Over the past four months, an ACRL task force dedicated to rewriting the Information Literacy standards has been releasing successive draft versions of a new Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education. In a nutshell, the task force is proposing a new way of looking at information literacy that moves away from the preexisting standards and towards a series of “threshold concepts.” According to the task force, these threshold concepts are “ideas in any discipline that are passageways or portals to enlarged understanding or ways of thinking and practicing within that discipline” (Draft 2, June 2014, lines 25-27). Erik Meyer and Ray Land, who developed the theory of threshold concepts, explain that “a threshold concept is likely to be
- “Transformative, in that once understood, its potential effect on student learning and behaviour, is to occasion a significant shift in the perception of a subject…
- “Probably irreversible in that the change of perspective occasioned by acquisition of a threshold concept is unlikely to be forgotten, or will be unlearned only by considerable effort…
- “Integrative; that is, it exposes the previously hidden interrelatedness of something…
- “Possibly often (though not necessarily) bounded in that any conceptual space will have terminal frontiers, bordering with thresholds into new conceptual areas…
- “Potentially (and possibly inherently) troublesome [defined as counterintuitive, alien, or incoherent]” (Meyer and Land, 2003, pp. 5-7).
The six transformative, irreversible, integrative, bounded, troublesome concepts identified by the ACRL task force are as follows:
- Scholarship is a Conversation
- Research as Inquiry
- Authority is Contextual and Constructed
- Format as a Process
- Searching as Exploration
- Information has Value
These six “threshold” concepts are meant to serve as the anchors for the new framework and each is accompanied by a series of knowledge practices and dispositions to guide librarians as they develop information literacy curricula, reach out to campus partners, and integrate information literacy into student curricula at a variety of levels. These aren’t prescriptive standards like we’ve had, they are “interconnected core concepts, with flexible options for implementation” (Draft 2, lines 23-24). I suppose the simplest way to understand the change is to think of the previous standards as the authoritarian gym coach yelling “here are the five things you need to be information literate–learn them” the new standards are more like the hippie English teacher saying, “hey guys, here’s some stuff to think about, but interpret it whatever way works best for you.”
You really ought to read the draft, then come back. I’ll wait.
Anyway, the ACRL task force has been putting the new framework in front of us for about four months now and the response from the academic library community has been a resounding…well, take a look at some of the blog posts covering the new Framework (lightly annotated):
- 2/20, Troy Swanson, “The New Information Literacy Framework and James Madison by TTW Contributor Troy Swanson” (The framework is meant to be a living document that leads to meaningful pedagogical exchange.)
- 2/21, Donna Witek, “Metaliteracy and the New Draft ACRL IL Framework” (Metaliteracy should be removed from its elevated position in the framework, deconstructed, and reintegrated in a less ad hoc manner.)
- 2/22: Alan Carbery, “On the Threshold of Information Literacy: Using Threshold Concepts in IL” (Threshold concepts are relative to individual students.)
- 2/25: Jacob Berg, “The Draft Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Some Initial Thoughts” (Pros: more holistic, evidence of critical theory, includes ethical participation, student-centered, collaborative. Cons: jargon, metaliteracy, difficult to assess)
- 2/25: Andy Burkhardt, “New Framework for Information Literacy” (The framework is more holistic, dispositional, and future-focused than its predecessor, though there is a lot of jargon and metaliteracy is problematic.)
- 2/27: Barbara Fister, “On the Draft Framework for Information Literacy” (The framework is a huge improvement, though the concepts may belie a particular socio-cultural perspective and care will need to be taken to make the framework truly inclusive.)
- 2/28: Jacob Berg, “The Draft Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education: Survey Feedback” (Survey responses to the first draft.)
- 3/2: Nicole Pagowsky, “Thoughts on ACRL’s New Draft Framework for ILCSHE” (Expresses support for first three threshold concepts, concern about jargon.)
- 3/3: Meredith Farkas, “Getting into the Grey Areas with the Draft Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education” (The framework is a welcome change, though it may be a tough sell. Also criticizes the inclusion of metaliteracy.)
- 3/3: Amanda Hovious, “Unifying the Literacies (Can it Really Be Done?)” (Metaliteracy is a problematic concept.)
- 3/4: Alan Carbery, “Teaching to Threshold Concepts in Information Literacy” (Mapping the Scholarship is Conversation threshold concept to first-year, annotated bibliographies.)
- 3/4: Andy Burkhardt, “Threshold Concepts in Practice: An Example from the Classroom” (Using the Research is Inquiry concept in library instruction.)
