is that they appear to be mere metaphors. What happens to human embodiment, and where do material landscapes fit into LoPs? The COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on the eighth biennial conference, were timely reminders of our biophysical selves and environments. Another criticism is that boundaries between communities of practice play an important part in the theorisation of professional landscapes of practice. They are conceived as barriers, but also as learning opportunities and assets. However, the theoretical focus on boundaries, at the acknowledged expense of connections and networks, is less helpful to us when tracing developmental pathways and trajectories. Finally, LoPs are closely associated with landscape-wide, âprofessional knowledgeabilityâ (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015a). Whereas we need spaces that acknowledge emotions and identities, that embrace values, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, and commitments.
3.2 Strategic Terrains of Educational Development
The original paper on threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003), was published shortly before Ray Landâs study of educational developersâ roles in UK higher education (Land, 2004). This contemporaneous research must have influenced the emergence of threshold concepts and may help us understand its subsequent history.
Land interprets educational developersâ orientations and stances as ways of accommodating the local strategic terrains, the values in play, and the tensions or conflicts between them. He sketches twelve orientations to educational development, and nine stances on change, whilst cautioning these are fluid constructs. Orientations and stances are combined and varied in response to circumstances and constraints. They are modulated to negotiate what is valued, what works, and what is possible at a given time in a particular university.
Compared to professional landscapes of practice, Landâs orientations and stances within strategic terrains are specific to educational development, to research in the UK, and to individual universities. Landâs educational developers work with colleagues in the same university, where they enjoy a common management structure and cultural environment. In contrast, the threshold concepts phenomenon is global in its reach, and it cuts across learning, teaching, research and development (Land, Neve, & Martindale, 2018).
That said, there are similarities between the social spaces of Land and of the Wenger-Trayners. The accounts of the challenges and responses of systems conveners within LoPs appear conceptually compatible with those of Landâs educational developers. They also resonate with the accounts of third space professionals working in UK higher education, as researched by Celia Whitchurch (2013).
In conclusion, to chart the emergence of TC s, TCF s and the TCPh, I propose to graft Landâs educational analyses onto the Wenger-Traynersâ notion of professional landscapes of practice. Such a hybrid educational space would acknowledge the role of shared and contested values in the convening of landscapes of threshold concepts.
3.3 Social Time and Timescapes
The metaphors of landscapes and strategic terrains are helpful when charting the development of TC s, TCF s and the TCPh, but they are not sufficient. Spatial metaphors inadvertently flatten and lose the subtleties of temporal change, problems we can resolve by considering both landscapes and timescapes of threshold concepts.
Time is lived, experienced, known, theorized, created, regulated, sold and controlled. It is contextual and historical, embodied and objectified, abstracted and constructed, represented and commodified.
(Adam, 2004, p. 1)
The arguments in Adamâs analytic chapters are reinforced and summarised in accompanying interludes. The extract below is from one of these graphical, quasi-poetic pieces:
Adam relates social time to her concept of timescapes and uses this to examine the social negotiation of time. For example, she uses timescapes to analyse the temporal tensions and conflicts arising between groups in industrialised societies.
I propose that we think of temporal relations with reference to a cluster of temporal features, each implicated in all the others but not necessarily of equal importance in each instance. We might call this cluster a timescape. The notion of âscapeâ is important here as it indicates, first, that time is inseparable from space and matter, and second, that context matters.
(Adam, 2004, p. 143) (original emphasis)
Adam breaks down timescapes into time frames, temporality, tempo, timing, time point, time patterns, time sequence, time extensions, and time past, present and future, whilst cautioning that classifications like these are constructs and should be used carefully.
3.4 The Adaptive Cycles Model
One way of thinking about temporal cycles is championed by Michael Quinn Patton (2011), who advocates adaptive cycles as a way of conceptualising complex and fluid social phenomena. He notes that formative and summative evaluation break down when goals are contested not shared, and when they are changing not stable. In these circumstances, he argues the evaluatorâs role becomes one of participating in social projects and facilitating their emergence. This appears a promising approach to the development and evaluation of threshold concepts.
