1 Towards a Deeper Understanding of Epistemic Beliefs Development

Towards a deeper understanding of epistemic beliefs development: The contribution of threshold concepts and implications for understanding the ways of knowing and being of experienced educational developers

Julie A. Timmermans Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology McGill University, Montreal

November 2011

A dissertation submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have had the privilege of great company for the journey of completing this dissertation. My life has been enriched in so many ways by knowing and working with my supervisor, Dr. Cynthia Weston. Cynthia, my graduate school experience has been stimulating, exciting, and fulfilling thanks to your expert guidance. Your thoughtful questions and feedback have encouraged me to clarify my assumptions and explore new directions for my thinking. I am also deeply grateful for your support of my decisions to make time for (new) life during my studies. You are a model of intelligence, integrity, and grace, and I would be honoured if, one day, someone were to compare me to you. I am grateful to Dr. Alenoush Saroyan for inspiring me to do my best work. Alenoush, you are a model of an intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful professor. Your expert teaching and advising have encouraged rigorous and creative thinking. I came away from your courses feeling transformed as a scholar. I am also deeply grateful for the steadfast support you have shown for my work throughout my doctoral studies, supporting my grant proposals and fellowship applications. It is an honour to have Dr. J. H. F. Meyer as a member of my dissertation committee. Erik, I thank you for the many enriching exchanges we have had during the past few years. Your ideas and feedback have propelled my thinking forward, and your encouragement has given me the confidence to take my work in new directions. I look forward to many opportunities to collaborate with you. My graduate student colleagues, several of whom have completed their studies and are now contributing even further to improving education, have inspired me with their dedication and tenacity: Denis Berthiaume, Kevin Chin, JaeHoon Han, Marian Jazvac Martek, Krista Ritchie, and Yanfei Zhou. Camelia Birlean and Aliki Thomas, I thank you for providing inspiring models of women who successfully integrate their love for their work with their love for their small children. To my colleagues and friends at Teaching and Learning Services (TLS) at McGill University: Cynthia Weston, Laura Winer, Audrey-Kristel Barbeau, Susan Cowan, Jennie Ferris, Adam Finkelstein, Andrée Ippersiel, Effi Kaoukis, Mary-Jo Rahal, Marcy Slapcoff, Nancy St-Pierre, David Syncox, Mariela Tovar, and Pierre-André Vungoc, you have provided me, for many years now, with a 3 welcoming place to work, stimulating conversations, encouragement during challenging times, and friendship for celebrating life’s many wonderful moments. I continue to be inspired by your commitment to educational development and your willingness to share your lives and ideas with me. I am indebted to the experienced educational developers who participated in my study. Their vision of educational development is truly inspirational, and it was a great privilege to gain a window into their ways of making meaning of work about which they are so obviously passionate. I am touched that they took time away from their many commitments to speak to me. The insights gained from our conversations are a gift as I begin my career. I am very grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC) for generous grants provided in support of my doctoral research.

Writing a dissertation is infinitely more enjoyable over a cup of coffee and a delicious dessert. I am grateful to the owners of the Second Cup Cafés on McGill College St. in Montreal and on Cousineau Blvd in St. Hubert for creating inviting spaces in which to think and work. The way in which you approach your work is an important lesson in understanding the needs of others and knowing how best to serve them. The Second Cup also brought me my good friend Gerry. What a pleasure it has been to see your smiling face and hear your booming voice at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings. Your enthusiasm for life and for ideas is infectious. Your kindness and curiosity about my work will not soon be forgotten. I look forward to having a conversation with you where we are both sitting at the same table. My neighbours, Joe and Jean Sinclair have taught me what it means to be a good neighbour. There is no other couple with whom I’d rather share a front porch. For the many occasions on which you came knocking on our door bearing gifts of warm, delicious food for my family, I thank you. Your thoughtfulness allowed us to have healthy, home-cooked meals and provided me with precious additional time to work.

My parents, Marie and Emile Timmermans were my first teachers. They taught me to love books, to love ideas, to love learning. They have supported my educational endeavours, even when it meant sacrificing their own comfort. They have celebrated every success and made me feel that excelling in school is an accomplishment of which to be proud. I hope that I will succeed in passing on this love of learning to my own children. Mom, since becoming a mother myself, I have come to love and understand you in a new way. For all the weeks that you stayed with us and so lovingly took care of us, helping us to remain sane during the last few months of writing this dissertation, we are so deeply grateful. You are my model of a woman full of purpose driven by sound values. Joshua and Chloé are so fortunate to have you as their grandmother. My big little Joshua, at five years old and not yet four feet tall, you have already taught me three important lessons: to recognize my limits; to use this awareness to understand the potential for growth that lies beyond; and that great teachers come in the unlikeliest of forms, if we can only be wise enough to hear their message. You are a lively boy, full of confidence and charm. And my lovely baby, Chloé, how is it that someone so young can already be so fully her own person? You are simply a gift of joy – sweet and yet so full of spunk. What a privilege it is to be your mother. I have struggled with how to express my gratitude to my wonderful husband, Éric Chagnon. Words cannot capture how blessed I feel to have such an incredible human being as my partner and best friend. Éric, you have treated my dreams as your own, patiently accompanying me in this long journey. You have given up meetings, karate classes and canoe expeditions, so that you could take care of our family while I did my work. You have taught me what it means to love unselfishly. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my incredible and unforgettable Grandmother, Lena Machado, who without a university degree, without even a high school degree, made greater contributions to the world through her love, faith, and service than anyone I know.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………… 2 Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………5 List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………..9 List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………...10 Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………….11 Résumé …………………………………………………………………………………………..13 Contribution of Authors …………………………….…………………………………………...15

Introduction to the Dissertation …………………………………………………………………16 References …………….…………………………………………………………………20

Manuscript 1: Towards an Explanation Epistemic Beliefs Development……………………….21 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………...21 What is Development? On the Motion of Evolution ……………………………………25 What is Developing and to What End? The Search for Essence and End Points ……….27 What is Development? The Principles of Emergence, Self-Organisation, and Nested Hierarchies ………………………………………………………………….32 What is a Stage? On Balance and Evolutionary Truces ………………………………...38 On the Dialectical Process of Balance Construction ……………………………………42 Towards the Elaboration of a Mechanism of Change …………………………………...45 Concluding Thoughts ……………………………………………………………………57 References ……………………………………………………………………………….58

Bridging Text between Manuscripts 1 and 2: Understanding Transitions Between Stages in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs: The Promise of Threshold Concepts ……………………… ..67 References ……………………………………………………………………………….69

Manuscript 2: Changing our Minds: The Developmental Potential of Threshold Concepts...... 70 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………...70 Underlying Assumptions ………………………………………………………………..71 Preliminal Variation, or, On Balance ……………………………………………………72 Troublesomeness, or, On Dissonance …………………………………………………...78 Transformativeness, or On Opening Up of Epistemological, Conceptual, and Affective Spaces …………………………………………………………………….80 Irreversibility, or, On Crossing Thresholds ……………………………………………..82 The Integrative Nature of Threshold Concepts, or On Integration ……………………...83 Boundedness, or On Considering Context ………………………………………………84 Concluding Thoughts ……………………………………………………………………86 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………...86 References ……………………………………………………………………………….87

Bridging Text between Manuscripts 2 and 3: On the Issue of Irreversibility in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs………………………………………………………………92 References ……………………………………………………………………………….97

Manuscript 3: Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development …………………..99 Statement of Problem and Purpose ……………………………………………………...99 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………………...103 Research Question ……………………………………………………………………..106 Methodology …………………………………………………………………………...106 Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………………..111 Data Analysis Procedures: Within-Case ……………………………………….114 Data Analysis Procedures: Cross-Case ………………………………………...122 Findings and Discussion ……………………………………………………………….130 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………..149 References ……………………………………………………………………………...154

Appendices Appendix A Interview Protocol……………………...... 160

Appendix B Participant Recruitment E-Mail Message…………...………….164

Appendix C Definition of a Threshold Concept …………………………….166

Appendix D Research Consent Form ……………………………………...... 167

Appendix E Within-Case Analysis Document 1: “Participant 3 Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent-Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships” (For Researcher Use) …………………………..169 Appendix F Within-Case Analysis Document 2 “Participant 3 Threshold Concepts with Excerpts” (For Participant Verification)………..172 Appendix G Verification E-Mail Message …………………………………..173 Appendix H Verification Letter ……………………………………………...175 Appendix I Verification Reminder E-Mail Message ……………………….177 Appendix J Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 1: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups …………...... 178 Appendix K Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 2: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change ..180 Appendix L Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 3: Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals ………………...181 Appendix M Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 4: Knowledge of Educational Developers ………………………..182

Dissertation Summary, Conclusions, and Implications….……………………………………..183 Summary and Conclusions of Manuscripts 1, 2, and Bridging Texts .………………...183 Integration of Manuscripts 1, 2, and Bridging Texts: Proposing a Model of Epistemic Beliefs Development ………………………………………………………..185

An Exploration of “Development” in Educational Development ……………………...187 Summary and Conclusions of Manuscript 3: “Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development” ……………………………………….187 Exploring the Implications of a Developmental Approach to Educational Development …………………………………………………………………...188 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………..195 References ……………………………………………………………………………...196

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Excerpt from Within-Case Analysis Document 3 “Participant 3 Table of Threshold Concepts” (For Researcher Use): Display of Parent and Subordinate Threshold Concepts within a Cell ……………………………………………………………..120 Table 3.2 Excerpt from Within-case Analysis Document 3, “Participant 1 Table of Threshold Concepts” (For Researcher Use): Display of Named and Inferred Threshold Concepts …………………………………………………………………………....121 Table 3.3 Excerpt from Stage 1 Cross-Case Analysis: Identifying and Labeling Commonalities Among Parent Threshold Concepts ………………………………………………..124 Table 3.4 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Display that Removes Visual Distinction between Parent and Subordinate Threshold Concepts ……………………………..125 Table 3.5 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Clustering Within a Cell of Threshold Concepts with Similar Meaning ……………………………………………………126 Table 3.6 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Displaying Dimensions of a Common Threshold Concept …………………………………………………………………127 Table 3.7 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Displaying Description and Revised Label of a Common Threshold Concept …………………………………………...128 Table 3.8 Excerpt from Final Cross-Case Analysis: Displaying Frequency of Occurrence of a Common Threshold Concept ………………………………………………………129 Table 3.9 Common Threshold Concepts for Category 1: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups ……………………………………134 Table 3.10 Common Threshold Concepts for Category 2: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change ………………………………………………………...138 Table 3.11 Common Threshold Concepts for Category 3: Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals ……………………………………………………………………….142 Table 3.12 Summary of Three Categories of Common Threshold Concepts for Experienced Educational Developers ……………………………………………………………144

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Representation of Yin and Yang and the “interaction and struggle” of opposites (Petrov, 2002, p. 2) …………………………………………...43 Figure 3.1 U.S. Department of Education (2002, p. 8): A hierarchy of postsecondary outcomes ……………………………….100 Figure Conclusion.1 A double-helix image to help visualise the developmental process …...186

ABSTRACT In education, the term “development” is used in many contexts. For example, we refer to the “development of student learning,” the “development of epistemic beliefs,” and the “development of expertise.” The term “development” is also central to our identity and work as educational developers. The frequent use of this term suggests a commonly agreed-upon understanding; however, closer analysis reveals that the definition of this term remains vague. Drawing on literature in the areas of epistemic beliefs and threshold concepts, this dissertation intends to elucidate the notion of development by exploring what development is and how it happens. Insights from this research are then used to examine the transformation of educational developers’ ways of knowing and being and to explore the meaning of development in educational development. The dissertation consists of three manuscripts. The purpose of Manuscript 1 is to propose an explanation of epistemic beliefs development. A review of the epistemic beliefs literature reveals that, while many models explore qualitative differences in individuals’ epistemic beliefs, and while there tends to be agreement that these beliefs evolve in a developmental manner, there appears to be hesitancy in characterising epistemic beliefs as developmental. This hesitancy has perhaps prevented us from gaining a sounder understanding of how epistemic development proceeds. Yet, understanding epistemic development is crucial, for, as the work of lifespan developmental psychologist Robert Kegan (1982, 1994, 2000) shows, epistemic beliefs shape the perspectives from which we make meaning of the world. Drawing on Kegan’s Constructive- Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making, as well as research in biology, philosophy, and psychology, the fields in which educational psychology is rooted, this manuscript identifies the principles of development that underlie and thereby unify these fields. In proposing an explanation of epistemic beliefs development, the manuscript contributes to the current endeavour in the field to elaborate an integrative model of epistemic beliefs development. Manuscript 2 pursues the purpose of the dissertation of gaining a better understanding of development by using threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) as a lens for clarifying the little- understood issue of how the development of epistemic beliefs proceeds between stages. Understanding the process of transformation between stages is vital for educators, since this is where much of our work with learners occurs. The characteristics often used to describe threshold concepts reveal their potential to contribute to the development of epistemic beliefs; 12 however, threshold concepts have hitherto not been situated within a developmental framework. By relating the principles of development explored in Manuscript 1 to the characteristics of threshold concepts, this manuscript proposes threshold concepts as potentially powerful sources of epistemic beliefs development and clarifies the cognitive and affective nature of transformation between stages. Implications for educators’ role of facilitating learning are also explored. Manuscript 3 is the report of a multiple case study designed to identify threshold concepts in educational development. As there is currently a collective effort in the field of educational development to conceptualise the identity and roles of educational developers, threshold concepts are used as a lens for uncovering the ways of knowing and ways of being of educational developers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four experienced educational developers from Canadian universities to identify the ideas that have been threshold concepts for them in their careers as educational developers. A cross-case analysis of threshold concepts identified within each case revealed three categories of common threshold concepts: (a) Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups, (b) Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change, and (c) Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals. Study findings suggest that the ways of knowing and being of educational developers are closely intertwined with the work they intend to accomplish. Findings therefore begin to elucidate the “development” work of educational development. The dissertation conclusion summarises and weaves together findings from the three manuscripts. A model capturing the salient insights about development that emerged from this research is presented. These insights are then related to the threshold concepts identified by experienced educational developers in Manuscript 3 in an effort to explore the meaning of development in educational development.

RÉSUMÉ En éducation, le terme « développement » est utilisé dans plusieurs contextes. On réfère, par exemple, au «développement des apprentissages de l’étudiant, » au « développement des croyances épistémiques, » et au « développement de l’expertise. » Le terme « développement » est également primordial à notre identité et à notre travail comme conseillers pédagogiques [educational developers]. Le fréquent usage de ce terme suggère une compréhension communément convenue; des analyses plus poussées révèlent toutefois que la définition de ce terme demeure vague. S’appuyant sur la recherche dans les domaines des croyances épistémiques et des concepts seuils, cette thèse a pour but de clarifier la notion de développement en explorant ce qu’est le développement et comment il se déroule. Les fruits de cette recherche sont ensuite utilisés pour examiner la transformation des façons d’être et de connaître des conseillers pédagogiques et pour explorer la signification du développement dans le domaine du soutien pédagogique [educational development]. La thèse contient trois manuscrits. Le but du manuscrit 1 est de proposer une explication du développement des croyances épistémiques. Un examen de la littérature des croyances épistémiques révèle que, bien que plusieurs modèles explorent les différences qualitatives des croyances épistémiques chez les individus, et bien qu’il y ait une tendance à être en accord avec le fait que ces croyances évoluent d’une façon développementale, il semble y avoir une certaine hésitation à décrire les croyances épistémiques comme développementales. Cette hésitation a peut-être empêché l’acquisition d’une compréhension plus solide de la façon dont se déroule le développement épistémique. Comprendre le développement épistémique est cependant crucial, car, comme les travaux du renommé psychologue développemental Robert Kegan (1982, 1994, 2000) le démontrent, les croyances épistémiques façonnent les perspectives par lesquelles nous donnons sens au monde. S’appuyant sur la théorie constructive- développementale de Kegan concernant la construction du sens [Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making], ainsi que sur les recherches en biologie, philosophie, et psychologie, des domaines sur lesquels se base la psychopédagogie, ce manuscrit identifie les principes du développement qui sous- tendent et, de ce fait, unifient ces domaines. En proposant une explication du développement des croyances épistémiques, ce manuscrit contribue aux études entreprises dans le domaine visant l’élaboration d’un modèle intégratif du développement des croyances épistémiques. Le manuscrit 2 poursuit l’objectif de la thèse visant l’acquisition d’une meilleure compréhension du développement en utilisant les concepts seuils (Meyer & Land, 2003) dans l’optique de clarifier la façon dont se déroule le développement des croyances épistémiques entre les stades. Comprendre le processus de transformation entre les stades est indispensable pour les éducateurs, puisque c’est à ce moment que la plus grande part du travail avec les apprenants s’accomplit. Les caractéristiques souvent utilisées pour décrire les concepts seuils révèlent leur potentiel à contribuer au développement des 14 croyances épistémiques; cependant, les concepts seuils n’ont pas, jusqu’à présent, été situés dans un cadre développemental. En rapportant les connaissances acquises à partir du manuscrit 1 concernant les principes de développement aux caractéristiques des concepts seuils, ce document propose les concepts seuils comme source potentielle solide dans le développement des croyances épistémiques. Ce travail précise également la nature cognitive et affective de la transformation entre les stades du développement des croyances épistémiques. Les implications concernant le rôle des éducateurs à la facilitation de l’apprentissage sont également explorées. Le manuscrit 3 rapporte une étude de cas multiples élaborée dans le but d’identifier les concepts seuils présents en soutien pédagogique. Comme il y a actuellement un effort commun dans le domaine du soutien pédagogique pour conceptualiser l’identité et les rôles des conseillers pédagogiques, les concepts seuils ont été utilisés dans l’optique de découvrir les manières d’être et de connaître des conseillers pédagogiques. Des entrevues semi-structurées ont été menées auprès de quatre conseillers pédagogiques expérimentés provenant d’universités canadiennes afin d’identifier les idées qui ont été des concepts seuils pour eux dans leurs carrières comme conseillers pédagogiques. Une analyse transversale des concepts seuils identifiés au sein de chaque cas a révélé trois catégories de concept seuils communs : (a) les manières d’être et de connaître facilitant le changement chez les individus et les groupes, (b) les manières d’être et de connaître facilitant le changement systémique, et (c) les manières d’être et de connaître des professionnels. Les résultats de l’étude suggèrent que les manières d’être et de connaître des conseillers pédagogiques sont étroitement liées au travail qu’ils souhaitent accomplir. Les résultats commencent ainsi à élucider le travail de « développement » des conseillers pédagogiques. La conclusion de la thèse résume et établie un lien entre les résultats des trois manuscrits. Un modèle proposant les idées saillantes sur le développement provenant de cette recherche est présenté. Ces idées sont ensuite mises en relation avec les concepts seuils proposés par les conseillers pédagogiques expérimentés dans le manuscrit 3, ce qui permet d’explorer la signification du développement dans le domaine du soutien pédagogique.

CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS

For Manuscripts 1 and 2, Julie Timmermans was the sole author. Manuscript 3, “Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development” was co-authored with my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Cynthia Weston. As supervisor and co-author, Dr. Weston contributed to the conceptualisation of the study, assisted with the recruitment of study participants, and provided regular feedback on the design of the data collection instrument and the analysis of the study findings.

INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION

On Synthesis and Philosophical Thought In writing this dissertation, I have to come to a startling personal revelation: I am a philosopher, if only an amateur one. Perhaps this revelation should not be so startling, for I have always been a lover (philo) of wisdom (sophy), someone who has yearned for understanding and insight. And I am, after all, hoping to complete a doctor of philosophy degree. I feel, however, that the acts of synthesis and creation required by the dissertation have spurred me into becoming a qualitatively different kind of philosopher than the one I had thought myself to be: one who actively seeks wisdom through the asking of questions. It is this notion of asking questions that lies at the heart of the philosophical approach and that draws the distinction, so important for us as educators, between being sophists and being philosophers. In ancient Greece, sophists were itinerant, professional educators who were paid to transmit their wisdom to others (Kahn, 1998), often lacking the knowledge to do so appropriately (Curren, 1998). Kahn (1998) remarks that, “for Aristotle, the sophist is a specialist in invalid but persuasive argument” (p. 1). Philosophers, on the other hand, were, and remain, those who stand “in continuous wonder at the world” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 68) recognizing that there is much they do not understand (Gaarder, 1994), and “ask[ing] questions of [themselves] and others” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 68). The questions philosophers ask, such as “What is the nature of reality?”, “What is truth?”, and “What is meaning?” are “deceptively simple,” yet “never seem to have simple answers” and, “once asked, seem never to go away” (Robinson & Groves, 2004, pp. 3-4) The questions that philosophers ask provide valuable insights into their philosophical projects. Gaarder (1994) explains that philosophers are generally not captivated by the entire realm of philosophical questions, yet have particular queries with which they are especially concerned. Understanding a philosopher’s work consequently becomes simpler once one understands his or her project. What, then, is my project for this dissertation? Broadly, I am intrigued by questions of epistemology, the branch of philosophy that poses questions about the nature, scope, and sources of knowledge (Driscoll, 2000; Fenstermacher, 1994). I am also intrigued by questions of development, that is, understanding what change is and how it happens. I seek to understand the 17 ways in which people’s epistemic beliefs, that is their beliefs about the nature of knowledge and processes of knowing, develop, particularly in the ill-defined spaces between stages of development. As someone interested in helping facilitate the development of others, particularly through the work of educational development, one of my questions has always been “What can be done to promote and support development?” This dissertation provides a space in which to explore these questions.

Intent of the Dissertation In education, we use the term “development” in many contexts. We speak of the “development of student learning,” the “development of expertise,” and the “development of epistemic beliefs.” The term “development” is also central to our identity and work as educational developers. Yet, in using the term so frequently, we have perhaps fallen into the trap of assuming a commonly agreed-upon understanding of this term. Far from being a simple linguistic issue, I believe that we struggle to define and clarify the terms that lie at the heart of our research because we realize that issues of definition are intimately tied to issues of methodology, as well as to future discussions regarding the soundness and relevance of our work. Given the importance of the notion of development in our work as educators and as educational developers, this dissertation attempts to construct an explanation of development. Drawing on the literature in the areas of epistemic beliefs and threshold concepts, the dissertation intends to elucidate what “development” is and how it happens. Insights gained from this exploration are then used to understand the following aspects of a field commonly referred to as educational development (also faculty development): “What threshold concepts help transform educational developers’ epistemic beliefs and ways of doing their work?” and “What does ‘development’ mean in the context of educational development?”. This dissertation consists of three related manuscripts, each contributing to the overall purpose of the dissertation. Two bridging texts establish links between the manuscripts. An overall synthesis summarises the dissertation and presents conclusions and implications. Outlined below are the specific contributions of each text.

Manuscript 1: “Towards an Explanation of Epistemic Beliefs Development” Manuscript 1 is an attempt to contribute to the current endeavour in the literature to build an integrative model of epistemic beliefs development by proposing an explanation of developing epistemic beliefs. Drawing on Robert Kegan’s Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making (1982, 1994, 2000), as well as on research in biology, philosophy, and psychology, the fields in which educational psychology is rooted, this manuscript identifies the principles of development that underlie and thereby unify these fields. Since promoting the development of epistemic beliefs may be perceived as one of our important tasks as educators, a significant portion of this manuscript is then devoted to understanding the various sources that may serve to instigate the development of epistemic beliefs. The manuscript concludes with a proposed explanation of developing epistemic beliefs, the strength of which lies in the cross- disciplinary nature of the principles proposed.

Bridging Text Between Manuscripts 1 and 2: “Understanding Transitions Between Stages in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs: The Promise of Threshold Concepts” This text establishes the importance of understanding the nature of transformation between stages of development, as it is within these spaces that much of our work as educators transpires. Meyer and Land’s (2003) notion of ‘threshold concepts’ is proposed as a potentially powerful tool for helping us understand transformational spaces.

Manuscript 2: “Changing our Minds: The Developmental Potential of Threshold Concepts” Manuscript 2 pursues the purpose of the dissertation of gaining a better understanding of development by using threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) as a lens for clarifying the little- understood issue of how the development of epistemic beliefs proceeds between stages. Understanding the process of transformation between stages is vital for educators, since this is where much of our work with learners occurs. The characteristics often used to describe threshold concepts reveal their potential to contribute to the development of epistemic beliefs; however, threshold concepts have hitherto not been situated within a developmental framework. In relating insights gained from Manuscript 1 regarding principles and sources of development to the characteristics of threshold concepts, this paper clarifies the cognitive and affective nature of 19 transformation between stages of epistemic beliefs development and also proposes threshold concepts as a potentially powerful source of epistemic beliefs development. Implications for educators’ role of facilitating learning are also explored throughout the manuscript.

Bridging Text between Manuscripts 2 and 3: “On the Issue of Irreversibility in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs” In this bridging section, I explore the notion of thresholds in the development of epistemic beliefs and propose that there may exist a point beyond which reverting to the former perspective from which we viewed the world may prove difficult, if not impossible. Here, threshold concepts are described as potential instigators of irreversible qualitative transformations in epistemological and ontological development and are thus proposed as a lens through which to investigate transformations in the ways of knowing and being of educational developers.

Manuscript 3: “Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development” The third manuscript reports on an empirical study designed to identify threshold concepts in educational development. As there is currently a collective effort in the field of educational development to conceptualise the identity and roles of educational developers, threshold concepts are used as a lens for uncovering the ways of knowing and ways of being of educational developers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four experienced educational developers from Canadian universities. The analysis focussed on identifying commonalities across participants in the ideas that have been threshold concepts for them in their careers as educational developers. The conclusion reflects upon the meaning of the term “development,” which lies at the heart of our work and identities as educational developers.

Dissertation Summary, Conclusions, and Implications The final section of the dissertation presents a summary of findings from each of the three manuscripts. Drawing on insights from Manuscripts 1 and 2, a model of epistemic beliefs development is proposed. This model is then related to the threshold concepts that emerged from the study reported in Manuscript 3. The result of this analysis leads to an exploration of the implications of adopting a developmental approach to our work in this field. 20

References

Curren, R. R. (1998). Education, history of philosophy of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy . London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N014SECT1 Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3-56. doi:10.3102/0091732X020001003 Gaarder, J. (1994). Sophie's World: A novel about the history of philosophy (P. Moller, Trans.). New York, USA: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Kahn, C. H. (1998). Sophists. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A110 Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 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: Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (pp. 412- 424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Robinson, D., & Groves, J. (2004). Introducing philosophy (Original ed. 1998). Cambridge, UK: Icon Books.

MANUSCRIPT 1 Towards an Explanation of Epistemic Beliefs Development Julie A. Timmermans McGill University

Manuscript in preparation for submission to Educational Psychologist

Introduction As you may have remarked from personal experience, a good conversation involves both speaking and listening, yet the value of the latter quality is often greatly underestimated. Throughout my exploration of the literature on epistemic beliefs, I have been captivated by the quality of the conversation among researchers in this area. And there are many recurrent themes in this conversation, such as issues of construct definition and appropriate methodologies, issues concerning the domain-generality or the discipline-specificity of epistemic beliefs, and issues of the relationship of epistemic beliefs to cognitive and motivational processes. During the past fifteen years, articles (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), books (Bendixen & Feucht, Eds., 2010; Hofer & Pintrich Eds., 2002; Khine, Ed., 2008), and special journal volumes (Educational Psychologist, 2004, 39(1) ) have periodically emerged summarizing the current state of research, highlighting specific challenges, and proposing avenues for future research. With such an approach to their scholarship, researchers have created a community of researchers and an identifiable body of knowledge, both significant assets for a novice entering the field. While I am intrigued by many of the themes in the epistemic beliefs literature, and acknowledge that, in some ways, they are all interrelated, the thread of the conversation that has most captured my attention is the ongoing discussion concerning the developmental nature of these beliefs. There exist many models in this literature that explore the qualitative differences in individuals’ epistemic beliefs. Perry’s (1970) seminal work, “Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme” provides a foundation for most of the subsequent models, such as Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule’s (1986/1997) “Womens’ Ways of Knowing;” Kuhn’s (1991) argumentative reasoning model; Baxter Magolda’s (1992) “Knowing and Reasoning in College;” and King & Kitchener’s (1994) Reflective Judgment Model. Furthermore, there tends to be agreement that there exists a developmental progression 22 in individuals’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing (e.g., Bendixen 2002; Bendixen and Rule, 2004; Hofer, 2001; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Pintrich, 2002; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) that evolves “as their ability to make meaning evolves” (Hofer, 2001, p. 356). This evolution is generally characterized as a movement from absolutism or objectivism, where knowledge is perceived as either right or wrong; to relativism or subjectivism, where all perspectives are seen as equally valid; to evaluativism, where individuals understand that knowing is context-bound and where they develop the ability to judge the quality of arguments and commit to a position. Yet, while most models suggest that individuals’ epistemic beliefs do indeed become increasingly complex or integrated, and most in fact have their roots in Piaget’s (1950, 1954, 1963) model of cognitive development (Hofer, 2001, p. 356; Rule & Bendixen, 2010), there is a rather marked variation in the explicitness with which the developmental aspect of epistemic beliefs is emphasized. Hofer (2001) further clarifies that while none of those who have proposed such models would claim that these are ‘pure’ developmental models with hierarchically integrated stages and invariant sequences – and several have been careful to provide disclaimers to this effect – these models carry other developmental assumptions. They share with the traditional models of cognitive (Piaget, 1950, 1954), moral (Kohlberg, 1969), or ego development (Loevinger, 1976) an interactionist, constructivist, cognitive developmental view of the individual’s evolving understanding of the world. (p. 356) There appears, however, to be hesitancy in identifying epistemic beliefs as developmental. This hesitancy may perhaps be more easily understood when seen in the light of the observation that “stylistic distinctions are non-judgmental” (Kegan, 1994, p. 229). There is no inherent claim of superiority of one style over another. Yet, as soon as we introduce the notion of progression, we introduce the possibility of value judgments related to the various stances. This hesitancy to characterize epistemic beliefs as developmental has perhaps prevented us from gaining a sounder understanding of how individuals’ epistemic evolution proceeds. Yet there comes a time when we must turn from taxonomy to ontogeny. That is, when we must turn from understanding the ways in which things are classified (an inherently static view), to understanding where these things originated, how they develop, and toward what end they are developing (an inherently dynamic view). Kegan (1982) observes that 23

This shift – from entity to process, from static to dynamic, from dichotomous to dialectical—is a shift which H. K. Wells (1972) notices in the historical development of modes of scientific thought. The first step is classification […] but the next step after classification is ontogeny; the attention turns to origins, development, and direction of the phenomenon. In just the last 150 years, Wells says, nearly every social and natural science has made this transformation from a taxonomic, entity-oriented perception of the phenomenon of investigation to a developmental, process–oriented perception: in astronomy with La Place (1832); in geology with Lyell (1833); in logic with Hegel (1892) and Feuerbach (1846); in history and political economy with Marx (1931); in biology with Darwin (1889). And in psychology with Freud and Piaget. (pp. 13-14) And, it seems now, in the research on epistemic beliefs. The ultimate intention of this manuscript is therefore to propose an explanation of the development of epistemic beliefs – an explanation which may ultimately provide the basis for a framework of epistemic beliefs development. One of the intentions of proposing such an explanation is to address, and perhaps allay, concerns regarding some of the undesirable connotations that have made their way into accounts of development. As I review the literature pertaining to the development of epistemic beliefs, I will draw primarily on three key sources which I feel offer the most insight into the developmental processes and mechanisms underlying epistemic belief change. The first is Bendixen and Rule’s “Integrative Personal Epistemology Model,” a model originally proposed in a special issue of Educational Psychologist (2004, volume 39) dedicated to Personal Epistemology. Bendixen and Rule’s (2004) Integrative Model provides a synthesis of the key topics raised in the other articles of the special issue – articles by Baxter Magolda (2004), King and Kitchener (2004), Schommer- Aikins (2004), Hofer (2004b), and Louca, Elby, Hammer, & Kagey (2004) – articles which capture the differing approaches to the study of personal epistemology (Bendixen & Rule, 2004; Hofer, 2004a). Hofer (2004a) comments that “this integrated working model of personal epistemology […] may provide a guiding framework for both research and educational practice” (p. 2). A further strength of this model, updated in 2010 (Rule & Bendixen, 2010), is its elaboration of a hitherto rather ill-understood and sparsely-analysed issue in the literature on the development of epistemic beliefs – a mechanism of epistemic belief change. The proposed mechanism builds on Bendixen’s (2002) earlier work in this area, on which I also draw. A 24 second source to which I will turn is King and Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model (1994), as their model offers “the most extensive developmental scheme with epistemological elements” (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 102). Indeed, in their original work, as well as in subsequent work on the scheme (e.g., 2004; Kitchener, King, & DeLuca, 2006), King and Kitchener provide a clear and thorough discussion of the cognitive developmental underpinnings of their model. Finally, I turn for insight to Perry’s (1970) model of intellectual and ethical development of college students. Here, Perry explicitly outlines the developmental assumptions underlying his model – the model on which almost all subsequent work in epistemic beliefs is based, including Bendixen and Rule’s (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) Integrative Model. Perry’s later work on his scheme (1981, 1988) is highly valuable and offers a tremendously detailed account of both the cognitive and emotional nature of transitions between stages of epistemic development. A significant portion of this manuscript will also be devoted to examining how current questions of epistemic development may best be addressed by looking outside the field of educational psychology. As people trained or training to become disciplinary experts, we may so easily become mired in our own contexts that we may fail to consider that the questions about which we feel so passionate are the same questions that drive our colleagues in other fields. The questions of the processes and mechanisms of development are not only questions of educational psychology, but also those of the fields in which we are rooted: philosophy, biology, and psychology. In searching for a better understanding of development, I therefore seek to identify the deeper principles that at once underlie, transcend, and thus unify our specific contextual concerns. Throughout my investigation, I also draw great inspiration and insight from the work of esteemed adult developmental psychologist Robert Kegan. In his pioneering work, “The Evolving Self,” (1982) Kegan presents his Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning- Making, an elegant theory of the development of meaning-making across the lifespan. This theory is itself an exquisite synthesis of philosophy, cognitive psychology, and humanistic psychology. Here, Kegan posits that individuals’ abilities to construct meaning evolve through regular periods of stability and change throughout their lifespan. He further theorises that what is transforming as we advance through successive stages of meaning-making during our lives are our ways of knowing, the epistemologies, which shape the “window” or “lens through which one looks at the world” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 3). Kegan’s body of work (e.g., 1982, 1994, 25

2000; Kegan & Lahey, 2001, 2009) therefore offers great insight as we work towards a deeper understanding of epistemic beliefs development. As I propose various principles of development that emerge from this cross-disciplinary investigation, I will highlight the ways in which the epistemic beliefs literature contributes to or may draw from these principles. My hope in undertaking this project is to contribute to the call within the research on epistemic beliefs (e.g., Bendixen & Rule, 2004; Pintrich, 2002; Schraw, 2001; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) to articulate an integrative model of development– a model that provides a common basis from which to continue conversations on this important issue.

What is Development? On the Motion of Evolution

“Life is an eternal becoming, or it’s nothing.” (Dee Hock, as told to Debold, 2002)

Crucial to forming an understanding of development is the idea of “motion”. Indeed, according to philosophers, this motion is at once the nature of evolution, and the source of evolution. In examining the nature of evolution, Heraclitus famously said that “we cannot step twice into the same river. When I step into the river for the second time, neither I nor the river are the same” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 35). Heraclitus’ belief that there was an unabiding “flow” and “flux” in nature (Long, 1998; Robinson & Groves, 2004) foreshadows biological explanations of evolution (to which we will turn later). Indeed, it seems that the earliest western philosophers were perhaps the first biologists, for they were “concerned with the origins and nature of the physical world and the explanation of celestial and other natural phenomena” (Cooper, 1998, 2004). The question of the source of evolution is perhaps a more spiritual matter. Heraclitus spoke of a “universal reason” guiding nature and guiding people (Gaarder, 1994, p. 35); Aristotle believed in a “first mover” or “God” which influenced the motion of planets and stars, which in turn influenced “movement on Earth” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 114). This belief in, and perhaps reverence for, a life force that eludes tactile sensation and defies linguistic definition transcends ancient philosophy and religious affiliation. Indeed, this energy of motion is also felt in more current accounts of psychology. In introducing his book, “The Evolving Self,” Kegan (1982) writes that This is a book of psychology […] in the literal sense: psyche and logos, a reckoning of the spirit. “The spirit,” wrote Hegel in the preface to The Phenomenology of Mind, “is 26

never at rest but always engaged in ever progressive motion, in giving itself a new form. (p.1)

As humans, in what ways does this “ever progressive motion” manifest itself in our psyches? Kegan passionately contends that “the activity of being a person is the activity of meaning- making” and that the most fundamental thing we do with what happens to us is organize it. We literally make sense. Human being is the composing of meaning, including, of course, the occasional inability to compose meaning, which we often experience as the loss of our composure. (1982, p. 11)

Meaning is, in its origins, a physical activity (grasping, seeing), a social activity (it requires another), a survival activity (in doing it, we live). Meaning, understood this way, is the primary human motion, irreducible. It cannot be divorced from the body, from social experience, or from the very survival of the organism. Meaning depends on someone who recognizes you. Not meaning, by definition, is utterly lonely. Well-fed, warm, and free of disease, you may still perish if you cannot “mean.” (Kegan, 1982, pp. 18-19) Thus, Kegan introduces an evolutionary component to this activity of meaning-making, an activity we have seen as being at the root of many educational psychologists’ views of the learning process.