- 3/6: Amanda Hovious, “Tackling Threshold Concepts” (Threshold concepts may just be a rehashing of older educational theories.)
- 3/11: Amanda Hovious, “The Information Literacy Threshold Concepts” (Thoughts on the first three threshold concepts.)
- 4/15: Donna Witek, “Survey Responses re: ACRL IL Framework” (Survey responses to the first and second drafts.)
- 4/15: Iris Jastram, “Responding to the ACRL draft Information Literacy Framework” (Survey responses to the first and second drafts.)
- 5/5: Troy Swanson, “Using the New IL Framework to Set a Research Agenda by TTW Contributor Troy Swanson” (On applying threshold concepts to career/vocational programs.)
- 5/22: Barbara Fister, “Crossing thresholds and Learning in Libraries” (Threshold concepts problematic because information literacy is not a discipline and it will be hard to reach consensus on threshold concepts.)
- 6/4: Troy Swanson, “Being Bounded by A Discipline. Owning Information Literacy by TTW Contributor Troy Swanson” (Responds to criticism that information literacy is not a discipline. Argues that we need to own IL as a discipline.)
- 6/18: Donna Witek, “Personal Encounters with Information Literacy” (A personal story of excitement about the new framework.)
[These are just the ones I’ve come across and bookmarked; I’m sure there are others.]
Most librarians are enthusiastic that threshold concepts are a step in the right direction, though they would like the individual concepts tidied up a little. Jargon is a frequent concern, though, to the task force’s credit, the emphasis on metaliteracy has been toned down in subsequent drafts. Overall, there seems to be a sort of guarded optimism that threshold concepts are a welcome step forward for information literacy and a worthy successor to the previous standards.
And that worries me.
You see, I was actually on the task force until this past February; I resigned the day before the first draft came out. Part of the reason I left the task force was because I didn’t have any faith in threshold concepts as the foundations for information literacy (fun fact: I even wrote one of the threshold concepts in the current draft). The six concepts identified by the ACRL task force as threshold concepts are all interesting and I tend to agree that they are important concepts, so I’m not saying that I disagree with things like the iterative nature of research, that authority is contextual, or that information has value. Rather, it’s the…um…thresholdiness that I have trouble with. I think today I’ll offer the rare critical take on threshold concepts in general and, in coming weeks, offer further thoughts on each of the six concepts of the framework. So, leaving aside any criticism of particular concepts singled out by the task force, let’s look at threshold concepts in general.
The problem with thresholds
I suggested just a few sentences ago that critical analysis of threshold concepts (TCs) is “rare.” That’s not hyperbole. Since TCs hit the scene 11 years ago, the number of articles and books speaking out in favor of them has multiplied to the point that I can’t keep up. Most of Meyer and Land’s papers have several hundred citations; Google Scholar returns thousands of articles. But, searching for criticism yields only a handful of sources. In fact, I’ve only found four critical analyses: Sarah Barradell (2013), Rod O’Donnell (2009, 2010), and Darrell Rowbottom (2007). Each of these authors admits that the threshold concepts hypothesis has some kernel of truth, but that there are serious difficulties plaguing how TCs are formulated. We can break the criticisms down the following way:
1. How can probable characteristics be defining characteristics?
Both Rowbottom (2007) and O’Donnell (2010) have noted that threshold concepts are defined in terms of the weakest possible modalities. Meyer and Land tell us that threshold concepts are “likely to be…probably irreversible…possibly often (though not necessarily) bounded…potentially (and possibly inherently) troublesome” and so on. These hedges are concerning because they force the question of whether a putative threshold concept is actually a threshold concept. So, while there is some truth to the concept that “scholarship is a conversation” it’s trivially true that it’s a threshold concept on Meyer and Land’s schema because of course it’s possible bounded, potentially troubling, and so on. Really, the hedging language just opens the door to any concept as a candidate threshold concept. Here, I’ll make one up right now: Keywords are Perspectives. This is the idea that different perspectives on a topic may understand the topic in different terms. Sort of like how searching for “global warming” will return different results from “climate change.” Is this a threshold concept? Well, it’s possibly transformative, potentially troublesome, might be bounded, could be integrative, and I bet someone might find it irreversible, so, by definition, it is! Yay me! I just added to the framework!
But wait, it gets better. Because the five characteristics of threshold concepts are only possible characteristics, there could be threshold concepts that lack all five characteristics. Or that only have one, two, three, or four characteristics. Really, any combination works, which, if you recall your modal logic, means that literally every concept is a threshold concept, no matter how trivial, how incoherent, how false. Access Articles through the Databases? Threshold concept. Books are our Friends? Threshold concept. Libraries Jump Spanish Sandwiches? Threshold concept.
