Enhancing Quality to Address Frailty

  • Ray Land

Abstract

In preparing to face a globalised society characterised by uncertainty, complexity, risk and speed, academics and their students, it will be argued here, need to encounter a certain strangeness, dealing with knowledge that is uncomfortable, challenging and troublesome.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Library Association (ALA). (2016). Banned & challenged classics. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY& Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, R. (2000). Realising the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Canning, J. (2007). Pedagogy as a discipline: Emergence, sustainability and professionalisation. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, E. C. (1998). Hope, problem-solving ability, and coping in a college student population: Some implications for theory and practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(7), 953–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousin, G. (2006). Threshold concepts, troublesome knowledge and emotional capital: An exploration into learning about others. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 134–147). London & New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Cousin, G. (2008). Threshold concepts: Old wine in new bottles or a new form of transactional curriculum inquiry? In R. Land, J. H. F Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 261–272). Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London & New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organisational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1986). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In J. A. Bodston (Ed.), John Dewey, The later works, 1925–1953: 1933 Essays and how we think (p. 64). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933)Google Scholar
  14. Ecclestone, K. (2012). Instrumentalism and achievement: A socio-cultural understanding of tensions in vocational education. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 140–156). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eliot, T. S. (1974). Collected poems 1909–1962. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  16. Fielden, J. (2007). Global horizons for UK universities. London: The Council For Industry and Higher Education.Google Scholar
  17. Ferman, J. (1989). Obscenity: Manners and morals in the media in Richard Hoggart, liberty & legislation. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  18. Flanagan, M. T. (2017). Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, professional development and school education: A short introduction and a bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.htmlGoogle Scholar
  19. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, J. (2016, October 2). Against safe spaces. BBC Radio 4: A Point of View.Google Scholar
  21. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY& London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hokstad, L. M., & Gundrosen, S. (2016). ‘Cause soon, it will be real’: Medical simulation as change space in interprofessional training. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference: Thresholds on the Edge. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, H. (2016, October 16). In praise of difficulty. BBC Radio 4: A Point of View.Google Scholar
  24. Keynes, J. M. (1973). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: MacMillan. (Original work published 1936)Google Scholar
  25. Kinchin, I. M. (2015, December 9–11). Pedagogic frailty: An initial consideration of aetiology and prognosis. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), Celtic Manor, Wales.Google Scholar
  26. Kinchin, I. M., Alpay, E., Curtis, K., Franklin, J., Rivers, C., & Winstone, N. E. (2016). Charting the elements of pedagogic frailty. Educational Research, 58(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Land, R. (2011). There could be trouble ahead: Using threshold concepts as a tool of analysis. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Land, R. (2016). Learners and organizations: Competing patterns of risk, trust, and responsibility. In L. Leišytė & U. Wilkesmann (Eds.), Organizing academic work in higher education: Teaching, learning, and identities (p. 151). London & New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Land, R., & Gordon, G. (2013). Enhancing the future: Context and fidelity. In R. Land & G. Gordon (Eds.), Enhancing quality in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 259–274). Abingdon & New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H. F., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning 12: Diversity and inclusivity (pp. 53–64). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.Google Scholar
  31. Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67(2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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. 412–242). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris, S. (2015, November 18). Germaine Greer gives university lecture despite campaign to silence her. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/18/transgender-activists-protest-germaine-greer-lecture-cardiff-universityGoogle Scholar
  37. Pearson, A. (2016, December 31). 2016 And All That. Telegraph Magazine.Google Scholar
  38. 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). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Plath, S. (1975). I thought that I could not be hurt. In A. S. Plath (Ed.), Sylvia plath. Letters home: Correspondence 1950–1963. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  40. Proust, M. (1900/1987). On reading Ruskin. In J. Autret, W. Butford, & P. J. Wolfe (Eds., & Trans., with an introduction by R. Macksey) Prefaces to La Bible d’Amiens and Sesame et les Lys with selections from the notes to the translated texts. Newhaven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1900)Google Scholar
  41. Rattray, J. (2016). Affective dimensions of liminality. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & M. T. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold concepts in practice (pp. 67–76). Rotterdam, Boston, MA & Taipei: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwartzman, L. (2010). Transcending disciplinary boundaries: A proposed theoretical foundation for threshold concepts. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 21–44). Rotterdam, Boston, MA & Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Shulman, L. (2005). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education (Spring issue). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/pedagogies-uncertainty
  44. Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K. M., Adams, V. H., & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power. New York, NY& Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Vermunt, J., Vignoles, A., & Ilie, S. (2016). Learning gain conceptual framework (LEGACYProject, School of Education). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, T., & Stang, J. (1965). Williams:Twenty years after glass menagerie. New York, NY: New York Times. Reprinted in Devlin, A. J. (1986) Conversations with Tennessee Williams (pp. 107–111). Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ray Land
    • 1
  1. 1.Durham UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations