Nurturing and sustaining postgraduate student learning: conceptual thresholds, creativity and communities of practice

 

Increasing numbers of postgraduates and the diversity of their origins, topics, learning approaches, disciplines and modes of study focuses our thoughts on what makes a ‘good enough Phd’. Defining ’good enough’, we argue, involves identifying and recognising qualities of working conceptually, critically and creatively ‘enough’. Our research both on a large NTFS (HEA) funded project ‘doctoral learning journeys’ and aligned ongoing work (1998-to date, Wisker 2005; Wisker, Robinson Trafford, Warnes 2004) to date indicates that supervisors, postgraduates and examiners (Kiley and Mullins, 2002, 2006) are becoming aware or need to become aware of key moments when there is evidence of students working conceptually, critically and creatively enough – defined here as moments of conceptual threshold crossing (Kiley and Wisker, 2008, and in press).

 

Recognising and nurturing such threshold crossing moments should lead to good quality research outputs for postgraduates , and although in its early days, our research is producing just such evidence and recognition. We will be sharing with participants our questions, data to date and thoughts about what makes a good enough Phd as considered in particular by supervisors. The research should be of interest to anyone undertaking their own PhD or EdD or supervising someone else on a PhD EdD or similar. Colleagues in a number of disciplines should find interesting the processes of our research, and the findings and thoughts provoked by the notion of conceptual threshold crossing at postgraduate level.

Aims

In the context of increasing numbers of postgraduates and the diversity of their origins, topics, learning approaches, disciplines and modes of study our thoughts and research are focused on and aim to recognise what makes a ‘good enough Phd’. Our research both on a large NTFS (HEA) funded project ‘doctoral learning journeys’ and aligned ongoing work (1998-to date, Wisker 2005; Wisker, Robinson Trafford, Warnes 2004) to date indicates that supervisors, postgraduates and examiners (Kiley and Mullins, 2002, 2006) are becoming aware or need to become aware of key moments when there is evidence of students working conceptually, critically and creatively enough – defined here as moments of conceptual threshold crossing (Kiley and Wisker, 2008, and in press).

 

Methodology/methods

The research (a) explores and conceptualises the nature of doctoral students’ learning during research and skill development; and (b) examines and enhance the practices of supervisors and examiners in order to support and assess students’ learning. Quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined in four research stages: Stage A comprises a large-scale survey of doctoral students, investigating their learning processes, experiences and development; Stage B maps the individual learning journeys of 16-20 doctoral students through narrative interviews and journaling; Stage C involves research interviews with doctoral supervisors, examiners and research programme leaders.  

Background and reference to relevant literature

Research at the doctoral level has critical points when students make ‘learning leaps’, moving their work beyond descriptive fact-finding, to conceptual levels of understanding. These ‘aha’ moments represent ‘leaps of faith’ beyond their comfort zones when students acquire new ways of seeing their research. Thus, they experience conceptual paradigm shifts regarding their research and themselves.

Meyer and Land’s (2003) notion of ‘threshold concepts’ encapsulates such ‘new ways of seeing.’ They identify core learning outcomes with examples from pure maths (complex numbers; limits); literary studies (signification); and economics (opportunity cost). Their evidence shows that a threshold concept will be:

n‘transformative’ – leading to significant, and probably irreversible, shifts in perception;

n‘integrative’ – exposing previously hidden interrelatedness of something;

n‘bounded’ – bordering into new conceptual areas;

n‘troublesome’ – conceptually difficult, counter-intuitive or alien.

Students passing through the ‘portal’ opened by a threshold concept experience change in their use of symbolic language, understanding of their discipline and conceptual appreciation of research issues. Threshold crossing also involves a state of liminality, whereby students ‘strip away’ the old and pass into the new. However, they may be stuck in this liminal state between older understandings and new appreciation of concepts (Land et al, 2005). Here, ‘mimicry’ may be employed as if they have elevated status within their discipline community (Meyer and Land, 2005). The mimicry displayed when passing through a conceptual threshold is distinguishable from ritualised ‘parrot fashion’ learning. Thus, liminality is when students are on the threshold of deeper conceptual understandings, often becoming frustrated, losing confidence or dropping out (Land et al, 2005; Trafford 2007).

Like Meyer and Land we believe that “Gaining clearer insights into why some students find it troublesome both to understand and to express particular threshold concepts, and into why certain students undergo a transformational or even creative experience in what we have termed the liminal space of learning, whilst others clearly get 'stuck', is…a quest well worth pursuing” (Meyer and Land, 2005).   