2. Concepts do not imply abilities
Rowbottom points out that the definition of threshold concepts equivocates over the term ‘concept’. Basically, there are two primary ways of understanding what a concept is. First, a concept is sometimes defined as a mental representation of something, i.e., a mental model in our language of thought. Like, I have the concept of ‘book’ because I have a word-like symbol for ‘book’ in my language. Second, some define a concept as an ability to think of, classify, or recognize something. Like, I have the concept of ‘book’ because I have the ability to recognize a book when I see it. (Rowbottom mentions a third, Fregean view of concepts, but we don’t need to be concerned with it). Rowbottom’s insight is that which view of concepts we hold will affect our method of determining whether a student has mastered a given concept. He gives the example of knowing how to play tennis versus being able to play tennis. I mean, I know how to play tennis, so I have that concept in the “mental representation” sense. But, I’ve never actually played tennis, so I would seem to lack evidence of the concept in the second sense of “concept”.
This observation raises an interesting problem for the Framework. When teaching the threshold concept “Scholarship is a Conversation” are we supposed to teach each knowledge practice in order for the threshold concept to be met? Could a student be able to perform each of the six knowledge practices without understanding the overarching concept? (It seems that way). Is proficiency in each knowledge practice a prerequisite for acquiring the concept? The basic point I’m trying to make is that the connection between having a particular threshold concept and having certain abilities is nebulous at best, nonexistent at worst. Moreover, if a threshold concept is reducible to knowledge practices qua abilities, then aren’t we back to the old standards? Aren’t we just listing skills that the information literate student must have?
Actually, it’s more complicated than that. If the concepts are reducible to specific abilities and dispositions, then the question is whether the individual abilities/dispositions are what’s transformative/troublesome/etc., or if it’s the overarching concept that’s transformative/troublesome/etc. Are the six abilities listed as knowledge practices under Scholarship is a Conversation what’s troublesome? Is summarizing changes in scholar perspective over time transformative and what not? It doesn’t seem that way. In fact, it seems as though the skills and dispositions are fairly straightforward. But, if the skills and dispositions aren’t the troublesome/transformative parts, then what is? What is there in the overarching concept Scholarship is Conversation that constitutes a threshold, independent of the listed skills and dispositions?
3. Being troublesome or transformative are agent-relative properties
Rowbottom and O’Donnell both point out that a core problem for threshold concepts is that they are agent-relative: what is transformative for me might not be transformative for you. What is troublesome for you might not be troublesome for me. So, whereas the concept “Format is a Process” might not be troublesome for me, because I learned how to research just before the advent of online search, you may have more difficulty because you are only familiar with online research and don’t understand the differences. Likewise, we can ask how transformative and how troublesome must something be to count as a threshold, which brings us back to the first objection about all the hedging language. The key thing here is that threshold concepts have a way of reducing all of our students to a single idealized student who learns a particular way. But, we know that isn’t the case. In a room of 30 students, each student will have a different standard for how troublesome or transformative a concept is. Tell your first-year students that Scholarship is a Conversation and some will get it instantly, some will struggle, some won’t get it at all. Does that mean that Scholarship is a Conversation is only a threshold concept for some students? Hard to say.
4. Do disciplines really have a unified body of knowledge?
O’Donnell (2010) raises what I feel is the most damning criticism: that the threshold concept hypothesis requires us to reduce disciplines down to core sets of unchanging beliefs. The push to have students “think like an x” (a doctor, an engineer, an economist, a librarian, etc.) has negative impacts on critical thinking, O’Donnell argues, because “if we want creative thinkers and innovators, we need graduates capable of moving outside the x framework and operating within multiple frameworks” (2010, p. 9). Similarly, he argues, threshold concepts reinforce siloing and adversely impact inter-disciplinarity. I’ll give an example. Consider an engineering student being taught according to the information literacy framework. Within engineering, she may meet the threshold concept that “the semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem” (Shannon, 1948, p. 1). Through the library she may encounter the threshold concept Information has Value. Will she then have two sets of contradictory, irreversible threshold concepts? It would seem so and the only way to avoid the issue is to start carving up knowledge into non-overlapping domains, keeping engineering out of information science and vice versa.