Pattonâs advocacy of adaptive cycles draws on his personal collaborations with Frances Westley in social innovation projects, and on studies of ecosystem management by Gunderson and Holling (2002). The resulting social ecological model is built around four recurring phases of change: release, reorganisation, exploitation, and conservation, with the four phases of the model being reminiscent of familiar cultural stories about decline, rebirth, growth and dominance. However, the adaptive cycle model differs from these because it also incorporates the three dimensions of system potential, system connectedness and system resilience. These three dimensions are derived from systems theory, empirical studies of ecosystem behaviour, and associated principles of environmental management.
The four phases of adaptive cycles provide us with a model for tracing the development of TC s, TCF s and the TCPh through time. For instance, we might imagine the long-term rises and falls of the overall phenomenon embracing the rise and fall of promising frameworks, along with the rise and fall of individual TC s.
The following sketch of the four phases of adaptive cycles draws on descriptions by Patton (2011) and by Gunderson and Holling (2002). The sketch also
The release phase of adaptive cycles sees the critique of existing educational practices and theories, with harbingers (Brown et al., 2019) pointing to new possibilities amidst the chaos of creative destruction. Established ways of thinking and practising are challenged and some professionals are freed from their shackles, whilst others cling to their declining power and control. Often this phase is brief, with things falling apart more rapidly than they were assembled. Disruption, deconstruction, instability, and anarchy have their places in the cycle, but their prominence may be short-lived.
The reorganisation phase sees the opening of new spaces, their exploration and the âblooming of a thousand flowersâ, made possible by the release of people, energy and information. Loose and temporary partnerships flourish, with experimentation and diversity being the rule. The system potential and resilience of this phase are high, even though individual elements are fluid and may be short-lived. Openness, inclusion, collegiality and personal freedom characterise this phase, which provides cloistered but liberating and emancipating spaces for individuals to grow.
The exploitation phase sees the selection of the more promising developments from preceding phases of reorganisation. Investments are made in a few initiatives and stable collaborations emerge to pilot selected ways of thinking and practising. The formative evaluation of what works becomes important, and the foundations of future structures are laid. This phase is competitive, entrepreneurial, and political. It trades system potential and resilience for increases in system connectedness and impact. It may persist much longer than the reorganisation phases it exploits.
The conservation phase is likely to account for much of the time required to complete an adaptive cycle. It sees the dissemination and widespread adoption of âwinnersâ from earlier exploitation phases. Over time, these ways of thinking and practising become established and dominant. Highly interconnected, deep and powerful structures develop, whilst being supported by influential stakeholders. The system potential or âcapitalâ is high and, when faced with a crisis, bureaucracies and hierarchies martial their resources to counter challenges and threats. However, such systems and structures may become obsolete, rigid, and even brittle, leading to their eventual collapse.
The conservation phase fosters and maintains a domesticating culture with power concentrated in formal systems and institutions, rather than individuals. Concerns about sustaining the status quo prevail, and conservation is valued
Looking across the adaptive cycle as a whole, the conservation phase is likely to last the longest and be the most widely spread. It provides times and spaces to realise the potential conceived in phases of reorganisation and to fulfil the promise demonstrated in phases of exploitation. Whilst the personal freedom and collegiality of the reorganisation phase and the excitement of the exploitation phase are appealing, they can become emotional traps which hinder or block dissemination and the realisation of potential in the conservation phase.
If we apply the adaptive cycle model to the threshold concepts phenomenon, does this mean the TCPh needs to embrace the conservation phase to realise its educational potential? Does the integration of threshold concepts into curricula, pedagogies, assessments, quality assurance, and evaluation require an acceptance of the mindsets and skillsets of the conservation phase? In such scenarios, the potential of the TCPh would be realised by those working on routine practices within their educational institutions.
An alternate future is one where the TCPh restricts itself to the reorganisation phase, and to providing an innovation space with exploitation and conservation left to others. In these types of scenarios, the TCPh would impact indirectly on educational research, development, teaching, and learning. The realisation of potential would be mediated by othersâ initiatives and projects.