Kiley and Wisker (2006) explored supervisory strategies that empower doctoral students to cross conceptual thresholds at various stages in research. More recently, Trafford (2007) examined difficulties doctoral students encounter in acquiring and using conceptualisation. Since confidence in handling conceptualisation is central to doctoral-level work, this itself represents a ‘threshold concept’ (Leshem and Trafford, 2007). Explaining how doctoral students understand this threshold, and how supervisors and examiners support them in this endeavour, illuminates significant determinants of scholarly success and failure.

 

Findings

We will be sharing with participants our questions, data to date and thoughts about what makes a good enough Phd as considered in particular by postgraduates and supervisors using data fro our interviews to date . Although in its early days, our research is producing   evidence and recognition of ways of identifying and evidencing threshold crossing moments, and ways supervisors and communities of peers might help postgraduates cross those thresholds and achieve conceptual levels of work. At the doctoral level we have identified and explored (A) Discipline-specific threshold concepts; (B) Generic conceptual thresholds. We conclude that doctoral conceptual threshold crossing includes:

nontological shifts – security of self is challenged;

epistemological shifts – knowledge is problematised and deepened.

Exploring the question – ‘How do doctoral students recognise and articulate their crossing of conceptual thresholds?’ - From an initial reading of the data gathered so far, discourse analysis reveals ways in which doctoral students signify and articulate their awareness of working conceptually or experiencing ‘learning leaps’. Doctoral students have used a variety of metaphors to describe their learning journeys and experiences and it is interesting to map these rich descriptions onto the current theory of conceptual threshold crossing. We explore those moments in their learning which students find particularly difficult to articulate and attend to ways in which their articulation of learning and research develop over time in the course of their learning trajectories. This process is being  identified through narrative analysis at different stages of their research journeys. Interviews with both students and supervisors  reveal experiences of practical strategies which aid conceptual threshold crossing.

 

Educational significance

Defining ’good enough’, we argue, involves identifying and recognising qualities of working conceptually, critically and creatively ‘enough’. Recognising and nurturing conceptual threshold crossing moments should lead to good quality research outputs for postgraduates and work which is conceptual , critical and creative. The research should be of interest to anyone undertaking their own PhD or EdD or supervising someone else on a PhD EdD or similar. Colleagues in a number of disciplines should find interesting the processes of our research, and the findings and thoughts provoked by the notion of conceptual threshold crossing at postgraduate level.

 

 

These answers, to a frequently asked question, differ fundamentally in how two candidates perceive their research. The perspectives emphasise the descriptive (A) and the conceptual (B) in how each explains their research.

Our data uses supervisory and examining experience, attending over 100 doctoral vivas plus conducting international workshops for supervisors and candidates. We will provide excerpts from examiners' reports to show the components of doctoral research that they consider important. Cameo examples will illustrate candidates’ perspectives on doctorateness.

 

Successful candidates ascend through levels of thinking as they clarify their topic, develop theoretical perspectives and convert findings into conceptual conclusions. When their perspectives move from descriptive and micro (A) to conceptual and macro (B) it is a paradigm shift. This reflects a candidate’s conscious redefinition of their research and it occurs when they recognise the significance of scholarship. Thus, candidates’ understanding of research undergoes an osmotic transformation from description to conceptual scholarship that exemplifies doctorateness.

 

The notion of doctorateness is pluralist. It comprises twelve critical components all of which have to be evident in theses: a gap in knowledge, explicit research question(s), conceptual framework(s), explicit research design, appropriate methodology, ‘correct’ data collection, clear and precise presentation, full engagement with theory, cogent argument(s), answers to the research question(s), conceptual conclusions, and, contribution(s) to knowledge.

 

Our data uses supervisory and examining experience, attending over 100 doctoral vivas plus conducting international workshops for supervisors and candidates. The initial and consolidated reports of examiners show what they consider as the important components of doctoral research. These factors are directly derived from examiners’ reading of the thesis and they represent the examiners’ agenda of questions to ask candidates. Discussions with candidates following their viva, at workshops and during supervisions have generated rich insights upon how they see and respond to the notion of doctorateness (Trafford, 2008). Our cameos illustrate views that change as candidates progress along their doctoral journey.            

 

Examiners recognize and commend two significant approaches which the candidates have to research. First, they explore how the thesis exhibits innovative features of research design that use concepts in a developmental manner. Second, they commend the scholarship and interpretations of ‘realities’ that are presented by the candidate’ (Trafford and Leshem, 2002). These approaches represent two complementary ways in which examiners focus on ‘innovation and development’ and ‘scholarship and interpretation’. These two categories can be used to create a matrix where each quadrant emphasises a distinctively different level of thinking about research. 

 

Although the quadrants are of equal importance they differ in their research emphasis.