Actually, it’s worse than that. Even within a single discipline, there are often radically incompatible views held among practitioners. For example, I actually disagree that scholarship is a conversation (my next post, I suppose). Or, for example, a deconstructionist librarian would disagree that Format is Process (il n’y a pas de hors-texte). Does this mean we’re not information literate? Not librarians? If you look back at the debate Dave Lankes and I had a few years ago over social constructionism, is it the case that only one of us is a librarian? If so, which one? If not, and we’re both librarians who just disagree on a foundational concept, does that mean there are two contradictory threshold concepts: Knowledge is Constructed vs. Knowledge is Discovered?
Even worse than that is the problem Barbara Fister alluded to on 27 February (link above). If we’re going to talk about disciplines having threshold concepts, we have to ask “whose threshold concepts?” As O’Donnell argues, “the view that there is a single set of threshold concepts in a discipline typically reflects the view that a discipline only has one reputable school of thought.” (2010, p. 9). And, as I pointed out in the last paragraph, this isn’t the case: most disciplines have multiple schools of thought. To take a clear example, what would the threshold concepts in psychology be? Would they come from psychoanalysis? Behaviorism? Cognitivism? Humanism? Again, whose threshold concepts define the discipline? Ultimately, O’Donnell argues, it boils down to power and control. Whoever controls the dominant narrative decides the threshold concepts. In most cases, this reduces to majority academic opinion, I would think. That’s still a bad way to do things, but outside of kowtowing to only the most mainstream academic thought, there are deeper sociological concerns. As Fister alluded, it’s possible that the threshold concepts being pushed in the Framework are only reflective of one particular view of information literacy. Probably white, probably middle-class, probably well-educated. That is, probably people in a position of privilege. But, I don’t really know. (The threshold concepts put forth by the committee were decided upon by an anonymous group of librarians in a “Delphi study.” The task force was not privy to the names or affiliations of Delphi study participants, nor were we given any justification, evidence, research, or other reasons to accept the concepts we were given. The role of the task force was to rewrite and expand upon the concepts given by the Delphi study, not to ask for justification.)
Ultimately, the threshold concept hypothesis requires us to view disciplines as monolithic, when we know that isn’t really the case. Likewise, because threshold concepts are agent-relative, there’s the very real problem (and likelihood) that any given set of threshold concepts is but a reflection of power and privilege. The entire theory of threshold concepts has a funny way of oversimplifying the very real distinctions and difficulties that are inherent in a body of knowledge.
Rethinking threshold concepts for information literacy
So, where are we with the ACRL framework? Like I said earlier, I’m not necessarily opposed to the actual concepts listed by the task force. They seem reasonable and what problems I have with them will be addressed in future posts. But, I am troubled by the connection to an intentionally vague, conceptually muddled, agent-relative, and reductionist theory. It would be one thing if the aforementioned problems with threshold concepts had simple solutions in the literature. Like, if Meyer and Land or someone else showed how the objections are unfounded. But, that hasn’t happened. Scholarship may be a conversation, but in the case of threshold concepts the dialogue is permanently one-sided. Of the 32 articles that cite Rowbottom, not a single one actually engages with the arguments. It’s always: “some have criticized threshold concepts, but we can ignore those criticisms because threshold concepts are popular.” Or, once or twice I’ve seen hand-waving to the effect that, “sure threshold concepts are vague and reductive and sure anything can be a threshold concept, but that’s only a problem for realists, not for us postmodernists.” No one is having a conversation about the legitimacy of the threshold concept hypothesis. According to the new framework, that means there’s no scholarship to show it’s a legitimate theory.
Personally, I do think that there are troublesome, transformative concepts out there. I do think there are Gestalt shifts and “Eureka!” moments in information literacy. But I don’t think that we can identify them by fiat. I don’t think that everything that’s troublesome has to be transformative. Or that everything transformative is integrative. And so on. Really, the six concepts in the Framework are a good start and they make sense. More importantly, they can stand on their own quite independently of the threshold concept hypothesis. I don’t want to justify the value of information literacy in terms of some mysterious threshold that students must face down. I want to introduce students to the complexities of scholarship and research because it’s just good to know that stuff. We don’t need pedagogical gimmicks like thresholds to see that students would benefit from certain concepts about research.
Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts. Maybe in the next few weeks I’ll say something about each threshold concept in turn (like how I don’t think scholarship is a conversation).
Stuff I cited
Barradell, S. (2013). The identification of threshold concepts: a review of theoretical complexities and methodological challenges. Higher Education, 65(2): 265-276.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning–Ten Years On. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD), 412-424.