The “E-motion” of Evolution A review of the literature on the development of epistemic beliefs shows that most models of epistemic beliefs “include, at least, an implicit consideration of affect in their models” (Bendixen & Rule, 2004, p. 75) In their updated model, Rule and Bendixen (2010) underscore the important role played by emotions in the development of epistemic beliefs, yet they do not delve deeply into this topic. Consequently, important questions remain regarding the nature of the influence of affect in the epistemic developmental process. Yet, these questions no longer involve musings regarding sequence, such as “Does cognition precede affect?” or “Does affect 27 precede cognition?”, as they may have years ago. Questions may now relate to the notion of the inextricable interrelatedness of cognition and emotion. As I noted in the introduction, Kegan’s theory of the development of meaning-making is a synthesis of both cognitive and humanistic psychology. Resulting from this synthesis is the proposition of a theory that does not privilege cognition or affect, yet one that recognizes that “evolutionary activity is intrinsically cognitive, but it is no less affective; we are this activity and we experience it. Affect is essentially phenomenological, the felt experience of motion (hence, ‘e-motion’)” (Kegan, 1982, pp. 81-82). As we will see later, this conceptualisation of affect has deep implications for the ways in which we then view the transitions inherent in the developmental process. Thus, we may begin to answer our question “What is development?” by saying that development is motion, both cognitive and affect. While we will continue to examine the principles underlying what development is, we will now take a small detour in addressing the essential question of “What is developing?”.

What is Developing and to What End? The Search for Essence and End Points One of the key issues in discussions of epistemic beliefs development is disagreement among researchers about what lies at the “core of epistemological thinking” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 400). Pintrich (2002) notes that this issue is inevitably tied to a lack of consensus in construct definition that has plagued the research on epistemic beliefs since its beginnings, and yet, although there is lack of consensus, the various definitions of epistemic beliefs are still “broadly consistent” (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002, p. 122). For most researchers, the construct of personal epistemology includes the nature of knowledge and knowing (Bendixen & Rule, 2004; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Pintrich, 2002), which is comprised of four dimensions: beliefs about the certainty of knowledge, the simplicity of knowledge, the source of knowledge, and the justifications for knowing (Bendixen & Rule, 2004, Pintrich, 2002). Kuhn and Weinstock (2002) argue that the cognitive development literature identifies the multidimensional nature of stage models as both a significant strength and a significant weakness. On a positive note, the identification of multiple characteristics allows for a rich qualitative description of what is developing at each stage. A significant drawback, however, is the lack of coherence that often characterizes such descriptions; that is, each stage might not 28 always describe each dimension, and/or new dimensions might appear, thereby making it difficult to trace a developmental process and trajectory for a particular phenomenon. Consequently, Kuhn and Weinstock (2002) focus on identifying the essence of what is developing in epistemic beliefs “in the simplest, most parsimonious terms” (p. 123). This moves us toward two important goals. Firstly, it allows us to review past studies and determine if there exist developmental commonalities across the various models (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Pintrich, 2002). Secondly it enables us to “ancho[r] epistemological development in a broader context of what has preceded it developmentally and what else is developing cognitively” (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002, p. 122). The crucial question of “What is developing?” is not unique to the realm of epistemic beliefs, but also burdens researchers in the area of conceptual change (diSessa, 2006), and, I would posit, researchers in most areas in which construct definitions are at issue. This question, in fact, concerned the earliest Greek philosophers. Gaarder (1994) explains that there existed a shared belief among ancient Greek philosophers that “nothing comes from nothing” (p. 41). Parmenides, for example “had refused to accept the idea of change in any form. […] His intelligence could not accept that ‘something’ could suddenly transform itself into ‘something’ completely different” (p. 41). This, then, was the “problem of change,” the question of “How could one substance suddenly change into something else?” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 35). The assumption, therefore, among the Greeks, was that “ ‘something’ had always existed” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 33). In an edited volume entitled “Reframing the Conceptual Change Approach in Learning and Instruction,” Baltas (2007) examines the notion of an essential ‘something’ changing in conceptual change. He states that the fact that […] ‘something’ remains invariant is faithfully reflected in the pertinent “Eureka!” experience, for this is an experience that cannot engage but a single thing at both its ends: after having undergone it, we understand exactly what we were incapable of understanding before. (p. 66) Baltas suggests that what we were incapable of understanding before were our background ‘assumptions’. These background ‘assumptions’ (in quotation marks), which “were formlessly taken along as a matter of course and to which, accordingly, questions could not be addressed,” once disclosed, become assumptions (without quotation marks), that is, “proposition[s] that can be doubted and thence conceptually and experimentally examined … becom[ing] open to 29 rejection, revision, justification, and so forth” (Baltas, 2007, p. 66). Baltas further posits that if we adopt a Kuhnian perspective and look at conceptual change as paradigm change, then we might view change as the disclosure of one, or a set of, background ‘assumptions’ (pp. 63-64). Piaget, too, was concerned with the issue of the existence of an essential ‘something’ in the development of consciousness. Ferrari, Pinard, and Runions (2001) state that Piaget was deeply concerned with epistemology, and all epistemological theories try to explain how the subject and the object interact to generate knowledge [Piaget & Garcia, 1991; Smith, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c]. Because becoming conscious presupposes a distinction between the conscious subject as knower and the object of consciousness as known, for Piaget, the subject-object relationship lies at the heart of the problem of consciousness. (p. 197) We also see this notion of essence taken up by Kegan in his discussion of the evolution of our meaning-making activities. Kegan (1982; with Debold, 2002) claims that the qualitatively different ways in which we make meaning throughout our lives reflect distinctions in what we view as subject and what we view as object. What I mean by ‘object’ are those aspects of our experience that are apparent to us and can be looked at, related to, reflected upon, engaged, controlled, and connected to something else. We can be objective about these things, in that we don’t see them as “me.” But other aspects of our experience we are so identified with, embedded in, fused with, that we just experience them as ourselves. This is what we experience subjectively – the ‘subject’ half of the subject-object relationship. (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 3) Finally, we see this idea of ‘something’ adopted up by Kuhn and Weinstock (2002) in their proposal that the “essence” of epistemic beliefs is the “subjective and objective dimensions of knowing” (p. 123). (The terms “subjective” and “objective” are used here in their traditional sense and are not to be confounded with the “subject” and “object” of Kegan’s theory described above.) Broadly then, a developmental trajectory of epistemic beliefs involves a qualitative progression in “what it means to make a claim” (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002, p. 123). This progression is initially dominated by an “objective” view of making claims (i.e. claims as copies). This is then followed by a “radical shift” to a “subjective” view that claims are opinions. Finally, the ultimate goal of “coordinating” the objective and subjective dimensions is 30 achieved, and claims are understood as judgments made with specific contexts (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002, p. 123). This idea of “coordinating” the subjective and objective dimensions of essence enables us to conceptualise an end point in the development of epistemic beliefs. Conceptualizing an end point addresses an issue that has remained nebulous due to disagreements regarding what characterizes the core of these beliefs (Pintrich, 2002). Pintrich (2002) summarizes that, in spite of disagreement about an end point of epistemic development, most models converge in their support of more “sophisticated” evaluativist beliefs characterizing the nature of knowledge and knowing toward the end of the developmental cycle. This support stems from findings across several studies that point to a positive relationship between advanced epistemic beliefs and educational achievement (Rule & Bendixen, 2010). As Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock (2000) remark, however, inherent in this view is a belief that “reasoned argument is worthwhile and the most productive path to knowledge”. Consequently, increasingly present in researchers’ discourse is a note cautioning that the evaluativist end point observed in most models may in fact be a product of the Western cultural context in which our education systems are embedded (Gottlieb, 2007; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Holmes, 2010; Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002; K. Muis, personal communication, June 8, 2007; van Rossum & Hamer, 2010). Furthermore, Gottlieb (2007) makes the following relevant observation: If research is showing that the onset and developmental trajectory of epistemic beliefs may vary across domains and across cultures, might it not be possible that variation exists in end points as well? We must therefore be cautious not to represent evaluativism as a universally-desirable trait. How, then, could a desirable end point be conceptualised? If we pause for a moment to reflect on this question, its very nature may seem somewhat odd, for we are essentially asking, “Where does development end?”. As educators, we may seek an end point in development that would ideally be achievable during the course of, for example, an undergraduate or graduate program – a tangible, qualifiable, and, often of great importance in higher education contexts, quantifiable point at which learners may be deemed to have completed their development. Yet, as human beings, our intuition and, perhaps, hope, is that development is more a question of a dynamic and continuous unfolding during which the possibility of becoming our higher selves remains feasible. 31

Kegan’s Constructive Developmental Theory allows us to consider this question in greater depth. If we consider the definition of development we have constructed thus far based on Kegan’s theory – that development is essence in motion – then, as we have seen, we may consider the essence of our epistemic beliefs, subject and object, as moving towards a specific type of coordination. Thus, as Kegan explains, at the beginning of our lives, we are entirely composed of “subject,” entirely embedded in our perceptions, and unable to reflect on them. Our lives are then composed of a series of qualitative shifts in the coordination of subject and object, with an increasing tendency to move what was “subject” to “object”. Thus, a possible end point would be an “emptying of the subject into the object so that there is, in a sense, no subject at all – that is, you are not looking out on the world from any vantage point that is apart from it. You are taking on the world’s perspective” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 4). While this coordination speaks of a great complexity of human nature, Kegan (with Debold, 2002, p. 9) also advocates that it reflects a cross-cultural perspective of the development of human consciousness: This creates a trajectory that you start to see reflected in both Eastern and Western conceptions of higher stages of consciousness, a convergence of thought that has to do with forms of increasing complexity that move you toward the summit of complexity, or a summit of this special simplicity that recognizes the whole. This seems a hopeful and, more importantly, non-judgmental way to conceptualise an end point in the development of epistemic beliefs – one that transcends constraints of domain and culture. I offer the above exploration of essence from various perspectives as evidence that identifying and agreeing upon what is “essence” in the development of epistemic beliefs is indeed a worthwhile pursuit if we hope to move forward in this area. The question now remains as to what principles might underlie these shifts of ‘assumptions’ to assumptions, of what is subject to what is object in Kegan’s terms, and these coordinations of what is objective and subjective in Kuhn and Weinstock’s terms. To address this question, we examine the developmental principles of emergence, self-organisation, and nested hierarchies, and thereby pursue our investigation of “What is development?”.

What is Development? The Principles of Emergence, Self-Organisation, and Nested Hierarchies

Emergence Based on our exploration of the concepts of motion and essence, we may begin to define development as the movement of essence. But what does this movement of essence look like? I propose that this is not the jarring motion of radical supplantations of one system with another, but rather one of emergence, of a gradual rising from a state of embeddedness. The complexity of Perry’s (1970) and King and Kitchener’s (1994) models attest to this. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) observe that the nine positions of Perry’s model “have typically been clustered into four sequential categories (Knefelkamp & Slepitza, 1978; Kurfiss, 1988; Moore, 1994): dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment within relativism” (p. 91), with each category subsuming two or more positions. Similarly, King and Kitchener (1994) group their seven stages of reflective judgment into the three categories of “pre-reflective thinking,” “quasi-reflective thinking,” and “reflective thinking”. Thus, in Perry’s scheme, one does not move suddenly from holding a dualist epistemic stance to holding a multiplistic stance, from believing that “authorities know the ‘truth’ ” to “there is no truth and everyone’s opinion is equally valid”. Similarly, in King and Kitchener’s model, one does not develop sudden insight that leads to the use of reflective judgments. Rather, in both models, the groundwork for the characteristics that we observe in more advanced stages of the models is laid in the earlier stages. In his examination of the diverse theoretical approaches to the process of change in the literature on psychological development, Lewis (2000) identifies the general principle of emergence as a way to mend and thereby unify the very fractured nature of this field. He states that the word emergence has a special, even radical, significance in scientific explanation: it refers to the coming-into-existence of new forms or properties through ongoing processes intrinsic to the system itself. […] It is a general principle that can be applied to understanding change and novelty in all natural systems. (p. 38) In fact, in his article, “The Promise of Dynamic Systems Approaches for an Integrated Account of Human Development” Lewis (2000) reveals the cross-scientific notion of emergence as one of the cornerstones of Dynamic Systems Theory – a theory described as providing a “creative new 33 approach to understanding development” (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 278). Unlike other theories of development which privilege either biological factors (e.g., Piaget’s theory of cognitive development ) or environmental factors (e.g., Bandura’s social learning theory) and where stages of development may at times be interpreted as static, prescriptive, and linear, Dynamic Systems Theory offers an interpretation of development as the emergence of increasingly-organised structures “that are both active and adaptive as they manage the variability that is present in the environment” (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 245). Consequently, the “new”ness of which Lewis (2000) speaks in the emergence of new structures is not a question of the sudden apparition of a novel form or property. Rather, if we return to our earlier musings on motion and if, indeed, “nothing comes from nothing,” then “something” must come from a “something” that precedes it. If we see this “something” as being the essence of the particular phenomenon under study, then what we are addressing are the “shifts” (Kegan, 1982; Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002) or “disclosures” (Baltas, 2007) of aspects of this essence. In referring to the “Eureka!” moment described earlier, Baltas (2007) claims that it is precisely the new understanding of the “something” which we were unable to understand previously that renders “the new paradigm, not merely different from the old, but the one that succeeds it” (p. 74). This lends support to the contention within Dynamic Systems Theory that “higher levels of the system have greater diversity in function, each one being comprised of subsystems that have more limited functions” (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 27). Thus, the skills of the lower subsystems “emerg[e] and re-emerg[e] with a greater sense of inner unity” (Erikson, 1959, p. 51), and rather than being removed, lost, or forgotten, allow individuals to function at a higher level while continuing to draw on skills gained at lower levels when necessary (van Rossum & Hamer, 2010). In the literature on human (cognitive, moral, epistemic, etc.) development, these new “structures,” “organisations,” or “paradigms” are often termed “stages,” and while the definition of the term “stage” is not explicitly identified as a point of contention in the epistemic beliefs literature, the issue of whether the development of epistemic beliefs should be characterised as stage-like or not most certainly is (e.g., Gottlieb, 2007; Pintrich, 2002). Even Perry (1970) and King and Kitchener (1994), whose models are the most explicitly developmental, at times reveal some hesitation in qualifying their models as stage-like. Perry’s concerns relate to what he and 34 others view as the “static” connotation of the term “Position” and to value judgments often associated with differences in stages. King and Kitchener’s recent concerns relate to evidence from their 10-year longitudinal study showing that the strict sequentiality implied by stage models does not account for the “wave”-like nature of the development of reflective judgment (Kitchener, King, & DeLuca, 2006, p. 75). A further concern with a stage-like approach to the study of development has to do with the content of these stages and as what may be perceived as an attempt to “pigeonhole” (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 216) an individual’s epistemic position. The question regarding the stage-like nature of development is certainly not unique to the study of epistemic beliefs, however. King and Kitchener (1994) note that “the issue of whether cognitive growth is stage-like is controversial in developmental psychology and education (Brainard, 1978; Fischer, 1980; Fischer and Bullock, 1981; Flavell, 1971; Schaie, 1977-78)” (p. 21-22). Indeed, the organismic (or modernist) worldview of human development (Goldhaber, 2000) which is founded upon the assumptions that there is something orderly, progressive, and enduring in the way that people develop has historically come under attack by those holding contextualist (or postmodernist) views for a failure to consider the deep and pervasive influence of context on the quality and direction of development. In a fascinating illumination of the modernism – postmodernism debate, Chandler (1995) eloquently describes postmodernism’s rebellion against modernism’s ideas of universal stages and sequences in development. Indeed, some post-modernists claim that development is so entirely context-bound, and individuals’ contexts so variable, that any attempt to search for universal patterns and end points in development is an attempt to perpetuate hierarchies and oppression. In his analysis of postmodern arguments against modern views of development, Chandler (1995) remarks, however, that while a certain incredulity toward the grand political narratives of the past may well be justified, the same suspicions may actually not be appropriate when attention is re- focused on those smaller potato matters having to do with the separate psychological development of individual persons. [… ] Many of post-modernism’s hallmark questions concerning the essentially political consequences of modernity may actually be irrelevant to the job of deciding whether there is anything like human nature, or universal trajectories in the course of individual psychological development. (p. 8) 35

In light of the previous concerns, I believe that it is of vital importance that we address the definition of a stage, for our discussion here will yield insight not only into the important questions of what development is, and, ultimately, how it occurs, but also into whether or not it would be appropriate to characterize the development of epistemic beliefs as stage-like. We begin our construction of this definition with an exploration of the fundamental notion of self- organisation.

Self-Organisation The concept of emergence examined earlier leads us to the concept of self-organisation, another cornerstone of Dynamic Systems Theory (Lewis, 2000). Self-organisation encompasses the notion that organisms respond to their environments by adapting their internal structures to meet the demands of the environment, thus ensuring their survival. Thus, as Newman and Newman powerfully state, “organization is essential in order to sustain life” (2007, p. 277). Far from being a uniquely biological principle, however, self-organisation has been observed as a cross-scientific principle accounting for “the emergence of order” in such fields as cosmology, physics, chemistry, and ecology (Lewis, 2000, p. 40). Piaget, too, was a proponent of the principle of self-organisation (e.g., Ferrari et al., 2001; Newman & Newman, 2007; Prawat, 1996), for he also felt that it might provide a point of concilience [Wilson, 1998] for the developmental sciences, offer[ing] a common language and conceptual framework for studying physical and psychological development [Chapman, 1991; Lewis, 2000, Piaget, 1977a, 1977b; Piaget and Garcia, 1991], including the development of knowledge about the world and one’s own conscious mind. (Ferrari et al., 2001, pp. 210-211) Both King and Kitchener’s (1994) and Perry’s (1970) models are based on Piaget’s work, and each model consequently reflects the notion of self-organisation. Perry (1970) is often cited for commenting that organisms organise, and as human organisms, what we organise is meaning. In fact, each position of Perry’s scheme reflects a “structure” (p. 72), a particular organisation of meaning. In using the term “stage” which has a particular meaning in the cognitive development literature, King and Kitchener (1994) also claim that “Reflective Judgment stages are organized” (p. 24). Commenting on the value of the principle of self-organisation in personality theory, Kegan (with Scharmer, 2000) notes that 36

since about the 1940s we’ve had a form of self theory within the field of psychology. This is the idea that our internal and behavioral responses are not just moment-to-moment responses to stimuli, but that there is something like a central organizing tendency, or the ego, the meaning-interpretive dimension of human personality. You can locate a sort of psychological or epistemological center of gravity, a central tendency that is consistent over a period of time. It is what gives us the experience that knowing you today means that there’s something I know about you tomorrow as well. (p. 13)

Nested Hierarchies From the above discussion, we may conclude that what is emerging in development is, as implied earlier, a particular kind of order, a system of nested hierarchies (e.g., Entwistle & Walker, 2002) where “each stage stems from the previous one” (Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972, p. 458). Furthermore, with each subsequent order comes greater organisational complexity in which lower-order systems are progressively subordinated to higher-order systems (e.g., Berger, 2006; Kegan, 1982; Lewis, 2000; McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Connor, & Baker, 2006; Beck, with Roemischer, 2002). Perry (1970) notes that his scheme is developmental “in the special sense originally derived from biology in that it consists of an orderly progress in which more complex forms are created by the differentiation and reintegration of earlier, simple forms (Werner, 1948; Witkin et al., 1962)” (p. 44). As such, “each Position both includes and transcends the earlier ones, as the earlier ones cannot do with the later” (Perry, 1981, p. 78). Viewed from another angle, Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) contend that this “sequential progression represents movement from a less adequate psychological state to a more adequate psychological state” (p. 489). I wish to draw attention to the concept of “adequacy,” for I believe that it raises our awareness of the judgement-laden concept of “better” and to the “sophisticated” versus “naïve” dichotomy that have woven their way into the language of epistemic beliefs development. In her role as discussant at a conference session on epistemic beliefs, Sinatra remarked that “naïve versus sophisticated doesn’t quite capture the phenomenon” and that there is a need to find “more descriptive labels” (G. Sinatra, personal communication, August 29, 2007). Bromme, Kienhues, & Stahl’s (2008) recent work serves to clarify the notion of the sophisticatedness of epistemic beliefs, by proposing that it be interpreted as “ ‘flexibility’ of 37 epistemological judgments toward both different disciplines and different contexts” (p. 431). There remain in this definition, however, traces of judgment – a sense that flexibility in the use of epistemic judgments is inherently better than a lack of flexibility. And while this may be so, further exploration of the relationship between epistemic beliefs and task is required. The notion of “adequate” focuses on how “suitable” (http://dictionary.oed.com), for example, a particular approach to learning is to meet the demands of a task. The notions of “better” or “sophisticated,” on the other hand, often carry with them value judgments which seem to bear more directly on the self-worth of the individual, rather than on the skill under study. “Better” is “said of persons, in respect of physical, mental, or esp. moral qualities; also, of social standing” (http://dictionary.oed.com). The term “sophisticated” is often used in referring to people or theories viewed as “refined,” “highly developed or complicated” (http://dictionary.oed.com). Interestingly, many of the definitions proposed for the word “sophisticated” in the Oxford English Dictionary (http://dictionary.oed.com) suggest a lack of authenticity, purity, or genuineness. Thus, while it may be seen as “better” for a learner to hold “sophisticated” versus “naïve” epistemic beliefs, conceptions of teaching, etc., or to adopt a “deep” versus a “surface” approach to learning, we must first examine the nature of learning tasks to determine if the sophisticated or deep approach is indeed the most suitable. We must resist the temptation to infuse observations of complexity of an individual’s epistemic beliefs with judgments of superiority (whether intellectual, moral, or otherwise), since later “orders of mind” (Kegan, 1994) are not “better,” they are merely more complex (Berger, 2006; McCauley et al., 2006). Essentially, then, what we are most interested in is the “fit” (Berger, 2006, p. 3; Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 9) between the level of an individual’s epistemic beliefs being used and the demands of a task. Now, however, we turn to an examination of these increasingly complex organisations, these stages, that form during our life span, and attempt to address the question, “What is a stage of development?”.

What is a Stage? On Balance and Evolutionary Truces Through our exploration of the concepts of motion, emergence, self-organisation, and nested hierarchies in the previous sections, we have laid a foundation for a partial definition of a stage and an understanding of the characteristics of stage models. By examining the notion of essence, we address the question of what is emerging and being organised into qualitatively different (e.g., Kegan, 1982; Lewis, 2000; Schunk, 2000) and more complex forms. More poetically, perhaps, stages are “defined by how children view the world” (Schunk, 2000, p. 234) and are a “window or a lens through which one looks at the world” (Kegan, 2002, p. 3). The movement to a new stage “creates a novel vantage point from where the preceding state of the investigation can be looked at anew” (Baltas, 2007, p. 66; emphasis in original). Captured in these descriptions of stages is the metaphor of sight. Another powerful image that Kegan (1982) uses to guide our understanding of stages is that of balance. We will now explore this concept of balance in more detail and examine the multiple ways in which it contributes to our understanding of the nature and processes of developmental change. Indeed, the language of balance permeates our daily lives: we are concerned with maintaining balance in the world’s ecosystems, with balancing our cheque books, balancing our diets, and finding work-life balance. This concern may be traced to ancient times, where cultural myths reveal that people sought ways to preserve the balance between “the forces of good and evil” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 25). Hippocrates believed that “when sickness occurs, it is a sign that Nature has gone off course because of physical or mental imbalance” and that “that the road to health for everyone is through moderation, harmony, and a ‘sound mind in a sound body’” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 56). “The ethics of both Plato and Aristotle contain echoes of Greek medicine: only by exercising balance and temperance will I achieve a happy and harmonious life” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 114). Piaget, drawing insight and inspiration from his training as a biologist, would say with respect to our cognitive development that the foundational factor explaining the process of development is equilibration (e.g., Kegan, 1982; Newman & Newman, 2007; Piaget, 1950), which “refers to a biological drive to produce an optimal state of equilibrium” (Schunk, 2000, p. 233). Certainly, Rule and Bendixen (2010) comment on the centrality of the notion of equilibration not only in Piaget’s work, but also in the work of other noted psychologists, such Dewey (1933) and Festinger (1957). Yet, as Kegan (1982) remarks, although equilibration is 39 central to Piaget’s account of the developing mind, it often remains unexamined, even in theories grounded in Piaget’s work. Consequently, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the notion of equilibration has had a limited place within the literature on the development of epistemic beliefs. Rule and Bendixen (2010) address this lacuna, however, and the notion of equilibration plays a central role in explicating the development of epistemic beliefs in their Integrative Model – a model firmly rooted in Piaget’s (1950, 1985) and Perry’s (1970) work (Rule & Bendixen, 2010, p. 110). In the development of epistemic beliefs, what we are balancing is essence (Kegan, 1982). Yet, the notion of balance suggests that there must be more than one component to this essence, and that some kind of tension between two or more elements must ultimately be resolved in order to obtain balance. In our earlier exploration of essence, we saw that Kuhn and Weinstock (2002) suggest that “the development that underlies the achievement of mature epistemological understanding is the coordination of the subjective and objective dimension of knowing” (p. 123; emphasis added). Kegan (1982) posits that the various stages in the development of meaning- making reflect qualitatively different balances in the subject-object relationship. This notion of essence as containing dual components suggests that what is being coordinated or balanced are, in fact, opposites. And there is strong evidence in the philosophical, biological, and psychological literatures that supports the existence of opposites in our ideas, physiologies, and psyches. Saussure posited that “binary opposites” characterize the structure of philosophical discourse; “Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss maintained that a system of binary codes operates in all cultures as their common logic” (Robinson & Groves, 2004, p. 160). Derrida’s deconstructive approach to reading philosophical texts suggests the existence of “multiple meanings at war with each other in the texts” (Robinson & Groves, 2004, p. 162). Biologists speak of “evolution and its periods of adaptation – of life organization – as involving a balance between differentiation and adaptation” (Kegan, 1982, p. 107). In psychology, Erikson’s (1959) psychosocial theory is an expression of the “polarities” that make up the crises individuals experience at each successive stage of development (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 218). Such polarities include, for example, the quest for intimacy versus isolation during young adulthood. Jung’s significant contribution to the field of adult developmental psychology lay in elucidating the process of individuation, “the process whereby a person develops unique traits” (Magen, Austrian, & Hughes, 2002, p. 37). He posits that our 40 psyches are made up of numerous opposing spheres which we attempt to unite. He powerfully describes a pair of opposites as being “one of the most fruitful sources of psychic energy” (p. 82). In their theories, Erikson and Jung also succeed in capturing how fundamentally unsettled we feel when our balance is threatened or disturbed. The resulting “crises” (Erikson, 1959) and “disequilibrium” (Jung, 1959) may be so powerful that they may lead to a feeling of “being torn apart” (Magen, Austrian, & Hughes, 2002, p. 187). Resulting from this process of interaction among opposites is not a static equilibrium, but what philosophers, biologists, and psychologists refer to as a dynamic equilibrium (e.g., Homeostasis, 2007; Kegan, 1982; Wood, 1998). This process of interaction among opposites will “inexorably continue” (Robinson & Groves, 2004, p. 78) throughout the course of development as systems continuously progress through periods of stability and change (Newman & Newman, 2007). Each stage consequently represents a qualitatively different and temporary “evolutionary truce” (Kegan, 1982) as an organism attempts to maintain balance (Newman & Newman, 2007). Each new truce involves a shift, or a new coordination in the balance of the elements of essence, disclosing more and more that in which we were embedded, thereby enabling us “to listen to what before [we] could only hear irritably, and … to hear irritably what before [we] could hear not at all” (Kegan, 1982, p. 105). Tension, however, seems inevitably to emerge between polar concepts which “gain their identity partly through their contrast with one another” (Blackburn, 2005, p. 281). Common contrasts include “man – woman; light-dark; reason-emotion; presence-absence” (Robinson & Groves, 2004, p. 162). With contrast, however, comes comparison, and with comparison comes the “privileging” of one element over another (Blackburn, 2005, p. 201; Robinson & Groves, 2004, p. 162). The “privileged terms,” then “‘slip into’ the systems that produce social and cultural hierarchies” (Robinson & Groves, 2004, p. 162). So too, in accounts of human development, tension exists between the notions of cognition and affect, with cognition often winning the privileged position. In elaborating his Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making, Kegan (1982) attempts to resolve the privileging of one element over another in adopting both a cognitive and human psychological approach. He explains that his

conception neither subsumes affectivity to the cognitive realm, as traditional Piagetians tend to do (Schaefer and Emerson, 1964), nor makes intellectual life the offspring servant of affect, as psychoanalysis tends to do. [ …] As Piaget himself has said (despite the inability of his own work to realize it fully): “There are not two psychic functions, nor are there two kinds of objects: all objects are simultaneously cognitive and affective” (1964, p. 39). This is because all objects are themselves the elaboration of an activity which is simultaneously cognitive and affective. (p. 83) This position supports Kohlberg and Mayer’s contention that “cognitive and affective development are parallel aspects of the structural transformations which take place in development” (1972, p. 457). Such an approach acknowledges what Kegan (1982) terms “the equal dignity” of cognition and affect, and of what he “considers the two greatest yearnings of human experience” (p. 107): the yearning for both autonomy (differentiation) and inclusion (integration) (pp. 108-109). As educators, we must therefore be acutely aware that the construction of meaning, the journey to each new truce, is both a cognitive and an emotional venture for learners. Perry (1981) writes compellingly of the emotional upheavals involved in the developmental process I have remarked elsewhere (Perry, 1978) on the importance we have come to ascribe to a student’s “allowing for grief” in the process of growth, especially in the rapid movement from the limitless potentials of youth to the particular realities of adulthood. Each of the upheavals of cognitive growth threatens the balance between vitality and depression, hope and despair. It may be a great joy to discover a new and more complex way of thinking and seeing; but yesterday one thought in simpler ways, and hope and aspiration were embedded in those ways. Now that those ways are left behind, must hope be abandoned too? It appears that it takes a little time for the guts to catch up with such leaps of the mind. (p. 108) Indeed, these emotional upheavals are particularly poignant, and, as educators we are witness to them as we accompany others on their journeys between stages of development. Elsewhere (Timmermans, 2010), the affective nature of these transitions is discussed in much greater detail, as we attempt to understand the process of change between these stages of development.

The above discussion of “balance,” “opposites,” and “affect” allows us to expand upon our definition of stages and our understanding of stage models. We may thus propose that stage models of epistemic beliefs development reflect the emergence, organisation, and balancing of the opposing elements of essence into qualitatively more complex forms through a system of nested hierarchies. This process of epistemic beliefs development is at once cognitive and deeply affective. The next question in our investigation of development will centre on how this balance is achieved. I will propose that it is through an ongoing, dialectical construction.

On the Dialectical Process of Balance Construction Our earlier discussion regarding the tension that emerges between opposites may perhaps be reconceptualised more usefully as a dialectic tension. Hoffman (1999) states that the word “dialectic” is “a word with many meanings” but, in its “classical sense,” it signifies “the apposition of thesis and antithesis” (p. 251). Rather than viewing the nature of the relationship between opposites as one of confrontation, however, we might view it as one of complementarity (Wood, 1998, p. 1). Introduced into our earlier discussion regarding the balancing of the opposing elements of essence as part of the motion of development, the notion of complementarity prepares us to understand the first of the three philosophical Dialectical Laws, “The Law of the Unity of Opposites” (e.g., Wood, 1998). This law stipulates that “the essences of things include differing and opposed, often complementary, elements or processes, and that essential change or development in the world occurs through the conflict of these opposed moments” (Wood, 1998, p. 1; emphasis added). This conflict, this tension, this dialectical nature of opposition implies that there is “interpenetration” (Wood, 1998), or interaction among these opposites. The following image of Yin and Yang proposed by Petrov (2002) (Figure 1.1), who examines the law of dialectics in the evolution of technology, is especially helpful and captures “the eternal motion … interaction and struggle” of opposites (p. 2).

Figure 1.1. Representation of Yin and Yang and the “interaction and struggle” of opposites (Petrov, 2002, p. 2).

How does the notion of dialectics contribute to our investigation of the development of epistemic beliefs? In fact, it provides a basis for better understanding Piaget’s theory of cognitive development on which, as we have seen, most models of epistemic beliefs are based. As Bendixen (2002) notes, however, “other than a nod to Piagetian disequilibrium, most theories of epistemological development do not examine in depth a causal mechanism for change” (p. 192). Thus, a central focus of Bendixen and Rule’s (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) Integrative Model of Personal Epistemology Development is the proposition of a “mechanism of change” that may account for the growth of epistemic beliefs. An exploration of the concept of dialectics may provide insight into this seemingly crucial mechanism of change. Like some other cognitive theories (e.g., information processing theory – Simon, 1979), Piaget’s theory of cognitive development has been criticized for proposing what some see as an essentially “dualistic” theory of development (e.g., Prawat, 1996), in which the role of the individual learner is pitted against the role of the social environment (Schunk, 2000). What we will now see, however, is that Piaget adopts a perspective in which the notion of “opposites” is much more reflective of complementarity and dynamic equilibrium than of duality. At a rather general level, what Piaget (1950) proposes is a “genetic epistemology,” a synthesis between philosophy and biology in order to examine and explain the evolution of knowledge (e.g., diSessa, 2006; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Kegan, 1982; Rule & Bendixen, 2010). More specifically, Piaget proposes that this process of development could be explained as a 44 means of integrating interactions (Ferrari et al., 2001) between the organism and the environment (Ferrari et al., 2001; Piaget, 1950), between the physiological and the psychological (Kegan, 1982), between neurological processes and conscious phenomena (Ferrari et al., 2001, p. 205), between mathematical thought and reality (Ferrari et al., 2001, p. 200; Piaget, 1950), and between assimilation and accommodation (Newman & Newman, 2007; Schunk, 2000) in the underlying process of equilibration (Piaget, 1950). As Kegan (1982) poetically explains, Whether in the study of the mollusk or the human child, Piaget’s principal loyalty was to the ongoing conversation between the individuating organism and the world, a process of adaptation shaped by the tension between the assimilation of the new experience to the old “grammar” and the accommodation of the old grammar to new experience. This terminal conversation is panorganic; it is central to the nature of all living things. (p. 43) What Piaget proposes, therefore, is that the construction of knowledge is the result of a conversation, a dialectical approach. Schunk (2000) describes that, within dialectical constructivism, “constructions are not invariably bound to the external world nor are they wholly the result of the workings of the mind; rather, they reflect the outcomes of mental contradictions that result from interactions with the environment” (p. 231). Furthermore, one of the fundamental assumptions of constructivism is that individuals are actively involved in the search for and construction of meaning (e.g., Driscoll, 2000; Ferrari et al., 2001; Perkins, 1999; Schunk, 2000). And while these constructions are not “invariably bound” to either the external or internal worlds, some forms of constructivism (e.g., schema-based constructivism – Prawat, 1996) “reserve to reason the more important role of providing form or structure to matter” (Prawat, 1996, p. 216), a notion that may be traced back to the philosophical influence of Kant on Piaget (Prawat, 1996). The dialectical nature of interactions between cognition and the environment is captured in Bendixen and Rule’s (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) Integrative Model of Personal Epistemology Development. The model proposed by Bendixen and Rule which examines the relationship between “epistemic climate (i.e., classroom conditions)” (Rule & Bendixen, 2010, p. 101) and epistemic beliefs development is thus one that supports a context-specific view of epistemic beliefs development. The model thereby addresses one of the aforementioned critiques of stage-models as not adequately accounting for the situated nature of cognition (e.g., Hofer, 2001). 45

Yet, given the rich theoretical roots of Rule and Bendixen’s (2010) model, their examination of the contextual nature of epistemic beliefs development may perhaps be expanded. In addition to being grounded in Piaget’s work, as explored earlier, the Integrative Model is also informed by Fischer (1980) and colleagues’ research (Fischer & Bidell, 1991, 1998), which is an application of Dynamic Systems Theory to the area of cognitive development (Newman & Newman, 2007). This research captures the dynamic and adaptive quality of cognitive structures as they respond to various environmental influences, be they supportive or constraining (Newman & Newman, 2007). These environmental influences extend beyond those most immediate and proximal to the individual and include influences from a complex array of interacting contexts in which an individual is embedded. Based on our above exploration of balances, opposites, and dialectics, we may now propose that a stage model of epistemic beliefs development reflects the emergence, organisation, and balancing of the opposing, yet complementary and interacting elements of essence into a qualitatively more complex system of nested hierarchies through a dialectical process. This process is both cognitive and affective. As noted earlier, however, the mechanisms that might account for change in the development of epistemic beliefs remain ill- defined in the literature (Bendixen & Rule, 2004). Consequently, we will now turn to a more in- depth investigation of a possible mechanism of change.

