RECONSIDERING THRESHOLD CONCEPTS: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE ACRL FRAMEWORK FOR INFORMATION LITERACY
LANE WILKINSON – UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
E: LANE-WILKINSON@UTC.EDU T: @LNWLK
B: HTTP://SENSEANDREFERENCE.WORDPRESS.COM
Threshold Concept Theory
“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.” (Meyer
& Land, 2003)
Characteristics of a Threshold Concept (Meyer & Land, 2003)
1. (Potentially) transformative
2. Probably irreversible
3. Integrative
4. Possibly often (though not necessarily always) bounded
5. Potentially troublesome
Best thought of as an analytical approach that asks experts (instructors)
to reflect on the ways of thinking that distinguish experts and
practitioners from novice learners.
Criticisms of Threshold Concept Theory (TCT)
1. Troublesomeness is highly subjective
2. Disciplines are rarely unified; experts disagree
3. Inhibits interdisciplinary thinking
4. Severe lack of empirical research
Not covered in the presentation:
5. Fuzzy definitions (probably, potentially, possibly, etc.)
6. Entrenches dominant power structures
7. Lacks input from key stakeholders (i.e., experts outside of academe)
8. Still in the exploratory stage; not yet a confirmed theory
The ACRL Framework and Threshold Concept Theory
1. The Framework is not explanatory.
 The Standards were prescriptive; the Framework is descriptive. But what
is the larger picture?
2. The Framework does not connect to the Standards.
 It explicitly rejects the Standards. But the Standards are still here. The
ACRL is being inconsistent.
3. The Framework inhibits assessment.
 TCT is a purely analytic theory that does not allow for assessment of
outcomes, by definition.
4. The Framework positions information literacy as a discipline.
 This cannot be declared by fiat; is the goal of library instruction to make
students think like librarians?
5. The Framework lacks a sound research base.
 Based on a Delphi study, which is an anonymous, iterative survey of
experts developed by the RAND Corporation during the Cold War to
facilitate forecasting. Determining threshold concepts is a descriptive,
not predictive, project and the anonymity of the participants raises
questions of sufficient diversity.
6. The Framework does not address the foundations of info. literacy.
 Threshold concepts are only a small subset of the concepts students
must learn within a discipline. By rejecting the Standards (and, by
extension, all other research and policy derived from the Standards) the
Framework is reducing information literacy to threshold concepts alone.
This is inconsistent with TCT and leaves the foundational concepts of
information literacy unspoken for.
The ACRL Framework for Information Literacy (abridged)
The Framework…is based on a cluster of interconnected core concepts, with
flexible options for implementation, rather than on a set of standards, learning
outcomes, or any prescriptive enumeration of skills…The Framework is
organized into six frames, each consisting of a concept central to information
literacy, a set of knowledge practices, and a set of dispositions.
1. Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and
are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the
information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various
communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in
that the information need may help to determine the level of authority
required.
2. Information Creation as a Process
Information in any format is produced to convey a message and is shared
via a selected delivery method. The iterative processes of researching,
creating, revising, and disseminating information vary, and the resulting
product reflects these differences.
3. Information has value
Information possesses several dimensions of value, including as a
commodity, as a means of education, as a means to influence, and as a
means of negotiating and understanding the world. Legal and
socioeconomic interests influence information production and
dissemination.
4. Research as Inquiry
Research is iterative and depends upon asking increasingly complex or new
questions whose answers in turn develop additional questions or lines of
inquiry in any field.
5. Scholarship as Conversation
Communities of scholars, researchers, or professionals engage in sustained
discourse with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result
of varied perspectives and interpretations.
6. Searching as Strategic Exploration
Searching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the
evaluation of a range of information sources and the mental flexibility to
pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops.
Selected Bibliography
Barradell, S. (2013). The identification of threshold concepts: A review of
theoretical complexities and methodological challenges. Higher Education,
65(2), 265-276.
Iannuzzi, P. (2013). “Info lit 2.0 or déjà vu?” Communications in Information
Literacy, 7(2), 98-107.
Land, R. (2015). “There could be trouble ahead’. Threshold concepts,
troublesome knowledge and information literacy – a current debate.”
Presentation at the meeting of the Librarians’ Information Literacy Annual
Conference, Newcastle, UK.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines.
In C. Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning–Ten Years On. Oxford: Oxford
Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD), 412-424.
Morgan, P. (2015). “Pausing at the threshold.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy,
15(1), 183-195.
O’Donnell, R. (2010). A critique of the threshold concept hypothesis and its
application to opportunity cost in economics. (Working Paper No. 164).
Retrieved from http://www.finance.uts.edu.au/research/wpapers/wp164.html
Rowbottom, D. P. (2007). Demystifying threshold concepts. Journal of Philosophy
of Education, 41(2): 263-270.
Townsend, L., Brunetti, K., & Hofer, A. R. (2011). Threshold concepts
and information literacy. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(3), 853-869.
Townsend, L., Brunetti, K., & Hofer, A. R. (2012). Troublesome concepts and
information literacy: investigating threshold concepts for IL instruction. portal:
Libraries and the Academy, 12(4), 387-405.
Walker, G. (2013). A cognitive approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education,
65(2), 247-263.
Wilkinson, L. (2014, June 19). The problem with threshold concepts. [Web log].
Retrieved from https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/theproblem-with-threshold-concepts/