These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, given the TCPh is heterogeneous and contains diverse interests and commitments. Some patches of this âTCPh forestâ may be committed to release, whilst others focus on reorganisation, exploitation or conservation, each cycling to its own rhythms. Such a threshold concepts ecosystem may prove to be resilient, precisely because of its diversity and the distribution of its activities across the four phases of multiple cycles. Viewed in this way, the threshold concepts phenomenon may persist but change as its component patches flourish, interact with each another, and fade. The TCPh of 2043 will differ from the TCPh of 2023, just as that differs from the TCPh of 2003.
One cannot enter the same forest twice.
4 Reflections on Threshold Concepts
This section of the chapter draws on the previous ones to discuss landscapes and timescapes of threshold concepts. It returns to the questions of why we are here, where we are, and where we want to go.
4.1 On Values as Drivers
Distinguishing between individual threshold concepts, threshold concept frameworks, and the threshold concepts phenomenon is central to this chapter. All three are needed to make sense of a core paradox, the persistent and widespread appeal of threshold concepts despite widely shared doubts and potentially devastating critiques. One has to wonder why the TCPh has proven so resilient, and why we are here right now, either reading or writing this chapter.
The 2021 lightning talk chat garnered several reasons for âbeing thereâ, the first was: âbecause we like Rayâ. This is a light-hearted recognition of his charisma and sustained direction of threshold concepts. Whilst a welcoming openness and collegiality are not criteria of the TCF, they are apparent within the TCPh. A phenomenon that absorbs doubts, criticisms and arguments and seemingly is strengthened rather than weakened by them. To explore this paradox, I consider Rayâs reference to âthe brandâ in his closing chat entry of the lightning talk. I liken individual threshold concepts (TC s) to specific product lines, the current TCF to a brand, and the TCPh to the organisation owning the brand.
Critics of the threshold concepts brand tend to question its conceptual and theoretical status, asking whether the TCF qualifies as a concept, a theory, or even justifies being called a framework (Lucas & Mladenovic, 2007; Brown, Whybrow, & Finn, 2021). These critics acknowledge the appeal of threshold concepts but suggest it is better employed as a catalyst for reflection, or as a stimulus for discussion. In effect, their critique shifts attention away from TC s and the TCF towards the TCPh, and towards the âbatteries that arenât includedâ.
A distinguishing feature of the TCPh is that everyone is free to choose their own contexts for applying the TCF, to bring their own conceptual, theoretical, methodological, pedagogic, curricular or discursive commitments to bear on its interpretation. It is a collegial and potentially anarchic landscape, lightly guarded by the rejoinder âthere are other brandsâ. It is a landscape where personally valued contexts and commitments can be explored in relation to the threshold concepts framework.
So where does that leave the current TCF, if at least some of its appeal is attributable to its detachment from specific contexts, theories, methods and practices? The generality and ambiguities of the TCFâs metaphors can account for the diversity of the TCPh, but what brings educationists together, what
4.2 On Patchwork Landscapes and Timescapes
This section reflects on landscapes and timescapes of threshold concepts as diverse and complex patchworks. It suggests these will continue to adapt, to resonate with each other, and to influence wider educational landscapes. Following Barnettâs critiques of system sustainability and autopoiesis (Barnett, 2018, pp. 42â46), it is suggested that threshold concepts should be systemically resilient and expect to see the current TC s, TCF and TCPh become superseded.
Adaptive cycle theory (Gunderson & Holling, 2002, Patton, 2011) is associated with âpanarchyâ, the concept of human and natural systems operating across multiple spatial and temporal scales. The theory is also associated with principles for managing, or convening, such systems, based on necessarily partial understandings of these complex and adaptive systems. But here, unpredictability, fluidity, and nuance are associated with critical realist perspectives (Barnett, 2018, p. 29) rather than with Landâs modern-tempered-by-postmodern perspectives on educational development (Land, 2004, pp. 192â193).
The threshold concepts phenomenon is considered persistent and global in its reach because of the general and ambiguous metaphors of the TCF. Also, the TCPh may provide learning spaces for professionals seeking respite from their institutional responsibilities (Savin-Baden, 2008) and attract those who value personal freedom and growth. The result is a spatial and temporal patchwork of activities, each with their own internal dynamics and external interactions. As indicated in the lightning talk chat, the mix of research, development and pedagogic commitments may provide a critical mass and enable cross-fertilisation within the TCPh.