Towards the Elaboration of a Mechanism of Change In their article “An Integrative Approach to Personal Epistemology: A Guiding Model,” Bendixen and Rule (2004) state that a general consensus seems to exist among researchers that personal epistemologies develop in some constructivist manner (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; King & Kitchener, 1994). Be that as it may, several researchers in the field have pointed out that we are not very explicit in regard to the actual process of epistemological development, especially when it pertains to the underlying mechanism accounting for change (Bendixen, 2002; Burr & Hofer, 2002; R. Kitchener, 2002; Schraw, 2001). Indeed, Chandler’s (1987) statement that how epistemological development is accomplished “is little studied and poorly understood” (p. 154) still rings true today. (p. 70) 46

Hofer (2001) proposes several alternative perspectives from which the study of change may be approached in future research on epistemic beliefs development. The first is a cognitive- developmental perspective, a Piagetian perspective in which the processes of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration are key. Bendixen and Rule (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) note that many of the models (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 2004; Hofer, 2004b; King and Kitchener, 2004; Schommer-Aikins, 2004) used to inform their own Integrative Model adopt this perspective. The second perspective is a view of belief change as conceptual change in which “one needs to be dissatisfied with existing beliefs, understand the alternatives and find them viable, and make connections between new and old beliefs (Pintrich et al., 1993)” (p. 367). The third perspective proposed by Hofer (2001) is informed by the literature on theory change (Chinn & Brewer, 1993), which “suggests that there are multiple possibilities in individual responses to anomalous data, which include, for example, ignoring, rejecting, or reinterpreting the data” (Hofer, 2001, p. 367). As Gail Sinatra highlighted, understanding how development occurs continues to be an issue for researchers in the area of epistemic beliefs (G. Sinatra, personal communication, August 29, 2007). Rule and Bendixen (2010) further comment that, “many of the developmental theories […] refer indirectly to a mechanism of change but do not describe it in any detail” (p. 97). Yet, if we accept development as a goal for our interactions with learners, and if we agree that individuals’ epistemic beliefs play a role in this development, then it is important that we pursue our quest to understand the factors that might contribute to the growth of these epistemic beliefs. Consequently, the following section of the manuscript is dedicated to further understanding the instigation of the change process. And while I do not address each of the perspectives raised by Hofer (2001) explicitly, I do propose the following questions to capture some of the areas of interest shared by the various perspectives and to guide our investigation: What are common sources of change? Do sources of change originate within the individual or the environment? Is development a matter of quantitative change or qualitative change? I will investigate these questions, and others, and suggest a way of conceptualizing the instigation of change with respect to the development of epistemic beliefs. Earlier in this manuscript, we explored the notion of ‘balance’ in great detail. We reviewed the notion that organisms, be they simple or complex, are in a continuous state of self- organisation while they strive to achieve or maintain equilibrium and adapt to their 47 environments. Yet, Kegan notes that, in order to move forward, organisms must be thrown out of balance. “[O]rganisms organize,” he says, “that is their nature, and they are drawn to experiences of discrepancy in order to give them form” (with Debold, 2002, p. 9). Piaget, whose theory of cognitive development has, as we have seen, deep roots in biology (e.g., Newman & Newman, 2007), also evokes the notion of disequilibrium as central to the developmental process. Furthermore, many psychologists and educators have remarked that, in order for development to occur, learners must first perceive experiences, knowledge, information, or phenomena to be “dissonant” (Festinger, 1957), “surprising” (Murphy, 2003), “discrepant” (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993), “disjunctive” (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 229), “troublesome” (Perkins, 1999), “anomalous” (Chinn & Brewer, 1993) or “conflicting” (Driscoll, 2000). A state of disequilibrium represents what some researchers have termed “crisis” (e.g., Erikson, 1959; Kegan, 1982). Erikson (1959) speaks of the “psychosocial crisis,” a dynamic tension that arises as an individual experiences “discrepancy” between his/her competencies and the demands of the external world (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 233). Rather than implying a dramatic upheaval, however, “the word crisis in this context refers to a normal set of stresses and strains rather than to an extraordinary set of events” (Newman, & Newman, 2007, p. 218, emphais in original). Kegan (1982) remarks that the “crisis” is powerful, as it leads a person to the “limits” (p. 59) of his or her way of being in and knowing the world. If we acknowledge that an organism must somehow be disturbed, experience some sort of discrepancy or crisis in order to grow, the next two logical and interrelated questions to pursue in our investigation of the development of epistemic beliefs might be, “What are possible sources that create these discrepancies, instigating the loss or giving up of balance?” and “Do these sources of change/development originate in the individual or in the environment?” In fact, the latter question alludes to yet another long-standing dichotomy and debate in educational psychology. In addressing this question as it pertains to epistemic beliefs development Pintrich (2002) comments that there is no need for research that pits internal psychological mechanisms against the contextual features as facilitators of epistemological development. It will be more productive […] to have research that addresses how the internal and contextual factors work together to promote or constrain epistemological development. (p. 400) 48

Pintrich’s stance reflects the dialectical, interactionist approach suggested earlier and redirects our attention to the issue of “how necessary or sufficient are the different mechanisms” (2002, p. 403), rather than to the relative superiority of one over the other. As discussed earlier, Bendixen and Rule’s model (2004; Rule and Bendixen, 2010) provides a response to the call to elaborate a mechanism of epistemic beliefs change. The mechanism of change is the central focus of their model which accounts for both internal and external factors as contributing to epistemic beliefs development. Drawing heavily on insights gained by Perry (1970) through his work with college students, Rule and Bendixen’s (2010) discussion of the mechanism of change centres mostly on factors internal to the individual. They propose ‘epistemic doubt’ as the first of “three interrelated components” (2004, p. 71; Rule and Bendixen, 2010, p. 99) in the mechanism of change. The two other components, “epistemic volition” and “resolution strategies” will be discussed later. Bendixen and Rule (2004) explain that epistemic doubt involves “specifically questioning epistemological beliefs or weighing epistemological options” (p. 74) and that it can be interpreted “as a specific form of cognitive dissonance associated with questioning one’s beliefs about knowledge and knowing” (Rule & Bendixen, 2010, p. 99). And while contextual factors, such as epistemic climate, and, for example, peers in the individual’s proximal environment are seen as influencing and being influenced by that individual’s epistemic beliefs, discussion of these contextual influences remains rather limited. Hofer (2006, p. 90) states that “few researchers would likely claim that context does not play a role in both shaping and eliciting students’ epistemic beliefs” (emphasis added). Certainly, as Baxter Magolda (1999) notes, within the various models of epistemic beliefs, the highest levels all represent a form of contextual knowing, where learners account for features of the situation, as well as the opinions of others before constructing a particular stance. Yet, the exploration of the notion of context in the literature on epistemic beliefs remains recent and rather narrow. Holmes (2010) comments that although there has been a recent proliferation of literature examining the influence of context on epistemic beliefs (e.g., see Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle’s review, 2006), and that some of this work has explored the notion of context as including sociocultural context (e.g., Buehl & Alexander, 2006; Khine, 2008; Muis et al., 2006), the definition of context often remains limited to academic environments. Consequently, Marra and Palmer’s (2008; Palmer & Marra, 2008) proposal of an “ecological model” of epistemic 49 beliefs development, rooted in the work Bronfenbrenner (1977; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000) provides a refreshing infusion of texture and complexity into this discussion. Palmer and Marra (2008) depict the development of personal epistemic beliefs as being “influenced by a nested arrangement of reciprocally related environments (p. 339; Marra & Palmer, 2008, p. 110). The closest, most proximal, environments constitute the microsystems in which the individual is situated and represent “any daily activity in which the individual engages in a social role” (Marra & Palmer, 2008, p. 110). Taken together, the group of microsystems constitute the mesosystem, “the various social environments of their daily lives” (Marra & Palmer, 2008, p. 110). More distal environments combine to form the exosystem, which is situated within the macrosystem. Rather than being static entities, these environments are dynamic systems which change over time. Thus, Marra and Palmer further qualify the ecological model as a complex “person—process—context—time” model (2008, p. 110; Palmer & Marra, 2008, p. 339). One of the many strengths of the ecological model is the manner in which it brings to the fore the crucial role played by the multiple contexts in which epistemic beliefs are embedded in instigating the development of epistemic beliefs. While these contexts may certainly be supportive of an individual’s current set of beliefs, they may alternatively provide challenges to these beliefs (Marra & Palmer, 2008; McCauley et al., 2006; Palmer & Marra, 2008). And these challenges may create the disequilibrium necessary to propel development forward. Yet, which contexts are the most influential in providing the challenges that promote the development of epistemic beliefs? While Palmer and Marra (2008) hypothesise that proximal environments are more influential than distal environments, we may consider turning once again to Dynamic Systems Theory for an innovative and perhaps more comprehensive perspective on this issue. Whereas certain theories of human development draw primarily on biological concepts to explain developmental processes, while others attribute growth primarily to social factors, Dynamic Systems Theory attempts to explain development as the result of complex and ongoing interactions among interrelated, rather than independent factors, thereby providing a more complete account of development (Newman & Newman, 2007). Thus, there exist multiple sources that may contribute to the development of epistemic beliefs. Yet, inherent in this perspective in the idea that an individual must somehow be open to change. And indeed, this leads us to another fundamental notion underlying Dynamic Systems Theory – the notion of 50

“open systems” (Newman & Newman, 2007). Newman and Newman (2007) explain that we may think of individuals, families, communities, societies, schools, etc. as open systems – that is, as systems that maintain an outwardly recognizable structure while their internal structures experience constant change. They further explain that [o]pen systems share certain properties. They take energy from the environment; they transform this energy into some type of product that is characteristic of the system; they export this product into the environment; and they draw upon new sources of energy from the environment to continue to thrive (Katz & Kahn, 1966). This process requires an open boundary through which energy (or information) can pass and products (or waste) can be exported. The more open the system, the more vigorously the process operates. Each specific system has a unique set of processes that are appropriate to the particular forms of energy, product, and transformations relevant to that system. (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 275) Yet, merely being exposed or open to change does not guarantee that an organism will change in any way. Thus, while sources of change may lead to a crisis or epistemic doubt and to “the limits of [one’s] ways of knowing the world” (Kegan, 1982, p. 59), they must also be inharmonious enough from existing structures to disturb an existing balance and lead us to actively respond (Festinger, 1957; Homeostasis, 2007; Piaget, 1950; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) to the discrepancy, to this state of dissonance. As Schunk (2000) remarks, “dissonance is tension … that … propels us to action” (p. 306) – action whose purpose is to restore balance (e.g., Piaget, 1950) and, as we must not forget, action which is the very making of meaning (Kegan, 1982). Bendixen and Rule’s model (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) suggests that a necessary and “pivotal” precursor to action towards change is “epistemic volition,” which represents the second component in their proposed mechanism of change. They refer to Corno’s (1993) definition of volition as a “dynamic system of psychological control processes that protect concentration and directed effort in the face of personal and/or environmental distraction” (Bendixen & Rule, 2004, p. 16; Rule & Bendixen, 2010, p. 99), and suggest that epistemic volition resembles the notion of intentionality in the conceptual change literature (e.g., Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). The findings of Pizzolato’s (2005) study investigating the “provocative moment” leading to the development of self-authorship in students echo the importance of volition in spurring action. The people most 51 likely to embark on a process of change toward self-authorship were those who displayed high volitional efficacy. However, a “lack of high volitional efficacy seems to preclude or short- circuit students’ experience of their situation as sufficiently provocative to compel serious reconsideration of their goals, ways of knowing, or conception of self” (p. 632). Thus, as Rule and Bendixen (2010) note, “epistemic volition is a powerful contributor to epistemic change” (p. 99). With what actions do we respond to doubt that arises from these instigators of change? As Pizzolato’s (2005) and Perry’s (1981) research shows, avoidance of growth is a possible response. Yet, Perry (1981) notes that this is not the response of most learners. More common is assimilation (Piaget, 1950), the act through which we achieve a balance that, from the outside, resembles the balance that existed prior to the discrepant experience (Kegan, 1982). Seen from the inside, however, there is, in fact, motion – the motion of integrating information into existing structures. Another possible response is action that leads to the reorganisation of existing structures – the reorganisation of the essence of one’s way of knowing into a new balance (Kegan, 1982). Dole and Sinatra (1998, p. 109) observe that this reorganisation is alternatively termed “radical restructuring” by Vosniadou & Brewer (1987), “radical conceptual change” by Chi (1992) and “conceptual revolution” by Thagard (1992). The Piagetian (1950) concept of accommodation captures this restructuring that occurs as people modify their existing cognitive structures to make sense of and adapt to the external world. Describing the act of accommodation phenomenologically, Perry (1970), remarks that it “is sometimes …sensed as a ‘realization.’ This is particularly likely in respect to an insight or reconstruction that suddenly reveals ‘the’ meaning of some incongruity of experience we have been trying for some time to make sense of.” (pp. 41-42). This ‘realization’ may also signal the beginning of the resolution of epistemic doubt, activating “resolution strategies,” the third and final component in Bendixen and Rule’s (2004) mechanism of change. Bendixen and Rule (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) comment that the resolution of epistemic doubt is dependent upon having experienced the first two components of the mechanism of change: epistemic doubt and epistemic volition. In her 2002 study, Bendixen notes the importance of education, social interaction, and peers as resolution strategies. An additional important resolution strategy may be “commitment.” This notion is fundamental in the upper positions of Perry’s scheme. Perry (1981) notes that “students who were able to come more 52 directly to grips with the implications of Relativism frequently referred to their forward movement in terms of commitments” (p. 92). He observes a qualitative difference in the nature of commitment “made after doubt, and those unquestioned childhood beliefs that Erikson calls ‘foreclosed identity’” (p. 94). These commitments, these “claimings” of a position, help learners “orient” themselves “in an uncertain and relativistic world” (Perry, 1981, p. 94). For Bendixen and Rule (2004), it is reflection, however, that represents “the essence of the resolution process” (p. 199). Reflection, as they define it “involves reviewing the past, analyzing belief implications, and making educated choices” (p. 73). McAlpine, Weston, Beauchamp, Wiseman, and Beauchamp (1999) define reflection as a “mechanism for turning experience into knowledge” (p. 116). Based on our previous discussions, we might posit that, in the earlier stages of development, reflection leading to new knowledge and changes in action, (what Berger, 2004, terms “transformational reflection”) might only be possible once a re- coordination in the balance of essence has begun, once a disclosure of ‘assumptions’ has occurred, or once a shift in what is subject to what is object has begun. That the concept of reflection appears in different forms throughout the various models of epistemic beliefs development suggests its great importance. An additional metacognitive strategy that has been identified by both Muis (2007) and Pizzolato (2005) as contributing to the development of epistemic beliefs is self-regulation. Indeed, both reflection and self-regulation are important enough to warrant much more consideration than I give them here. I therefore intend to return to these concepts in future work on this model of development. That we respond to discrepancies in different ways has two important implications. First, it raises awareness that there may be inter-individual and intra-individual variability in responses to discrepancy, thereby highlighting that “human beings are conscious and goal-directed” and “make choices that guide the direction of their own development” (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 11). Consequently, development is not merely a result of biological processes, environmental factors, or some interaction of these (Kegan, 1982; Newman & Newman, 2007), but a result of an individual’s “activity in the world – evolutionary activity – an activity biologists speak of as the move towards greater coherence of one’s organization” (Kegan, 1982, p. 41). A second implication of variation in response to discrepancy may be that there exists a qualitative component to dissonance which leads to different actions. Stated otherwise, all discrepancies are not created equal. 53

It seems necessary to address the issue of qualitatively different types of dissonance for, as educators, our instructional goals often include facilitating learners’ creation of new structures, new ways of “knowing” a topic. Thus, a pressing question is, “Are some types of discrepancy more effective than others in producing change?”. Intuitively, we might feel that this answer is “Yes”. As Schunk (2000) remarks, however, “the dissonance notion is vague” (p. 306). We may also question just how discrepant experiences must be in order to instigate a process of restructuring. Kohlberg & Mayer (1972) summarise that within cognitive developmental theory, “the hypothesis is that some moderate or optimal degree of conflict or discrepancy” is needed (p. 459; emphasis added). Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development highlights the value of the appropriate amount of discrepancy and emphasises that learners may reach a higher level of achievement when presented with problems beyond their current level and when guided by more skilful peers. Kegan and Lahey (2009) elegantly capture the notion of optimal conflict by describing it as  The persistent experience of some frustration, dilemma, life puzzle, quandary, or personal problem that is …  Perfectly designed to cause us to feel the limits of our current way of knowing …  In some sphere of our living that we care about, with …  Sufficient supports so that we are neither overwhelmed by the conflict nor able to escape or diffuse it. (p. 54; emphasis in original) Given the complexity involved in reorganising one’s epistemic beliefs, Dole and Sinatra (1998) comment rather unsurprisingly that reorganisation is difficult to achieve. Part of this difficulty may also lie in the “sheer weight of quantitative expansion of the assimilated incongruity” required to bring about accommodation (Perry, 1981, p. 88). Thus, while earlier we investigated issues regarding the quality of discrepant information, here, Perry (1981) introduces the issue of quantity into our discussion of sources of change in development. Consequently, we now consider the question of “How much discrepancy is required in order to incite learners to begin restructuring?” In a discussion of Popper’s falsificationism, Robinson and Groves (2004) address this issue of quantity of discrepancy, commenting that

as a scientific method, falsificationism has its own problems. If our observations of the world are themselves always ‘theory laden’, why should one observation immediately invalidate a complex scientific theory? How do we know which to trust? Scientific theories are complex and interdependent, so it is not always easy to falsify them with a single observation. History reveals that scientists have often been very reluctant to jettison their pet theories because of one contradictory observation. (p. 150) The Second Law of Dialectics, the law of “quantity and quality” (e.g., Wood, 1998) may further inform our discussion in this regard by describing how quantitative changes may eventually precipitate qualitative changes. To illustrate this point, Wood (1998) turns to Engels, who “cites such phenomena as the suddenness of the transition between the solid, liquid and gaseous states of substances as their temperatures change” (p. 2). Wood (1998) notes that such examples illustrate “that purely quantitative changes lead to the emergence of new qualities which can be adequately grasped in terms of the concepts in which the purely quantitative changes can be formulated” (p. 2). Newman and Newman (2007) note that, in Dynamic Systems Theory, the phenomenon of emergence, which involves the unfolding of increasingly organised structures, is a process which may be explained in the following way: The process of emergence is guided by three underlying observations about change (Miller & Coyle, 1999). 1. In the early phase of an emergent process, small differences or effects can have consequences that result in large difference or effects later. 2. A small change causes change throughout the system. 3. The accumulation of small quantitative changes can lead to qualitative change as one of a number of related skills passes a certain threshold and contributes to the integration of what seems to be a qualitatively different skill. (p. 279; emphasis added) We encounter through this definition an additional notion that is crucial to our understanding of the development of epistemic beliefs: the notion of thresholds. In biology, a threshold indicates the minimum, yet critical level a stimulus must reach to provoke a response (Martin & Hine, 2008). In their investigation of Dynamic Systems Theory, Newman and 55

Newman (2007) explain that “[n]ew behaviors emerge when certain components needed for the expression of the behavior move beyond a critical value or level” (p. 293). In an attempt to elucidate learning processes within the disciplines, Meyer and Land (2003) introduce the idea of “threshold concepts,” suggesting that a threshold concept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view. This transformation may be sudden, or it may be protracted over a considerable period of time, with the transition to understanding proving troublesome. Such a transformed view or landscape may represent how particular people ‘think’ in a particular discipline, or how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that discipline (or more generally). (p. 412; emphasis added) Meyer and Land (2003, 2005) further characterise these threshold concepts as being “irreversible (unlikely to be forgotten, or unlearned only through considerable effort), and integrative (exposing the previously hidden interrelatedness of something)” (2005, p.373; emphasis in original). The authors (2005) provide several examples of threshold concepts that have emerged from their conversations with practicing disciplinary professionals. The most poignant example perhaps arises from their account of a physiology professor’s examination of pain as a threshold concept in medicine. Stating that pain is often first seen by beginning medical students as something to be eradicated from the patient, the professor explains that pain eventually comes to be understood as an “ally that aids in diagnosis and healing” (p. 374) and serves to “transform the professional thinking and discourse of medical undergraduates” (p. 374). We also see from the above definition and discussion of threshold concepts the centrality of the notion of transformation. And indeed, Meyer (personal communication, May 1, 2009) describes the transformational nature of threshold concepts as one of their one non-negotiable characteristics. Thus, in their identification of threshold concepts, Meyer and Land (2003) appear to have captured the inherently developmental nature of the transitions and trajectories of learning. We may therefore envision that the well-timed introduction of a threshold concept may 56 provide the “optimal conflict” necessary for instigating learners’ restructuring of epistemic beliefs. As discussed earlier, however, the restructuring process is complex. Consequently, while a classical Gestalt view of change might support the “Eureka!” moment, the “Aha!” moment, leading to a suddenness of change in states, it appears that these changes might involve a transformational process, rather than a simple replacing of one conceptual system with another. It is possible, however, that the temporal nature of this transition process is variable. That is, some transformational processes leading to qualitative change may occur quickly, while others may occur more gradually.

Summarising the Mechanism of Change In our attempt to elucidate the ill-understood issue of what might constitute a mechanism of change in the development of epistemic beliefs, we have examined several issues. The notions of “balancing” and “dialectical construction” were proposed as two potential mechanisms accounting for development. Indeed, individuals were described as constantly striving to achieve equilibrium by adjusting and readjusting to the dynamic tension between opposing forces. We also addressed several pressing questions regarding potential sources of development. We saw that sources of development may lie within the multiple and interrelated contexts in which the individual is embedded and that these sources interact to create change. In order for development to occur, these sources of change must create discrepancy or tension within the individual, thereby precipitating a crisis. This crisis may lead an individual to the “limit” of his/her way of knowing and being, which leads to a response through action. That individuals may respond in a variety of ways suggests that there may be a crucial qualitative component to dissonance. Thus, in addressing the issue of quantitative versus qualitative change, we saw that the development of an individual’s epistemic beliefs may best be instigated through an optimal level of conflict with adequate support. This optimal conflict may prompt the crossing of a threshold, creating a space for reflection. It may lead to resolution of the conflict and to true transformation, that is, to the reorganisation and restructuring of a previous way of knowing into a new perspective from which to view and make sense of the world.

Concluding Thoughts In this manuscript, we have turned to biology, philosophy, psychology, and the interdisciplinary work of Robert Kegan to better understand the principles of development that might contribute to a deeper understanding of the development of epistemic beliefs. Based on this exploration, a stage model of epistemic beliefs development was proposed, reflecting the emergence, organisation, and balancing of opposing, yet complementary and interacting elements of essence into a qualitatively more complex system of nested hierarchies through a dialectical process. We saw that this developmental process is both cognitive and affective. We also considered questions regarding the nature of sources of discrepancy and the ways in which these might contribute to understanding a mechanism of epistemic beliefs change. In a forthcoming paper, I will examine in greater detail the “ill-defined” spaces between stages of epistemic beliefs development, for as Cross (1999) notes, herein lie “the periods of greatest personal growth” (p. 262).

References

Adequate. (1989). In Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/2299 Baltas, A. (2007). Background 'assumptions' and the grammar of conceptual change: Rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63-79). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier and the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive- Developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualisation of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39, 31-42. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4 Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986/1997). Womens' ways of knowing (2 ed.). New York, NY: BasicBooks. Bendixen, L. D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 191-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bendixen, L. D. & Feucht, F. C. (Eds.). (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69-80. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_7 Berger, J. G. (2004). Dancing on the threshold of meaning: Recognizing and understanding the growing edge. Journal of Transformative Education, 2, 336-351. doi:10.1177/1541344604267697 Berger, J. G. (2006). Key concepts for understanding the work of Robert Kegan. Retrieved from University of Canterbury, New Zealand wiki http://wiki.canterbury.ac.nz Better. (1989). In Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/18370 59

Blackburn, S. (2005). Oxford dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs : An intimate but complicate [sic] relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 423-441). The Netherlands: Springer. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115-125. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00114 Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28-42. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.007 Chandler, M. J. (1995). Is this the end of “the age of development,” or what? Or: Please wait a minute, Mr. Post-Man. The Genetic Epistemologist, 23, Retrieved from http://www.piaget.org/GE/Winter95/ChandlerW95.html Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49. doi:10.3102/00346543063001001 Cooper, J. M. (1998, 2004). Socrates. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A108SECT8 Cross, P. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23, 255-270. doi:10.1023/A:1022930922969 Debold, E. (2002 Fall/Winter). Epistemology, fourth order consciousness, and the subject-object relationship or... How the self evolves with Robert Kegan. What is enlightenment?: Redefining spirituality for an evolving world, Issue 22. Retrieved from http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/kegan.asp Dewey, J. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co. 60 diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_5 Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2002). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 15-39). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. New York, NY: International Universities Press. Ferrari, M., Pinard, A., & Runions, K. (2001). Piaget's framework for a scientific study of consciousness. Human Development 44, 195-213. doi:10.1159/000057059 Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row. Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies and skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531. Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (1991). Constraining nativist inferences about cognitive capacities. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 199-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (1998). Dynamic development of psychological structures in action and thought. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed.) (pp. 467-561). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gaarder, J. (1994). Sophie's World: A novel about the history of philosophy (P. Moller, Trans.). New York, USA: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Gottlieb, E. (2007). Learning how to believe: Epistemic development in cultural context. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 5-35. doi:10.1080/10508400709336941 61

Hofer, B. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353-383. doi:10.1023/A:1011965830686 Hofer, B. K. (2004a). Introduction: Paradigmatic approaches to personal epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 39, 1-3. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_1 Hofer, B. K. (2004b). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43-55. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5 Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain-specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85–95. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.006 Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of

Educational Research, 67, 88-140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088 Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hoffman, W. C. (1999). Dialectic - a universal for consciousness? New Ideas in Psychology, 17, 251-269. doi:10.1016/S0732-118X(99)00027-6 Holmes, T. R. (2010). The hierarchy of epistemological beliefs: All ways of knowing are not created equal. In J. D. Raskin, S. K. Bridges, & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Studies in meaning 4: Constructivist perspectives on theory, practice, and social justice (pp. 281- 315). New York, NY: Pace University Press. Homeostasis. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040879 Jung, C. G. (1959). The basic writings of C. G. Jung (Violet Staub de Laszlo ed.). New York, NY: Modern Library. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 62

Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work : Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Khine, M. S. (Ed.). (2008). Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. The Netherlands: Springer. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5-18. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2 Kitchener, K. S., King, P. M., & DeLuca, S. (2006). Development of reflective judgment in adulthood. In C. Hoare (Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 73-98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42, 449-496. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7 Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lewis, M. D. (2000). The Promise of Dynamic Systems Approaches for an Integrated Account of Human Development. Child Development, 71, 36-43. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00116 63

Long, A. A. (1998). Heraclitus. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A055SECT3 Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57- 68. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6 Magen, R. H., Austrian, S. G., & Hughes, C. S. (2002). Chapter 5: Adulthood. In S. G. Austrian (Ed.), Developmental theories through the life cycle (pp. 181-263). New York: Columbia University Press. Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2008). Epistemologies of the sciences, humanities, and social sciences: Liberal arts students’ perceptions. The Journal of General Education, 57, 100- 118. doi:10.1353/jge.0.0017 Martin, E., & Hine, R. (2008). A dictionary of biology: Oxford reference Online (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/SEARCH_RESULTS.html?y=9&q=threshold&c ategory=t6&x=12&ssid=726890012&scope=book&time=0.549242002281488 Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, C., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, J. (1999). Monitoring student cues: Tracking student behaviour in order to improve instruction in higher education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19(2/3), 113-144. McCauley, C., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M. G., & Baker, B. A. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634-653. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.006 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: Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (pp. 412- 424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Meyer, J. H. 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. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5 64

Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173-190. doi: 10.1080/00461520701416306 Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6 Murphy, P. K. (2003). The philosophy in thee: Tracing philosophical influences in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 38, 137-145. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3803_3 Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Theories of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palmer, B. & Marra, R. M. (2008). Individual domain-specific epistemologies: Implication for educational practice. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 325-350). The Netherlands: Springer. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years; a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, W. G. (1988). Different worlds in the same classroom. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 145-161). London, UK: Kogan Page. Petrov, V. (2002 , June). Law of dialectics in technology evolution. The TRIZ (Theory of Innovative Problem-Solving) Journal. Retrieved from http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2002/06/d/index.htm Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge & Paul. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton 65

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development (T. Brown & K. J. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pintrich, P. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389-414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199. doi:10.3102/00346543063002167 Pizzolato, J. E. (2005). Creating crossroads for self-authorship: Investigating the provocative moment. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 624-641. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0064 Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31, 215-225. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/0046-1520.asp Robinson, D., & Groves, J. (2004). Introducing philosophy (Original ed. 1998). Cambridge, UK: Icon Books. Roemischer, J. (Fall-Winter 2002). The never-ending upward quest: An interview with Don Beck. What is enlightenment?: Redefining spirituality for an evolving world, Issue 22. Retrieved from http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/beck.asp Rule, D. C. & Bendixen, L. D. (2010). The integrative model of personal epistemology: Theoretical underpinnings and implications for education. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 94-121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Scharmer, C. O. (2000, March 23). Grabbing the tiger by the tail: Conversation with Robert Kegan, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://www.presencing.com/dol/Kegan.shtml Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist 39, 19-29. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3 66

Schraw, G. (2001). Current themes and future directions in epistemological research: A commentary. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 451-464. doi:10.1023/A:1011922015665 Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Simon, H. A. (1979). Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 363-396. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sophisticated. (1989). In Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/184763 Timmermans, J. (2010). Changing our minds: The developmental potential of threshold concepts. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 3-19). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. van Rossum, E. J., & Hamer, R. (2010). The meaning of learning and knowing. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (Michael Cole ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wood, A. W. (1998). Dialectical materialism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy online. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N013SECT3

BRIDGING TEXT BETWEEN MANUSCRIPTS 1 AND 2

Understanding Transitions Between Stages in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs: The Promise of Threshold Concepts

We see from the discussion of threshold concepts in Manuscript 1 the centrality of the notion of transformation. And indeed Meyer (personal communication, May 1, 2009) describes the transformational nature of threshold concepts as one of their one non-negotiable characteristics. Thus, in their identification of threshold concepts, Meyer and Land (2003) appear to have captured the inherently developmental nature of the transitions and trajectories of learning. And indeed, Perkins (2007) notes that threshold concepts are “especially pivotal to a stage-like advance in understanding a discipline” (p. 36). Cross (1999) notes, however, that “in developmental theory, the periods of greatest personal growth are thought to lie in the unnamed and poorly-defined periods between stages” (p. 262; emphasis in original). Yet, a fundamental concern for us as educators, as facilitators of the learning process, is clarifying how change occurs between stages in the development of meaning making. Thus, while the transitions that characterise the learning process remain nebulous, understanding them is crucial. Given the potential of threshold concepts to contribute to our understanding of the development of learning within the disciplines, it is interesting to note that Meyer and Land do not situate their conceptualisation of threshold concepts within a developmental perspective. In the following manuscript, I therefore explore threshold concepts from a developmental perspective and, in doing so, attempt to capture a sense of the work that threshold concepts are doing: they are transforming, integrating, and making trouble of our epistemic beliefs. Thus, I further propose that the great value of threshold concepts is that they serve to instigate a process of “epistemological transitions” (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 386). And, as we will see, this process is at once cognitive and deeply affective. Manuscript 2 therefore represents an effort to bring the literature on threshold concepts and epistemic beliefs into conversation with one another. Threshold concepts are proposed as potentially powerful candidates in our continued effort to elaborate a model of epistemic beliefs development, helping us explain what might account for the process of change between stages. Pintrich (2002) contends that this is an “age-old question in general cognitive developmental 68 research, but it has not been addressed in as much detail or specificity in the research on epistemological thinking” (p. 402). It is of vital importance that we examine this issue, however, for it is often at this level that our work as educators transpires.

References Cross, P. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23, 255-270. doi:10.1023/A:1022930922969 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: Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (pp. 412- 424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Meyer, J. H. 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. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5 Perkins, D. (2007). Theories of difficulty. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II(4): Student Learning and University Teaching, 31-48. Pintrich, P. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389-414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

MANUSCRIPT 2 Changing our Minds: The Developmental Potential of Threshold Concepts

Timmermans, J. (2010). Changing our minds: The developmental potential of threshold concepts. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 3-19). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.*

* Since publication, section headings have been re-formatted to be consistent with the remainder of the dissertation. A few minor typographical errors have also been corrected.

Introduction In writing this chapter, I have to come to a startling personal revelation: I am a philosopher, if only an amateur one. Perhaps this revelation should not be so startling, for I have always been a lover (philo) of wisdom (sophia). And I am, after all, in the process of completing a doctor of philosophy degree. At the heart of a philosopher’s approach lies the activity of asking questions. Gaarder (1994) explains, however, that philosophers are generally not captivated by the entire realm of philosophical questions, yet have particular queries with which they are especially concerned. Therefore, philosophers’ questions provide valuable insight into their philosophical projects. What, then, is my philosophical project? Broadly, in my work, I am intrigued by questions about learning in higher education. At the beginning of each project, I therefore return to the question “What is learning?” for I realise that my interpretation lies at the heart of all subsequent thinking. Here, I adopt the perspective that learning is an active process of meaning-making (e.g., Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Belenky, Clinchy, Golberger, and Tarule, 1986/1997; Kegan, 1982; Perry, 1970). The question that follows, then, is “How does learning happen?” Indeed, learning is often characterised as a developmental process. In his Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making, Robert Kegan (1982) elegantly weaves together the notions of meaning-making and development, and posits that individuals’ abilities to construct meaning evolve through regular periods of stability and change throughout their lifespan. It is these periods of change, these transitions that characterise the learning process, which I find most intriguing. These transitions remain nebulous; however, understanding them is crucial. Cross (1999) notes that “in developmental theory, the periods of greatest personal growth are thought to lie in the unnamed and poorly-defined periods between stages” (p. 262; emphasis in original). We might therefore imagine that the most significant aspect of learning lies not in the outcomes of learning, but in the process of learning. Understanding this process and how best to facilitate it is thus essential to our work as educators. 71

How fortunate, then, that we may now turn to the growing body of literature on threshold concepts for, in their identification of threshold concepts, Meyer and Land (2003) appear to have captured the inherently developmental nature of these trajectories of learning. Indeed, Perkins (2007) notes that threshold concepts are “especially pivotal to a stage-like advance in understanding a discipline” (p. 36). The focus of my current project is therefore to examine issues central to threshold concepts, such as “liminality,” and to explore the characteristics used to describe threshold concepts, such as “troublesome,” “transformative,” “irreversible,” “integrative,” and “bounded” in light of developmental principles in order to help us better understand the complex nature of the learning process. In exploring the characteristics of threshold concepts from a developmental perspective, we begin to capture a sense of the work that threshold concepts are doing: they are transforming, integrating, making trouble, but of what? Thus, the question remains as to what is changing and allowing us to remark that a threshold has been crossed, that a transformation has occurred, that a learner has moved from one stage, one way of making meaning to the next? Indeed, what we are witnessing, experiencing, or contributing to is the transformation of the essence of a particular position or stage from which meaning of the world is constructed. Kegan (1982) theorises that at the heart of a stage of meaning-making is a way of knowing, an epistemology, which shapes the “window or a lens through which one looks at the world” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 3). While we will return to the question of essence later, here, I wish to emphasise that the great value of threshold concepts is that they serve to instigate a process of “epistemological transitions” (Meyer and Land, 2005, p. 386); that is, transitions not only in what learners know, but in how they know; transitions that may provide a “transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view” (Meyer and Land, 2003, p. 412). This chapter is therefore an attempt to capture and qualify the transitional process instigated by threshold concepts and explore its potential influence on our practice as educators.

Underlying Assumptions Many questions remain to be investigated in our exploration of the developmental nature of threshold concepts, questions such as “How might a developmental perspective be used to explain variation in learners’ responses to threshold concepts?”, “What is the relationship between learning and development?”, and “How might troublesomeness be developmentally 72 productive?”. I would now like to comment briefly on the approach I will take to answering these questions. One of my fundamental assumptions is that questions are best approached from what I qualify as an integrationist approach. As people trained or training to become disciplinary experts, we may so easily become mired in our own contexts that we may fail to consider that the questions about which we feel so passionate are the same questions that intrigue our colleagues in other fields. The question of thresholds and the processes and mechanisms which drive development towards and across thresholds are not only questions of educational psychology (my own field), but also those of the fields in which educational psychology is rooted: philosophy, biology, and psychology. Consequently, in my attempt to situate the characteristics of threshold concepts within a developmental framework, I draw on Kegan’s (1982) interdisciplinary Constructive-Developmental Theory, as well as on work in these other fields, searching for the deeper principles of development that at once underlie, transcend, and thereby unify our specific contextual concerns. In my exploration, I will also attempt to capture the simultaneously cognitive and affective nature of these epistemological transformations. While cognitive processes are often emphasised in accounts of learning, the affective nature of these transitions is often minimised, denigrated, or altogether ignored. Consequently, the appeal of Kegan’s Constructive- Developmental Theory (1982) is its acknowledgement of “the equal dignity” (p.107) of cognition and affect. It is a theory that recognises that “we are [evolutionary] activity and we experience it” (pp. 81-82). As we will see later, this conceptualisation has deep implications for the ways in which we view the process of epistemological transformation triggered by threshold concepts. Thank you for reading. Now let us begin addressing some of our questions.