·               Quadrant A deals with the technology of the thesis and includes such issues as structure, presentation, content of the thesis and resolving administrative and technical aspects of ‘doing’ the research. These features represent non-academic considerations as a thesis is prepared for submission and includes structure, presentation, formatting, pagination and compliance with protocols. 

 

·               Quadrant B deals with the theoretical perspectives and includes such issues as identifying the research paradigms, awareness of the wider literature, theoretical perspectives and the implications of the findings. These features demonstrate understanding of the academic content in which the research is located and on which it depends for its conceptual insights and frameworks.

·               Quadrant C deals with the practice of research such as the emergence and use of the research questions, choice of topic, access to field data and explanations surrounding the gap in knowledge. These features demonstrate understanding of research as a process and an ability to undertake complex research in a critical and appropriate manner.

·               Quadrant D deals with demonstrating doctorateness such as establishing conceptual links between findings, synthesising evidence into conceptual conclusions, critiquing the research process, advancing contributions to knowledge and defending doctorateness in the thesis and throughout the viva itself. These features are the critical prerequisites of scholarly merit in doctoral level research.

 

Within these quadrants there are three ‘levels’ of thinking: descriptive (A), interpretive/ analytical (B and C) and conceptual (D). 

These levels represent stages in learning at which candidates recognise that they are making progress in their doctoral quest. As their thinking evolves from the essentially descriptive to the interpretive-analytical they also develop their understanding of research as a process. Applying this understanding then enables them to think conceptually as researchers (Perkins, 2006). Movement through the levels represents scholarly osmosis in their development as doctoral researchers.                                    

Examiners’ assumptions about the level of candidates’ thinking plus their grasp of research and scholarship, is reflected in the type of questions which they ask as they judge the merit of doctoral theses (Pearce, 2005; Wisker, 2005). Once examiners have satisfied themselves that a thesis, or a candidate, displays low understanding of conceptualisation, they are unlikely to explore that issue further. Conversely, examiners tend to have lengthy ‘enjoyable’ scholarly discussions with candidates who display high levels of thinking about their topic and research. Thus, they will acknowledge that synergy exists between accounts of the research and the written text when they recognise how argument and structure makes the thesis coherent.

 

The progression by candidates through the levels of thinking depends upon their individual capabilities plus their understanding of the research process. This will become cumulative as they develop ways of thinking that are associated with the three stages. However, to gain their doctorate candidates have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of their examiners that they are thinking at a conceptual level (Leshem,2007; Leshem and Trafford, 2007).   Their transformation across these levels will be stimulated by the ideas which they encounter and use, by discussing their research with others, or by both of these stimuli. The process itself may be gradual and occur without any obvious signs, or being sudden and ‘revelatory.’ Thus, throughout this process, candidates’ grasp of scholarship matures as they pass through levels of thinking in an osmotic manner.

This paper suggests that creativity might be considered a threshold concept in research education and reports on early research exploring this. Lovitts, (2008) looks at what facilitates or impedes the transition from doctoral course-taker to researcher and what helps some students make a creative and original contribution to knowledge.  She develops models of creativity of ‘three components comprised of six personal and social resources’:domain-relevant skills;creativity-relevant processes thinking styles and personality; motivation and environment with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the macro-environment that is the cultural context including the culture of the discipline Building on Lovitts and Hollingsworth (2007) we pose the question  is creativity at the research education level a threshold concept? . Early work with doctoral students and their supervisors identifies characteristics of creativity and practices which both nurture and harness it in the research process.

 

Work by (Lovitts, 2008)looked at what facilitates or impedes the transition from doctoral course-taker to researcher and what it is that helps some students make a creative and original contribution to knowledge of 'what leads some students to produce distinguished research and scholarship' (p. 297). She develops model of creativity of ‘three components comprised of six personal and social resources’:

 

a)     domain-relevant skills, intelligence and knowledge. Proposes three types of intelligence, Analytical, Practical and Creative intelligence i.e. ‘insight and imagination’ (p. 304) and two kinds of formal and informal.

b)     creativity-relevant processes thinking styles and personality. Thinking styles are related to ‘How one capitalizes on and directs one’s intelligence(s)’ (p. 308) and particular personality traits are associated with becoming an independent, creative researcher e.g. Patience and willingness to work hard, Initiative and persistence, Intellectual curiosity, and Self-esteem and self-confidence (p. 310)

c)      motivation and environment with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the macro-environment that is the ‘cultural context includes the culture of graduate education writ large and the culture of the discipline’ (p. 315) and the Micro which is to do with ‘support structures and interactions…although the advisor was identified as a single most important microenvironment factor in success or failure’ (p. 316)

 