O’Donnell, R. (2009). Threshold concepts and their relevance to economics. In T. Robinson, T. Tang, & A. Fletcher (Eds.), ATEC 2009, 14th Annual Australasian Teaching Economics Conference Proceedings. Paper presented at the Australasian Teaching Economics Conference, Brisbane, 13-14 July (pp. 190-199). Available here: http://www.atec2009.bus.qut.edu.au/documents/Binder3b.pdf
O’Donnell, R. (2010). A critique of the threshold concept hypothesis and its application to opportunity cost in economics.(Working Paper No. 164). Retrieved from http://www.finance.uts.edu.au/research/wpapers/wp164.html
Rowbottom, D. P. (2007). Demystifying threshold concepts. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(2): 263-270.
Threshold concept – that information is only found in libraries?
I find this a fascinating discussion, in part because I only just discovered it, and I have to wonder why? Are the ARCL talking to the SAA, museum curators and records managers. What about IT? Is this a purely US discussion or does it have wider cross national implications?
Fascinating
This discussion is primarily driven by the ACRL’s desire to craft new standards for information literacy for U.S. colleges and universities. I know that work by CILIP was consulted, and ANZIIL may have been mentioned once, but overall it’s U.S.-centric because the standards only govern U.S. academic libraries. I tend to think that information literacy is a more universal concept, and that people can be information literate quite independently from university, but the Framework does not address broader (i.e., non-scholarly) information literacy issues.
Maybe you wrote this in haste, but do the ACRL standards really govern academic libraries? If I thought that, I’d be distraught. I plan to take what makes sense to me from both old and new standards and to ignore the rest.
By the way, do you think it’s a problem that librarians are developing standards and embracing theories of learning with no input from teaching faculty? It sometimes seems to me as if we’re walking in circles all by ourselves.
Well, I did write this pretty quickly. And, no, ACRL standards don’t *really* govern academic libraries. For that matter, the ACRL itself doesn’t really govern academic libraries. But, many regional accrediting bodies do include information literacy in their evaluations and they do look to ACRL standards for guidance.
And I absolutely think it’s a problem if librarians develop information literacy standards and theories without faculty input. Though, I can’t say that that’s what happened here; I presume the task force worked closely with teaching faculty.
Loved this article – LMAO! I feel a bit redeemed that I couldn’t quite ‘get’ the whole threshold thing, although I thought it sounded pretty deep and interesting… Also, what about IL for students who are engaged in education for work – i.e.vocational education? Relating things to ‘disciplines’ does not compute…
I have the same concern regarding career/vocational education. Troy Swanson has a nice account of how the Framework relates to vocational training: http://tametheweb.com/2014/05/05/using-the-new-il-framework-to-set-a-research-agenda-by-ttw-contributor-troy-swanson/
I have also been concerned about taking threshold concepts without reflection, with little to no real research basis, and with no consideration of other approaches to establishing a conceptual or other framework that does not lead immediately to a list of isolated skills. We have been using Cognitive Apprenticeship as our approach as explained briefly in this blog post http://3directions.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-future-of-information-literacy-in.html .
This is written in haste on a Friday afternoon, so take it as the half-baked, off-the-cuff comment it is, but would it make more sense for ACRL (and other bodies) to step away from producing standards altogether? Is the concept of “standards,” too troublesome, as you hint at, because it comes with lots of baggage related to power relationships, and problems with inertia and authority? Might standards as we use them today even be contradictory to the idea of librarianship as conversation/discussion?
I know there will always be a need by many for ‘standards’ and rules, but perhaps your arguments point to the possibility that “standards” in general, when it comes to learning and critical thinking especially, may cause more harm than good?
[…] The problem with threshold concepts [Sense & Reference] […]
[…] Een uitgebreide kritische beschouwing én een opgave van andere blogs over het Framework is te vinden op het blog van Lane Wilkinson: The problem with threshold concepts. […]
A common criticism I’ve read about TC’s, which you illustrate well with “Book are our Friends,” is that they are hard to identify empirically. I think the Delphi study you mention the task force is using is a good, scientific way to identify threshold concepts, so I’m interested to see it when it is published (based on the 6 I’ve seen so far, it seems to be on the right track).
However, I would like to see the study where info lit TC’s are identified scientifically (e.g. like the Delphi study) duplicated several more times. Reproducible results are a hallmark of academic research. Now that I’ve had time to think about it, it does seem odd that we are pinning our professional framework on threshold concepts that have only been confirmed by a single, yet to be published, study. I’m not criticizing threshold concepts as an idea (I’m still on the fence), just that we’ve seemingly chosen the TC’s for information literacy based on what one Delphi study has identified. This might be why we are seeing some petitions from librarians who want to see other concepts addressed, like critical info lit and social justice issues.