This openness, diversity and dynamism means it will be difficult to identify the educational potential of the threshold concepts phenomenon, and even
5 Where Next?
This chapter has outlined a case for treating landscapes and timescapes of threshold concepts as patchworks of shared values, diverse contexts, and differing commitments. It is suggested this characterisation of threshold concepts may help us understand how we arrived at todayâs TC s, TCF and TCPh. It also is suggested these will evolve and be superseded in the future. New landscapes and timescapes may be convened and fashioned, as fresh people, frameworks and projects emerge.
The adaptive cycle may illuminate ways forward. For example, itâs tempting to view Ray Land as leaning towards release and reorganisation, with Erik Meyer leaning towards exploitation and conservation. Although these are crude and static descriptions of twenty years of their respective initiatives, it arguably is important for systems conveners to attend to all four phases. The educational school of threshold concepts needs to function across all phases if it is to flourish and evolve. The landscapes and timescapes of threshold concepts need to be varied and vibrant if they are to realise their potential.
References
Adam, B. (2004). Time. Polity Press Ltd.
Barnett, R. (2018). The ecological university: A feasible utopia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315194899
Brown, J., Bearman, M., Kirby, C., Molloy, E., Colville, D., & Nestel, D. (2019). Theory, a lost character? As presented in general practice education research papers. Medical Education, 53(5), 443â457. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13793
Brown, M. E. L., Whybrow, P., & Finn, G. N. (2021). Do we need to close the door on threshold concepts? Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 34(3), 301â312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.1897598
Davies, J. P., Gironacci, E., McGowan, S., Nyamapfene, A., Rattray, J., Tierney, A. M., & Webb, A. S. (2020). 8th Biennial Conference, 2021: Threshold concepts in the moment. Conference home page: https://thresholdconcepts.home.blog/biennial-conference-2020-threshold-concepts-in-the-moment/
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62, 279â301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
Flanagan, M. (2018). Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, professional development and school education: A short introduction and a bibliography from 2003 to 2018 [Online]. https://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (Synopsis). Island Press.
Kinchin, I. M. (2016). Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student. Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-627-9
Land, R. (2004). Educational development: Discourse, identity and practice. SRHE & Open University Press.
Land, R. (2020). The labyrinth within: Threshold concepts, archetype and myth. In J. A. Timmermans & R. Land (Eds.), Threshold concepts on the edge (pp. 3â18). Brill | Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004419971_001
Land, R., Neve, H., & Martindale, L. (2018). Threshold concepts, action poetry and the health professions: An interview with Ray Land. International Journal of Practice-Based Learning in Health and Social Care, 6(1), 45â52. https://doi.org/10.18552/ijpblhsc.v6i1.517
Lucas, U., & Mladenovic, R. (2007). The potential of threshold concepts: An emerging framework for educational research and practice. London Review of Education, 5(3), 237â248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460701661294
Macfarlane, B. (2021). A voyage around the ideological islands of higher education research. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(1), 107â115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2002275
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice â 10 years on (pp. 412â424). OCSLD.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. The Guilford Press.
Riley, D. P. (2021, July 7). Why are we here? Unpublished abstract of talk at Eighth Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference [Online virtual conference]. https://thresholdconcepts.home.blog/2021/07/29/why-are-we-here/
Savin-Baden, M. (2008). Learning spaces: Creating opportunities for knowledge creation in academic life. SRHE and Open University Press.
Timmermans, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2019). A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge (ITCK) in their practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(4), 354â368. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1388241
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015a). Learning in a landscape of practice: A framework. In E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-OâCreevy, S. Hutchinson, C. Kubiak, & B. Wenger-Trayner (Eds.), Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning (pp. 13â29). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777122-3
Wenger-Trayner, B., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2015b). Systems conveners in complex landscapes. In E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-OâCreevy, S. Hutchinson, C. Kubiak, & B. Wenger-Trayner (Eds.), Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning (pp. 99â118). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777122-10
Whitchurch, C. (2013). Reconstructing identities in higher education: The rise of third space professionals. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203098301