Preliminal Variation, or, On Balance A powerful image that Kegan (1982) uses to guide our understanding of the evolution of stages or “orders” of meaning-making is that of balance. Two intriguing questions now emerge: “How might the notion of balance contribute to our understanding of the learning process?” and “Might the notion of balance help us account for variation in learners’ responses to the process of transformation instigated by threshold concepts?”. 73

The language of balance permeates our daily lives: we are concerned with maintaining balance in the world’s ecosystems, balancing our diets, and finding work-life balance. This concern may be traced to ancient times, where cultural myths reveal that people sought ways to preserve the balance between “the forces of good and evil” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 25). Hippocrates believed that “when sickness occurs, it is a sign that Nature has gone off course because of physical or mental imbalance” and that “that the road to health for everyone is through moderation, harmony, and a “sound mind in a sound body” ” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 56). With respect to our cognitive development, Piaget proposes equilibration as a process through which balance is sought by integrating interactions between the organism and the environment (Ferrari, Pinard and Runions, 2001; Piaget, 1950). What we are balancing, in fact, is essence. The question of essence also concerned the earliest Greek philosophers. Gaarder (1994) explains that there existed a shared belief that “nothing comes from nothing” (p. 41). Parmenides, for example “had refused to accept the idea of change in any form. […] His intelligence could not accept that ‘something’ could suddenly transform itself into ‘something completely different’ ” (p. 41). This, then, was the “problem of change,” the question of “How could one substance suddenly change into something else?” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 35). The assumption, therefore, was that “ ‘something’ had always existed” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 33). And by examining the notion of essence, we address the question of precisely what is emerging and being organised into qualitatively different (e.g., Kegan, 1982; Lewis, 2000; Schunk, 2000) and more complex forms. In an edited volume entitled “Reframing the Conceptual Change Approach in Learning and Instruction,” Baltas (2007) examines the notion of an essential “something” changing in conceptual change. He states that the fact that […] “something” remains invariant is faithfully reflected in the pertinent “Eureka!” experience, for this is an experience that cannot engage but a single thing at both its ends: after having undergone it, we understand exactly what we were incapable of understanding before. (p. 66) Baltas (2007) suggests that what we were incapable of understanding before were our background “assumptions” (in quotation marks). These background “assumptions”, which “were formlessly taken along as a matter of course and to which, accordingly, questions could not be 74 addressed,” once disclosed, become assumptions (without quotation marks), that is, “proposition[s] that can be doubted and thence conceptually and experimentally examined […] becom[ing] open to rejection, revision, justification, and so forth” (p. 66). The notion of balance suggests that there must be more than one component to essence, and that some kind of tension must be resolved between opposites in order to obtain balance. And there is strong evidence in the philosophical, biological, and psychological literatures that supports the existence of opposites in our ideas, physiologies, and psyches. Saussure posits that “binary opposites” characterise the structure of philosophical discourse; “Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss maintained that a system of binary codes operates in all cultures as their common logic” (Robinson and Groves, 2004, p. 160). Derrida’s deconstructive approach to reading philosophical texts suggests the existence of “multiple meanings at war with each other in the texts” (Robinson and Groves, 2004, p. 162). Biologists speak of “evolution and its periods of adaptation – of life organisation – as involving a balance between differentiation and adaptation” (Kegan, 1982, p. 107). In psychology, Erikson (1959) writes of the various shifts in balances between intimacy and isolation as individuals progress through young adulthood. Jung (1959) posits that our psyches are made up of numerous opposing spheres which we attempt to unite. He powerfully describes a pair of opposites as being “one of the most fruitful sources of psychic energy” (p. 82). In their theories, Erikson and Jung also succeed in capturing how fundamentally unsettled we feel when our balance is threatened or disturbed. The resulting “crises” (Erikson, 1959) and “disequilibrium” (Jung, 1959) may be so powerful that they may lead to a feeling of “being torn apart” (Magen, Austrian, and Hughes, 2002, p. 187). Resulting from this process of interaction among opposites is not a static equilibrium, but what philosophers, biologists, and psychologists refer to as a dynamic equilibrium (e.g., Homeostasis, 2007; Kegan, 1982; Wood, 1998). This process of interaction among opposites continues throughout the ongoing course of development, and each stage consequently represents a qualitatively different and temporary “evolutionary truce” (Kegan, 1982). Kegan describes each truce as the coordination of the two essential elements of epistemology: what we view as “subject” and what we view as “object”:

What I mean by “object” are those aspects of our experience that are apparent to us and can be looked at, related to, reflected upon, engaged, controlled, and connected to something else. We can be objective about these things, in that we don’t see them as “me.” But other aspects of our experience we are so identified with, embedded in, fused with, that we just experience them as ourselves. This is what we experience subjectively – the “subject” half of the subject-object relationship. (With Debold, 2002, p. 3; emphasis in original) Each new truce therefore discloses more of that in which we were embedded, thereby enabling us “to listen to what before [we] could only hear irritably, and […] to hear irritably what before [we] could hear not at all” (Kegan, 1982, p. 105). As educators, we must be acutely aware that the construction of meaning, the journey to each new truce, is both a cognitive and a deeply emotional venture for learners. Atherton (2008) tellingly writes of the “cost” of learning, describing “learning as loss” – the loss of a certain way of thinking about and being in the world. Boyd and Myers (1988) speak of the four phases of “grief” learners experience during a transformative learning process. William Perry (1981) also writes compellingly of the emotional upheavals involved in the developmental process: I have remarked elsewhere (Perry, 1978) on the importance we have come to ascribe to a student’s “allowing for grief” in the process of growth, especially in the rapid movement from the limitless potentials of youth to the particular realities of adulthood. Each of the upheavals of cognitive growth threatens the balance between vitality and depression, hope and despair. It may be a great joy to discover a new and more complex way of thinking and seeing; but yesterday one thought in simpler ways, and hope and aspiration were embedded in those ways. Now that those ways are left behind, must hope be abandoned too? It appears that it takes a little time for the guts to catch up with such leaps of the mind. (p. 108) And, indeed, in the following section, we will explore some of the reasons why it may take our emotions some time “to catch up with” our minds, and why our minds may be resistant to change in the first place.

Preserving Balance Inherent in the notion of dynamic equilibrium explored earlier is the idea of preserving balance. Indeed, within both human biological and psychological systems, there is a strong tendency to maintain a state of equilibrium, which amounts, in some ways, to resisting the ongoing motion of development. Within the biological process of homeostasis, there exist states of dynamic equilibrium in which the system in balance “resists outside forces to change” (Homeostasis, 2007). As Kegan expresses more colloquially, there is a strong tendency to keep things “pretty much as they are” (with Debold, 2002, p. 5). In keeping things as they are, the human (organism) is, in fact, stating, “I have boundaries that I do not want transgressed.” From a biological perspective, boundaries provide a crucial “distinction between everything on the inside of a closed boundary and everything in the external world” (Dennett, 1991, p. 174). Dennett (1991) explains that this distinction “is at the heart of all biological processes” and provides the powerful example of the immune system, “with its millions of different antibodies arrayed in defense of the body against millions of different alien intruders. This army must solve the fundamental problem of recognition: telling one’s self (and one’s friends) from everything else” (p. 174). Human psychological systems are equally adamant in their struggle to prevent change. In his theory of cognitive dissonance, Festinger (1957) explains that individuals attempt to achieve and maintain consistency, or consonance, between their knowledge, opinions, beliefs, and actions. Piaget’s (1950) notion of assimilation captures the attempt to integrate experiences to existing cognitive structures. Perry (1970) notes that these assimilations “tend to be implicit” (p. 42). That is, we tend to be unaware that they are occurring. Experiences are unconsciously integrated. Consequently, existing cognitive structures remain intact; the current perspective from which we view the world remains acceptable; balance is preserved. Kegan (with Scharmer, 2000) remarks that these balances are very “hardy,” (p. 11) particularly during adulthood. It becomes more and more difficult for experiences to undo this balance, to break through a boundary, to “win through [our] increasingly complex defenses that have better and better ways of deluding us into the belief that we have grasped reality as it actually is” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 6). These balances are hardy because, “assimilation is defense, but defense is also integrity” (Kegan, 1982, p. 41). The threat of change is a threat of dis-integration: the disintegration of a particular way of knowing that arises from the disclosure 77 of one’s assumptions or from disentangling oneself from that in which one was embedded. And if, as we saw earlier, emotion is an integral part of the process of change, there may be great fear in losing a self with whom one is familiar (Atherton, 2008; Berger, 2004; Taylor, 1995). In the face of new learning, this fear may reveal itself as a “numbness,” where the learner may appear to be “under an anesthetic” and as though “suspended in time” (Boyd and Myers, 1988, p. 278). It is not only fear and desire to preserve balance that prevent change, however. At times, people may have “sincere, even passionate intentions to change”. Kegan explains that a recent medical study concluded that doctors can tell heart patients that they will literally die if they do not change their ways, and still only about one in seven will be able to make the changes. These are not people who want to die. They want to live out their lives, fulfill their dreams, watch their grandchildren grow up – and, still, they cannot make the changes they need to in order to survive. (With Carroll, 2007, p. 1) In fact, Kegan and Lahey (2001) have labelled this tendency to resist change, even when faced the prospect of death, immunity to change. Kegan (with Carroll, 2007) describes their work as pay[ing] very close – and very respectful – attention to all those behaviors people engage in that work against their change goals […]. Instead of regarding these behaviors as obstacles in need of elimination, we take them as unrecognized signals of other, usually unspoken, often unacknowledged, goals or motivations. (p. 1) Kegan refers to these goals and motivations as “commitments,” and suggests that they may provide educators with rich insight regarding learners’ unwillingness to change. In our exploration of the notions of balance and preservation of balance, we have encountered several ideas that may help us account for why “mental development is so often steadfastly invariant, so resistant to inspired pedagogy, so limited in transfer” (Bruner, 1997, p. 70). Indeed, learners’ fears of giving up a sense of integrated selfhood, as well as commitments, either explicit or implicit, may help explain why learners get “stuck” (Meyer and Land, 2003) or resist learning, particularly learning of the kind implied by the notion of threshold concepts, that is, learning of an epistemological transformational kind. These ideas suggest that variation in responses to threshold concepts may be linked to learners’ readiness for change. That is, there may exist an “optimal” or “open period” during which a learner is most likely “to respond to 78 stimulation” (Kohlberg and Mayer, 1972, p. 490). Consequently, appropriately timing the introduction of threshold concepts might be an especially important consideration when designing learner-centred instruction.

Troublesomeness, or On Dissonance The discussion of variation in learners’ responses to threshold concepts leads us to consider the following questions: What is the link between learning and development? Must development precede learning? Are learning and development synonymous? Does learning stimulate development? Vygotsky (1978) reviews these different positions and advances that “the essential feature of learning is that it creates the zone of proximal development; that is, learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes” (p. 90). A logical next question is thus, “What type of learning leads to development?”. While it is perhaps commonly believed that exposing learners to more and different types of experiences and information, or that “teaching harder” (Perkins, 2007) will lead to development, the appropriate answer to this question may reveal a more qualitative than quantitative issue. Indeed exposure (even lots of exposure) does not guarantee that an organism will change in any significant way. In order for transformation to occur, learners must first perceive these experiences, knowledge, or phenomena to be “dissonant” (Festinger, 1957), “disorienting” (Mezirow, 2000), or what the literature on threshold concepts has come to qualify, “troublesome” (Meyer and Land, 2003; Perkins, 1999). Schunk (2000) remarks that “the dissonance notion is vague” (p. 306). Work by Perkins, however, is doing much to elucidate this concept. His exploration of troublesome knowledge (Perkins, 2006) and theories of difficulty (Perkins, 2007), reveals a variety of reasons that may account for what makes certain sources of knowledge, including threshold concepts, particularly troublesome for learners. And, a deeper understanding of troublesomeness may reveal potentially powerful sources of transformation. Both the biological and cognitive psychological literature suggest that, to promote development, phenomena must somehow be troublesome enough, inharmonious enough from existing structures, to disturb balance and lead the organism to actively respond (e.g., Festinger, 1957; Homeostasis, 2007). The purpose of this activity is to restore balance and, for humans, constitutes the very making of meaning. 79

Yet, with what actions do we respond to these instigators of change? To address this question, we must consider and acknowledge that, along with the cognitive experience of doubt, may come the emotional experience of self-doubt: the unsettling feeling that arises when one questions one’s ways of seeing, of being in, the world. While “doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and pass into the state of belief” (Fisch, 1951, p. 59. In Murphy, 2003, p. 138), there is no guarantee that the state of belief will be a new one. It may, in fact be the already existing state of belief, as the tendency to preserve balance may still be strong at this time. That is, learners may choose to respond to epistemic doubt by “ignor[ing] their feelings […] because they feel so strongly about their current beliefs” (Bendixen and Rule, 2004, p. 75). Alternatively, they may experience a range of emotions, from “a painful pining or yearning for that which has been lost to protest over the present situation” (Boyd and Myers, 1988, p. 278). It is perhaps Perry (1981) who comments most eloquently on the “deflections from growth” that might occur when learners become especially adamant in preserving balance even after the infiltration of doubt. He observes that being confronted with information and experiences revealing the inadequacy of their current belief system may not be sufficient to instigate growth in learners, and may, in fact, cause some to react with “apathy,” “anxiety,” “depression,” and even educational “cynicism” (p. 90). Learners may “temporize;” that is, they may “simply wai[t], reconsigning the agency for decision to some event that might turn up” (p. 90). Alternatively, they may “retreat” to a former position (p. 91). Finally, they might “escape.” Perry (1981) claims that it is during this period of escape that “the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world’s appearance” (p. 92). There are several implications of the above discussion on our interpretation of threshold concepts. First, if we accept that some degree of dissonance is often necessary to stimulate development, then the troublesome or “nettlesome” (Sibbett and Thomson, 2008) nature of threshold concepts may be the very quality that reveals their developmental potential. Consequently, their power may be that they trigger dissonance not only at the cognitive and affective levels, but also dissonance at the epistemological level, calling upon learners to “change their minds,” not by supplanting what they know, but by transforming how they know. Furthermore, that learners respond to discrepancies in different ways, that is, by avoidance, assimilation, or, as we shall see, by accommodation (integration), suggests that there may exist 80 highly individual reasons determining responses to threshold concepts, reasons such as alternative commitments and readiness for change. Finally, given the affective nature of these changes, our task as educators is to acknowledge the difficult journey on which we are asking students to embark. We may thus envision ways of foreshadowing for students the impending sense of loss and help them to live more comfortably with their discomfort.

Transformativeness, or On Opening Up of Epistemological, Conceptual, and Affective Spaces Kegan (1982) notes that epistemic doubt may indeed lead one to “the limits of [one’s] ways of knowing the world” (p. 59), and, as we have seen, this may cause some learners to temporarily arrest their epistemic development. Yet, is this the response of most learners? Perry (1981) remarks that it is not. The response to epistemic doubt caused by troublesomeness may also take the form of action towards change, action marking the beginning of the transformative process, action which may “open[…] up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something” (Meyer and Land, 2003, p. 412). The idea of “opening up” new ways of thinking is captured in the work of many researchers interested in learning. Baltas (2007) characterises the disclosure of background “assumptions” in conceptual change as “widen[ing] up and modify[ing] […] the […] space available to inquiry” (p. 65). In their exploration of professors’ developing conceptions of teaching, Entwistle and Walker (2002) characterise professors’ sophisticated, learning-centred conceptions of teaching as “lead[ing] to an expanded awareness – seeing additional goals for teaching and learning which were originally not perceived explicitly at all” (p. 17). Kegan (1994) eloquently notes that transforming our epistemologies, liberating ourselves from that in which we were embedded, making what was subject into object so that we can “have it” rather than “be had” by it – this is the most powerful way I know to conceptualise the growth of the mind. (p. 34) We may therefore begin to envision that the transformative process involves not only the expansion of epistemological and conceptual spaces, but also, as Meyer and Land (2005, 2006) explain, the expansion and transformation of identity, of a learner’s “sense of self” (2006, p. 19). We must also consider that this process of transformation, and hence movement within these 81 liminal spaces, is not unidirectional, yet may “involve oscillation between stages, often with temporary regression to an earlier status” (Meyer and Land, 2005, p. 376). Boyd and Myers (1988) speak of the “oscillating movement […] from disorganization to despair” (p. 278) that characterises this phase of grieving in the process of transformational education. Berger (2004) characterises transformational spaces as “precarious”, and Kegan (with Scharmer, 2000) describes entering into a transitional space as feeling much “like going off a cliff” (p. 11). Yet, when standing on the edge of a cliff (or a threshold), might some learners feel terror, while others feel exhilaration? Stated otherwise, “Does this liminal space feel the same for everyone?” In her thought piece entitled “Dancing on the Threshold of Meaning: Recognizing and Understanding the Growing Edge,” Berger (2004) suggests that it might not. She recounts the stories of two women, Kathleen and Melody, both facing times of profound transition in their lives. Kathleen is “excited […] and not knowing about her future leaves her filled with possibility and hope” (p. 341). Melody, on the other hand is both “frighten[ed]” and “unhappy” (p. 342) in this space of transformation. Berger’s (2004) account of these two women, one who embraces the period of transition, and the other who retreats from it, provides evidence of a “complex continuum” (p. 343) of emotional responses to the liminal space. As we saw earlier, underlying this complex variation of individual responses may be issues of alternative commitments and readiness for change. What these issues may signal, in fact, is variation in learners’ current ways of making meaning. Perry’s seminal study entitled the “Intellectual and Ethical Development of College Students” (1970) originated in an attempt to account for the variations he had observed in the ways in which college students were responding to the “the pluralistic intellectual and social environment of the university” (Hofer and Pintrich, 1997, p. 90). What Perry ultimately showed was that different responses to external conditions could be attributed to individual differences in learners’ epistemic beliefs. That some learners “open up,” while others clearly get “stuck” (Meyer and Land, 2005, p. 380), may signal to us as educators that the epistemological transition being instigated by a threshold concept lies beyond the learner’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). That is, it lies too far beyond what the learner may achieve when guided by more skilful others. These variations in response to teaching caution us to be attuned to variations in the ways that learners are making meaning.

Irreversibility, or, On Crossing Thresholds Berger (2004) notes that “Bridges (1980) described as the hardest piece of transformation the ‘neutral zone’ when the past seems untenable and the future unidentifiable” (p. 343). That the past seems unreachable, suggests that the there is a time in the transformation process when the individual crosses a threshold. The Oxford dictionary defines that a threshold “symbolically […] marks the boundary between a household and the outer world, and hence between belonging and not-belonging, and between safety and danger” (Simpson and Roud, 2000) and consequently between the former world and the new world. In biology, a threshold indicates the minimum, yet critical level a stimulus must attain to “produce excitation of any structure” (Therxold, 2000). Thus interpreted, the inherent troublesomeness of threshold concepts may provide the impulse that “excites” an individual and leads to the type of action that carries him/her across a threshold towards epistemological transformation. Might a learner revert to former ways of knowing after crossing a threshold? In characterising threshold concepts as “irreversible,” Meyer and Land (2003) suggest “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” (p. 416). Baltas (2007) would call the impossibility of “forsaking the ‘Eureka!’ experience” and returning to previous ways of understanding an “irreversible achievement” (p. 76). Thus, on a path of development from one way of knowing and meaning-making, one epistemic stage or stance to the next, there seems to exist a point in our journey when we cross a threshold and our old way of knowing is no longer “tenable”. There is an irreversible shift in the way in which “essence” is coordinated. There emerges a new space from which to observe and analyse the world. Accompanying the new, however, is a loss of the old: old “status,” old “identity within the community” (Meyer and Land, 2005, p. 376), old ways of knowing, seeing, and being in the world. As we saw earlier, these liminal spaces where one is “betwixt and between” ways of knowing are understandably deeply emotional, sometimes “painful” (Boyd and Myers, 1988, p. 277; Love and Guthrie, 1999, p. 72), sometimes exhilarating. They are spaces where “the individual is naked of self – neither fully in one category or another” (Goethe, 2003. In Meyer and Land, 2005, p. 376). Yet, this state of liminality does not as yet represent the new 83 developmental stage, for, as Kegan (1982) reminds us, “development is not a matter of differentiation alone, but of differentiation and integration” (p. 67; emphasis in original).

The Integrative Nature of Threshold Concepts, or On Integration The integration after differentiation of which Kegan (1982) speaks is the act of reorganising the essence of one’s way of knowing into a new balance. And, as Lewis (2000) notes, self-organisation is a cross-scientific principle which “explicates the emergence of order in physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, and cosmology” (p. 40). In describing threshold concepts as “integrative,” and thereby “expos[ing] the previously hidden interrelatedness of something”, Meyer and Land (2003, p. 416) have captured the acts of reorganisation and accommodation (Piaget, 1950) that occur when individuals modify their existing cognitive structures to make sense of the external world. Perry (1970) remarks that these reorganisations are “sometimes […] sensed as a ‘realization.’ This is particularly likely in respect to an insight or reconstruction that suddenly reveals ‘the’ meaning of some incongruity of experience we have been trying for some time to make sense of” (pp. 41-42). Meyer and Land’s notion of integration is not purely cognitive, however, for it refers to the “indissoluble interrelatedness of the learner’s identity with thinking and language” (2006, p. 21). The integrative nature of threshold concepts is thus also a matter of integrity – of the creation of a coherent way of knowing and being in the world. Boyd and Myers (1988) capture the emotion that characterises the final, integrative, phase of the grief work involved in transformational education as “movement […] between a hope-filled sense of restabilization and reintegration of identity” (p. 279). We may turn now to the “newness” of what has emerged through qualitative change. Wood (1998) emphasises that “the emergence of what is qualitatively new” may be “understood in terms of the specific essence of that which is in process rather than in terms of general laws applying to simple elements of which it is composed” (p. 2). These qualitative reorganisations, perhaps precipitated by what Meyer and Land (2005) term the “reconstitutive effect of threshold concepts” (p. 375; emphasis added), represent the adaptation (e.g., Lewis, 2000) of an individual to his or her environment. And our very survival (biological, academic, or otherwise) depends on our ability to respond to the demands of our surroundings, to our “life conditions” (Kegan, 1994). 84

Given the cognitive and emotional complexity involved in reorganising one’s epistemic beliefs, Dole and Sinatra (1998) comment rather unsurprisingly that reorganisation is difficult to achieve. As educators and as disciplinary experts, we must consider that we may hold either explicit or implicit expectations regarding the “appropriate” response or adaptation to the troublesomeness or discrepancy introduced by a threshold concept. Our upcoming discussion of the bounded nature of threshold concepts will urge us to consider, however, that these expectations may arise from the multiple layers of context in which threshold concepts are embedded. Boundedness, or On Considering Context The view of learning expressed in this chapter raises the interesting and ethical question of whether development should be the aim of education (e.g., Fiddler and Marienau, 1995; Kohlberg and Mayer, 1972). This question is important to consider because educational ideologies influence the nature of the outcomes established for and valued in learners (Kohlberg and Mayer, 1972). Moore (2002), commenting on the inherently developmental nature of learning, states that according to Perry and other researchers, “true education, especially liberal arts education, was fundamentally about this kind of development – namely, the evolution of individuals’ thinking structures and meaning making toward greater and more adaptive complexity” (p. 26). Conceived of in this manner, the purpose of education is much less about fostering growth in what learners know than facilitating development of the ways in which they know. Such a perspective may partially allay Meyer and Land’s (2005) concern about threshold concepts being perceived as prescribing a rigid, unidirectional path toward achievement of particular goals, such as degree achievement or professional accreditation. Focusing on threshold concepts’ potential to instigate epistemological transformation enables us to emphasise learning as “entrance into […] a community of people who share that way of thinking and practising” (Davies, 2006, p. 71). While it may seem nobler to discuss the development of ways of knowing and being, rather than the content of knowing, as the aim of education, we must first clarify an important matter. The preceding discussion of essence and end points, of transitions, trajectories, and thresholds in the development of epistemic beliefs reveals an additional underlying philosophical assumption, most notably that there is something orderly and progressive in the way that learners 85 construct meaning in their disciplines and in their lives. Yet, this organismic (or modernist) worldview of development (Goldhaber, 2000) has historically been criticised by those holding contextualist (or post-modernist) views for its failure to integrate a deep consideration for the role played by context in development. In a fascinating illumination of the modernism – post- modernism debate, Chandler (1995) eloquently describes post-modernism’s rebellion against modernism’s ideas of universal stages and sequences in development. Indeed, some post- modernists claim that development is so entirely context-bound, and individuals’ contexts so variable, that any attempt to search for universal patterns and endpoints in development is an attempt to perpetuate hierarchies and oppression. In his analysis of post-modern arguments against modern views of development, Chandler (1995) remarks, however, that while a certain incredulity toward the grand political narratives of the past may well be justified, the same suspicions may actually not be appropriate when attention is re- focused on those smaller potato matters having to do with the separate psychological development of individual persons. [… ] Many of post-modernism’s hallmark questions concerning the essentially political consequences of modernity may actually be irrelevant to the job of deciding whether there is anything like human nature, or universal trajectories in the course of individual psychological development. (p. 8) Chandler’s thoughtful reflections on the post-modern view of development reveal a need for modernists to pay greater heed to the role played by context in development. Meyer and Land’s (2003) discussion of threshold concepts as “bounded” and thereby “serv[ing] to constitute the demarcation between disciplinary areas” (p. 5) provides an excellent point from which to begin examining the issue of context and its relationship to our developmental perspective of threshold concepts. If, indeed, the learning of threshold concepts is ultimately a matter of epistemological transformation, we might consider the discipline and its inherent epistemology (Meyer and Land, 2005; Perkins, 1997) as only one of the multiple, interacting layers of (epistemic) context in which threshold concepts are embedded. We might begin by considering, at the macro level, the powerful historical, social, and cultural forces that converge (Goldhaber, 2000) and give rise to the relative prominence of certain disciplines. We may then consider how these forces shape, at the meso level, the epistemic context of the discipline itself; that is, the questions pursued (and funded) and the methodologies judged as appropriate for pursuing them (Perkins, 1997). At the micro level, we 86 may investigate how these forces manifest themselves in the selection by members of the disciplinary community of concepts deemed important, even thresholds, and around which curricula and programmes are designed. Finally, we must consider the ways of knowing and meaning-making of individual learners. Recent research reveals that the development of individuals’ epistemic beliefs is shaped by these multiple layers of context (Palmer and Marra, 2008), as well as by more proximal influences, such as religion and family (Gottlieb, 2007). We must therefore be prepared to accept variation in learners’ cognitive and affective responses to our attempts to “teach” threshold concepts. The value of an approach that acknowledges the existence and influence of the multiple layers of interacting (epistemological) contexts in which threshold concepts are embedded allows us, in Kegan’s terms, to make them “object”. Consequently, rather than being impervious to their influence, we may hold them to light, examine them, and question their influence in shaping our current and future ways of knowing and being.

Concluding Thoughts With increased calls for accountability and the requirements of professional accreditation organisations, we must necessarily be concerned with, and attend to, the outcomes of learning in higher education. Indeed, we must have a clear vision of the direction in which we would like to take students. The questions raised in this chapter caution us, however, against making the acquisition of threshold concepts our sole focus as educators. We are perhaps reminded that increased attention to the learning process might help ensure that learners achieve the intended outcomes in a manner that recognises and respects the great cognitive and affective work they must do. Designing such developmentally-appropriate instruction involves having a deep understanding of learners’ current ways of making meaning, for what we are facilitating is a process of epistemological transformation so crucial to learners’ “becoming”: becoming disciplinary experts, and perhaps, most importantly, becoming more fully themselves.

Acknowledgements This research is partially supported by generous grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Fonds québecois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC). I would also like to thank Drs. Cynthia Weston, Alenoush Saroyan, and Krista Muis for their thoughtful responses to my Comprehensive Examination Paper – the document in which the ideas for this chapter originated. 87

References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Atherton, J. S. (2008) Doceo: Learning as loss 1 [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.doceo.co.uk/original/learnloss_1.htm Baltas, A. (2007). Background 'assumptions' and the grammar of conceptual change: Rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63-79). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier and the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986/1997). Womens' ways of knowing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: BasicBooks. Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69-80. Berger, J. G. (2004). Dancing on the threshold of meaning: Recognizing and understanding the growing edge. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(4), 336-351. Boyd, R. D. & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7(4), 261-284. Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 40, 63- 73. Carroll, B. B. (2007). Overcoming the immunity to change: Robert Kegan [Electronic Version]. Harvard Graduate School of Education web site: Impact on the world: Stories of impact. Retrieved June 22, 2007 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/impact/stories/faculty/kegan.php Chandler, M. (1995). Is this the end of “the age of development,” or what? Or: Please wait a minute, Mr. Post-Man. The Genetic Epistemologist, 23(1), Retrieved April 2, 2008 from http://www.piaget.org/GE/Winter95/ChandlerW95.html Cross, P. (1999). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 255-270.

Davies, P. (2006). Threshold concepts: How can we recognize them? In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding (pp. 70-84). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Debold, E. (2002 Fall/Winter). Epistemology, fourth order consciousness, and the subject-object relationship or... How the self evolves with Robert Kegan. What is enlightenment?: Redefining spirituality for an evolving world, Issue 22. Retrieved from http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/kegan.asp Dennett, D. (1991). Chapter 7: The evolution of consciousness. In Consciousness explained (pp. 171-226). New York: Little, Brown and Company. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109-128. Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2002). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 15-39). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. New York, NY: International Universities Press. Ferrari, M., Pinard, A., & Runions, K. (2001). Piaget’s framework for a scientific study of consciousness. Human Development, 44(4), 195-213. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row. Fiddler, M., & Marienau, C. (1995). Linking learning, teaching, and development. In K. Taylor & C. Marienau (Eds.), Learning environments for women’s adult development: Bridges toward change (Vol. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 65, pp. 73-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaarder, J. (1994). Sophie’s World: A novel about the history of philosophy (P. Moller, Trans.). New York, USA: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Gottlieb, E. (2007). Learning how to believe: Epistemic development in cultural context. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 5-35.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140. Homeostasis. (2007). [Electronic Version]. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from Britannica Online Encyclopædia: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270188/homeostasis Jung, C. G. (1959). The basic writings of C. G. Jung (Violet Staub de Laszlo ed.). New York, NY: Modern Library. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work : Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42(4), 449-496. Lewis, M. D. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71(1), 36-43. Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Kegan’s orders of consciousness. New Directions for Student Services, 88, 65-76. Magen, R. H., Austrian, S. G., & Hughes, C. S. (2002). Chapter 5: Adulthood. In S. G. Austrian (Ed.), Developmental theories through the life cycle (pp. 181-263). New York: Columbia University Press. 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: Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (pp. 412- 424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (Eds.). (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Reconsidering the Perry Scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 17- 36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Murphy, P. K. (2003). The philosophy in thee: Tracing philosophical influences in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 38(3), 137-145. Palmer, B., & Marra, R. M. (2008). Individual domain-specific epistemologies: Implications for educational practice. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 325-350). The Netherlands: Springer. Perkins, D. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49- 61. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11. Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33-47). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Perkins, D. (2007). Theories of difficulty. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II(4): Student Learning and University Teaching, 31-48. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge & Paul.

Robinson, D., & Groves, J. (2004). Introducing philosophy (Original edition 1998 ed.). Cambridge, UK: Icon Books. Scharmer, C. O. (2000, March 23). Grabbing the tiger by the tail: Conversation with Robert Kegan, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from http://www.dialogonleadership.org/kegan-1999.html. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sibbett, C. & Thompson, W. (2008). Nettlesome knowledge and threshold concepts in higher education, organizational and professional cultures. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Threshold Concepts, Threshold Concepts: From Theory to Practice, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, June 18-20, 2008. Simpson, J., & Roud, S. (2000). “threshold”. Oxford reference online: A dictionary of English folklore. Oxford University Press. Retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t71.e1042. Taylor, K. (1995). Speaking her mind: Adult learning and women’s adult development. In K. Taylor & C. Marienau (Eds.), Learning environments for women’s adult development: Bridges toward change (Vol. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 65, pp. 83-92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Therxold, A. S. (2000, March 5). “threshold”. The online medical dictionary. Department of Medical Oncology: University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?threshold Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Michael Cole ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wood, A. W. (1998). Dialectical materialism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London, UK. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N013SECT3

BRIDGING TEXT BETWEEN MANUSCRIPTS 2 AND 3

On the Issue of Irreversibility in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs

In Manuscript 1, we explored the critical notion that the development of epistemic beliefs occurs through a transformational process. This process was described as one of emergence of increasingly complex organisations of meaning. We also explored sources of epistemic beliefs development and proposed threshold concepts as potentially powerful instigators of development. In Manuscript 2, the process of emergence instigated by threshold concepts was explored in great detail, and we attempted to capture the motion of the transformational process between stages of epistemic beliefs development. We explored that this motion might not be unidirectional, but may involve “oscillation” or, as King, Kitchener, and DeLuca (2006, p. 75) note, a “wave”-like progression. We saw that, in the process of emergence of new structures between stages, there may exist a threshold. This observation led to the question of whether it is possible to revert to former ways of knowing and being once a threshold has been crossed and the restructuring process/the qualitative transformational process has begun. In Meyer and Land’s (2003) characterisation of threshold concepts as “irreversible,” the suggestion was that crossing over a threshold might be what Baltas (2007) calls an “irreversible achievement” (p. 76). Thus, a reversion to previous ways of knowing is unlikely. Indeed, it would appear that, for example, once a more adequate way of understanding a concept or viewing a problem reveals itself to a learner, he or she will not return to previous ways. Once a new […] possibility becomes available through the disclosure of a background ‘assumption’ and once the corresponding implications have become domesticated through the successes of the new paradigm, scientific reason cannot […] wipe out this possibility, forget its existence, and act as if it were not there. Forsaking the “Eureka!” experience, retracing the steps of paradigm change and making the disclosed assumption re-enter the amorphous background supporting […] the old conceptual system is obviously impossible. This is to say that the route for regaining the lost innocence, the route leading back to conceiving the old concepts strictly the way they were being conceived before the disclosure, is blocked. At least part of the […] glue assuring the coherence and self-consistency of the old conceptual system has been found out and, to that extent, it has lost for good the corresponding gripping power. The two succeeding 93

paradigms are asymmetrical also in the sense that the old paradigm has become definitively superseded. (Baltas, 2007, p. 76) We may now ask how the notion of thresholds might contribute to our continued effort develop a framework for the development of epistemic beliefs. Interestingly, many models of epistemic beliefs development raise the issue of thresholds and invoke a transition to an evaluativist stance as the “crux” of their model (Hofer, 2000, p. 381). In King and Kitchener’s (1994) Reflective Judgment Model, a transition into Stage Six represents a movement into the realm of “reflective thinking,” where “knowledge is not a ‘given’ but must be constructed,” where “claims of knowledge must be understood in relation to the context in which they were generated,” and where “conclusions should remain open to reevaluation” (p. 66). Kegan (1982) draws our attention to a potential threshold in Piaget’s (1950) model of cognitive development, as individuals pass from the concrete operational stage to the stage of formal operations. He remarks that this passage represents the hallmark of adolescence, unhinge[ing] the concrete world. Where before the “actual” was everything, it falls away […] and a whole new world, a world the person never knew existed, is revealed. […] The underlying psychologic is transformed from the physical to the metaphysical, and a whole new way of making meaning comes into being. (p. 37; emphasis in original) In their investigation of the transition from concrete operations to formal operations, Boyes and Chandler (1992) note that it regularly happens that at precisely the same developmental moment when young adolescents first begin to reason in ways that are truly adult-like [that is, in formal operational ways] they also suffer a crisis of personal identity. Seeing more in all of this than mere coincidence, numerous theorists (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980; Inhelder and Piaget, 1958) have sought reasons to why such good intellectual progress often comes to such apparently bad ends. (p. 278) Boyes and Chandler (1992) comment, however, that the investigations of these researchers fail to yield interesting insights into the causes for such upheaval, and “what we are left with instead are vague admonitions that do little more than caution that it always seems darkest before dawn, or that things must sometimes get worse before they can get better” (p. 278). In their work, Boyes and Chandler (1992) suggest that epistemic doubt might account for identity crises 94 accompanying the transition to formal operations. What I wish to suggest, however, is that Boyes and Chandler (1992) may have tapped into a specific, particularly emotionally-wrenching brand of epistemic doubt that accompanies the crossing over a threshold at a pivotal position in a model of development: a threshold from concrete operations to formal operations, or from subjectivism to evaluativism. Yet, perhaps no one expresses the momentous nature of the “pivotal” transition to evaluativism (Entwistle & Walker, 2002) in the development of epistemic beliefs as eloquently as Perry who describes it as a “watershed” (1988, p. 156), as “crossing the ridge of the divide” (p. 156). He describes this shift as a “rebirth” (1981, p. 92) for learners who “experience in themselves the origin of meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from the outside” (p. 92; emphasis in original). Perry remarks that this “revolutionary perception of the general relativism of all knowledge, including the knowledge possessed by Authority itself” is accompanied by the “initial discovery of meta-thought” (p. 87; emphasis in original). These are tremendous transitions indeed and represent shifts “during which learners transform from holders of meaning into makers of meaning, and from spectators into active constructors of knowledge” (Hofer, 2000, p. 381). Indeed, the students in Perry’s stage of Relativism (the evaluativist stance within his scheme) seem to have “recatalogued” their memories and seem to have “forgotten that the world ever seemed different from the way [they] now se[e] it to be” (1988, p. 155). These observations might lead us to consider characterising evaluativism as a threshold concept within the development of epistemic beliefs. This may enable us to gain a deeper understanding of the importance of this transition within each of the models. We have therefore seen that the notion of thresholds might operate at a “macro” level and apply to an entire stage model of epistemic beliefs development. Thresholds may also apply at a “micro” level, as we saw in our examination of the phases of transition between stages of development. Hence, while Bendixen and Rule suggest in their Integrative Model (2004; Rule & Bendixen, 2010) that reversion back to current or original beliefs or “reversion back to any of the previous components [in the mechanism of change]” (2004, p. 74) remains possible at any time throughout the process, I propose that this might not be entirely accurate. It appears, that while reversion may be likely up to a certain point, it may be highly unlikely (and perhaps even impossible) once a learner has crossed a threshold. That is, on a path of development from one epistemic stage or stance to the next, there is a point in our journey when we cross a threshold 95 and our old way of knowing is no longer “tenable”. There is an irreversible shift in the way in which “essence” is coordinated. There emerges a new space from which to observe and analyze the world. The crossing of such momentous thresholds over which the past seems “untenable,” might propel learners into what Meyer and Land (2003, 2005) refer to as “liminal space” or a state of “liminality”. Their use of these terms stems from the seminal ethnographical studies conducted by van Gennep (1960) and Turner (1969) into central social rituals, such as rites of passage associated with the initiation of adolescent boys into manhood amongst traditional peoples. Turner adopted the term ‘liminality’ (from Latin limen, ‘boundary or threshold’) to characterise the transitional space/time within which the rites were conducted. (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 375) Meyer and Land (2005) further discuss Turner’s description of the liminal spaces that characterize social rituals as being “transformative” in nature, involving “an individual or group being altered from one state into another” and during which “the participating individual acquires new knowledge and subsequently a new status and identity in the community” (p. 376). As mentioned in Manuscript 2, we may therefore begin to envision that the transformative process involves not only the expansion of conceptual, affective, and epistemological spaces, but also, as Meyer and Land (2005, 2006) explain, the expansion of ontological spaces – of a learner’s identity and “sense of self” (2006, p. 19). The notion that crossing a threshold may lead to transformations in ways of knowing, feeling, and being is a powerful one. Furthermore, the notion that there may exist concepts, threshold concepts, within the disciplines that serve to instigate such momentous transformations provides us with a valuable tool for examining our fields. Indeed, Meyer and Land (2003) describe threshold concepts as providing insight into the ways that people know within a discipline and Davies (2006) remarks that these concepts, once understood, enable people to be identified as members of a particular disciplinary community. In light of these observations, threshold concepts may be particularly well-suited to contribute to the current endeavour in the field of educational development to better understand “who we are and what we do” (Stockley et al., 2008) as educational developers. Establishing a firm grounding for our work and identities as educational developers is crucial for establishing the credibility of our field (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006). Manuscript 3 which follows attempts to contribute to this 96 endeavour and provides an account of a research study designed to investigate the following research question: “What do experienced educational developers identify as threshold concepts in educational development?” Study findings may help us gain an understanding of the ways of knowing and being that unite educational developers.