Thanks for this.
Hi Amanda. Thanks for the comment: I agree that social justice seems to have been overlooked in the framework. However, I respectfully disagree that the Delphi study is “scientific.” I’d argue the contrary: that the Delphi study is unscientific.
Basically, the Delphi study in question involved gathering a small group of anonymous “experts” on information literacy and asking them to answer questions about information literacy in writing. Those responses would be sent to a moderator, distributed to the group of experts, summarized, and then reworked in successive rounds. Sort of a loose sketch, but the exact details are out there.
Anyway, the whole thing leaves me with more questions than answers:
How many experts were there? What was the criteria for being an “expert”? Sure, they should be anonymous, but can we at least get some demographic data? That is, are these experts diverse or do they speak for a particular worldview? What was their reasoning behind picking the six threshold concepts they happened to choose? Intuition? Data? Lit reviews? Hunches? Were these threshold concepts validated through other means? Basically, the whole process of a Delphi study takes place in a black box.
I was going to write about the Delphi process (or, how we don’t know anything about it) in a future post since it’s a different issue than threshold concepts. Basically, I value openness and transparency and I proportion my beliefs to the available evidence. However, Delphi studies are as far from transparent as methodologies can get, and the evidence supporting these purported threshold concepts is completely lacking.
Lane, thanks for the reply and the good points and clarification about Delphi studies! There were some steps in the process I wasn’t aware of. Hopefully, some of your questions will be answered when the study is published — but it would be nice to have that transparency before the framework became official.
I agree, “scientific” was the wrong word to use — perhaps it would have been better to say that the method is “commonly practiced in LIS literature” rather than scientific.
Lane, I see a number of problems with the Delphi process and that is exactly what I had in mind when I commented earlier about “no real research basis.” The lack of transparency is the least of the problems. Threshold concepts are by definition taken for granted by the experts and professionals who have already passed over the thresholds and we rarely think about those concepts that we now take for granted, especially when they are no longer troublesome for us. Taking on the mind-set of a novice (who is encountering troubles that look very different than they did 5-20 years ago when we were novices) is extraordinarily difficult for us.
So what the Delphi process with only expert participants adds to this is the systematic pooling of professional opinions and judgements. This is just as likely to draw from ignorance as from wisdom unless the participants have systematic access to the experiences of novices.
Jim, I think you’re spot-on about the disconnect between expert opinion and novice realities. Actually, your comment makes me wonder about this whole notion of being troublesome. Troublesome for whom? Clearly a threshold concept isn’t *always* troublesome; experts aren’t troubled. But, *all* concepts are troublesome at some point: heck, my four year old finds the concept of sharing troublesome. Seriously though, I wonder what the demographics are supposed to be. 18-24-year-olds? College students of any age? People who have completed secondary education but not higher education? First-year college students? And what about race, gender, class, disability, and so on? Without knowing what the Delphi experts set as their target population, things just get murkier.
[…] De nieuwe normen worden samengevat in 6 zogenaamde frameworks, waarbij het rapport vervolgens vaardigheden, leerhoudingen (dispositions) en lesvoorbeelden geeft. Die zes frameworks kunnen ook worden gezien als inzichten die op een bepaald moment de manier waarop een student tegen de zaken aankijkt blijvend veranderen. Dit is het idee van zogenaamde threshold concepts, dat overigens niet onomstreden is, blijkens een post van Lane Wilkinson. […]
This is a great post, Lane, very informative and thoughtful. I don’t know why ACRL feels wedded to the idea of “threshold concepts.” I think they should just dump this idea and just use “guidelines” or just stay with “frames.” They could probably use the best aspects of threshold concepts without tying themselves to them theoretically. (This reminds me of the bond Dave Lankes feels for Conversation Theory in his ideas about new librarianship; he would probably be better off without it.) And this whole thing with how the six concepts got chosen, i.e. through the Delphi group, seems very mysterious. It has a real “Da Vinci Code” ring to it. Thanks for helping us understand this whole process better. I look forward to your reflections on the six chosen concepts.
The term, “threshold concepts,” suggests that the idea is to get students from here to there, over some threshold, as you point out in the most direct way possible, with a photograph.
But in the proposed ACRL “Framework,” the proposed thresholds are “irreversible” “shifts of perspective” that “expose the previously hidden interrelatedness of something” and reveal something that is “conceptually unbounded.”
Sounds like an experience one might have had while tripping on mushrooms many years ago. But I won’t go into that.
