ABSTRACT

Within the Threshold Concepts Framework, ‘postliminal variation’ has been defined as the variation in the point and state of exit into a new conceptual space, and the epistemological and ontological terrain encountered from that point onwards. However, in the extensive published literature on threshold concepts, we find many cases in which its practical application has been utilised in a reductionist way, ignoring or omitting said variation, and treating mastery of threshold concepts as if they had a predetermined process, being the same, or very similar, for all students. In this paper, we aim to highlight the danger of ignoring the variation in the threshold concept framework and emphasise the potential usefulness of unexpected transformations as part of a knowledge creation process. In addition, we raise the question of our awareness of what ways of thinking, practising and being we are privileging in our identification and reinforcement of disciplinary threshold concepts and transformations. As a consequence of these discussions, we hope to remind the reader of the original assertion that threshold concepts are always epistemologically informed and are not universal or static entities, but rather they are provisional, contestable, and situated.

摘要

在阈值概念框架内，“阈后变化”被定义为进入新概念空间的点和状态的变化，以及从那个点开始遇到的认识论和本体论领域。然而，在广泛发表的关于阈值概念的文献中，我们发现许多案例中，它的实际应用以简化的方式被利用，忽略或省略了上述变化，并将对阈值概念的掌握视为有一个预定的过程，即对所有学生都相同或非常相似。在本文中，我们旨在强调忽略阈值概念框架变化的危险，并强调作为知识创造过程一部分的意外转换的潜在有用性。此外，我们提出了一个问题，即我们是否意识到我们在识别和加强学科阈值概念和转变时优先考虑的思维方式、实践方式和存在方式。作为这些讨论的结果，我们希望提醒读者最初的断言，即阈值概念始终是认识论的，不是普遍的或静态的实体，而是临时的、可争议的和定位的。