References

Baltas, A. (2007). Background 'assumptions' and the grammar of conceptual change: Rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63-79). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier and the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69-80. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_7 Boyes, M. C., & Chandler, M. (1992). Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 277-304. Davies, P. (2006). Threshold concepts: How can we recognise them? In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 70-84). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2002). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 15-39). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026 Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kitchener, K. S., King, P. M., & DeLuca, S. (2006). Development of reflective judgment in adulthood. In C. Hoare (Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 73-98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 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: improving student learning theory and practice -- Ten years on (pp. 412-424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. 98

Meyer, J. H. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5 Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (Eds.). (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, W. G. (1988). Different worlds in the same classroom. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 145-161). London, UK: Kogan Page. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence (M. Piercy & D. E. Berlyne, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge & Paul. Rule, D. C., & Bendixen, L. D. (2010). The integrative model of personal epistemology: Theoretical underpinnings and implications for education. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 94-121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P., & Beach, A., L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Stockley, D., Mighty, J., McDonald, J., Taylor, K. L., Sorcinelli, M.D., Ouellett, Lewis, K., Land, R., Gosling, D., Dawson, D., & Caron, A. (2008, June). Mapping Our Pathway Into the Field of Educational Development. Presentation at the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) Conference, Salt Lake City, USA. Abstract retrieved from http://iced2008.org/conference-program/concurrent-session-8/

MANUSCRIPT 3

Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development Julie A. Timmermans and Cynthia B. Weston McGill University Manuscript in preparation for submission to the International Journal for Academic Development (IJAD)

Statement of Problem and Purpose These are exciting times for the profession of educational development. It seems that the hallmark of a vital profession is a spirit of inquisitiveness, and we are indeed in a time of deep questioning about our identities as professionals, the preparation of those who practise this profession, and the very mission of the work we do. Until recently, there had been no consistent articulation of the mission of educational development work. In an international collaborative effort to conceptualise the field, Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) propose that the “dual mission” of educational development is to “enhance learning and teaching capacity, and to advocate for the quality of the student learning experience” (p. 146). This mission alludes to the complexity involved in our work (e.g., Saroyan & Frenay, 2001; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010); however, there exist few official programs that ensure the initial and ongoing formation of educational developers (Bédard, Clement, & Taylor, 2010; McDonald & Stockley, 2008; Saroyan & Frenay, 2001; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). In the context of the Preparation for the Professions Program at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Shulman (2005b) suggests that we may better understand the practise of professionals by looking to their “nurseries,” that is, their professional preparation programs, to see how people are formed for practise. Applied to educational development, this exercise reveals that we appear to have no nursery. Yet, given the mission of educational development work to influence the quality and culture of teaching and learning at various levels of the university, a major struggle is to understand the qualifications that should be sought in preparing and hiring for this role. The lack of a preparation program for educational developers is perhaps indicative of a more fundamental issue: the lack of a “unifying position-profile that captures who we are and what we do” (Stockley et al., 2008). In this same vein, Dawson, Britnell, and Hitchcock (2010) propose that faculty developers’ “weak occupational identity” (p. 4) may in part be attributable 100 to the fact that “we have not yet clearly articulated the competencies necessary for success” (p. 4). Such issues of ambiguity of professional identity and competencies threaten the credibility of the field (Sorcinelli et al., 2006). Consequently, before envisaging the design of preparation programs, there is first a need to clarify the kinds of competencies and expertise necessary for effective educational development practise. And indeed, two recent comprehensive studies have produced rather consistent findings regarding the areas of competency and expertise of educational developers. Drawing on the U.S. Department of Education’s (2002) model of postsecondary outcomes (Figure 3.1), Dawson, Britnell, et al.’s (2010) work proposes the traits and characteristics; skills, abilities, and knowledge; competencies; and demonstrations of competencies required by educational developers at the entry, senior, and director levels in university teaching and learning centres.

Figure 3.1. U.S. Department of Education (2002, p. 8): A hierarchy of postsecondary outcomes.

The models they develop for each of the positions in collaboration with their participants, sixty experienced educational developers, reveal the distinctive and increasingly complex nature of competencies expected at each of these levels. Study findings reveal that the most crucial (highest-ranked) competencies for entry-level educational developers include effective communication, planning and implementation, and facilitation. Expectations of competencies 101 for senior-level educational developers centre on course design and strategies for instruction, program development, and evaluation. Successful directors require a complex set of integrative competencies in areas such as facilitation, advocacy and change management, relationship management, policy development, community building, and mentoring (Dawson, Britnell, et al., 2010, pp. 12-13). Taken together, these competencies, as well as the traits and characteristics, and skills, knowledge, and abilities listed for each level begin to highlight the various identities held by educational developers. Resulting from a very fruitful international collaboration in the context of a Canada-EU Mobility project (see Saroyan & Frenay, 2010), the conceptual framework of the “Meaning and Scope of Educational Development” proposed by Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) is not a list of competencies, but “represents a meta-analysis of educational development practice and its multiple dimensions across contexts” (Saryoan & Frenay, 2010, p. xix). The framework was validated (Bédard et al., 2010) to ensure its ability to reflect “the experience of the entire field of practice” and to capture simultaneously the “underlying principles” and the “specific activities and tasks that practitioners engage in daily” (Bédard et al., 2010, p. 169). The validated framework consists of the following five components, each with multiple dimensions: “Context and Mission,” “Principles, Values, and Ethics of Practice,” “Educational Development Units,” “Educational Development Expertise,” and “Evaluating Practice.” Identifying the competencies and expertise that form the basis of our practise is indeed crucial. Yet, might there be a step that precedes this one? The work of life-span developmental psychologist Robert Kegan suggests that there might be. In a book resulting from an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) project to identify important outcomes for education, Kegan (2001) synthesizes contributions from an international group of colleagues regarding key competencies for education. While supporting the importance of “how we behave” (skills) and “what we know” (knowledge), he proposes that we conceive of competence first as an epistemological matter – a matter of “how we know” (pp. 192-193; emphasis added). He comments that a great benefit to a concept like “competence” is that it directs our attention beneath the observable behavioural surface of “skills” to inquire into the mental capacity that creates the behaviour. And it directs our attention beyond the acquisition of “knowledge” as storable contents (what we know) to inquire into processes by which we create 102

knowledge (how we know). This is not to say that our skills and our fund of knowledge are unimportant. But it is to remind us what every teacher or manager knows: teaching skills or knowledge contents without developing the underlying mental capacities that create the skill or the knowledge leads to very brittle results. […] So when I suggest that the several essays are best read conceiving “competence” as first a question of how we know, I do not mean this to exclude the question of how we behave or what we know. I just mean the first question is prior to the other two. (pp. 192-193) Thus, from the above discussion, we observe two different interpretations of the notion of “competencies”: In the model used in Dawson, Britnell, et al.’s (2010) research, “competencies are the result of integrative learning experiences in which skills, abilities, and knowledge interact to form bundles that have currency in relation to the task for which they are assembled” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 7). Kegan (2001) interprets “competencies” in a different light as fundamentally about the “ways of knowing” that give rise to skills and knowledge. The purpose of highlighting these distinctive interpretations is not to engage in a discussion regarding the relative merit of one interpretation of the term “competencies” over another, but to draw attention to the value of examining the ways of knowing that underlie our skills and knowledge. In addition to identifying the “ways of knowing of professionals,” there is compelling evidence that identifying their “ways of being” may be equally important. In a discussion of the Carnegie Foundation’s studies about education in the professions, Shulman (2005a) refers to the three apprenticeships – cognitive, practical, and moral – required for the holistic education of professionals. He comments, however, that even these three apprenticeships are not sufficient: As we’ve seen, […] professionals not only have to understand and perform, they have to be certain kinds of human being. To use the language of the education of clergy, they have to undergo a certain kind of formation of character and values so they become a kind of person to whom we are prepared to entrust the responsibilities of our health system, of our education system, of our souls and of the kind of justice we expect to see pursued in this society. (pp. 3-4; emphasis in original) Dawson, Britnell, et al.’s work (2010) echoes the importance of this. They eloquently comment that “values and attitudes are seen as human and social capital needed for the positions” (p. 20) 103 and remark that their participants suggest “assessing the values and attitudes of individuals for all three of these positions” (p. 18). However, ways of knowing and being of experienced professionals and disciplinary experts often remain tacit (e.g., Meyer & Land, 2003; Polanyi, 1958), In a compelling editorial piece exploring our “Taken For Granted Assumptions,” McAlpine and Sharpe (2006) remark being “struck by the richness of the multidisciplinary nature of our field,” yet that “often in our conversations and interactions amongst ourselves and with others, these diverse underlying assumptions, and ways of knowing and valuing do not get explicitly surfaced and examined” (p. 1). Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) comment on the fruitfulness of conversations that help surface the “practices, principles, values, and concepts” that are “largely taken for granted in the private contexts of practice” (p. 160). It is precisely this type of conversation that led to the elaboration of their conceptualisation of the mission and scope of educational development. The collaborative work above highlights the importance, and perhaps the urgency in our field, in unveiling the “hidden demands of disciplinary understanding” (Perkins, 2007, p. 39), for not doing so may render it difficult for novices/learners to truly “embrac[e] the logic and spirit of the discipline” (Perkins, 2007, p. 39). The question now emerges of to where we might turn for guidance in our continued search to unveil the often hidden assumptions about these ways of knowing and being.

Conceptual Framework A vibrant and generative cross-disciplinary scholarly conversation has emerged in recent years around the topic of “threshold concepts.” First proposed by Meyer and Land in 2003, and emerging from the Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses project in the United Kingdom, a threshold concept is defined as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view. This transformation may be sudden or it may be protracted over a considerable period of time, with the transition to understanding proving troublesome. Such a transformed view or landscape may represent 104

how people ‘think’ in a particular discipline, or how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that discipline (or more generally). (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 412) This definition alludes to the various characteristics often used to describe a threshold concept: it is “integrative” in that it “exposes the previously hidden interrelatedness” of other disciplinary concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 416); drawing on the work of Perkins (1999), a threshold concept may also be characterised as “troublesome,” for it may involve knowledge that is “inert, ritual, conceptually difficult” or “foreign” (p. 8); understanding a threshold concept causes an “irreversible” shift in perspective that is “unlikely to be forgotten” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 416); it may be, but is not necessarily, “bounded” and may “serve to constitute the demarcation between disciplinary areas” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 416). The most non-negotiable characteristic of a threshold concept, however, is its “transformative” nature (J. H. F. Meyer, personal communication, May 1, 2009), as it can “occasion a shift in the perception of a subject, or part thereof” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 415). And indeed, the characteristics of threshold concepts allow us to capture a sense of the work that threshold concepts are doing: they are transforming, integrating, making trouble, but of what? An important question is, therefore, what is changing and allowing us to remark that a threshold has been crossed, that a transformation has occurred, that a learner has moved from one way of making meaning to another? In his Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making, Kegan (1982, 1994, 2000; with Debold, 2002) theorises that what is transforming as we advance through successive stages of meaning-making during our lives are our ways of knowing, the epistemologies, which shape the “window” or “lens through which one looks at the world” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 3). The essence of a particular position, or “order of consciousness” is a distinct subject- object relationship. Kegan (1994) states that “ ‘subject’ refers to those elements of our knowing or organizing that we are identified with, tied to, fused with, or embedded in” (p. 32). On the other hand, “ ‘object’ refers to those elements of our knowing or organizing that we can reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take control of, internalize, assimilate, or otherwise operate upon” (p. 32). He eloquently characterises the expanded vision that characterises our epistemic development in the following way: 105

Liberating ourselves from that in which we are embedded, making what was subject into object so that we can ‘have it’ rather than be ‘had by it’ – this is the most powerful ways I know to conceptualise the growth of the mind. (p. 34) Threshold concepts are thus epistemological and transformational in nature. As such, they also hold great developmental potential (Timmermans, 2010). As Perkins (2007) notes, they are “especially pivotal to a stage-like advance in understanding a discipline” (p. 36). In a recent publication, I explore the ways in which the “troublesome” nature of threshold concepts may instigate a process of epistemological transformations (Timmermans, 2010), causing us to lose the current “balance” from which we view the world (Kegan, 1982). Kegan notes that, in order to move forward, organisms must be thrown out of balance. “[O]rganisms organize,” he says, “that is their nature, and they are drawn to experiences of discrepancy in order to give them form” (with Debold, 2002, p. 9). Thus, growth of mind occurs by having one’s equilibrium, one’s current way of knowing disturbed or “challenged” (Kegan, 1994). And so begins a process of revealing what was “subject” so that it may become “object.” With respect to learning within the disciplines, and, in the case of this study, learning within educational development, the cognitive and the often affective “troublesomeness” engendered by an appropriately-timed encounter with a threshold concept may provide the stimulus needed to instigate a process of perspective transformation. And it is this perspective transformation, this transformation of epistemic beliefs that lies at the heart of transformative learning (Kegan, 2000; Mezirow, 2000). As Meyer, Land, and Baillie (2010) remark, however “being and knowing are inextricably linked” (p. xxviii), and Kegan’s theory captures the ontological dimension to perspective transformation. Each “order of consciousness” is characterised, not only by “cognitive properties,” but also by “intrapersonal (self-concept) and interpersonal (relationship) dimensions” (Love & Guthrie, 1999, p. 67; emphasis in original). In this same way, in addition to being epistemological in nature, threshold concepts are also profoundly ontological. Comprehending a threshold concept appears to occasion a shift, a “transfiguration” (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 375) in the very identity of the learner (Davies, 2006; Meyer & Land, 2005). Drawing on Wenger’s (1998) work on communities of practice, Irvine and Carmichael (2009) observe that threshold concepts may represent “the points of focus around which specialized meanings, identity and membership are negotiated” (p. 104). 106

The epistemological, ontological, transformational, and developmental nature of threshold concepts renders them interesting and suitable candidates for pursuing an investigation of the ways of knowing and being underlying the practise of educational developers. Indeed, threshold concepts have not been documented in educational development. Thus, the overall purpose of the study reported in this article is to identify the ideas that have instigated transformations in the ways of knowing and being of experienced educational developers by documenting threshold concepts.

Research Question This study addresses the following research question: “What do experienced educational developers identify as threshold concepts in educational development?”

Methodology Dissertation Committee Members and Examiners, in order to enable examination of the study, a full account of the methodology is provided here. The methodology section will appear in a condensed format when the manuscript is submitted for publication.

In this qualitative study, a multiple case study approach to research was adopted (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 2006) to address the research question, “What do experienced educational developers identify as threshold concepts in educational development?” The study sought to determine the threshold concepts identified as common across participants in order to gain a portrait of the ways of knowing and being that unite educational developers as a profession.

Ethical Considerations Prior to conducting this study, Ethics Approval for Human Subject Research was obtained from McGill University’s Research Ethics Review Board.

107

Participants Description of type of purposive sample and rationale for using it. Given the importance that contextual factors play in determining the nature of educational development work, a homogeneous sampling strategy (Creswell, 2007) was used to minimize the possible variation in responses that may be due to contextual factors. Creswell (2007) further suggests that, for case study research, a sample size of four of five cases is appropriate. In this study, the bounded system was therefore comprised of four educational developers, selected for their similarities on the following characteristics: All are experienced educational developers from Canadian universities; three participants are from research-intensive (G-15, Medical/Doctoral1) universities, and one is from a Comprehensive2 university. All participants are or have been Directors of teaching and learning centres and have carried out educational development work at multiple levels (e.g., national, institutional, Faculty, departmental, individual). All participants also play a leadership role within the educational development community. Both their directorships and their election into positions of national or international leadership within the educational development community suggest that their achievements have been recognized over time and by various sources. Ericsson and Smith (1991) remark these achievements may be interpreted as a sign of expertise. On selecting experienced educational developers. Glaser, Lesgold, and Lajoie (1987) contend that “understanding expertise is difficult because skilful performers appear to observe a set of rules that they themselves have difficulty verbalizing” (p. 48). Furthermore, it is often difficult for experts to recall previous (mis)conceptions (Boshuizen, Bromme, & Gruber, 2004) and to explain thresholds they have crossed, as old ways of knowing have been integrated into new ways (Meyer & Land, 2003). Experienced educational developers have been chosen for this study, however, as they demonstrate great capacity for reflection (McAlpine, Weston, Beauchamp, Wiseman, and Beauchamp, 1999). Interpreted from the perspective of Kegan’s Subject-Object theory (1982), the ability to reflect signifies that one is able to hold as an “object” of reflection that which one could not see at earlier stages of development. Participants in this study are all engaged in reflecting on their profession. They are active scholars in educational development, as evidenced by their contributions to current work in the field (e.g., journal

1 The classification “Medical/Doctoral” is taken from Maclean’s Magazine University Rankings. 2 The classification “Comprehensive” is taken from Maclean’s Magazine University Rankings. 108 publications, conference presentations). Based on these qualities, participants in this study have been purposefully chosen as they have, as Perkins (1997) notes “mastered the episteme of their discipline”. On this note, Taylor and Rege-Colet (2010, p. 157) comment that “analyzing the expertise of educational developers helps to identify the competencies and skills that comprise professional practise.” The participants selected for this study are therefore well-positioned to contribute to the study’s purpose of documenting threshold concepts in educational development.

Development of Tool: Interview Protocol For the complete interview protocol, please refer to Appendix A. Background. The focus of the interview was to address the Research Question, “What do experienced educational developers identify as threshold concepts in educational development?”. The interview protocol emerged from an understanding of the literature on threshold concepts (e.g., Meyer & Land, 2003), and on the development of epistemic beliefs (e.g., Kegan, 1982, 2000; Timmermans, 2007; 2011), and the potential of threshold concepts to instigate the development of epistemic beliefs (Timmermans, 2010). Pilot of interview protocol. A pilot of the interview protocol was conducted for two purposes: 1. to assess whether the content of the interview being elicited by the protocol was indeed reflective of the research question; and 2. to assess the interview process (e.g., sequencing of questions, timing, etc.). Two participants were selected for the pilot study. An attempt was made to select pilot study participants who fully met the criteria for the study’s participant selection, yet who were also locally available. One pilot study participant fully met the selection criteria. The responses of this participant were used to assess the interview content. The other pilot participant did not fully meet the selection criteria. This participant’s interview was therefore primarily used to assess the interview process. Modifications were made to the interview protocol based on feedback about the interview content and process from the pilot study participants. For example, during the pilot interview, one participant mentioned that she had come to the interview having thought of a certain threshold concepts that she wanted to discuss, yet they had not come up in 109 the interview. Based on this feedback, the protocol was revised to include a question asking participants directly to name any threshold concepts in educational development. Interview protocol: Components and rationales. Consistent with an interpretivist (e.g., Miles & Huberman, 1994) approach to qualitative research, the interview was not a simple “gathering of information” by a disinterested researcher, but a “’co-elaborated’ act” between the participants and the researcher. Miles and Huberman (1994) note that researchers have “their own understandings, their own convictions, their own conceptual orientations; they, too, are members of a particular culture at a specific historical moment” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 8). When such an approach to research is adopted, Miles and Huberman underscore the importance of using “pre-established instruments” to enable a clear delineation of the contributions of the researcher(s) and the participant(s). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, a semi-structured interview was conducted using the protocol outlined in the sections that follow. Section 1: Welcome and introduction to the study. One purpose of this section of the interview was to reiterate the purpose of the study. An additional purpose was to provide the participant with a one-paragraph definition of threshold concepts (Meyer and Land, 2003) to ensure clarity regarding the interview topic. Section 2: Interview questions one to five: Personal trajectory to becoming an Educational developer and shifts in identity as an educational developer. The questions in this section of the interview were designed to gather information about each participant’s academic background and path as an educational developer. Because of time constraints faced by participants, the decision was made not to ask participants to answer these questions in a profile questionnaire prior to the interview. The questions first served to establish a rapport with the participants and increase their comfort level, as they were able to begin the interview by answering questions of a more personal than conceptual nature. Second, interview questions were intended to capture the participants’ perspectives on “becoming” and “being” an educational developer. The “Pathways to the Profession” research (McDonald & Stockley, 2008) highlights the importance of finding out the path of educational developers. Since there is no prescribed pathway for becoming an educational developer, no formal preparation program, it is important to understand what brings people to the profession and what incites them to stay. 110

Third, the questions allowed each participant to reflect on his/her career trajectory and identify shifts in identity as an educational developer. The purpose of establishing a participant’s identity as an educational developer, along with shifts in this identity, was to create a context for situating and interpreting future responses regarding threshold concepts in educational development. Section 3: Interview questions six to ten: Leadership in educational development and mission of educational development. As the work of educational development and educational developers moves “from the periphery to the center of the academy” (Dawson, Mighty, & Britnell, 2010, p. 69), educational developers are increasingly being called upon to be leaders of change within their institutions. All study participants are leaders in the educational development community and are helping shape the future of the field through their research, their active membership on various national and international committees, etc. The questions in this section of the interview were therefore designed to capture participants’ vision of leadership and to better understand what they view as the mission of educational development. Understanding visions of leadership and interpretations of the mission of educational development helps further to situate and contextualise identified threshold concepts. Section 4: Interview questions eleven to fifteen: Eliciting threshold concepts in educational development. As mentioned earlier, during the pilot-test of the interview protocol, one participant commented that, upon being invited to participate in the pilot interview, a threshold concept had come to mind for her, yet this threshold concept had not surfaced during the interview. Therefore, to begin this section of the interview, participants were asked to name any threshold concepts that had come to mind for them between the time they received the invitation to participate in the study and the day of the interview. An additional focus in this section of the interview was on concepts that each participant could identify as being “troublesome” in his/her path as an educational developer. Indeed, “troublesomeness” has been identified by Meyer and Land (2003) as one of the characteristics of threshold concepts, and empirical studies that seek to identify threshold concepts have focussed on this particular aspect (e.g., Davies & Mangan, 2007). Kegan (1994; with Debold, 2002) also remarks that, in order to transform, organisms must encounter some form of discrepancy which disturbs an existing balance. Furthermore, as was proposed earlier, the troublesomeness of threshold concepts may be the very quality that instigates the “epistemological transitions” 111

(Timmermans, 2010), which, in this case, facilitate the transformation of the ways of knowing and being as an educational developer. Section 5: Consolidating threshold concepts identified in the interview. The purpose of this section of the interview was to consolidate the threshold concepts identified throughout the interview and elicit them using participants’ words, so as to reduce inference during analysis. Participants were given two options for proceeding with this part of the interview. The first option was for the participant to take five to ten minutes to write down any threshold concepts discussed during the interview. I offered to leave the room during this time to provide the participant with privacy for reflection. Alternatively, participants were offered the option of proceeding orally with the exercise. Section 6: Questions to wrap up interview. Here, participants were offered an opportunity to raise any additional issues related to identifying threshold concepts in educational development not raised during the interview. Section 7: Thanking participant and discussing follow-up. The purpose of this concluding portion of the interview was to review certain research procedures. Participants were informed that they would be sent the full transcript of the interview for verification and that they would have the liberty to add or delete anything from the transcript. Participants were also ensured that study data would be coded to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. Each participant was then asked if he/she would feel comfortable being identified as a “director of an educational development centre at a Canadian university and leader in the Canadian educational development community.” Participants were also reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time by contacting me or my advisor. Finally, participants were thanked for giving their time and thoughts so generously.

Data Collection Procedures Participant recruitment. An electronic message inviting potential participants to participate in the study was co-written by me and my dissertation supervisor, Dr. Cynthia Weston, who is also the Director of McGill’s educational development centre, Teaching and Learning Services. The message was sent to each individual participant from Dr. Weston’s e- mail account, with a carbon copy (cc) to my e-mail account. (Please see Appendix B.) The purpose of this recruitment strategy was to increase the likelihood of receiving a response to the 112 inquiry, since Dr. Weston is well-known by potential participants. The topic of the research, identifying threshold concepts in educational development, was clearly outlined in the message, with a direct quotation of the definition of threshold concepts from Meyer and Land’s (2003) original work. This was done in order to leave no ambiguity regarding the topic and theoretical underpinnings of the research. Participant selection criteria were also clearly delineated to enable participants to indicate in their response to the inquiry whether or not they felt they fulfilled these criteria. The time commitment required was also specified. Potential benefits of participating in the study were outlined by Dr. Weston who shares the profile of the participants being recruited, and who had also answered many of the interview questions. This information was shared in order to assure the potential participants that their valuable time would be well spent. Finally, potential participants were then invited to contact us to make any requests for clarification. Interview scheduling and location. Interviews were scheduled during the Educational Developers Caucus Conference in Oshawa, Ontario, from February 23-25, 2009. The intention underlying the decision to conduct interviews during the conference was to reduce the costs of the research, given the geographical dispersion of participants. The precise location of the interviews was of the participant’s choosing (e.g., a restaurant, a conference room, etc.). As one of the participants was only attending the conference for a brief time and would not be available for an interview while at the conference, I travelled to her university in Ontario (during the conference period) to conduct the interview. Interviews were scheduled for two hours. Conducting the interview. The following sections describe the procedures used to conduct the interview. Physical positions during the interview. In all cases, the participant and I were seated face-to-face. After taking our seats, two digital audio recorders were activated and I began with Section I of the protocol, “Welcome and Introduction.” During this portion of the interview, participants were provided with a typed copy of Meyer and Land’s (2003) definition of threshold concepts – the same definition which had been provided in the recruitment e-mail. (Please see Appendix C.) Participants were asked to take a moment to read the definition and were asked if any clarifications needed to be made. No clarifications were necessary. Signing the consent form. Participants were then given a consent form to sign before data collection began. (Please see Appendix D.) The consent form clearly explained the purpose 113 of the research, as well as intended uses and dissemination of the research findings. Participants were assured that their participation was voluntary, that they were free to withdraw at any time, and that no information that could jeopardize their professional position would be included in the study. Both my contact information, as well as my supervisor’s contact information were indicated on the consent form. Participants were encouraged to contact us with any questions or concerns that may arise during the entire research process. Recording the interview. Two high-quality digital audio recorders were used for recording and backing up each interview. Additionally, extensive written notes were taken during the interviews. Reliability during the data collection was ensured in these ways. Asking the interview questions. I began asking the interview questions according to the sequence in the protocol. In all cases, I followed the responses of the participants and went to different questions/sections of the protocol according to participants’ responses, in order to respect their thought process. In one case, a conversation began spontaneously, and we began with a section of the protocol that was not intended to be the first one. We then returned to the Section 1 later in the interview. During the interview, after approximately an hour and when it seemed appropriate, participants were invited to take a brief pause if they wished. No participants took this offer. Two of the four interviews lasted almost the full two hours; one interview lasted approximately two hours and fifteen minutes; and another interview lasted approximately one hour and fifteen minutes. Consolidating the threshold concepts identified in the interview. After the final question had been asked, I reviewed the protocol to determine if all questions in the protocol had been addressed. As per the protocol, participants were then informed that we would take a few minutes to consolidate the thinking that had occurred during the interview and to identify the threshold concepts that had emerged. Participants were offered the option of writing their ideas on a piece of paper or doing the summary orally. All participants elected to do the summary orally. In some cases, participants asked me to remind them of what they had said during the interview. I therefore began proposing threshold concepts that had arisen, and let the participant expand from there.

114

Concluding the interview. To conclude, participants were asked if there was anything that we had not discussed which they wished to discuss in the context of the study. Thus, the conversation either continued for a few moments, or not. Finally, participants were informed of the following: (a) that the full transcript of the interview would be sent to them for verification; (b) that the data would be coded and depersonalized to ensure anonymity and confidentiality; participants were asked whether they would feel comfortable being identified as the “director (or former director) of an educational development centre at a Canadian university and leader in the Canadian educational development community;” and (c) that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time by contacting either me or my supervisor. Participants were thanked for sharing their time and thoughts so generously, and the recording ended. Ensuring the validity of the interview. The following methods were used to ensure the validity of the interview. Gaining participant trust. One method for ensuring validity is to build the trust of study participants and demonstrate that one has learned the culture of the participants (Ely et al., 1991; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988; cited in Creswell, 2007, p. 207). Consequently, when appropriate during the interview, I shared with participants my relationship to the topics being studied, as well as my own personal path as an educational developer. My intention in doing so was to establish my identity as a member of the community of educational developers. Addressing interview questions multiple times (construct validity). Questions attempting to elicit participants’ interpretations of the research question (i.e., threshold concepts in educational development) were posed in slightly different manners, depending on the particular subtopic of our conversation (e.g., professional trajectory, working with new developers, etc.). Thanking participants after the interview. In the two weeks following the interview, a hand-written card was mailed to the office of each study participant thanking him/her for giving his/her time and thoughts so generously.

Data Analysis Procedures: Within-Case Consistent with a multiple case study approach to research (Stake, 2006), data analysis consisted of a within-case analysis for each participant, followed by a cross-case analysis. The 115 steps taken for both the within-case analysis and the cross-case analysis will be outlined in detail below. Preparing the interviews for analysis. A first step in the data analysis process was preparing the interviews for analysis. A professional transcriber transcribed each interview verbatim and re-read the transcripts to verify the accuracy of the transcription. Hesitations in the forms of “ums” and “ahs” were not noted, but incomplete thoughts in the form of sentences that were begun and not finished, were recorded. All transcripts were created as Microsoft Word files and line numbers were inserted for each line. All transcriptions were then read by me to verify the accuracy of the transcription. Changes were made to the transcriptions when necessary, for example when subject-specific terminology was misunderstood by the transcriber. Furthermore, I chose to italicize words on which the participant had placed particular emphasis with his/her voice to capture a sense of the importance of certain ideas. Identifying Named and Inferred threshold concepts in the transcripts. Analysis continued with a careful reading of the entire transcript. After completing the reading, an initial list of threshold concepts was generated from Section 5 of the interview called “Consolidating threshold concepts identified in the interview” in which participants were asked to recall and name threshold concepts in educational development that had emerged for them during the interview. (Please refer to Interview Protocol, Appendix A). The entire interview transcript was then carefully re-read, and the initial list of threshold concepts was complemented with threshold concepts that were explicitly named in Sections 3 and 4 of the interview, but that had not been named in Section 5. Explicit identification of a threshold concept involved a phrase, such as the following: “This was a threshold concept for me.” Threshold concepts explicitly identified in Sections 3, 4, and 5 are referred to as “Named threshold concepts.” Also identified were what appeared to be threshold concepts for the participant, although not named explicitly as such. Kegan’s subject-object theory, as well as the characteristics of threshold concepts, as described in the literature (e.g., Meyer & Land, 2003) were used to infer these threshold concepts. Thus, for example, ideas described as “transformational,” “critical to development,” sensed as a “realization,” or as serving “to open one’s eyes” were identified as threshold concepts. These threshold concepts are referred to as “Inferred threshold concepts” and were included in the analysis. The following is an example of an Inferred threshold concept: 116

“I can’t specify when the shift happened, but there was a point at which I realized that one aspect of my role was to be very strategic” (P3, lines 264-265). Generating codes for threshold concepts for each participant. Descriptive codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) were generated to label the Named and Inferred threshold concepts. The participant’s language was used to label the code, in order to reduce inference. Determining the unit of analysis. The unit of analysis was a Named or an Inferred threshold concept and was comprised of the following elements: . the identified Named or Inferred threshold concept; . a definition of the threshold concept as given by the participant; and . the participant’s description of the context in which the threshold concept emerged. In some cases, the definition of the threshold concept and the description of the context in which it emerged were immediately adjacent to the identified threshold concept. In other cases, however, the definition and/or description were located elsewhere in the interview transcript. The unit of analysis was demarcated within the interview transcript using block parentheses: [unit of analysis]. Creating marginal remarks. Throughout the coding process, marginal comments were inserted into the right margin of the interview transcript (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These marginal comments served various purposes: (a) to identify links between the participant’s words and the theories informing the study; (b) to note observations regarding relationships between threshold concepts identified within a case; (c) to identify emerging commonalities in threshold concepts across participants; and (d) to note the emergence of interesting observations, such as the identification by participants of one, or several, threshold concept(s) as being “key” or “core” to their identity and practise. These threshold concepts are referred to as “Core threshold concepts.” Identifying and attributing codes to “Parent threshold concepts” and “Subordinate threshold concepts.” When a Named threshold concept or an Inferred threshold concept had multiple dimensions, the Named or Inferred threshold concept was characterised as a “Parent threshold concept.” The dimensions were characterised as “Subordinate threshold concepts.” The following excerpts provide examples of a Parent threshold concept with its Subordinate threshold concepts:

117

Parent threshold concept 1: “Collaboration”

“I would certainly say just from our discussion here tonight and my reflection on, on my career, that one of the concepts that I would think is a threshold concept is the whole concept of collaboration.” (P3, lines 587-589)

Subordinate threshold concept 1a: “Drawing on a scholarly community: Collaboration within the community of educational developers”

“And if you don’t recognize that you have to draw on the community that exists, there’s only so much that we know. We are limited in our sphere of knowledge and everything else and so we have to draw on others and that’s, that’s another thing I think is really critical, is another threshold—the sense of community. I guess it’s captured when I talk about collaboration. You know, that sense of community. That, it’s a threshold concept because I can’t see an educational developer growing and evolving in the way we’ve talked about that evolution of recognition of the various roles that we play unless you realize that they’re, that a) your mission is to change, to make change; and b) that you have a community of people that you can draw on to help you in that process. […] It’s, it’s, it’s an intellectual, a cognitive—a scholarly community, I guess. That’s the word. And so, it’s important for us to be a) engaging in scholarship ourselves and b) drawing on the existent scholarship.” (P3, lines 632-644)

Subordinate threshold concept 1b: “Collaboration with people we are helping”

“I think too the collaboration extends—Here’s the other thing. It’s not just collaboration within the education development community, but it is collaboration with the people that we are helping. It is a process where they have a role to play in it and so what happens is that they own it.” (P3, lines 729-731; emphasis in original)

The relationship described above between a Parent threshold concept which includes one or more Subordinate threshold concepts was one type of relationship observed.

118

Identifying relationships between Parent threshold concepts for each participant. A second type of relationship was also observed: this was a relationship between Parent threshold concepts. The following excerpt illustrates the relationship between the Parent threshold concept “Integrity” and the Parent threshold concept “Context”: “I think the context probably was the first insight I had into shaping successful practice and relationships with colleagues. But I think because of that another concept is integrity and kind of, you know, practising who you are and what you know but in all these different places” (P1, lines 308-311; emphasis in original). Data reduction and within-case displays. Miles and Huberman (1994) comment that “unreduced text alone is a weak and cumbersome form of display” (p. 91), as it does not allow for simultaneous analysis, but only for sequential analysis of important phenomena. As the validity of analysis is dependent upon the quality of data display (Miles & Huberman, 1994), great care was taken in reducing the data and selecting display formats. Furthermore, display formats were intentionally chosen to preserve the context in which the threshold concepts were generated. Three within-case analysis documents were created. They are presented here in order of decreasing complexity, with Document 3 representing the most reduced data display. . Document 1: “(Participant Name) Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent- Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships” (for researcher use); . Document 2: “(Participant Name) Threshold Concepts with Excerpts” (for participant verification); . Document 3: “(Participant Name) Table of Threshold Concepts” (for researcher use). The nature and purpose of each document are discussed in detail below. Overview of within-case analysis Documents 1 and 2. Two Microsoft Word documents were created to represent the Named, Inferred, and Core threshold concepts for each participant. The essential difference between the documents was the manner in which they represented observed relationships between threshold concepts. Document 1, the more detailed document, was for my use, while Document 2, the more succinct document, was prepared to be sent to the participant for verification (details regarding verification follow below). The rationale underlying the decision to create the separate documents was the following: Determining relationships between threshold concepts was not part of the original research question posed in this study. However, through in-depth reading and re-reading of the interview transcripts, it 119 appeared that noting such relationships might prove useful in future analyses. As I did not want to burden participants with an extra layer of complexity during the verification process, relationships between threshold concepts were represented much more simply in Document 2. Documents 1 and 2 contained the codes for all threshold concepts identified for the participant. The distinction between Named and Inferred threshold concepts was preserved: The code for a Named threshold concept was highlighted in yellow, the code for an Inferred threshold concept was highlighted in red, and the code for a Core threshold concept (which could be either Named or Inferred) was highlighted in blue. Data were then entered into the documents. For each threshold concept, excerpts illustrating the threshold concept were located within the transcribed interview, extracted, and then input into the within-case analysis document (Miles & Huberman, 1994) below the name of each threshold concept. The excerpt was taken from the unit of analysis. The line numbers indicating the location of the excerpt within the text were then inserted beside the name of the threshold concept. Details regarding the content of within-case analysis Documents 1 and 2 now follow. Document 1: “(Participant Name) Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent- Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships” (for researcher use). In this document, passages illustrating relationships were taken from the interview transcript and entered into the document. Related threshold concepts were grouped together. Relationships between Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts were represented using a system of indented bullets. Related Parent threshold concepts were represented as having the same level of hierarchy. Appendix E provides an example of a set of related threshold concepts within Document 1. Document 2: “(Participant Name) Threshold Concepts with Excerpts” (for participant verification. A Microsoft Word document was created with the purpose of being sent to participants for verification. As mentioned above, this document preserved the observed relationships between threshold concepts, yet did so in a much simpler manner. Related threshold concepts were grouped together within dotted lines and without illustrating hierarchy. Furthermore, there was no excerpt supporting the observed relationship between concepts. For an example of how the grouping represented hierarchically in Document 1 would be represented without hierarchical bulleting in Document 2, please refer to Appendix F.