Also these thresholds might be described as “counterintuitive, alien, or incoherent.”
Is this “incoherence” supposed to be a good thing?
If IL instructors are trying to get students to learn something new, then a metaphor of travel or crossing a threshold is okay.
But the idea is for students to learn something about something. I’d be embarassed to use the term “metaliteracy” to explain what librarians are teaching. I’d want to say we teach students some skills and techniques for getting knowledge. And then I’d want to give examples of what knowledge students acquired in my course by using these skills. For example:
Knowledge about genetics, and how to research information about genetics using genetic sequences databases (because that’s how to get that knowledge).
Knowledge about US social statistics, and how to research US social statistics (because that’s how to get that knowledge).
Along the way this cultivates cognitive virtues, too. So if your primary concern is cognitive virtues, there’s no conflict between this goal and that of knowledge. Maybe virtue epistemology is a good way of thinking about epistemology, which can help organize our thinking about IL.
But we still need specific examples of knowledge to serve as examples of research technique for students.
Of course some students may also want to trip on mushrooms.
You know, I hadn’t made that connection before, but I think you’re right. I bet the framework syncs up really nicely with Dark Side of the Moon, too. 😀
And you’re right about incoherence; I think I glossed over that bit. Expert researchers believe incoherent things? Doesn’t make sense. Though, it does offer a good retort to criticism. “Oh, you think threshold concept theory is incoherent? That’s the point!”
Lane, this is a wonderful post and has helped me clarify my feelings of discomfort with the draft 2 of Framework document. Thanks!
[…] « The problem with threshold concepts […]
Ok, this –> “Really, the six concepts in the Framework are a good start and they make sense. More importantly, they can stand on their own quite independently of the threshold concept hypothesis.” That’s one of the most insightful comments made about the new framework. It may well be my own transformative moment on this issue!
[…] perspective. Lane Wilkinson (Sense and Reference) wrote a series of posts beginning with a critique of the notion of “threshold concepts.” Jacob Berg (BeerBrarian) shared initial thoughts and later a critique of “information has […]
[…] of threshold concepts in IL, but when I was quickly Googling some stuff earlier, I came across Lane Wilkinson’s super, super smart post on all of this. It’s a great overview of some of the problems related to threshold concepts, and also more […]
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/locating-information-literacy-within-institutional-oppression/
A curious article. Though I’m weary of reading the bogeyman of neoliberalism into absolutely everything; it’s a bit of an over-simplification don’t you think?
Wow! You must be a speed reader!
Nah, I’ve just read it before.
I just want to thank you for the sentence, “Libraries Jump Spanish Sandwiches?” There’s room in academic discourse for the surreal.
Hi Lane, firstly, interesting article. Good clarification of a lot of the weaknesses of the TC’s. I’m a student researcher so forgive me if I come across a tad non-academic or just straight out wrong about some things 🙂
Firstly, could I try tie your arguments of ‘agent-relative properties’ and ‘probabilistic properties’ together and suggest that most education theories are surely relative to the learner? Yes, TC’s do have weak definitive traits, but as we have millions of different learners in any subject, any attempt to universalise their experience is going to have this problem. What is difficult for me, might not be at all for you, and what is transformative for me, might not be for you. Although you might not understand a particular concept, you might have deep knowledge of the surrounding subject already, so one concept won’t change the rest of your understanding as it might a layperson to the subject. I understand this is a weakness of definition, but surely in such a broad expanse of experiences, we must aim for a median student and what would apply generally, rather than a universal rule (which is surely effectively impossible since all learners can vary so greatly in ability, approach and even psychological state).
Secondly, do disciplines have a unified body of knowledge? No, naturally they don’t, especially the ‘soft’ sciences. There are so many branches of psychology you almost need a degree to remember the names, but wouldn’t each approach to psychology have it’s own fundamental concepts? Surely concepts of behavioural and cognitive psychology have their own fundamental understandings important to their distinct approaches to psychology. Not having a unified understanding of a discipline is a core concept of academia, if we have a unified perfect understanding of any subject then there wouldn’t be any room for debate as we would understand it perfectly.