(Hollingsworth, 2007) analysed the qualities of the researchers involved in the 291 major discoveries in biomedical sciences in Britain, France, USA and Germany in the 20th century. He argues that a common theme is high cognitive complexity which he defines as ‘the capacity to understand the world in more complex ways that those with less cognitive complexity’ [and] to observe and understand in novel ways the relationships among disparate fields of knowledge’ (p.129). However, Hollingsworth argues that even with high cognitive complexity do not make major discoveries and hence, for those who do, he suggests that it might also require social contexts for example environments in which the discoveries occurred. Suggest that the labs which had a strong focus on interactions across diverse fields were more likely to have multiple discoveries and a major impact on diverse fields of science. Furthermore, he suggests that HCC is a better predictor of success than intelligence as HCCC researchers ‘tend to be more intuitive, and have a high degree of spontaneity in their thinking, to be individuals who enjoy exploring uncertainty and engaging in high-risk research rather than working in areas which are already well understood’ (p. 134).

Much of what Hollingsworth describes in HCC both in terms of personality and environment echoes the work of Lovitts, but at different levels of research, the award winning researcher and the novice researchers.

 

However, the question is posed: is creativity at the research education level a threshold concept?

 

 

 

Little has been written about either cross cultural supervisory practices or the learning characteristics of PhD students within communities of practice in terms of ways in which both cohort based study and cross cultural relations affect student learning..   This research looks at the learning experiences of cohorts of Israeli PhD students who have studied with Anglia Ruskin School of Education UK on a wide range of research topics. It  focuses on the learning characteristics both during the PhD studies and after completion, drawing on theories of communities of practice, cultural learning differences, adult learning and lifelong learning. The research considers the ways in which both the cross-cultural supervision which postgraduates on this international cohort based PhD  received during their studies and the communities of practice built up during and beyond their study supported their learning and affected the kinds of learning and expression in the Phd and professional development after their graduation.

This research looks at the learning experiences of cohorts of Israeli PhD students who have studied with Anglia Ruskin School of Education UK on a wide range of research topics. The cultural context, and the importance of learning in a community with others is often either absent or ignored in study on PhD students. Little has been written about either cross cultural supervisory practices or the learning characteristics of PhD students within communities of practice in terms of ways in which both cohort based study and cross cultural relations affect student learning. Our research  focuses on learning characteristics in a cultural and a community context both during PhD studies and after completion.It does so  using theories of communities of practice, cultural learning differences, adult learning and lifelong learning. It considers ways in which both the cross-cultural supervision which postgraduates on this international cohort based PhD  received during their studies and the communities of practice built up during and beyond their study supported their learning and affected the kinds of learning and expression in the Phd and professional development after their graduation.

In the context of a dearth of work about either cross cultural supervisory practices or the learning characteristics of PhD students within communities of practice in terms of ways in which both cohort based study and cross cultural relations affect student learning..   This research looks at the learning experiences of cohorts of Israeli PhD students who have studied with Anglia Ruskin School of Education UK on a wide range of research topics. It  focuses on the learning characteristics both during the PhD studies and after completion, drawing on theories of communities of practice, cultural learning differences, adult learning and lifelong learning.

 

The research aims were:

 

 

Methodology and Methods

The research methods included interviews with open-ended questions that were conducted with 30 graduates who completed their doctorates in the past five years, and interview questions with 10 supervisors who have supervised  Phd students on this large cohort based programme. Interviews were conducted both face to face and using email.

 

Findings

Guided by adult learning theories (Knowles etc.), and the characterization that was conducted on its basis, the content analysis yielded categories that relate to four main theoretical areas: cognitive elements, emotional elements, interpersonal relationship elements, and professional development and enhancement.

These findings indicate:

1 the richness, some of the difficulties, and some of the essential elements for success in cross cultural supervisory relationships

2 practices which have helped to develop and nurture successful supportive communities of practice through the cohort based PhD which involve both students and supervisors and which continue beyond the PhD process itself

3 An ecological model of adult learning and professional development involving Workshops, Communities of Practice, Guardian supervisors , supportive learning communities and postdoc symposia which moves Phd students beyond PHD to becoming field experts and researchers making more contribution to society and research capacity building.

Educational significance

Our piece of research into the learning of PhD graduates provide information about the richness of cross cultural student and supervisor relations, the importance of communities of practice involving guardian supervisors and student support communities in supporting Phd students through and beyond their PhDs. Our research has also shown how PhD learners as field experts turn into researchers beyond their PhD, and contribute to society and academic culture via adding to extant knowledge in dissemination of PhDs in conferences, and books and articles publishing. We present these insights as an ecological model of adult learning and professional development.