120

Document 3: “(Participant Name) Table of Threshold Concepts” (for researcher use). A single-column table with multiple rows was created for each participant containing the list of threshold concepts for this participant. The purpose of creating this display was to reduce the within-case analysis findings into a format that would facilitate subsequent cross-case analysis. The header for the column was the name of the participant. Each subsequent row (cell) contained either one threshold concept or a Parent threshold concept with its Subordinate threshold concept(s). Therefore, in the example of “Collaboration” provided earlier, three threshold concept codes appeared in one cell. The Parent threshold concept “Collaboration,” was listed first, while the two Subordinate threshold concepts “Drawing on a scholarly community: Collaboration within the community of educational developers” and “Collaboration with people we are helping” were listed beneath and preceded by the following sign “—”. Table 3.1 provides an excerpt from within-case analysis Document 3 and illustrates the display of Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts within a cell.

Table 3.1 Excerpt from Within-Case Analysis Document 3: “Participant 3 Table of Threshold Concepts” (For Researcher Use): Display of Parent and Subordinate Threshold Concepts within a Cell

P3 Collaboration - Drawing on a scholarly community: Collaboration within the community of educational developers - Collaboration with people we are helping

In the table, a clear distinction was maintained between Named and Inferred threshold concepts, with Inferred threshold concepts being put in parentheses. Table 3.2 shows a representation of these notations.

121

Table 3.2 Excerpt from Within-case Analysis Document 3, “Participant 1 Table of Threshold Concepts” (For Researcher Use): Display of Named and Inferred Threshold Concepts

P1 Context - Working in context : disciplinary and institutional - (Understanding the context of higher education)

Member-checking: Verification of transcripts and within-case analysis. Lincoln and Guba (1985) define member-checking as “the most critical technique for establishing credibility” (p. 314). To ensure the validity of the study’s findings, each participant was asked to verify both the full transcript of his/her interview, as well as within-case analysis Document 2, “(Participant Name) Threshold Concepts with Excerpts” (for participant verification). An electronic message was sent to each participant (please see Appendix G) containing the following three attached Microsoft Word documents: 1) a “Verification Letter” (Appendix H) which provided instructions for verifying the transcript and within-case analysis; 2) the full interview transcript (without my marginal comments); the participant was asked to propose any changes or revisions to the interview transcript and to clearly mark these in the text; and 3) within-case analysis Document 2; here, the participant was asked to confirm the accuracy of the analysis in terms of threshold concepts identified. More specifically, the participant was asked to indicate whether he/she “agreed” or “disagreed” that each Inferred threshold concept was indeed a threshold concept for him/her. Furthermore, the participant was asked to confirm whether or not the threshold concept(s) identified as Core was/were indeed core for him/her. Finally, the participant was asked to sign and return the verification letter, as well as return the interview transcript and within-case analysis Document 2 containing any changes they had made, by a specified date two weeks following the receipt of the files. Six weeks after this deadline had passed, participants who had not returned the documents were sent a “Verification Reminder E-mail.” (Please see Appendix I). A return date was specified for ten days following the receipt of this message. Three participants responded to the request for verification, and the fourth participant sent an e- 122 mail message permitting me to proceed with the analysis without having his/her verification of the transcript and within-case analysis. Finalizing the within-case analysis. When the documents that had been sent to participants for verification were returned, adjustments were made to my copies of the documents to reflect the recommended changes and to prepare the documents for cross-case analysis. Any proposed changes to the interview transcripts were therefore incorporated, and the three within-case analysis documents were modified. Details regarding this process now follow. For within-case analysis Document 1, “(Participant Name) Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent-Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships” (for researcher use) and Document 2, “(Participant Name) Threshold Concepts with Excerpts” (for participant verification), the highlighting was modified to reflect the results of the verification. Thus, all Inferred threshold concepts which had been highlighted in red, and which participants “agreed” were threshold concepts during the verification process, were then highlighted in yellow to indicate that they were now Named threshold concepts. In one case, a participant identified additional threshold concepts (already included in the within-case analysis) as Core. These threshold concepts were therefore also highlighted in blue in the within-case analysis documents. Document 3 which contained the single-column display of threshold concepts was revised for each of the participants. All Inferred threshold concepts that had been in parentheses in Document 3 and that were accepted as threshold concepts by participants upon verification were listed in the final table without parentheses. This indicated that they could now be considered Named threshold concepts, rather than Inferred threshold concepts. No threshold concepts had to be removed, as no participants “disagreed” with any of the Inferred threshold concepts.

Data Analysis Procedures: Cross-Case The purpose of the cross-case analysis was to identify threshold concepts that were common across participants. However, in conducting the cross-case analysis, I also wanted to maintain a close relationship with the unique contribution of each case. Stake (2006) makes a powerful argument for adopting an approach to cross-case display and analysis that enables the researcher to preserve the “situationality” (p. 46) of the findings from each case. This allows the researcher to “hear” the findings from each case while attempting to comprehend the ways in which each case contributes to an understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Due to the 123 complexity involved in such an analysis, the cross-case analysis for this study occurred in two stages. The first stage involved an initial identification of common threshold concepts. Based on the results of this analysis, a second, more fine-grained analysis was conducted of the threshold concepts identified as common. Details of the two stages of analysis now follow. First stage of cross-case analysis: Initial identification of commonalities among Parent threshold concepts. This first stage in the cross-case analysis involved an initial search for commonalities across participants among Parent threshold concepts. This entailed creating a case-level display (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to facilitate searching for threshold concepts common across cases. A five-column table was created to display the results of this analysis. The following steps were used to create the table and conduct the analysis. Merging the single column within-case analysis tables. To facilitate cross-case analysis, a four-column table was created in Microsoft Word using the single-column table created for each of the four participants during within-case analysis (within-case analysis Document 3). Each of the four columns therefore showed the name of one participant (in the header) and all the individual or groups of threshold concepts for that participant in subsequent rows. Searching for common threshold concepts. Commonalities in threshold concepts across participants were then searched for. If a cell contained multiple threshold concepts, as in the case of “Collaboration” above, commonalities were searched for at the level of the Parent threshold concept. A precautionary step was taken to minimize the risk of identifying threshold concepts across participants as common, when, in fact, they may have been referring to different ideas: When searching for commonalities, Document 1, “(Participant Name) Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent-Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships (for researcher use)” was consulted. As mentioned earlier, this document contained excerpts illustrating each of the threshold concepts and the contexts in which they were elicited. Consulting the excerpts during the analysis ensured that threshold concepts that were similar in nature were identified as common, whether the code that had been assigned (using the participant’s own language) was similar or not. When a threshold concept was found to be common to two or more participants, a colour was randomly assigned to highlight all instances of this threshold concept across participants within the table. Threshold concepts that were unique to a participant were left unhighlighted. 124

Sorting threshold concepts within the table. Threshold concepts identified as common were reorganised within the table, so as to align across a row all instances of a common threshold concept. All highlighting was then removed. At this stage of the analysis, threshold concepts that were unique to a participant were removed from the table. A separate table was then created to record these single threshold concepts. Creating labels for threshold concepts identified as common. A fifth column was then added as the left-most column in the table. This column was used to assign a label to the threshold concepts identified as common. Once again, an attempt was made to preserve the language used by the participants when creating a label for the threshold concept. Whereas it is common practice in the threshold concepts literature to label an identified threshold concept using a noun (e.g., “pain” in Medicine, “opportunity cost” in Economics, “depreciation” in Accounting), in this study, a descriptive phrase was used to label the threshold concept so as to qualify more precisely the way of knowing or way of being that the experienced educational developer “has” (as opposed to the one he/she is “had by”) after a threshold has been crossed. Table 3.3 provides an excerpt from the table generated during the first stage of the cross- case analysis.

Table 3.3 Excerpt from Stage 1 Cross-Case Analysis: Identifying and Labeling Commonalities Among Parent Threshold Concepts

Cross-case Within-case threshold concepts (common)

threshold concepts Label P1 P2 P3 P4 Boundary-spanning, bridging function Helping “Knowledge Flow” Knowledge flow Dialogue as a Institutional -Understanding mechanism for alignment knowledge flow educational -Lack of -Helping development alignment knowledge flow

125

Second stage of cross-case analysis: Including Subordinate threshold concepts in analysis. Having identified common threshold concepts through the first stage of cross-case analysis, a second, more detailed analysis was conducted. The purpose of this analysis was to search for commonalities, not only among Parent threshold concepts across participants, as was done in the first stage, but also to consider Subordinate threshold concepts. In this way, the Subordinate threshold concepts identified in each case could be analysed in relationship to Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts identified in the other cases. Resulting from this second stage of analysis was an eight-column cross-case analysis table which preserved the findings from the within-case analyses. In the following sections, this table is constructed systematically. Revising the display of Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts within the table. To facilitate this stage of the analysis, the visual distinction between Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts was removed: the symbol “–” preceding each Subordinate threshold concept was removed, and a blank line was inserted between the Parent threshold concept and the Subordinate threshold concept(s). In this way, each Subordinate threshold concept could be considered a separate entity and similarly included in the cross-case analysis. The five-column cross-case analysis in Table 3.4 illustrates the revised representation for the Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts.

Table 3.4 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Display that Removes Visual Distinction between Parent and Subordinate Threshold Concepts

Cross-case Within-case threshold concepts (common)

threshold concepts Label P1 P2 P3 P4 Boundary-spanning, bridging function

Helping Knowledge flow Dialogue as a Institutional “Knowledge Flow” mechanism for alignment Understanding educational knowledge flow development Lack of alignment Helping knowledge flow

126

Reorganising threshold concepts within each column (case). At this stage of the analysis, with the visual distinction between Parent and Subordinate threshold concepts removed, Document 1 for each participant, “(Participant Name) Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent-Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships (for researcher use)” was again consulted. With the revised visual representation, it became apparent that there were similarities in meaning between, for example, a Parent threshold concept and a threshold concept which was subordinate to a different Parent. An example will be provided using the threshold concepts from Table 3.4 above: Upon examining the within-case analysis excerpts, it became evident that, for Participant 1 (P1), the threshold concept “Boundary-spanning, bridging function” was similar in meaning to the threshold concept “Understanding knowledge flow.” These threshold concepts were therefore clustered so as to appear within the same cell. This clustering is illustrated in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Clustering Within a Cell of Threshold Concepts with Similar Meaning

Cross-case Within-case threshold concepts (common)

threshold concepts Label P1 P2 P3 P4 Boundary-spanning, bridging function

Understanding Helping knowledge flow “Knowledge Flow” Knowledge flow Dialogue as a Institutional mechanism for alignment Helping educational knowledge flow development Lack of alignment

Representing dimensions of threshold concepts identified as common. Emerging from this step of the analysis was the realisation that the threshold concepts identified as common across participants were sometimes complex. This was revealed in the different ways in which participants would refer to a similar concept. Thus, an additional column entitled “Dimensions” was added to the table, in order to capture the various aspects, that is to say, the “texture,” of a 127 threshold concept identified as common. This column was inserted between the first column containing the “Label” of the common threshold concepts and the set of four columns representing the within-case threshold concepts. This six-column table is illustrated in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Displaying Dimensions of a Common Threshold Concept

Cross-case (common) threshold concepts Within-case threshold concepts

Label Dimensions P1 P2 P3 P4

Boundary-spanning, bridging function Understanding “knowledge flow” Understanding knowledge flow Helping “Knowledge Flow” Helping knowledge Dialogue as Institutional

flow an essential Alignment

mechanism Strategies for helping Reframing for Lack of “knowledge flow” educational alignment Connecting development (Ideas/Issues)

Revising the labels of threshold concepts identified as common. Labels of threshold concepts identified as common were revised from the first stage of the cross-case analysis to reflect the deeper analysis conducted during the second stage. The “Dimensions” served as guides in the revision of the labels. Thus, for example, the label “Helping ‘Knowledge Flow’” created in the first stage of the cross-case analysis became “Understanding and Helping ‘Knowledge Flow.’” In certain instances, quotation marks were used in the label to signal terms that had been taken directly from one participant and which represented his/her unique phrasing. Creating descriptions of commonly-identified threshold concepts. A brief description was generated to explain each of the threshold concepts. For the threshold concepts identified as common across cases, the “Dimensions,” as well as the within-case threshold concepts from which the cross-case threshold concept emerged were used to generate the description. A 128 column entitled “Description” was therefore inserted into the table between the “Label” column and the “Dimensions” column. This new “Description” column is illustrated in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Excerpt from Stage 2 Cross-Case Analysis: Displaying Description and Revised Label of a Common Threshold Concept

Cross-case (common) threshold concepts Within-case threshold concepts

Label Description Dimensions P1 P2 P3 P4

Using Boundary- strategies, such Understanding spanning, as dialogue, “knowledge bridging function “reframing”, flow” Understanding connecting, and Understanding and Helping aligning ideas knowledge flow “Knowledge and issues to Helping Dialogue as Institutional Flow” help knowledge knowledge flow an essential Alignment move across Strategies for mechanism traditional helping Reframing for Lack of boundaries, “knowledge educational alignment such as flow” Connecting development disciplinary (Ideas/Issues) boundaries

Sorting threshold concepts within the table according to frequency. An eighth and final column, “Frequency” was created in which to note the number of participants, out of the total of four participants, who identified any dimension of a particular threshold concept (e.g., 3/4). This “Frequency” column was placed as the first one within the table. The sequence of rows of common threshold concepts was then sorted in order of decreasing frequency, with the most frequently-identified common threshold concept appearing in the first row. This visual display allowed for an easy identification of the relative prominence of a threshold concept identified as common. An excerpt from the final eight-column table used to represent the cross-case analysis of common threshold concepts is shown in Table 3.8. 129

Table 3.8

Excerpt from Final Cross-Case Analysis: Displaying Frequency of Occurrence of a Common Threshold Concept

Cross-case (common) threshold concepts Within-case threshold concepts

Frequency Label Description Dimensions P1 P2 P3 P4

Boundary- spanning, Understanding bridging “knowledge function Using strategies, such as flow” Understanding & dialogue, “reframing”, Understanding Helping “Knowledge connecting, and aligning knowledge flow 3/4 Flow” ideas and issues to help Helping Dialogue as an Institutional knowledge move across knowledge flow essential Alignment traditional boundaries, such Strategies for mechanism for as disciplinary boundaries helping Reframing educational Lack of “knowledge development alignment flow” Connecting (Ideas/Issues) 130

Findings and Discussion This study sought to investigate the question “What do experienced educational developers identify as threshold concepts in educational development?”.

Identifying Common Threshold Concepts The identification of threshold concepts common to all or most (3/4) participants suggests that there is a shared core of ways of knowing and being among educational developers. This suggestion is supported by the passionate words of one participant “I’ll say parenthetically, that […] educational developers—there are a number of things that, values in particular, that we share, right down to the spinal level. We don’t even have to talk about them. And lots of things that we disagree about vehemently, but not so much the core value pieces and, I’m going to bet, not so much the threshold concepts because they grow from – I think you can tell by the ones we are looking at here – they tend to grow from a sense of values.” (P2, lines 920-925). This excerpt clearly conveys the notion of an “us” – a community of educational developers with a deep sense of shared ways of knowing and being underlying the knowledge and skills which inform practise. Three categories of common threshold concepts (TCs) emerged related to the ways of knowing and being of educational developers: . Category 1: “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups” (eight TCs) . Category 2: “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change” (seven TCs) . Category 3: “Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals” (four TCs) Study findings are now discussed in detail: First, a rationale is offered for attributing category names; second, a discussion of each category is presented and includes a description of the threshold concepts in the category and a table with an illustrative excerpt for each threshold concept; finally, additional observations regarding threshold concepts in educational development are discussed.

131

Categorisation of Study Results Category names were chosen intentionally. In the following section, we review the rationale underlying the names given to the three categories of threshold concepts. Threshold concepts as “Ways of Knowing and Being”. In the review of the literature presented earlier, we saw that threshold concepts may be interpreted as characterising the ways of knowing and being of a disciplinary community. Furthermore, without being prompted to do so, most participants (3/4) communicated their interpretation of the nature of threshold concepts in educational development. Namely, they stated a belief that threshold concepts are related to a deep and shared sense of crucial values, attitudes, and ways of knowing, and that they reflect a distinct “way of being” (P3, line 1041).

“So, in essence, the threshold concepts for us are almost attitudinal. Obviously there are some skills that are necessary, but I think it is a way of thinking that is the threshold.” (P3, lines 1025-1027; emphasis in original)

“So, to me, the threshold concepts are a way of being. I think that we have to be a certain way to be an educational developer.” (P3, lines 1040-1042; emphasis in original)

Threshold concepts as “Facilitating Change.” Throughout the interviews, participants clearly and passionately conveyed their interpretation of the purpose of educational development work as “facilitating a process” in order to effect change. Indeed, Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) observe that educational developers are increasingly being requested to contribute their expertise “to facilitate change to achieve educational goals” (p. 150). Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, a majority of the common threshold concepts that emerged in this study (15/19) appear to be in service of the purpose of facilitating change. Study findings also reveal that facilitating a change process is not only an endeavour undertaken in work with individuals, but also in work with groups and within the institution. In this way, the findings of Categories 1 and 2, “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups” and “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change” are consistent with two of the three categories identified in Fraser, Gosling, and Sorcinelli’s (2010) recent classification of the various models of approaches to educational 132 development that have emerged in the field during the past fifty years. Their proposed framework is comprised of: “Educational development focused on the individual staff member,” “Educational development focused on the institution,” and a third, “more recent” approach of “Educational development focused on the sector” (p. 50). Full study findings are represented in the three tables below, with one table for each category of threshold concepts in educational development. Each row of a table contains (a) the name of the commonly-identified threshold concept, (b) a description of this concept, (c) an interview excerpt illustrating the threshold concept, and (d) the frequency of occurrence of this threshold concept. Threshold concepts are presented in order of decreasing frequency. A discussion of each category precedes the presentation of the table.

Discussion of Category 1: “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups” ‘If real success is to attend the effort to bring a person to a definite position,’ Kierkegaard wrote in his Journals, ‘one must first of all take pains to find him where he is and begin there. This is the secret of helping others … In order to help another effectively I must understand what he understands. If I do not know that, my greater understanding will be of no help to him ... Instruction begins when you put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he understands and in the way he understands it.’ (Kegan, 1994, p. 278). These threshold concepts capture the essence of educational development work as facilitating a process, most often a change process. The threshold concepts evoked in this category remind us that the work of facilitating change requires great respect and sensitivity: respect for the knowledge, abilities, and expertise which people bring to our collaborative endeavours; and sensitivity to the experiences and journeys that have brought them to this place. Any attempt to facilitate change requires a willingness to uncover and understand the multiple contexts in which concerns and issues are situated. This knowledge of context must be complemented with knowledge in context, that is, knowledge developed through engaging with the people we are helping and learning the ways of knowing and being that are fundamental to them. The threshold concepts in this category also remind us that our work as educational developers may involve “instigating change,” that is, determining what brings change about and 133 acting on this knowledge. The purpose of facilitating change is not to “fill up,” but to “draw out” existing potential. This highlights a critical point for participants in the study, which is that the “greater understanding” educational developers may have in a given situation in no way refers to a claim to “knowing more” about topics than the people with whom we work. Rather, the relative expertise of educational developers may lie in the process of facilitation, as the following interview passage shows: “I mean when we’re experts, we’re experts only because we’re experts at the process of facilitation. We are not the experts in the sense that we have all the answers—we don’t. The answers lie in the people with whom we’re interacting, and it’s our role to help them to recognize that they have the answers or for us together to work out the answers.” (P3, lines 1037-1040; emphasis in original) In drawing out existing potential, we also seek, through our collaborative endeavours, to “build capacity,” that is, to develop in others the ability to carry on initiatives after the intervention of the educational developers. Having provided people with tools and resources to address their issues, we must therefore, at times, remember to “get out of the way” and to allow them the room to explore and solve their own problems. The common threshold concepts for Category 1 are presented in Table 3.9. For a description of threshold concepts in this category identified by only one participant, please refer to Appendix J.

134

Table 3.9

Common Threshold Concepts for Category 1: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Respecting and Drawing Helping people “And something I said earlier which I really think is critical—Our role is to draw out from 4/4 out Knowledge/ recognize that they have people what they have within them to make happen. So it’s not our role necessarily to act. Expertise/ Ability latent potential that can We’re not the doers. We’re facilitating –we’re the facilitators so that we can help people to be used to address understand and recognize what they have within them that they can use to contribute to the issues/solve problems; situation. And it takes a certain mindset for us to do it. We are not the saviours of the world. I facilitating a process to mean when we’re experts, we’re experts only because we’re experts at the process of draw out this ability facilitation. We are not the experts in the sense that we have all the answers—we don’t. The answers lie in the people with whom we’re interacting, and it’s our role to help them to recognize that they have the answers or to, for us together to work out the answers.” (P3, lines 1033-1040)

Helping others Realise Supporting, enabling the “And so as a leader, as leaders of educational development, we have to be effective at 4/4 their Potential development of others developing others and so giving them, understanding what their skill sets are, what their interests are, providing them with opportunities, coaching them, giving them increasingly challenging responsibilities and helping them experience success, so that their ability to do this work continues to grow.”(P4, lines 454-457)

Facilitating a Change Helping/leading “We have to seek to facilitate the learning as being, in part, helping to create an environment 4/4 Process individuals and groups where learning can happen. Helping people to develop the skills that will enhance learning. through a (problem- […] We have to understand that our role is to exert influence. Our role is to facilitate, our role is solving) process which to help to mould and shape things in a way that will bring about the ultimate bottom line which helps achieve is enhancing learning.” (P3, lines 1017-1029) transformation in order to enhance learning “And maybe really what that does is underscore sort of a key threshold concept and that is I see myself as a facilitator of change […]and so what does one have to do to bring that about?” (P4, lines 68-75)

135

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Building Capacity Helping people realize “It’s capacity building in terms of the team you are responsible for and the organization. […] 3/4 they have the potential So, for example, educational developers face a choice when somebody comes and asks for help and the answers; or support or has an issue. Do you kind of do it for them, or do you help them do it for Drawing people out, so themselves? And so, we can go in and facilitate a curriculum development process, but one they feel empowered and which leaves them capable of and motivated to continue it on themselves. And to me that’s can sustain work beyond what we want to be doing because, if we are doing the work, if we haven’t developed that interventions with capacity, the limits of what we can achieve are us. Like it’s our time and it’s our energy, but if educational developers; we really want to see institutional transformation, then we have to be building capacity in others. “Reframing” issues to For that to happen as leader of an educational development unit, I have to build the capacity of “connect” colleagues. the faculty and staff who work in that unit to build the capacity in others.” (P4, lines 442-451)

Knowing the Person Facilitating “Okay, yeah. Zones of proximal development […] Now all of that requires […] a knowledge of 2/4 with Whom you Are change/development the person with whom you are working[…]. You can’t do the Vygotsky thing if you just say Working – Starting begins with knowledge ‘Ahhh, I bet you’re right about here.’ No, no. You’ve got to have feedback. You’ve got to get Where They Are of the person with whom a lot going. […] But, you know, if you’re truly facilitating instead of just prescribing—like we are working prescribing is so much easier—I don’t need to know who you are at all.” (P2, lines 956-961)

“Getting Out of the Giving people space and “Yeah. And, if you think about one of the assumptions that underlies that [referring to threshold 2/4 Way” resources to “solve their concept of dialogue as a mechanism for change], it is, of course, again this notion that the own problems”; allowing potential is there. I’ve occasionally had conversations with faculty members who after a few others to speak first. minutes I thought, ‘This person has no idea what teaching is,’ but boy, that’s rare. I’d have to think long and hard about examples—I know it’s happened, but it hasn’t happened more than five times in 20 years. Way more often than not, insights come out that are very impressive. They needed a chance—You know, we’re talking about some of the best and brightest so, for heaven sakes, get out of the way. It’s a phrase I use in my teaching now with med students a lot.” (P2, lines 674-680)

Instigating Change / Determining what brings “And that is what Mezirow would call the disorienting dilemma. […] And I was going to say 2/4 Development about change; pushing that to me is another threshold concept. So, exactly, because if you are going to create change people just beyond their […] the status quo cannot be perceived as acceptable so what helps bring that about?” (P4, lines comfort level, but 125-130) knowing they can handle it “[…]and sometimes I’ll say, ‘No, you do it.’ And we have these delightful arguments that we can laugh about because she knows exactly what I’m doing and I know exactly what she’s doing. I’m pushing her, and she thinks I’m pushing her into a fire pit. And I say to her, ‘If you’re going to go anywhere in this field, and you've told me you want to, you need to be able to deal with that, and you can. Let’s go.’” (P2, lines 847-851)

136

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Understanding and Knowing about and “Our role is to facilitate, our role is to help to mould and shape things in a way that will bring 2/4 Adapting to Context knowing in context, so about the ultimate bottom line which is enhancing learning. Our role is not to preach about a that one may adapt to set, a standard set of tools or techniques or, you know, that teachers that every teacher must use. and facilitate a process in And that is why I said it is contextual. We have to understand. One of the things that we, that I that context think is threshold for us is that we must understand the context in which we are operating in order to be able to adapt to that context.”(P3, lines 1028-1033)

137

Discussion of Category 2: “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change” Interestingly, the notion of “working at the systemic level to influence positive culture change” was identified as a threshold concept for almost all participants. That this is so suggests that the shift from facilitating change in individuals and groups to facilitating systemic change constituted a transformation in perspective and in ways of being. Several of the threshold concepts in this category are consistent with the “Educational Development Expertise” component of Bédard et al.’s (2010) validated conceptual framework for the meaning and scope of educational development. Others expand on this area of the framework. “Being an advocate” requires that one “think and act strategically,” a skill found to be important for Directors in Dawson, Britnell, et al.’s (2010) study. One must learn to “see and seize opportunities,” that is, to reframe and take advantage of what others may perceive as crises or challenges as chances for change and growth. Facilitating change at the systemic level also requires an understanding that educational development work may be shaped and influenced by members of the higher education system external to the institution. The threshold concepts in this category reveal the intentional nature of educational development work and highlight the evolution in the role of educational developers as we increasingly negotiate working at multiple levels of the system (e.g., Timmermans, Jazvac Martek, Berthiaume, Arcuri, & McAlpine, 2005; Weston & Timmermans, 2008). As we are increasingly called upon to become “leaders of change” within our institutions, our work has moved “from the periphery to the center of the institution” (Dawson, Mighty, et al., 2010, p. 70). In service of leading change and building the capacity of the systems within which we work, “understanding and helping ‘knowledge flow’” become critical tools, involving the application of strategies, such as dialogue, “reframing”, connecting, and aligning ideas and issues to help knowledge move across traditional boundaries. The common threshold concepts in Category 2 are presented in Table 3.10. Threshold concepts in Category 2 named by only one participant are described in a table in Appendix K.

138

Table 3.10 Common Threshold Concepts for Category 2: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Being an Advocate Encouraging change “But there was also the recognition that I needed to be an advocate and a strategic person in 4/4 within the institution in dealing with administration, and that I needed to be—Beyond helping individual faculties or a way that is supportive departments, etc., I needed to influence the institution in a way that, that was culture-changing.” of improved teaching (P3, lines 268-270) and learning “And then there’s the other part of leadership is senior administrators have no idea what faculty in the trenches are doing, and I don’t think they necessarily have a good understanding of what makes – that it is stressful […] so it’s, it’s really being an advocate for faculty, so with the faculty being an advocate for certain kinds of institutional initiatives that need to be realized, but not for the sake of the initiatives themselves, just insofar as […] it’s meaningful in faculty work.” (P1, lines 865-871)

Working at the Systemic Understanding the “And so for me there came a point where helping the individual faculty member, while that was 3/4 Level to Influence multiple levels of the also important, it was no longer enough, because you would never get the sort of seismic change Positive Culture Change institution to influence that I think is necessary for teaching to be truly valued in the organizations, in the institutions positive change in that we’re dealing with. So it has to be at the level where, at the policy-making level. At the – perspectives regarding where you’re establishing procedures and that sort of thing where the impact can be felt on a teaching and learning grander scale than... While you’re still working with the individual, you need to be working with the system.” (P3, lines 281-287)

Understanding & Helping Using strategies, such “I think we talked a lot about the boundary-spanning, the bridging function. I think that’s 3/4 “Knowledge as dialogue, becoming—It’s not new. Maybe 10 years ago, that kind of came into my awareness as a really Flow” “reframing”, important threshold concept, and then, more recently, what flows from that is this whole idea of connecting, and helping knowledge flow. And I was doing some research for a chapter and I found a really nice aligning ideas and paper about how to make change happen and you can make it happen, which in universities is issues to help not the best strategy. You can let it happen, which is very passive, or you can help it happen. knowledge move across So, it’s that whole thing around creating opportunities for knowledge to flow between traditional boundaries, communities of practice that normally don’t have any shared territory, and it’s that shared such as disciplinary territory that helps the knowledge flow. If the practitioners here and the practitioners here and boundaries they never talk to each other, the knowledge of teaching and learning in those two different worlds never gets shared. So, I think that the most recent threshold concept I have is this, this concept of knowledge flow and how to create the spaces between these different communities where that knowledge can flow ‘cause otherwise it’s stuck. Because I mean the best way to build capacity—I mean the most leverage in building capacity in universities right now around 139

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

teaching and learning is not generating new knowledge, it’s sharing the knowledge that we already have. So that is where this notion of knowledge flow and creating the spaces for that to happen are extremely important because I really think that is where the main leverage is, so that is why the scholarship of teaching and learning is so important because we talk about contextualized knowing about teaching in ways that other people can access.” (P1, lines 1357- 1373)

Thinking and Acting Aligning one’s “When I went back to the university, a lot of things changed because, while we continue to run 3/4 Strategically educational the workshops and all of that good stuff, I decided I needed to be more strategic and that was development unit and really the first foray into what I’m going to call leadership. The other stuff was good. I made initiatives with those of decisions, I signed paycheques as it were for a couple of people, ran a little budget, but the institution; leadership that lands on you with a thud and buckles you at the knees. That’s when it started. understanding who That’s when I started to gain huge respect for people who were champions, and I got to know within the institution them better—how to work with them, how to help them, and how to have them help me which is might help advance the very, very much a leadership skill and, to be really honest, started to lose patience with people cause of teaching and who were going through the motions, not really concerned about whether they were improving learning and forming the culture and making a lot of noise at our university, which is hugely critical, I realize, but I’m relationships with them going to say it. So, so now, I’m thinking about ‘How do I work with the champions? How do I work with the people who, when I put together a university-wide committee on instructional development from units like the library and computing services and a few other places, a couple of the people who attended the first meeting decide to send their assistant to the second one and just dodge the whole topic of improving teaching, when I’m absolutely certain that’s what they’re in the business of doing?’ Do I show up on their doorstep and pound on their desk? Do I patiently say, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ And now I needed strategies and advanced level skills that six months ago I hadn’t even thought about.” (P2, lines 318-333)

Seeing and Seizing Reframing and taking “The other thing is—I don’t know, this is yet to be tested, but we are currently in a severe 3/4 Opportunities advantage of what economic crisis, everybody’s talking about it, and I see it as an opportunity, and so […] I report others may perceive as to the Vice-President Academic and I say, ‘This is a time that people should be looking at their crises or challenges as curriculum and restructuring it and saying ‘Do we have the best?’—You know, it’s an chances for change and opportunity. If people are thinking of budget cuts and that sort of thing, instead of just cutting growth […], think about what it is we want to do with our programs and do we have the best structure of our curriculum to get those goals that we have, those outcomes that we want. So to me, it’s an opportunity and it sounds ridiculous for me to be talking of opportunity when everybody’s panicking about all this money and the lack thereof, but that’s the kind of thing that I see my role as to sort of plant that idea into people’s heads. You know, so it is sneaky—Work on them until they begin to believe it themselves!” (P3, lines 452-461)

140

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Understanding Impact of Named as a challenge “Educational developers would say to me they’re really afraid of handling these UDLES 2/4 External Influences for newer educational [Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations]. But what I think they did not realize was the developers, refers to impact of, that external forces can have on our work, and I think that that was a huge eye-opener realization that work is because the workshops were done by one of the VPs and one of the educational developers. So, shaped by expectations we had them in regions and so on and the young education developers realized, ‘Oh my god, this of other members of the is, this is powerful that these people—these vice-presidents are coming around—and this is higher education something we have—And now there’s a lot, there’s like a shift, everybody’s like UDLES— system, such as ‘How do we get UDLES incorporated?’ And everybody wants workshops on UDLES. And I institutional think that there was almost a naiveté about our role. If we think that we can just go our merry administration; way and just do the things we want to do, there are going to be times when we have to do things Canadian Council on that others want us to do. When we are asked to do things that others want -- and this was one Learning, etc. of the times.” (P3, lines 914-923)

Leadership / Leading Most often spoken “So, the leadership role while you’re in the problem solving is to help people reframe the 2/4 Change about in reference to problem so that more people are included, that they can get on that page, that they see it as other threshold relevant, that they see that this is important to them that they really want to work on the problem. concepts, involves But then, there’s another piece that is sometimes you have to bring knowledge or information to providing direction or the problem-solving process in order to help it move forward. So, when you do that it’s the guidance in areas, such leadership skill I believe is presenting that new knowledge in a way that doesn’t completely as facilitating a change overwhelm or alienate people. So, you know, you’re not using perhaps the exact terms for the or problem-solving concept, but you are using the ideas around that concept, and once people buy into the ideas then process, helping others you can name them. So it’s also energizing that problem solving process from time to time, even realize their potential, though it is collaborative and reciprocal. One of the leadership roles is knowing when new “helping knowledge information is necessary. Another leadership role I think is knowing who to pull on in the group flow,” etc. to move something forward, so it is not always the developer who’s providing the energy. You know, it’s when to give somebody the opportunity to be—so really kind of knowing the players, I guess. And seeing when the energy is like ebbing in a process and doing something to motivate it, or. So, these are all, to me, leadership things. And then later in the problem solving process, I think one of the leadership skills is really validating the contributions that people have made, celebrating the outcomes, you know, making them known. […]But these are all leadership roles, and that’s why you’re in the problem-solving process, but then there’s what happens before and around it, that are also leadership functions. So, connecting what the issue or challenge for that group of people is to larger things in the institution.” (P1, lines 822-846)

141

Discussion of Category 3: “Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals” The threshold concepts in this category are most consistent with the “Principles, Values, and Ethics of Practice” component of Bédard et al.’s (2010) validated framework discussed earlier. Evoked by the threshold concepts in this category is sense of the deep professionalism that must underpin and infuse the work of facilitating change. Indeed, facilitating a change process cannot be successfully undertaken without first establishing relationships and building rapport with the people with whom we are working. Certainly, as we are increasingly called upon to lead institutional change, we must be effective communicators, listening, speaking, and writing with respect, conviction, and passion. We must also adopt the same scholarly and evidenced-based approach to practise that we are advocating for in others by drawing on research to inform our practise, conducting our own research, and collaborating with colleagues to create and share new knowledge. Underpinning the collaborative, scholarly, and professional work of educational developers is a deep reflective spirit which prompts us to question assumptions, think critically about our work, and question the effectiveness of our practise. Interestingly, no threshold concept in this category was identified by all four participants. Furthermore, the common threshold concepts in this category constituted a relatively small proportion of the overall number of common threshold concepts (4/19). These findings may suggest that, for the experienced educational developers in this study, notions of professionalism may have been integrated into ways of knowing and being prior to assuming their role as an educational developer. Thus, these notions likely did not occasion significant transformations in perspective and ways of being. Rather, the aspects of the professional qualities that were “thresholds” were those related to specific manifestations of these qualities in relation to educational development work. Common threshold concepts in Category 3 are presented in Table 3.11. For a description of threshold concepts in this category identified by only one participant, please refer to the table in Appendix L. 142

Table 3.11 Common Threshold Concepts for Category 3: Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Collaborating and Establishing “And I think, when I was first having success with that strategy, I didn’t know it was called 3/4 Building Relationships relationships and relational leadership, and I didn’t know I was exercising leadership, I was just kind of doing building rapport; what felt right and what seemed to work. I was doing what allowed me to respect the Working with the knowledge of my colleagues, but also to help them to respect the different, you know, expertise people we are helping, that I had, and how could we put the two of them together to make a better solution. I think the as well as with the whole notion, and maybe another threshold concept for me is collaboration and reciprocal community of learning, and that it’s not about me or about them, it is about us working together.” (P1, lines educational 226-232) developers; “Reciprocal learning” “It would be really good, and please do at some point with [Colleague Name], ask her ‘How important is the establishment of relationships in your work?—The rapport-building?’ I think maybe that this is a spinoff of the threshold concept. You can’t do our work via superficial relationships. Even if it’s a one-hour workshop, you have to do something in there that demonstrates to the people in the room you give a damn about what they’re doing and that it’s not just a question of changing your syllabus. This is hard.” (P2, lines 606-612)

Communicating Listening; speaking “Well, let’s put a big line under the word ‘communication,’ then, I think in this because actually, 2/4 Effectively “convincingly” and when I was talking about networking and working the room, I was also thinking that at those “passionately” to kinds of events, I’m also often asked to speak, and so the ability, I think, to speak passionately, individuals and groups; convincingly in sort of formal settings is an important skill, but also to communicate one’s writing articulately; thoughts articulately one-on-one, as well as to listen, as well as to communicate effectively in “networking writing because I mean so many educational developers, whether it’s newsletters or whatever comfortably”; you’re producing—reports, guidelines—I think you have to be a skilled communicator in all of communicating in a those ways, including what we are talking about with the act of listening.” (P4, lines 709-715) way appropriate to audience and context.