Anyway, thank you for the article, I’ve just read O’Donnell’s critique so wanted somewhere to informally bounce some critiques of that, so anyone is welcome to point out where I am wrong! More aimed at general TC’s rather than anything ACRL-specific.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the comment! I’ll try to answer your questions the best I can…
First, I agree that most educational theories relativize learning.But that’s not the problem. The problem is in the way threshold concepts are defined, not in how they’re taught: ANY concept can be a threshold concept, by definition. I suppose I can sort of see the utility of thinking in terms of threshold concepts for individual students. Of course we want to identify the concepts our students struggle with and target our instruction at those weak spots. But, again, that’s a pedagogical approach and there’s nothing wrong with it. But, when we specify six concepts as those conceptual weak spots, even if we’re aiming at some median or average student, we’ve got a definitional issue: why these six and not any of the countless other troublesome concepts? The ACRL hasn’t given us any reasonable justification that these six concepts are thresholds for a majority of learners.
Second, you’re absolutely right that we don’t have unified understandings of disciplines. That’s the problem! Threshold concepts require that we unify disciplines (i.e., boundedness) which is absurd. Even if we try to break up disciplines as you suggest, like breaking psychology into behavioral, cognitive, etc., we can ask if all behavioral psychologists share the same foundational concepts. If yes, then we’re back at the problem.
I suppose my biggest problem is this: threshold concepts ask us to think of disciplinary knowledge solely in terms of what people struggle with rather than what they need to know. We’re supposed to identify some core set of troublesome concepts that the majority of students struggle with and then teach to those concepts. But, after we get students through those concepts, then what? Consider the mathematician teaching introductory calculus. Maybe she has identified limit as a threshold concept. She may spend her energy getting students through the threshold, but is the concept of limit the goal of introductory calculus? Isn’t it just a step towards the real goal teaching differential and integral equations? I’ve got no problem saying “here’s what students need to learn and here are some common troublesome concepts they will encounter.” But that’s not what threshold concept theory is about. It’s about taking those troublesome concepts and making *them* the goal of instruction. The ACRL hasn’t given us a list of six troublesome concepts that students encounter on the way to information literacy. It’s given us six “essential concepts about [the information] ecosystem.” They’re using troublesomeness as the criteria for defining information literacy rather than asking what defining information literacy and then asking how we get there. And so it goes for all TC theory. TC theory asks us to define our disciplines in terms of what students find troublesome rather than in terms of what students need to know.
Anyway, thanks for commenting!
L.
[…] no matter how evidenced my views are. Here’s one reason to think this: Lane Wilkinson has utterly destroyed the framework in every possible way, but they still exist, and still warrant defenses that entirely miss the […]
[…] Wilkinson, L. (2014, June 19). The problem with threshold concepts [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/the-problem-with-threshold-concepts/. […]
[…] discussion, see Ian Beilin’s recent Lead Pipe article. For an earlier, in-depth critique, read Lane Wilkinson’s take on the topic.) I’d summarize my own position as a big yes to conceptual teaching, big reservations towards […]
[…] space reasons, I refer the reader to Lane Wilkinson’s helpful list of blog posts, which is now out of date, but provides a good starting point for reading a variety of responses to […]
[…] De nieuwe normen worden samengevat in 6 zogenaamde frameworks, waarbij het rapport vervolgens vaardigheden, leerhoudingen (dispositions) en lesvoorbeelden geeft. Die zes frameworks kunnen ook worden gezien als inzichten die op een bepaald moment de manier waarop een student tegen de zaken aankijkt blijvend veranderen. Dit is het idee van zogenaamde threshold concepts, dat overigens niet onomstreden is, blijkens een post van Lane Wilkinson. […]
[…] The Problem with Threshold Concepts by Lane Wilkinson in Sense and Reference, June 19, 2014. […]
[…] https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/the-problem-with-threshold-concepts/ […]
[…] This blog post, ‘The problem with threshold concepts’ is a short critique of threshold concepts from Lane Wilkinson (2014), who in an information literacy field […]
Hi, interesting and thought-provoking response to the notion of TCs. As a secondary English teacher, I have been thinking about these constantly. At first, I was taken with them in toto, but the more I read, the more I see the inconsistencies. I agree that there are ‘eureka’ moments in learning, but defining these according to TC principles is problematic. Given the cognitivist turn in UK education theory, TCs seem to be a convenient way of cataloguing knowledge. Barradell does suggest we involve all stakeholders in defining them, so some student-centred research would be useful. In addition, the terms ‘disciplinary’ and ‘substantive’ knowledge (which themselves are fungible – see Martin Robinson) contribute to the muddying of these waters.
Perhaps I could end on the choice of your image. The portal/door domimates, but the organic growth around the outside for me implies the rhizomatic nature of learning (Deleuze). Maybe this is the analogy, and where the roots intertwine, thicken, deepen, then these are the points of ‘eureka’ and, perhaps, threshold concepts…