Reflecting Thinking critically “[…]how do we know what we are doing is working and do we have the skill set to assess and 2/4 about practise and critically reflect on our own work?” (P4, lines 594-595) determining effectiveness of work

143

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Adopting a Scholarly Conducting research, “Because I think many faculty have questions about their teaching practice that have no clue 2/4 Approach to Practise using an evidence- where to start and they don’t necessarily have the time to really start reading all the journals in based approach to their discipline, or to follow up on different research protocols, or methods that might exist and practise, and so I think that if educational developers have their own research programs underway, they collaborating with the would have that much more expertise and confidence and be perceived that much more credible. scholarly community And if they were working with others who may be using different kinds of methods, but then of educational could connect. But I think it is really tough for educational developers to advocate for the developers scholarship of teaching and learning if they haven’t actually engaged in it themselves. And then, what we need to understand is that what we are really advocating for is that faculty engage in evidence-based practice. If that’s the case, then we need to engage in evidence-based practice ourselves.” (P4, lines 576-585)

For a table of single threshold concepts that emerged in a fourth category, “Knowledge of Educational Developers,” please refer to Appendix M.

A summary of the three categories of common threshold concepts for experienced educational developers is presented in Table 3.12. 144

Table 3.12 Summary of Three Categories of Common Threshold Concepts for Experienced Educational Developers

Category 1: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups

-Respecting and Drawing out Knowledge/ Expertise/Ability -Helping others Realise their Potential -Facilitating a Change Process -Building Capacity -Knowing the Person with Whom you Are Working – Starting Where They Are -“Getting Out of the Way” -Instigating Change/Development -Understanding and Adapting to Context

Category 2: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change

-Being an Advocate -Working at the Systemic Level to Influence Positive Culture Change -Understanding and Helping “Knowledge Flow” -Thinking and Acting Strategically -Seeing and Seizing Opportunities -Understanding Impact of External Influences -Leadership/Leading Change

Category 3: Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals

-Collaborating and Building Relationships -Communicating Effectively -Reflecting -Adopting a Scholarly Approach to Practise

145

Additional Observations about the Nature of Threshold Concepts in Educational Development From an examination of the three categories of threshold concepts, we now turn to a discussion of other observations regarding threshold concepts in educational development. “Context” in educational development. Prior to conducting the study, I expected that “context” might emerge as a threshold concept. Much of the literature in educational development evokes the importance and complexity of understanding, working in, and negotiating the multiple contexts in which educational development occurs (e.g., Carew, Lefoe, Bell, & Armour, 2008; Sorcinelli et al., 2006; Taylor, 2005; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). Indeed, “Understanding and Adapting to Context” was identified as a threshold concept for two of the four educational developers and revealed the importance not only of “knowing about” context, but “knowing in” context. Yet, the notion of context held a much more prominent place in the interviews than its frequency as a threshold concept might indicate. Indeed, it appeared to be threaded throughout the discussions of all the other threshold concepts, thereby suggesting that understanding and adapting to context are crucial to effectively embodying the ways of knowing and being that allow one to “act strategically,” “help ‘knowledge flow,’” “communicate effectively,” “help others realize their potential,” etc., in the service of facilitating change in individuals and in systems And indeed, each participant contributed insight into the various aspects of context that must be attended to in order to accomplish the important tasks of facilitating individual and systemic change. Interviews with participants conveyed that crucial to the work of educational development is a deep understanding of the multiple layers of context in which our work occurs: the various disciplinary contexts of the individuals with whom we work; the institution and its political context; national higher education policies influencing the institution; and international contexts, such as the Bologna accord. The manner in which these contexts interact create unique circumstances for the conceptualisation, design, and implementation of educational development initiatives. Thus described, it becomes evident that understanding context is a significant contributor to the complexity inherent in conducting transformative educational development work. Again, perhaps rather unsurprisingly, understanding context was named as a significant challenge and a threshold concept for newer or more novice educational developers, particularly with respect to 146 recognizing and understanding the external forces that influence higher education and that may shape the content and direction of educational development work. These findings are consistent with work by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching program on Preparation for the Professions. Sullivan and Rosin (2008) report on the inherent difficulty novices have understanding or “seeing” the multiple, complex contexts which influence practise and the extent to which decisions about appropriate responses to situations must be crafted to account for knowledge of these contexts. Relationship between threshold concepts and a participant’s disciplinary background. In-depth discussions with participants regarding their career development as academics and educational developers revealed that their respective disciplines of graduate study continue to provide a powerful lens through which the world and work of educational development are seen and made sense of. Participants appear to have carried forward with them key concepts from their fields and apply these concepts to their work as educational developers. The following excerpt illustrates the ways in which this participant’s background in biology shapes understanding of educational development: “I was coming at teaching and learning from a biologist’s perspective, and so there are concepts within biology that have really shaped my approach. One of them is ecology, right. So it was very natural for me to approach this contextualized way of knowing because really, for me, educational development is all about maintaining a balanced ecology of knowing, a balanced ecology of practice, a balanced ecology of working relationships. So I think being a biologist was probably an advantage. Biologists are always big on form and function too, right. So you’ll look at the form of something and you ne.., you never think that things were just made that way. People and molecules and organisms of all kinds are the way they are because they’ve adapted to their environment in some way. So you could look at the way something is formed and intuit a function, right, but it’s really the function that drives form and not the other way around. So that intuitively lent itself to me to think about function first and form later. So I didn’t think about doing an educational development program in a certain way first; I would think about what needs to be the function of this? And you can’t know that without knowing the environment in which the organism or program exists. So, intuitively for me, and I’m sure I have made tons of mistakes, but appreciating context wasn’t one of them because it 147

was part of being a biologist that allowed me to do that.” (P1, lines 282-296; emphasis in original) From this excerpt, we also see that disciplinary background seems to influence what is interpreted, or not, as a threshold concept. Indeed, this participant, for whom “context” was a fundamental concept in his/her field of graduate study, did not name “context” as a threshold concept in educational development. Furthermore, while the notion of “leadership” was discussed as an important aspect of educational development work for the two participants with backgrounds in business, a field in which the study of leadership is an important focus (McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Connor, & Baker, 2006), it did not emerge as a threshold concept. It was, however, identified as a threshold concept for two of the four participants whose backgrounds did not include graduate study in business, as it served to transform their ways of knowing and being as educational developers. While further research is needed to investigate this finding, it appears that identifying an idea as a threshold concept in educational development is more likely when this concept is not a significant one in an educational developer’s discipline of graduate study. The integrative nature of threshold concepts in educational development. As mentioned earlier, an important characteristic of threshold concepts is their integrative quality. Consequently, prior to conducting the study, I anticipated that the threshold concepts identified by experienced educational developers would not be discrete elements, but would emerge as being integrated in some manner (Davies & Mangan, 2007; Perkins, 2007). Conclusions from the literature on expertise further support this supposition: The knowledge, skills, and attitudes of experts tend to be highly integrated (e.g., Bransford et al., 2006; Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006). The results of Dawson, Britnell, et al.’s (2010) study also illustrate this. Findings reveal that certain threshold concepts, and particularly those identified as “Core” threshold concepts for the educational developers in this study, are integrative not only of other important concepts in educational development, but also of other threshold concepts. A view of threshold concepts as “discoveries” along learning paths/ (developmental) paths to expertise may provide additional insight into the integrative nature of threshold concepts. Kegan (1982) explains that “discoveries” lead us to recognize, that is to “re-cognize” or rethink the ways in which we organise information. 148

Columbus’ voyage changed the shape of the world. He may have discovered America, but in doing so, he caused every other part of the world to be rediscovered as well. His discovery, initially of just another “part,” was of that extraordinary sort that “re-cognizes” the relationships of the parts to the whole. (p. 42) The notion of “discovery” also suggests that something that already exists is being uncovered and therefore that threshold concepts emerge from existing ways of knowing and being. Gaarder (1994) explains that ancient Greek philosophers shared a belief that “nothing comes from nothing” (p. 41). Parmenides, for example “had refused to accept the idea of change in any form. […] His intelligence could not accept that ‘something’ could suddenly transform itself into ‘something’ completely different” (p. 41). This, then, was the “problem of change”, the question of “How could one substance suddenly change into something else?” (Gaarder,1994, p. 35). Therefore, the assumption among the Greeks was that “‘something’ had always existed” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 33), and this leads us to the principle of “emergence” in developmental theory (e.g., Lewis, 2000). In an examination of the diverse theoretical approaches to the process of change in the literature on psychological development, Lewis (2000) identifies emergence as a principle referring “to the coming-into-existence of new forms or properties through ongoing processes intrinsic to the system itself” (p. 38). While Dawson, Britnell, et al. (2010) make no claims regarding the developmental nature of the competencies identified in their models, the notion of emergence may lead us to ask how the seeds of the competencies that manifest themselves at the senior and director levels may be sown at the entry level and their growth nurtured throughout a career. As we work toward understanding the spaces between the various levels of position an educational developer may hold, we may also ask what transformational learning experiences could instigate the development of these competencies over time, for it within these spaces that careers and people evolve. The notion of a “timeline” in the recognition of threshold concepts in educational development. The integrative nature of the threshold concepts identified in this study also suggests the notion of a “timeline” in the acquisition, recognition, or discovery of threshold concepts in educational development, with later threshold concepts integrating earlier ones, as the following excerpt from P1 illustrates: 149

“We talked a lot about kind of the boundary-spanning, the bridging function. I think that’s not new. Maybe 10 years ago, that came into my awareness as a really important threshold concept, and then, more recently, what flows from that is this whole idea of helping knowledge flow. […] So, I think that the most recent threshold concept I have is this concept of knowledge flow and how to create the spaces between these different communities where that knowledge can flow ’cause otherwise it’s stuck.” (lines 357-368) The threshold concepts identified in this study therefore appear to have dynamic and developmental qualities. In some instances participants report that understanding of a threshold concept did not remain static, but continued to evolve with experience, with new depths to a threshold concept being discovered over time. Furthermore, in some cases, deepening understanding of a threshold concept eventually precipitated the crossing of another or other threshold(s). There were consequently multiple thresholds, multiple discoveries and re- discoveries, and multiple paths to expertise for the educational developers in this study. Here, I wish to draw attention to the word “paths” (plural) and not “path” (singular) to qualify the development of expertise in educational development. The observed variation in the threshold concepts identified among participants challenges the assumptions of homogeneity in ways of thinking and being of experts and uniformity in the steps toward expertise. As Dall’Alba and Sandberg (2006) observe, rather than being a “stepwise progression” along a prescribed path, “a range of developmental trajectories” is possible in the development of professional expertise. The threshold concepts identified in this study are therefore not intended to be prescriptive of the necessary thresholds through which one must pass in order to become an expert educational developer.

Conclusion

“How we Know” and “How we Are” as Educational Developers The study reported on in this manuscript, identifying threshold concepts in educational development, responds to the calls by Dawson, Britnell, et al. (2010), and Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) to pursue our scholarly conversation regarding the conceptualisation of our work and our identities as educational developers. Rather than identifying “what we know,” using the lens of threshold concepts has enabled an exploration of “how we know” and “how we are” as 150 educational developers. That consistencies were observed between the threshold concepts and elements of the two models discussed throughout the paper suggests that, in addition to identifying important areas of knowledge required by educational developers, certain aspects of these models are also tapping into the ways of knowing and being of educational developers. The threshold concepts identified suggest an epistemological and ontological basis on which the practise of educational development may rest. The threshold concepts identified also reveal what is “object” for the experienced educational developers in this study; that is, they reveal the ways of knowing, and also the ways of being in relation to oneself and to others, on which these educational developers can reflect. Given the developmental nature of threshold concepts discussed earlier, the threshold concepts might also identify the aspects of educational development that remain “hidden,” or “subject” for educational developers at earlier positions of meaning-making in educational development. The identified threshold concepts further serve to make explicit the ideas that have been particularly pivotal in the formation and transformation of the ways of knowing and being of the educational developers in this study. Continued work is needed in the area of threshold concepts in educational development, however, for, as Mead and Gray (2010) observe, “threshold concepts are disciplinary constructs that have emerged from the crucible of disciplinary scrutiny as definable abstractions agreed upon, at least implicitly, by members of the discipline” (p. 97). Thus, as we continue as a community of educational developers to reflect on how best to form current and future educational developers for “accomplished and responsible practice in the service of others,” (Shulman, 2005a), we might consider extending the study to include additional experienced educational developers from a broader range of institutions. We might also consider adopting an international perspective by gathering the perspectives of colleagues from outside of Canada. Doing so would afford a deeper understanding of the shared ways of knowing and being of educational developers. Furthermore, a study design which includes educational developers at different career stages may provide insight into a “timeline” in the discovery of threshold concepts and into the ways the understanding of a threshold concept transforms over time. The results of these efforts could provide guidance for the design of curricula in educational development.

151

On “Development” in Educational Development There is an additional way in which this study may contribute to conceptualising a profile of educational developers. Some of the findings, particularly the threshold concepts in the category “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups” begin to address the notion of “development,” which is so crucial to characterising our work in educational development. In their recent endeavours to conceptualise the field, Taylor and Rege Colet (2010) and Fraser et al. (2010) address the variation in and absence of agreed-upon terminology to characterise our work. The terms “faculty development,” “instructional development,” or “academic development,” for example, may at times be used to refer to similar work. In other cases, the term “faculty development” may hold different meanings in different contexts (Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). Each group of authors makes a compelling case for adopting the term “educational development” to capture the “scope and diversity” (Fraser et al., 2010, p. 49) and the “essence” of our work (Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010, p. 140). Indeed, adopting the term “educational development” appears to be an appropriate choice, for the Latin roots of the word “education” hold great meaning for us as educational developers. These roots may be traced to the word “educere,” which signifies to “lead out” (oxforddictionaries.com) and powerfully refers to our emerging identity as leaders of change within our institutions. If we read carefully, these roots are not only to “lead,” but to “lead out,” and this qualification draws our attention to the term “development,” which is equally crucial to characterising our work. Both the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) use the term “development” in describing our work as professionals. One of the “underpinning values” of educational development as described by SEDA is “developing people and processes,” and that, “in our learning support and development practice we are concerned with the development of ourselves, our learners, the institutions we work in and the educational processes with which we work” (http://www.seda.ac.uk/about.html?p=2_1_1). The POD Network (2007) echoes these values and describes its purpose as “foster[ing] human development in higher education through faculty, instructional, and organizational development” (http://www.podnetwork.org/about.htm). Yet, in using the term “development” in the definition of the very terms we seek to define, might we be making an assumption of a common understanding of this word? Or, 152 perhaps, might the comparatively less attention this term has received in our scholarly discussions reveal a certain collective discomfort with the notion that “development” somehow implies a “deficit view” (e.g., Land, 2001, 2004, Lycke, 2010)? Both cases, however, lead us to consider that, as we move from working at the “periphery” to working at the “center” of our institutions, it is perhaps more critical than ever that we establish firm theoretical foundations on which the notion of “development” may rest. Indeed, poignantly lacking in explicitness in the Competency Models and the Conceptual Framework of the Meaning and Scope of Educational Development are competencies and expertise related to the understanding and application of theory in the areas of adult, organisational, and leadership development. Until we arrive at a commonly agreed-upon understanding and definition of “development,” however, a critical dimension may be missing from the scholarship in our field, and the crucial exercise of assessing the impact of our work will remain difficult. Taylor and Rege Colet (2010, p. 159) comment that as the field matures, the notion of an expanding base of educational development scholarship becomes a valuable resource. As with scholarship of learning and teaching, such scholarship implies a conceptual framework for evaluating impact, a robust methodology to collect relevant data, and the results of academic work that are reported in peer-reviewed formats according to customary scientific and academic standards (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997). Some of the results of the study reported here, particularly the threshold concepts in the category “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups” begin to address the notion of development as “leading out,” or as “unfolding,” which comes from the French term “développer”. Thus, to the extent that we are “developing,” we are helping to draw out existing potential and enabling a process of unfolding this potential. Yet, with this role comes great responsibility, and the threshold concepts in this category draw our attention to the cognitive, but also to the affective nature of development (Kegan, 1982). We must be deeply respectful of individuals’ current ways of knowing and making meaning; gain knowledge of their histories, their successes, and their challenges; and understand that the transformational process may meet with resistance. That several of the threshold concepts identified by experienced educational developers also help to define the “development” aspect of our work suggests that the ways of knowing and being of educational developers are inextricably intertwined with the very work we hope to accomplish. In a forthcoming paper, I hope to continue our discussion 153 regarding the “development” work of educational development. I will examine principles of development that are shared by fields, such as philosophy, biology, and psychology and explore how they may provide insight into our work as educational developers as we endeavour to help the people with whom, and the systems within which we work, not only survive, but thrive.

154

References Bédard, D., Clement, M., & Taylor, K. L. (2010). Validation of a conceptual framework: The meaning and scope of educational development. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay, (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 168-187). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (2004). Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Bransford, J., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D., Meltzoff, A., Pea, R., Roschelle, J., Vye, N., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., Barron, B., Reeves, B., & Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 209-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carew, A. L., Lefoe, G., Bell, M., & Armour, L. (2008). Elastic practice in academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 13, 51-66. doi: 10.1080/13601440701860250 Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Dall'Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76, 383-412. doi:10.3102/00346543076003383 Davies, P. (2006). Threshold concepts: How can we recognise them? In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 70-84). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Davies, P., & Mangan, J. (2007). Threshold concepts and the integration of understanding in economics. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 711-726. doi:10.1080/03075070701685148 Dawson, D., Britnell, J., & Hitchcock, A. (2010). Developing competency models of faculty developers: Using World Café to foster dialogue. In L. B. Nilson & J. E. Miller (Eds.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, Volume 28 (pp. 3-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dawson, D., Mighty, J., & Britnell, J. (2010). Moving from the periphery to the center of the academy: Faculty developers as leaders of change. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 122, 69-78. doi:10.1002/tl.399 155

Debold, E. (2002 Fall/Winter). Epistemology, fourth order consciousness, and the subject-object relationship or. How the self evolves with Robert Kegan. What is enlightenment?: Redefining spirituality for an evolving world, Issue 22. Retrieved from http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/kegan.asp Educate. (2010). In Oxford dictionaries online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0256470 Education. (2010). In Oxford dictionaries online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0256500 Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fraser, K., Gosling, D., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2010). Conceptualizing evolving models of educational development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 122, 49-58. doi: 10.1002/tl.397 Gaarder, J. (1994). Sophie's World: A novel about the history of philosophy (P. Moller, Trans.). New York, USA: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S. (1987). Toward a cognitive theory for the measurement of achievement. In R. R. Ronning, J. Glover, J.C. Conoley, & J.C. Witt (Eds.), The influence of cognitive psychology on testing, Volume 3, (pp. 41-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Irvine, N., & Carmichael, P. (2009). Threshold concepts: A point of focus for practitioner research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10, 103-119. doi:10.1177/1469787409104785 Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 156

Kegan, R. (2001). Competencies as working epistemologies: Ways we want adults to know. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 192- 204). Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber. Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6, 4-20. doi:10.1080/13601440110033715 Land, R. (2004). Educational development: Discourse, identity and practice. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Lewis, M. D. (2000). The Promise of Dynamic Systems Approaches for an Integrated Account of Human Development. Child Development, 71, 36-43. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00116 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Love, P. G. & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Kegan’s orders of consciousness. New Directions for Student Services, 1999(88), 65-76. doi: 10.1002/ss.8806 Lycke, Kirsten H. (2010). Epilogue. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 188-201). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. McAlpine, L., & Sharpe, R. (2006). Examining, questioning, challenging our taken for granted assumptions. International Journal for Academic Development, 11, 1-3. doi:10.1080/13601440600578722 McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, C., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, J. (1999). Monitoring student cues: Tracking student behaviour in order to improve instruction in higher education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19(2/3), 113-144. McCauley, C., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M. G., & Baker, B. A. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634-653. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.006 McDonald, J., & Stockley, D. (2008). Pathways to the profession of educational development: An international perspective. International Journal for Academic Development, 13, 213- 218. doi: 10.1080/13601440802242622 Mead, J. & Gray, S. (2010). Threshold concepts (I): A conceptual framework for localizing candidates. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land., & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 97-113). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. 157

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: improving student learning theory and practice -- Ten years on (pp. 412-424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Meyer, J. H. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5 Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic Games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 47-61. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(97)88443-1 Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11. Perkins, D. (2007). Theories of difficulty. In British journal of educational psychology monograph series ii, 4 (Vol. Student Learning and University Teaching, pp. 31-48): The British Psychological Society. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD). (2007). About POD Network. Retrieved from http://www.podnetwork.org/about.htm Saroyan, A., & Frenay, M. (2001). Promoting faculty development to enhance the quality of learning in higher education. Project proposal submitted to the Canada-EC Program for Cooperation in Higher Education and Training. Saroyan, A., & Frenay, M. (Eds.). (2010). Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

158

Shulman, L. (2005a). The signature pedagogies of the professions of law, medicine, engineering, and the clergy: Potential lessons for the education of teachers. Paper presented at the Math Science Partnerships (MSP) Workshop: "Teacher Education for Effective Teaching and Learning" Hosted by the National Research Council’s Center for Education, February 6-8, 2005, Irvine, CA. Shulman, L. S. (2005b). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59 Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P., & Beach, A., L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA). (n.d.). Further guidance on the SEDA values. Retrieved from http://www.seda.ac.uk/about.html?p=2_1_1 Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Stockley, D., Mighty, J., McDonald, J., Taylor, K. L., Sorcinelli, M.D., Ouellett, Lewis, K., Land, R., Gosling, D., Dawson, D., & Caron, A. (2008, June). Mapping Our Pathway Into the Field of Educational Development. Presentation at the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) Conference, Salt Lake City, USA. Abstract retrieved from http://iced2008.org/conference-program/concurrent-session-8/ Sullivan, W. M., & Rosin, M. S. (2008). Highlights from 'A new agenda for higher education: Shaping a life of the mind for practice'. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Taylor, K. L. (2005). Academic development as institutional leadership: An interplay of person, role, strategy, and institution. International Journal for Academic Development, 10, 31- 46. doi:10.1080/13601440500099985 Taylor, K. L., & Rege-Colet, N. (2010). Making the shift from faculty development to educational development: A conceptual framework grounded in practice. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 139-167). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Timmermans, J. (2007). A framework for understanding the development of epistemic beliefs (Unpublished Comprehensive Examination). McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

159

Timmermans, J. (2010). Changing our minds: The developmental potential of threshold concepts. In. J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land., & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 3-19). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. Timmermans, J. (2011). Towards an explanation of epistemic beliefs development (Manuscript in unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Timmermans, J., Jazvac-Martek, M., Berthiaume, D., Arcuri, N., & McAlpine, L. FacDev, the next generation: Envisaging a doctoral program for future faculty developers. (2005, April). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada. U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Defining and Assessing Learning: Exploring Competency-Based Initiatives, NCES 2002-159, prepared by Elizabeth A. Jones and Richard A.Voorhees, with Karen Paulson, for the Council of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working Group on Competency- Based Initiatives. Washington, DC. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weston, C & Timmermans, J. (2008, October). McGill University: A faculty development framework for capturing the impact of our work. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) Conference: Celebrating Connections: Teaching, Research, and Scholarship, Edmonton, Canada.

160

Appendix A Interview Protocol Research Question

What do experienced educational developers identify as threshold concepts in educational development?

Focus of Interview: . Identifying threshold concepts in becoming an educational developer . Trying to capture dual aspects of meaning-making process: epistemological and ontological; knowing and being (Kegan, 1982)

SECTION 1: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION TO STUDY

The overall purpose of my research is to identify the ideas and experiences that shape the ways of knowing and being of educational developers.

In this interview, I’d like to provide you with an opportunity to reflect on your career and leadership role as an educational developer. Specifically, I’d like to explore what you identify as “threshold concepts” in educational development (see handout).

SECTION 2: QUESTIONS ABOUT PERSONAL TRAJECTORY TO BECOMING AN EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPER AND SHIFTS IN IDENTITY AS AN EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPER

1. Please tell me about how your academic career began and progressed.

2. When was the first time you would consider having done educational development work?

3. How did you become an educational developer? By inclination? By accident?

4. When you were hired as an educational developer did you feel like one? When did you first begin to think of yourself as and/or feel like an educational developer?

Prompt: I realize that some people are hired into positions with a particular title, such as “educational developer” before identifying themselves and feeling as such.

5. Please describe any shifts, changes, or turning points in your identity as an educational developer (e.g., from novice to more comfortable to expert to leader)?

a. What were they and how did you experience them? b. What led you to recognize these shifts, changes, turning points? c. Did you recognize them at the moment, or after some time? 161

SECTION 3: QUESTIONS ABOUT LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND MISSION OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

6. I selected you as a participant in this study because of your experience as an educational developer and the leadership role you play within the community. At what point in your career did you begin to take on leadership roles in educational development?

7. What led to you to feel prepared for these leadership roles?

8. Did this feeling of leadership coincide with any other maturational aspects of your life? Please elaborate.

9. How do you define leadership in the context of educational development?

10. What do you see as the mission of educational development?

162

SECTION 4: QUESTIONS TO ELICIT THRESHOLD CONCEPTS IN EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

When Cynthia and I invited you to participate in this study, we mentioned that the topic of the interview would be threshold concepts in educational development. Other participants mentioned that this triggered for them certain ideas about what they might identify as threshold concepts in educational development.

11. I was wondering if anything you might consider a threshold concept has come to mind for you? (Repeat this question a maximum of three times after asking follow-up questions 11a and 11b.)

a. Could you tell me what it is?

b. Why do you consider it a threshold concept?

12. In your journey as an educational developer, can you recall any experiences that have challenged your way of thinking and/or practicing and/or valuing? Please describe them.

13. What things still challenge you, or do you still find troublesome?

14. Where do you see new/less experienced developers struggle the most?

Prompt: What do you see as the most challenging (troublesome) concepts for newer educational developers?

15. Do these experiences appear to be emotional for them?

163

SECTION 5: CONSOLIDATING THRESHOLD CONCEPTS IDENTIFIED IN THE INTERVIEW

Task: Based on the conversation we’ve had and anything else that might come to mind, please take 5-10 minutes to identify what you see as being as threshold concepts in educational development. You may write on your computer or on a piece of paper, and I will leave the room at this time. Alternatively, we may do this exercise orally.

SECTION 6: QUESTIONS TO WRAP UP INTERVIEW 1

• Is there anything you’d like to talk about that we haven’t covered?

SECTION 7: THANK YOU AND FOLLOW UP

• I will send the full transcript for verification and the participant may add or delete anything.

• Remind participant that data will be coded and depersonalized to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. Ask the participant how much disclosure he/she would feel comfortable with in the writing of the report, e.g., is “Director of an educational development centre at a Canadian university and leader in the Canadian educational development community” too much information.

• Remind the participant that he/she may withdraw from the project at any time by contacting me or my advisor.

• Thank participant for giving their time and thoughts so generously.

164

Appendix B Participant Recruitment E-Mail Message Hi (Participant Name)

I am writing to introduce you to one of my doctoral students, Julie Timmermans, who is about to collect the data for her dissertation research – and to ask if you would be a participant in her study. Julie has been an apprentice educational developer at TLS for the past several years and has become particularly interested in the formation of educational developers. The purpose of her research is to move towards identifying the ideas and experiences that shape the ways of knowing that are distinctive of educational developers. She will specifically explore what experienced educational developers identify as "threshold concepts” (see definition below) in educational development.

We specifically thought of you as a possible participant in her study because of your extensive experience as an educational developer, the work you have carried out at multiple levels (e.g., national, institutional, program, individual) and the leadership role you play within the educational development community.

Participation in the study would involve two semi-structured interviews of approximately two hours each. If you accept, Julie is hoping to conduct the first interview with you at the EDC conference in Oshawa (which I think you may be attending?). The second interview would occur in May, after analysis of the first, and would likely occur by telephone or videoconference. I have been a test subject for her interview questions, and I must say that the resulting conversations have been fascinating. I hadn’t previously thought about the notion of threshold concepts in educational development and what emerged was a revelation for me.

If you would like more information about the study before making a decision, please don’t hesitate to contact either of us. We would appreciate knowing your decision by the end of next week (Friday Feb 6).

Thank you for taking the time to think about this. I’m sorry I won’t be able to join you at the EDC this year. The new Associate Director of TLS, Laura Winer, will be representing us. I do look forward to seeing you at STLHE in Fredericton.

Best regards, Cynthia

* A threshold concept according to Meyer and Land (2003) is: “akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view. This transition may be protracted over a considerable period of time, with the transition to understanding proving troublesome. Such a transformed view or landscape may represent how particular people ‘think’ in a particular discipline, or how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that discipline (or more generally)” (p. 412). 165

Cynthia Weston Director, Teaching and Learning Services Professor, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology MS-12 McLennan Library Building McGill University 3459 McTavish Street Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y1 514-398-6648

166

Appendix C Definition of a Threshold Concept

A threshold concept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view. This transformation may be sudden or it may be protracted over a considerable period of time, with the transition to understanding proving troublesome. Such a transformed view or landscape may represent how people ‘think’ in a particular discipline, or how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that discipline (or more generally). (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 1)

Reference

167

Appendix D Research Consent Form Title of Research: Documenting Potential Threshold Concepts in Educational Development

Description of the Research and Purpose of the Study The overall purpose of this research study is to identify the ideas and experiences that shape the ways of knowing and being of educational developers by documenting potential “threshold concepts” (Meyer & Land, 2003). Specifically, this study asks the following two questions: (a) What do experienced educational developers identify as potential threshold concepts in educational development? and (b) How and when did experienced educational developers recognize threshold concepts?

Expected Benefits of the Research An understanding of potential threshold concepts in educational development, combined with an understanding of the sources that lead people to recognize thresholds can inform the design of initial and ongoing programs of formation for educational developers.

What is Involved in Participating? Data will be collected through two semi-structured interviews. The first interview will be approximately two hours and will focus on identifying potential threshold concepts in educational development. The second interview will occur after data obtained from the first interview have been analysed and will seek to gain a deeper understanding of the characteristics of the threshold concepts identified. This interview will also be approximately two hours. Both interviews will be audio-taped.

It is my intention that the research be collaborative in nature. I will provide you with transcripts of our interview and invite you to make any changes you wish. Drafts of the written report will be sent to you, with an invitation to provide any feedback you see as serving to improve the validity of the findings.

How Will Your Contributions be Used? Data will be coded to ensure confidentiality. The data will serve as the basis for a manuscript in my doctoral thesis. Results of the study will also be presented at the 13th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in August 2009. The ultimate intention is to submit the manuscript for publication in the International Journal for Academic Development (IJAD).

Your name will not be associated with the research findings and your identity will be known only to Dr. Weston and me. You may refuse to answer any interview questions. No information that could jeopardize your professional position will be included in the study. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Julie Timmermans Dr. Cynthia Weston Ph.D. Candidate Director, Teaching and Services Dept. of Educational & Counselling Psych. Professor, Dept. of Educational & Counselling Psych. McGill University McGill University [email protected] [email protected] 514-398-6648 514-398-6648

168

Research Consent Form Page 2/2

Title of Research: Documenting Potential Threshold Concepts in Educational Development

I have read the description of this research and the specifics of my participation.

I understand that my identity will be protected and that records will be coded to guarantee anonymity.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study and understand that I may withdraw from the research at any time and for any reason.

There are no perceived risks to participating in this study.

Once the data have been compiled and analysed, I understand that I may request a summary of the findings.

Consent

Consent to participate in the study

Name (please print): ______

Signature: ______

Date: ______

Consent to have the interviews audio taped

Name (please print): ______

Signature: ______

Date: ______

169

Appendix E

Within-Case Analysis Document 1: “Participant 3 Summary of Threshold Concepts with Parent- Subordinate and Parent-Parent Relationships” (For Researcher Use)*

. Named TC: Collaboration (lines 587-589) “I would certainly say just from our discussion here tonight and my reflection on, on my career, that one of the concepts that I would think is a threshold concept is the whole concept of collaboration.”

Additional excerpt (lines 737-741) (In the interview, this passage comes after the threshold concepts named below. It is included here, however, as it provides a nice summary of the upcoming threshold concepts)

“So collaboration is two senses. Collaboration within the community of education developers drawing on that scholarship, drawing on that practice, drawing on other educational developers and their contributions, but also collaborating with, with the targets of your—you know—your work, the people that you’re trying to influence that they are not coming to you tabula rasa.”

In the following passage, two threshold concepts are named and their relationship is identified.

o Named TC: Drawing on a scholarly community: Collaboration within the community of educational developers (lines 632-644)

“And if you don’t recognize that you have to draw on the community that exists, there’s only so much that we know. We are limited in our sphere of knowledge and everything else and so we have to draw on others and that’s, that’s another thing I think is really critical, is another threshold—the sense of community. I guess it’s captured when I talk about collaboration. You know, that sense of community. That, it’s a threshold concept because I can’t see an educational developer growing and evolving in the way we’ve talked about that evolution of recognition of the various roles that we play unless you realize that they’re, that a) your mission is to change, to make change; and b) that you have a community of people that you can draw on to help you in that process. We don’t have all the answers as individuals and therefore you wouldn’t achieve the mission if you don’t recognize that that’s core to what you do—this community. Now it’s hard sometimes when you’re in your institution to remember that there’s this community because sometimes it does feel as if you’re alone but the community isn’t just a physical community. It’s, it’s, it’s an intellectual, a cognitive—a scholarly community, I guess. That’s the word. And so, it’s important for us to be a) engaging in scholarship ourselves and b) drawing on the existent scholarship.”

*Appendix E is an excerpt from Document 1 for Participant 3 170

o Inferred TC Collaboration with people we are helping (pg. 15, lines 729-749). “I think too the collaboration extends—Here’s the other thing. It’s not just collaboration within the education development community, but it is collaboration with the people that we are helping. It is a process where they have a role to play in it and so what happens is that they own it. Because you bring them in as an equal partner. I am not the expert saying to them ‘You must do it this way, my way.’ And again, I think it probably touches on that thing I talked about about being able to draw people out. So as I talk to people, they’re bringing, they feel empowered because they are bringing—I’m managing to get them to see what they have to contribute to this situation, whether it is an individual, you know, one-on-one thing or whether it is a department or whether it is the whole university. I’m able to get people to see that I am not the answer. It’s not me saying to do this but you have it in you and let’s pull it out. So collaboration is two senses. Collaboration within the community of education developers drawing on that scholarship, drawing on that practice, drawing on other educational developers and their contributions, but also collaborating with, with the targets of your—you know—your work, the people that you’re trying to influence that they are not coming to you tabula rasa. They have something to contribute to the, to the solutions that you’re seeking and therefore being able to draw out from them what it does that gives them ownership for it and therefore they’re able to, that’s probably why you end up being so influential. Because they feel that it is theirs, that they have, it’s not me. All I did was to help them to see it. But because they feel ‘Oh, it is in me, I am able to do it’ and I think that this is true at various levels, whether it is the individual, the department, I can, I can—It’s a wonderful feeling to have, you know people, people, you can see them—like the dawn of understanding, you know. You can see them say ‘Oh, yeah, I get it!’ You know, that light bulb going off and you know that they are going to be okay because they now know that they might have come to you because they feel you have the answer but they now know they have the answer in them and all you’ve done is to help to unearth it.

. Named TC: Helping, Service role (pg. 13, lines 609-632) and relationship identified to Named TC: Drawing on a scholarly community (excerpt above)

“ R: But I would say that in terms of education development, there’s also—I don’t know if this is a – I don’t know —It’s a threshold concept in a sense that—and I’m getting mixed up between threshold concept and sort of characteristics, but I think it’s, I think it’s, and I’m thinking it through, but I think it’s important that people in the educational development field understand their role as a helping service role, one, and that they have to draw on, not only their own knowledge base but a field— research, practice, whatever it is in order to enhance that knowledge, in order to be able to help. That’s a very complicated way of putting it.” I: No, I understand. I understand.

R: But what I’m saying is that, that to be an educational developer you want to, you have to have that urge to help and you have understand that you are not the only source of the help and that you can draw on a) the collaborative community; and b) 171 the literature; and c) that you could create, you could be part of that creation creating that literature by the research that you do as an educational developer. A complicated, round about way of saying it.”

I: It makes perfect sense!

R: Okay!

I: At least we’re thinking the same way. Yeah. So guess the next, the question of why you would consider it a threshold concept.

R: Hmmm. Because I don’t think that—I don’t think you can get very far if you don’t have that kind of—if you don’t recognize that helping role.

172

Appendix F

Within-Case Analysis Document 2 “Participant 3 Threshold Concepts with Excerpts” (For Participant Verification)*

Named TC: Collaboration (p. 12, lines 587-589) “I would certainly say just from our discussion here tonight and my reflection on, on my career, that one of the concepts that I would think is a threshold concept is the whole concept of collaboration.”

Additional excerpt (p. 15, lines 737-741) (In the interview, this passage comes after the threshold concepts named below. It is included here, however, as it provides a nice summary of the upcoming threshold concepts)

In the following passage, two threshold concepts are named and their relationship is identified.

Named TC: Drawing on a scholarly community: Collaboration within the community of educational developers (pg. 13, lines 633-644)

Inferred TC: Collaboration with people we are helping (pg. 15, lines 729-749). “I think too the collaboration extends—Here’s the other thing. It’s not just collaboration within the education development community, but it is collaboration with the people that we are helping. It is a process where they have a role to play in it and so what happens is that they own it. Because you bring them in as an equal partner. […]

*Appendix F is an excerpt from Document 2 for Participant 3. The excerpts have been truncated here, but appear in full in the document sent to the participant for verification. 173

Named TC: Helping, Service role (pg. 13, lines 609-632) and relationship identified to Named TC: Drawing on a scholarly community (excerpt above)

R: But I would say that in terms of education development, there’s also—I don’t know if this is a – I don’t know —It’s a threshold concept in a sense that—and I’m getting mixed up between threshold concept and sort of characteristics, but I think it’s, I think it’s, and I’m thinking it through, but I think it’s important that people in the educational development field understand their role as a helping service role, one, and that they have to draw on, not only their own knowledge base but a field—research, practice, whatever it is in order to enhance that knowledge, in order to be able to help. That’s a very complicated way of putting it.”

I: No, I understand. I understand.

R: But what I’m saying is that, that to be an educational developer you want to, you have to have that urge to help and you have understand that you are not the only source of the help […]

174

Appendix G

Verification E-Mail Message

Dear (Participant Name)

I hope that you are well and that your semester is off to a wonderful start.

I have had the great pleasure of reading over our interview many times. Each time, I am struck by the depth and honesty of your answers, and I continue to feel grateful for the time you took to share your thoughts with me.

First, attached, you will find both the complete transcript of our interview, as well as a preliminary list of identified threshold concepts. I ask that you verify these documents and return them to me by October 5th, if possible, after signing the receipt/verification letter. In the attached letter, I provide further details about the documents and clarify what is entailed by the verification process. If, however, you are too busy and prefer not to verify the transcript and/or the list of threshold concepts, please feel free just to send the files back to me, after signing the receipt/verification.

Second, as you may recall, there is a follow-up phase of data collection in this study. This one will require less time on your part, perhaps only an hour or so. Also, this portion of the data collection will be in written format, rather than oral. So as not to overwhelm you with too much information at the moment, I will send you another message when your return the transcripts.

Thank you so much for your time, and all the best, Julie

P.S. On a rather exciting note, I recently presented some preliminary findings of the study at the EARLI conference in Amsterdam, and had several interesting conversations with some of our colleagues as a result. Of course, I would be happy to share the presentation and/or findings with you, if you wish.

175

Appendix H Verification Letter September 21, 2009

Subject: Verification of Threshold Concepts Interview Transcript and Identified Threshold Concepts

Dear (Participant Name)

Thank you for participating in my research on Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development. I have finished transcribing our interview, as well as completed a preliminary analysis of the threshold concepts identified in the interview. Part of my research procedure is to give you the opportunity to further verify the transcript, as well as the list of threshold concepts before I complete the analysis

1. Verifying transcripts In verifying the interview transcript, I ask that you read over the transcript and consider whether it accurately captures your thinking about threshold concepts in educational development. Please feel free to propose any changes or additions you wish. I only ask that you clearly mark these, so that I may distinguish them from the original transcript. When you have finished, please sign the verification below.

There is one place highlighted in red in the document (p. , line ) where I am not able to distinguish what you said. Please fill it in, if you are able to recall what you said.

Transcriptions represent spoken language and as such are normally awkward to read since we tend not to speak in sentences. Incomplete sentences are a natural part of transcripts of interviews, so please don't feel that you should correct the language or complete the sentences.

2. Verifying list of identified threshold concepts Attached, you will also find the list of threshold concepts identified during the interview, along with short excerpts to support these concepts. I have attempted to keep inference as low as possible, and therefore distinguish between explicitly named threshold concepts and inferred threshold concepts. You will therefore notice that a threshold concept may be highlighted in one of three colours:

Yellow: threshold concept explicitly identified by you during the main interview and/or during our “recap” in the last few minutes of the interview;

Red: Concept inferred by me to be a threshold concept. In many cases these concepts are subsumed under a “main” threshold concept. In some cases, I was, in fact, uncertain whether these were separate threshold concepts, or concepts that helped elaborate an already-identified threshold concept. Threshold concepts marked in red also have been identified as such based on the manner in which you spoke about them, as, for example, crucial to changing your perspective, or your thinking; 176

Blue: threshold concept which appears to be “core” or “key” for you.

In verifying this list of threshold concepts, for threshold concepts highlighted in red and blue, I ask that you identify whether you AGREE that this is a threshold concept, or DISAGREE. I will continue my analysis accordingly. When you have finished, please sign the verification below. If, however, you are too busy and prefer not to verify the transcript and/or the list of threshold concepts, please feel free just to send the files back to me, after signing the verification.

Sincerely,

Julie Timmermans Cynthia Weston

------

I have received the transcripts and list of threshold concepts and am now returning them for analysis.

Date:

Signature:

177

Appendix I Verification Reminder E-Mail Message

Dear (Participant Name)

I hope that you are having a wonderful semester.

This is just a small reminder and follow-up regarding the verification of transcripts and threshold concepts from our interview.

I understand that you must be extremely busy, and would therefore like to propose three alternatives:

1. If you wish to verify the interview transcript and preliminary list of identified threshold concepts, I have attached the documents. I ask that you verify these documents, sign the receipt/verification letter, and return all the documents to me by November 30th. In the attached letter, I provide further details about the documents and clarify what is entailed by the verification process.

2. If, however, you are too busy and prefer not to verify the transcript and/or the list of threshold concepts, you may simply sign the receipt/verification letter by November 30th.

3. Finally, if you feel comfortable with me proceeding with the analysis without looking over the documents, you may choose not to respond. After November 30th, I will proceed with the analysis.

(Participant Name), thank you so much for your time and continued collaboration.

All the best,

Julie

178

Appendix J

Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 1: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Understanding that Realising that change “Okay, a really good threshold concept can be stated in a brief sentence, and then of course you 1/4 Change Must be cannot be imposed; expand upon it for books. Change must be internalized. Four words. […] I’m happy with that Internalised “acknowledging that you because that’s not the easiest thing to come up with, but—and let me give you one example of care and difficulty of how that manifests itself. Very interesting article written on physics education research and change work”; faculty members’ – physics faculty members’ unwillingness to use that research to change their understanding resistance teaching. Five very dedicated physics profs—dedicated to their teaching—each commented on to change and need for why they essentially had not made changes, even though the evidence suggests that they should. “patience versus And they said, “Because the way it was presented to me, bluntly said, ‘You’ve been wrong for urgency” 23 years’ and gave no respect whatsoever to who I was for those 23 years, and how hard it is to go from that to these new things, and I was being told this, just to add insult to injury, by people who actually hadn’t taught physics very much, thank you. And I would acknowledge that, yes, it’s a good—and I would nod, and I might even try it a bit—but I wouldn’t make it part of who I was as a teacher because they were insulting.” That’s my word. But oh boy, I was struck by that article.” (P2, lines 590-602)

Working Outside the In order to provide good “but I think one of the things that new developers struggle with is working outside the frame of 1/4 Frame of One’s Own advice, one must learn to their own discipline and whether that’s educational psychology or history, it doesn’t matter. Discipline ‘step outside’ the frame They, they have a certain way of knowing about teaching and about academic careers because it of one’s own discipline is bigger than teaching. I mean you, you really have to understand how teaching fits into the and understand the academic career to give good advice. And I think brand new developers, one of the challenges discipline of the is stepping outside of their own disciplinary expertise to be able to appreciate that experience in person/people we are different disciplines is different. And then, so you teach history and discussion is a big deal. If trying to help; Named as you’re working with an engineer, it’s not helpful to encourage them to have wide-ranging a challenge for newer discussions in their first year classes. So, it’s really being able to, I think, step outside your own educational developers discipline is one of the big things.” (P1, lines 1110-1118)

Becoming Aware of Discovering that an issue “I discovered that there were many perspectives on the same thing. And that was something 1/4 Multiple Perspectives may be perceived and that, again, was a, was an eye-opener for me. But that was a critical part of my development.” understood from many (P3, lines 73-75). perspectives

179

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Perceiving Oneself as a Difficulty in perceiving “Something that we, we talk about only occasionally in our field is the fact that most of us also 1/4 Manager that managing people in either joyfully, or reluctantly, or begrudgingly manage people. I use that word deliberately. In one’s educational Australia, academic leaders are often called ‘managers’, and I have no use for the word really.” development centre is Ughhh. It just bugs me. […]But the truth is, but for very few of us who work in really small part of the Director’s places, small centres, we, we have to do management things. And very few of us—although role, although one may some—some actually came through faculties of personnel – where they studied personnel not have training in this management. But most of us are not only not particularly good at it. It’s not something we area relish. It would be really good to have a weekend retreat in Banff or something with all of us to talk about how we manage that, how we, at times, thrive on it and feel good about it, at other times dread it. ” (P2, lines 1010-1022)

“I guess this is maybe partly in answer to your question about some of the newer folks coming up. Some could take that [being a manager] on quite well, I think; others they’re no more ready—they’re no more ready to take that on than I am to join the fire department. And they would be the first to tell you. This isn’t a criticism. They’re just – you know, they give you the two palms up thing—‘Don’t ask me!’ And on occasion, I’ve asked them ‘Would you, would you just get together interested people here to talk about quality control in some of our programs. You don’t have to dictate, just get it together and facilitate the process.’—‘Oh. Oh, you’re not, so, okay.’ ” (P2, lines 1041-1047)

180

Appendix K Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 2: Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Knowledge and Understanding the “ I do believe that in educational development we are facilitators of change and, therefore, some 1/4 Appreciation of Change processes involved in knowledge of change processes, right, I do believe is a critical component.” (P4, lines 93-95) Processes facilitating change at multiple levels (e.g., individual, institutional, national, etc.)

Identifying Levers Identifying the “And I think one has to have an appreciation of change processes and I talk a lot about levers for 1/4 means/tools that might change, like recognizing what those levers are and working at multiple levels to bring change help accomplish change about. So whether it is the national level, the provincial level, the institutional level or the departmental level or the individual level, there are—levers exist in each one of those domains and I see my work as identifying and working with those levers to help bring change about.” (P4, lines 70-75)

Accepting and Awareness and “R: Yeah. And if you don’t like politics, for heaven sakes, don’t work at a university. I’m 1/4 Understanding the understanding of the not sure where you could work, but not at a university. My definition of politics is very simple. Politicized Nature of dynamics of politics It is ‘the need to make people other than yourself happy in order to achieve a goal’. And when Work within the institution in you’ve got somebody sitting across from you and the topic of conversation on the committee is order to work peer review of teaching, and the person across from you says, ‘We need to do this in the most successfully at the expedient way possible. Faculty members are busy. Let’s give them a five point checklist, let systemic level ’em pick a class at random, sit in on half of the class, maybe not all of it. Done deal.’ And you, you think, ‘Oh dear. What are you telling us we’re too busy to do?’ Okay? And at the same time, you realize that before you’re ever going to implement anything in the way of a decent policy on peer review of teaching, he needs to be happy. Now you either find that interesting, or you take that long walk off that short pier, and you get – you do vacillate between those two positions. I: Where do you see new or less experienced educational developers struggling? R: Exactly there.” (P2, lines 789-803)

181

Appendix L Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 3: Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Preserving Identity and “Staying grounded in “And so the only way that I can maintain my integrity is to actively negotiate all those 1/4 Integrity who you are as a person differences with whomever I’m working with, but you always have to start with where they are. and as a practitioner” and You can’t start with who you are. So, I think the challenge of trying to stay grounded in who you “preserving your own are as a person and as a practitioner is, for me, was a threshold concept because if you can’t do identity in working with that, you burn out, right.” (P1, lines 315-319) very diverse colleagues with diverse issues”

Practising Ethically Respecting people with “You know, it’s visible to them because that builds a certain trust. I guess, well, yeah, probably 1/4 whom we work; building another threshold would be trust and the trust comes from respecting the expertise and the values trust; maintaining of other, of the people that you work with and, you know, kind of really helping them develop in confidentiality their own terms as we just talked about. And all of that is part of what I would call the ‘ethics of practice.’ You know, the respect, the trust, maintaining confidentiality. I mean we only once have to talk about a case or a colleague in an inappropriate setting and we’re blown.” (P1, lines 1341-1346)

182

Appendix M Table of Single Threshold Concepts for Category 4: Knowledge of Educational Developers

Threshold Concept Description Illustrative Excerpt(s) Freq.

Knowledge of How Understanding students’ “And then, I think over time, as we began to learn more about student engagement and active 1/4 Students Learn learning processes learning, then I think we became a little more sophisticated in asking ourselves questions, ‘To what extent are the students in this course learning, and how do we know?’ (P4, lines 159-162)

Skilled in Assessment Having skills in “So I think that other threshold concepts are to do with those last, those last two concepts. So I 1/4 assessing student think that educational developers have to know about how students learn but I also think they learning, engaging in have to be well skilled in assessment. authentic assessment, I: Assessing learning? and having the ability to R: In the assessment of learning.” (P4, lines 162-168) assess the impact of our work as educational “But I think and I don’t know whether you want to call evidence-based practice a threshold developers concept or whether you would become sort of more focused on the ability to assess the impact of your own work.” (P4, lines 600-601)

Knowledge of Having a good “I think they have to have a good knowledge base in curriculum development and curricular 1/4 Curriculum knowledge base in mapping and research—the ability to conduct their own research.” (P4, lines 804-805) Development, Mapping, curriculum development and Research and curricular mapping and research

183

DISSERTATION SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

To conclude the dissertation, I will summarise the three manuscripts and highlight their contribution to the overall goals of the dissertation. These goals were to elucidate the notion of development by exploring what development is and how it happens in the realm of epistemic beliefs. An additional aim was to examine the development of educational developers’ ways of knowing and being and explore the meaning of development in educational development. Realizing that the act of synthesis involved in writing a dissertation is in fact one of creation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), I bring together insights from Manuscripts 1, 2, and the Bridging Texts, and propose a visual model of the principles and mechanisms of development that may perhaps serve to further research on the developmental nature of epistemic beliefs. Then, using the findings that emerged in Manuscript 3 regarding threshold concepts in educational development, I explore the questions which I now realise have inspired my research – questions regarding the meaning of development in educational development and the implications of adopting a developmental approach to our work.

Summary and Conclusions of Manuscripts 1, 2, and Bridging Texts

Manuscript 1: “Towards an Explanation of Epistemic Beliefs Development” Manuscript 1 represented an attempt to contribute to the current endeavour in the literature to build an integrative model of epistemic beliefs development by proposing an explanation of epistemic beliefs development. Drawing on biology, philosophy, psychology, and the interdisciplinary work of Robert Kegan, we explored the principles of development that unify these fields and that might consequently contribute to providing a deeper understanding of epistemic beliefs development. Based on this exploration, a stage model was proposed reflecting the emergence, organisation, and balancing of opposing, yet complementary and interacting elements of essence into a qualitatively more complex system of nested hierarchies through a dialectical process. This developmental process was qualified as cognitive and deeply affective. Since one of our important tasks as educators involves stimulating the development of epistemic beliefs, the manuscript also considered questions regarding the nature of sources of discrepancy and the ways in which these might contribute to understanding the development of epistemic beliefs. The notions of “balancing” and “dialectical construction” were proposed as 184 two potential mechanisms accounting for development. Individuals were described as striving to achieve equilibrium by adjusting and readjusting to the dynamic tension between opposing forces. Several questions regarding potential sources of development were also addressed. We saw that these sources of development could lie both within the individual and within the multiple and interrelated contexts in which the individual is embedded; these sources may interact to create change. In order for development to occur, sources of change must create discrepancy or tension, which may lead an individual to the “limit” of his/her way of knowing and being. Variation in individuals’ responses to discrepancy suggested a qualitative component to dissonance. Thus, in addressing the issue of quantitative versus qualitative change, we saw that the development of epistemic beliefs may best be instigated through an optimal level of conflict with adequate support. This optimal conflict may prompt the crossing of a threshold, opening up a space in which reflection may occur. This may lead to a resolution of the conflict and to true transformation, that is, to the reorganisation and restructuring of a previous way of knowing into a new perspective from which to view and make sense of the world.

Bridging Text Between Manuscripts 1 and 2: “Understanding Transitions Between Stages in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs: The Promise of Threshold Concepts” This brief text established the importance of understanding the nature of transformation between stages of development, as it is within these spaces that much of our work as educators transpires. Meyer and Land’s (2003) notion of ‘threshold concepts’ was proposed as a powerful tool for helping us understand transformational spaces.

Manuscript 2: “Changing our Minds: The Developmental Potential of Threshold Concepts” The intention of Manuscript 2 was to clarify transformations between stages of epistemic beliefs development, as it is within these spaces that much of our work with learners occurs. Threshold concepts were situated within a developmental framework by relating the principles of development explored in Manuscript 1 to the characteristics often used to describe threshold concepts, such as “troublesome,” “transformative,” “irreversible,” “integrative,” and “bounded.” This relationship revealed that threshold concepts may serve as powerful instigators of epistemic beliefs development. This relationship further served to clarify the cognitive and deeply 185 affective nature of transformation between stages. Implications for educators’ role of facilitating the learning were also explored.

Bridging Text between Manuscripts 2 and 3: “On the Issue of Irreversibility in the Development of Epistemic Beliefs” This bridging text explored the notion of thresholds in the development of epistemic beliefs and proposed that there may exist a point beyond which reverting to the former perspective from which we view the world may prove difficult, if not impossible. In this light, threshold concepts were described as potential instigators of irreversible qualitative transformations in both epistemological and ontological development and were thus proposed as a suitable lens through which to investigate transformations in the ways of knowing and being of educational developers.

Integration of Manuscripts 1, 2, and Bridging Texts: Proposing a Model of Epistemic Beliefs Development Based on the discussion of principles and sources of development in Manuscript 1, the process of transformation between stages of epistemic beliefs explored in Manuscript 2, and the suggestion of the existence of thresholds in the development of epistemic beliefs proposed in the Bridging Texts, I see a possible model of epistemic beliefs development emerging. I therefore propose a double-helix model as a means of visually capturing and reviewing the most salient points that arose in the manuscripts. Using a double-helix image (Figure Conclusion.1) to capture these principles is appealing for several reasons. First, it seems to overcome the inability of linear models to capture the dynamic and complex process of development. The spiral nature of the helix is reminiscent of Bruner’s spiral curriculum model. Kegan (1982) proposes a single helix of “evolutionary truces” to represent the development of meaning-making. Perry (1981) also suggests that, more than a straight line or a circle, a helix may represent the growth process more adequately. In the description that follows, terms that emerged from Manuscripts 1, 2 and the Bridging Texts are in bold. 186

Figure Conclusion.1. A double-helix image to help visualise the developmental process. (Retrieved and adapted from http://wallpaper.wallpedia.org/23__DNA.htm)

The two intertwining threads capture our attempt to integrate and coordinate the opposing elements of essence. They may also represent the dialectical construction of epistemic beliefs and illustrate the phenomenon that, as indivi-duals, we are made up of indivisible and complementary dualities. We seek both autonomy and integration; our development is both cognitive and affective. The points at which the two threads appear to intersect are the temporary balances – the stages of epistemic development – that we achieve. Yet, our eyes rest on this illusory intersection for only a moment, for these balances are dynamic. We continue to move across through nested hierarchies of evolutionary truces. Furthermore, while the image is, of course, static, I find it impossible to look at it without seeing movement, the motion that characterizes the emergence and evolution of our epistemic beliefs. Rather than representing this helix vertically, in which case development may be misconstrued as upward, more desirable, more “sophisticated” motion, the diagonal helix instead captures the gradual adaptation to the increasingly complex demands of our environments that tends to occur across the lifespan. Between stages, our eyes come to the rungs – the steps in the transformational process. The rung closest to the intersection of the two threads represents our tendency to assimilate, to preserve balance. It may also signal our immunity to change and alternative commitments. An additional step may represent discrepant experiences from internal and/or external sources may instigate doubt. The influence of the external sources reminds us that we are open 187 systems, and that the multiple contexts in which an individual is embedded serve to elicit and shape epistemic beliefs. As our eyes continue to move across the helix, they also move outward. There is a widening of the conceptual, epistemic, affective, and ontological spaces. At a certain point, we may cross a threshold. Reflection on prior beliefs is now possible and we enter a state of liminality. Reversion to former ways of knowing and being is likely no longer possible. We are not yet at the new balance, however, but the past is untenable. The rung just before the next intersection represents the accommodation and restructuring of our epistemic beliefs. We then arrive at the next intersection. We have adapted to the demands of our contexts and reorganized our beliefs into a new, more integrated, more adequate, yet still dynamic, equilibrium. The rungs may illustrate the stages of transformation, yet they may also serve as a reminder that the development of learners’ epistemic beliefs must be scaffolded.

We now turn from the explanation of an emerging model of epistemic beliefs development to an examination of the ways in which insights from this model may be applied to educational development. We will begin with a review of the findings from Manuscript 3.

An Exploration of “Development” in Educational Development

Summary and Conclusions of Manuscript 3: “Identifying Threshold Concepts in Educational Development” Manuscript 3 is the account of an empirical study designed to identify threshold concepts in educational development. In an attempt to contribute to the current collective endeavour in the field to capture “who we are and what we do” as educational developers, experienced educational developers were asked to identify the ideas that have been threshold concepts for them in their careers as educational developers. A cross-case analysis of threshold concepts identified within each case revealed three categories of common threshold concepts: (a) “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Change in Individuals and in Groups,” (b) “Ways of Knowing and Being that Facilitate Systemic Change,” and (c) “Ways of Knowing and Being of Professionals.” 188

In the conclusion of Manuscript 3, I suggested that we have paid great attention to determining whether our work is most appropriately conceptualised as ‘faculty,’ ‘instructional,’ or ‘educational’ development. I also suggested that the comparatively less attention the term “development” has received in our efforts to conceptualise our work may reveal a collective discomfort that the notion of “development” somehow implies a “deficit view” (e.g., Land, 2001, 2004; Lycke, 2010; J. H. F. Meyer, personal communication, February 14, 2009). Yet, the term “development” lies at the heart of our identities and work as educational developers. In the conclusion of Manuscript 3, I therefore emphasised the importance of conceptualising the term “development” in educational development in order to provide a firmer theoretical foundation on which the scholarship and practise of educational development may rest. The challenge for us, as Meyer notes (personal communication, February 14, 2009), lies in “translating what is essentially a deficit notion (something is missing, we the anointed will rectify this situation), into one that is positive and empowering.” Consequently, in the following and final section of the dissertation, I draw on insights from the three manuscripts in a modest attempt to explore the implications of adopting a developmental approach to the work of educational development.

Exploring the Implications of a Developmental Approach to Educational Development In exploring the development of epistemic beliefs in this dissertation, might we perhaps have arrived at an explanation of development that can allay some of our deepest fears regarding such a fundamental aspect of our identities and work? Might the principles of development and threshold concepts identified by experienced educational developers offer guidance regarding ways in which to approach our work that honour the existing integrity of the people and institutions with which we work? The following reflections represent an initial attempt to address these questions. In writing this dissertation, I have learned that to facilitate development, it is essential first to qualify what is developing. Throughout the dissertation, we therefore reviewed aspects of Robert Kegan’s Constructive-Developmental Theory of Meaning-Making (1982, 1994, 2000) and presented the argument that the essence of what is transforming throughout our lives as we make meaning (about our disciplines, about our work as educational developers, etc.) are epistemic beliefs, the ways of knowing which shape the “window” or “lens through which one looks at the world” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 3). 189

We saw that the developmental process involves motion – moving what is “subject,” that in which we are embedded (Kegan, 1982) and which form our background “assumptions” (Baltas, 2007) to “object,” (Kegan, 1982), “those aspects of our experience that are apparent to us and can be looked at, related to, reflected upon, engaged, controlled, and connected to something else” (Kegan, with Debold, 2002, p. 3). We also saw that this process involves great “e-motion,” (Kegan, 1982) and that affect, in all its forms, constitutes an integral dimension of transformation. Extending this perspective to the work of educational development, we may thus perceive that our work with people and with institutions is about facilitating development of the ways in which they know. It is about facilitating the process of revealing what is subject and unseen, so that it may become object and consequently reflected and acted upon. This leads us to consider the crucial distinction between the notions of information and transformation, between knowing more and knowing differently. While, at times, we are certainly concerned with bringing information about teaching and learning to our encounters, with “filling up” the current form of meaning-making people hold, our work might be most fundamentally concerned with facilitating transformation, with helping people and institutions alter the very nature of their current form of meaning-making (Berger, 2006; Kegan, 2000). As we have seen, this is deeply personal work, requiring attention to and respect for the emotional upheavals that may ensue. In the remainder of this section, I attempt to relate insights gained in the dissertation regarding epistemic beliefs development to some of the identified threshold concepts in order to contribute to the effort to conceptualise this important aspect of our work. On balance and preserving balance. A fundamental notion in our exploration of development is that of “balance.” Indeed, the conceptualisation of development explored in this dissertation is a story of the intricate dance of balance – of attempting to preserve it, of losing it, of trying to regain it on new footing and in different circumstances, when our ideas and our selves are fundamentally and irreversibly transformed. We saw that biological systems, and psychological systems, especially in adulthood, work adamantly to preserve balance, for balance represents stability, comfort, integrity, wholeness. Conceived of in this manner, perceptions of resistance to educational development efforts may be reinterpreted as valiant attempts to maintain stability, to avoid the threat and fear 190 of disintegration that accompany the giving up of a current way of seeing and being in the world, especially when there is no guarantee that the new perspective or way of being will be better. We also explored a special brand of resistance to change, which Kegan and Lahey (2001, 2009) have labelled “immunity to change.” Indeed, Kegan recounts that people may have “sincere, even passionate intentions to change” (with Carroll, 2007), yet do not take the steps necessary to effect this change. Kegan describes his work with Lahey as pay[ing] very close, – and very respectful – attention to all those behaviors people engage in that work against their change goals […]. Instead of regarding these behaviors as obstacles in need of elimination, we take them as unrecognized signals of other, usually unspoken, often unacknowledged, goals or motivations. (p. 1) Kegan and Lahey (2009) refer to these goals as “commitments” and suggest that they may reveal insights with respect to perceived resistance to change. Thus, in meeting resistance to change in our educational development work, we may try to uncover the ideas or priorities to which the institutions and people with which we work may be committed. An additional reason explaining why our efforts as educational developers may meet with resistance emerged from an interview with one of the experienced educational developers: Very interesting article written on physics education research and faculty members’ – physics faculty members’ unwillingness to use that research to change their teaching. Five very dedicated physics profs—dedicated to their teaching—each commented on why they essentially had not made changes, even though the evidence suggests that they should. And they said, “Because the way it was presented to me, bluntly said, ‘You’ve been wrong for 23 years.’ And gave no respect whatsoever to who I was for those 23 years, and how hard it is to go from that to these new things, and I was being told this, just to add insult to injury, by people who actually hadn’t taught physics very much, thank you. And I would acknowledge that, yes, it’s a good—and I would nod, and I might even try it a bit—but I wouldn’t make it part of who I was as a teacher because they were insulting.” That’s my word. But, oh boy, I was struck by that article. (Participant 2, lines 593-602). Here, we encounter the critical notion of respect and the idea that our work cannot be accomplished if we do not first acknowledge and value the knowledge, expertise, and abilities that people have gained on their journeys preceding their encounters with us. 191

The above discussion of resistance to, readiness for, and immunity to change suggests that any attempt to facilitate development must begin, as the threshold concepts remind us, with knowledge of the people with whom we are working. As Kegan (1994) notes, this involves “dwelling for a time in the home of the other and developing an empathy for the coherence of the other’s position and the costs that leaving it might entail” (p. 332). As the experienced educational developers in the study advise, “starting where they are” enables the creation of transformational spaces that are adapted to individual needs. On educational developers as instigators of change. In Manuscripts 1 and 2, we considered the idea that disequilibrium is fundamental to the developmental process. Thus, in order to continue their forward motion, organisms must be thrown out of balance. Several important implications for our work as educational developers emerge from these observations. The first implication is that, as educational developers, we may be sources or instigators of change. Indeed, we saw that educational developers are increasingly being called upon to be leaders of change within institutions. Essential for accomplishing this task is determining what brings change about. Thus, in considering the question regarding the type of disequilibrium that leads to development, we explored the notions of quantity and quality of sources of change. We saw that, particularly in adults, whose balances tend to be “hardy,” (Kegan, with Scharmer, 2000, p. 11) even a great amount of discrepant information may be insufficient to stimulate growth. Instead, more likely to produce change are ideas or experiences that are qualitatively well- matched to bring people to the limits of their current perspective. Kegan and Lahey (2009) label this notion “optimal conflict,” which they elegantly describe in the following way as  The persistent experience of some frustration, dilemma, life puzzle, quandary, or personal problem that is …  Perfectly designed to cause us to feel the limits of our current way of knowing …  In some sphere of our living that we care about, with …  Sufficient supports so that we are neither overwhelmed by the conflict nor able to escape or diffuse it. (p. 54; emphasis in original) The challenge for us as educational developers is to understand how we may design interventions that coax people and institutions to move beyond their current comfort levels, while ensuring adequate support for this journey. 192

Drawing on Marra and Palmer’s (2008; Palmer & Marra, 2008) ecological model of epistemic beliefs development, we further explored the idea that epistemic beliefs are situated in and influenced by “a nested arrangement of reciprocally related environments (Marra & Palmer, 2008, p. 110; Palmer & Marra, 2008, p. 339). While these contexts may be supportive of a person or an institution’s current perspective, they may alternatively provide the challenges necessary for stimulating development. As educational developers, we may therefore consider how we might design “holding environments” (Kegan, 1982, 1994; McCauley, Drath, Palus, O’Connor, & Baker, 2006), spaces which both challenge and support people, and thereby create potential for “developmental movement” (McCauley et al., 2006, p. 641). In their ecological model, Palmer & Marra (2008) also hypothesise that closer, more proximal environments may be more influential than distal environments in promoting development. Thus, an additional implication for educational developers of assuming a role as agent of change is understanding the importance of becoming part of the proximal environment. Translated into more human terms, and adopting the language of the threshold concepts identified by the experienced educational developers, this involves establishing relationships and building rapport with the people with whom we are working. It involves understanding that our work cannot be accomplished “via superficial relationships” (Participant 2, line 610). We must collaborate, labour together, to help bring development about. The idea that sources outside the individual may stimulate development suggests that the individual must be open to change. Dynamic Systems Theory captured the notion that individuals, families, communities, schools, etc. are “open systems,” and that open systems take energy from the environment; they transform this energy into some type of product that is characteristic of the system; they export this product into the environment; and they draw upon new sources of energy from the environment to continue to thrive (Katz & Kahn, 1966). (Newman & Newman, 2007, p. 275) As educational developers, how might our work foster an opening up of the institutions in which we work, so that the tremendous intellectual energy inherent to the system may contribute to enhancing the individuals in the institution, the institution itself, and the larger contexts in which the institution is situated? The threshold concept “understanding and helping ‘knowledge flow’” offers some guidance in this regard. Indeed, this threshold concept captures the notion of using strategies, such as dialogue, “reframing,” connecting, and aligning ideas and issues to help 193 knowledge move across traditional boundaries. The following interview excerpt offers great insight into the role educational developers may play in enhancing the “capacity” of the higher education system: I was doing some research for a chapter and I found a really nice paper about how to make change happen and you can make it happen, which in universities is not the best strategy. You can let it happen, which is very passive, or you can help it happen. So, it’s that whole thing around creating opportunities for knowledge to flow between communities of practice that normally don’t have any shared territory, and it’s that shared territory that helps the knowledge flow. If the practitioners here and the practitioners here and they never talk to each other, the knowledge of teaching and learning in those two different worlds never gets shared. So, I think that the most recent threshold concept I have is this, this concept of knowledge flow and how to create the spaces between these different communities where that knowledge can flow ‘cause otherwise it’s stuck. Because I mean the best way to build capacity—I mean the most leverage in building capacity in universities right now around teaching and learning is not generating new knowledge, it’s sharing the knowledge that we already have. (P1, lines 1357-1370)

The above discussion highlights several implications for perceiving the role of educational developers as instigators of change. And, as we saw in the dissertation, the disequilibrium caused by encounters with sources of change may lead to the crossing of important thresholds. On thresholds, threshold concepts, and expanded spaces. While being thrown out of balance may cause some people to resist change adamantly and maintain an existing equilibrium, the state of disequilibrium may lead others to cross a threshold that leads to the reconstitution of a new balance. As we saw, a threshold marks a boundary between old ways of knowing and being and new ways. Meyer and Land’s (2003) notion of threshold concepts discussed throughout the dissertation captures the idea that certain disciplinary concepts might be particularly fruitful in instigating qualitative shifts in perspective and identity. What qualitative shifts do we seek to promote in the people and institutions with which we work as educational developers? This question signals that a possible avenue for future research may be to identify 194 the threshold concepts that serve to transform ways of knowing and being with respect to teaching and learning in higher education. In our exploration of thresholds, we also considered that crossing a threshold may lead to a period of expansion. Indeed, we saw that many researchers invoke the notion that developmental learning involves the “opening up,” the widening of conceptual, affective, epistemic, and ontological spaces. Within these greater spaces, new horizons which could not be perceived before now become visible. This idea illustrates the phenomenon of the ongoing motion of development. ‘Assumptions’ that were once hidden now become assumptions which can be reflected upon (Baltas, 2007); “subject” becomes “object” (Kegan, 1982), and a new perspective from which to create meaning comes into view. Crossing a threshold marks what Baltas (2007, p. 76) terms an “irreversible achievement,” as the new insight cannot be forsaken. Captured in this process of “growth of the mind” (Kegan, 1994, p. 34) is the cross- disciplinary phenomenon of emergence. We are thus reminded that facilitating development does not involve encouraging the replacement of one meaning-making system with another, but instead respecting and helping to draw out existing potential. As one study participant passionately commented, “The answers lie in the people with whom we’re interacting, and it’s our role to help them to recognize that they have the answers or, for us together to work out the answers” (P3, lines 1038-1040; emphasis in original). The notion of emergence also encourages us to consider creating spaces within which the new terrain may be safely explored. Within these spaces, our roles as educational developers may seem fraught with contradiction: Indeed, the threshold concept “getting out of the way” calls upon us both to afford people the space to explore their own ideas and solutions, but also to bring adequate support and resources when necessary. We are called upon to acknowledge that within these “liminal spaces” (Meyer & Land, 2005) people may oscillate between a sense of excitement that accompanies the revelation of new possibilities for teaching and learning, and a sense of feeling overwhelmed by the magnitude of work that needs to be accomplished in order to bring these new insights to fruition. On integration. The act of reorganising insights into a new, integrated, and cohesive whole is complex work. Facilitating this phase of the development process is thus a deeply creative act for educational developers, for we are helping people organise and make meaning of their experiences and arrive at a new constitution of self. The deeply transformative nature of 195 this work beckons us to understand that change cannot be imposed, but “must be internalised” (P1, line 591). We must also acknowledge that we may hold either implicit or explicit expectations regarding the “appropriate” conclusions to be achieved through the act of reorganising epistemic beliefs. The most appropriate response, however, cannot be prescribed, for it must emerge organically from the particular contexts in which the people with whom we are working are embedded. Consequently, our role as educational developers involves both knowing about and knowing in the contexts of the people we are helping in order to best facilitate their adaptation to these contexts.

Conclusion As educational developers, we are in the privileged position of accompanying the people with whom we work, and the institutions within which we work, on journeys of transformation. As we have seen throughout the dissertation, this transformation is conceptual, yet it is also deeply affective. It involves the metamorphosis of mind, but also of self, of identity. Thus, it involves struggle, fear, doubt, and loss, but also triumph, joy, and hope. Such momentous transformation requires time. It requires time “because we are in the world of human cultivation, not human engineering” (Kegan & Lahey, 2009, p. 317). As one study participant noted, facilitating transformation also requires great “patience” (P2). The fruit of patient and purposeful facilitation is transformation that enables people and institutions not only to survive, but to thrive in the service of improving student learning.

196

References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Baltas, A. (2007). Background 'assumptions' and the grammar of conceptual change: Rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63-79). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier and the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Berger, J. G. (2006). Key concepts for understanding the work of Robert Kegan. Retrieved from University of Canterbury, New Zealand wiki http://wiki.canterbury.ac.nz Carroll, B. B. (2007). Overcoming the immunity to change: Robert Kegan. Harvard Graduate School of Education web site: Impact on the world: Stories of impact. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/impact/stories/faculty/kegan.php Debold, E. (2002 Fall/Winter). Epistemology, fourth order consciousness, and the subject-object relationship or... How the self evolves with Robert Kegan. What is enlightenment?: Redefining spirituality for an evolving world, Issue 22. Retrieved from http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/kegan.asp Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work : Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6, 4-20. doi:10.1080/13601440110033715 197

Land, R. (2004). Educational development: Discourse, identity and practice. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Lycke, Kirsten H. (2010). Epilogue. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 188-201). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2008). Epistemologies of the sciences, humanities, and social sciences: Liberal arts students’ perceptions. The Journal of General Education, 57, 100- 118. doi:10.1353/jge.0.0017 McCauley, C., Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., O’Connor, P. M. G., & Baker, B. A. (2006). The use of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634-653. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.006 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: Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (pp. 412- 424). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Meyer, J. H. 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. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5 Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Theories of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palmer, B. & Marra, R. M. (2008). Individual domain-specific epistemologies: Implication for educational practice. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 325-350). The Netherlands: Springer. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scharmer, C. O. (2000, March 23). Grabbing the tiger by the tail: Conversation with Robert Kegan, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://www.presencing.com/dol/Kegan.shtml