Flipping the Mindset: Reframing Fear and Failure to Catalyze Development

Abstract

Despite the attempts to target success and predisposition to taking risks to promote innovation, sometimes educational developers encounter moments where they fail to meet expectations set forth—by their institutions, colleagues, or themselves. Attempts to avoid potential failures can stymie the creative process, preventing them from meeting difficult challenges. What can be done to catalyze useful responses to failure when events and interactions do not go according to plan? Most researchers suggest reflecting on the failure in order to grow. To assist, a field tested reflective process (the IDeAS process) that helps flip the approach to failure and move toward the freedom to risk was developed.

Keywords: educational development, growth mindset, reflective practice, risk

It is a difficult moment to identify as an educational developer. Campuses across the nation are closing or downsizing Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTL) as a response to the financial pressures wrought by the economic meltdown of 2008 (Flaherty, 2014). In these budget slashing times, it is crucial for educational developers and CTLs to prove their efficacy with individual faculty clients as well as in campus wide programs. This intense pressure to demonstrate the profession’s “value added” can prompt the most intrepid developer to scale back, to downshift, to become satisfied with “good enough” rather than taking the risks necessary to reach innovative success. If we are to help motivate faculty to take risks in their teaching, however, we must be willing to take risks in our roles, even in these risk averse times (Clayton, 2007, p. 217). Risk taking involves failures, and we must be ready to guide our colleagues through failures to help them continue to reach for transformative teaching practices. Before we can guide faculty to examine less than optimal results, however, we must be able to analyze our own failures.

One explanation for why we resist risking failure is that “we humans do not consider gains and losses rationally—our first priority is not to lose” (Hodges, 2006, p. 124) and so in an attempt to not lose, or not to fail, we stay stagnant. Another issue is how we deal with unexpected outcomes, or failures, when they happen. “Identifying failure requires courage to face the unpleasant truth” which can be uncomfortable, but necessary because “learning from failure is as much a process as an outcome” (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005, p. 303).

Avoiding risk limits our professional lives, but more importantly, it stunts our ability to thrive beyond the workplace, as Parker Palmer reminds us. Hearkening Ghandi’s assertion that life is an experiment with truth, Palmer writes: “Fear is what distances us from our colleagues, our students, our subjects, ourselves. Fear shuts down ‘those experiments with truth,’ that allow us to weave a wider web of connectedness thus limiting our ability to continue to learn or teach” (Palmer, 2007, p. 36). It is important for our own professional growth to learn to move forward through moments of failure and to not be satisfied with “good enough” or avoid reflecting on less than optimal results. Learning from failure can be counterintuitive, but the process is beneficial (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005, p. 317). Reflecting on failure can be a transformative teaching tool; reframing our mindsets to embrace challenges can lead to sublime inspiration and ultimately, a more satisfying, integrated personal and professional life (Dweck, 2006). Thus, learning to reframe failures as opportunities to grow by constructively analyzing our shortcomings in order to identify root causes and establish solutions is a crucial step in remaining energized educational developers.

To assist in reflection on those difficult moments and encounters within our professions as educational developers, we created and field tested the IDeAS process as a safe and relatively comfortable way to reflect upon failures. The process achieves several goals: it helps us, as educational developers, identify troublesome “stuck places” after debriefing a difficult situation and analyze why and what we fear so that we can move forward, and it encourages us to take risks in our work. Practice reflecting on failure allows us to “grow our mindsets” in that each time we move through the process, we become more comfortable with “sitting with” our failures and better able to translate them into learning opportunities. Rather than avoiding debriefing a failure (a common mindset) with continued use of the IDeAs process, we “flip the mindset” opening up new ways to be creative and continue to grow. Thus, systematic reflection on failures has the potential to build a culture of intrepid teachers/scholars who have a transformative impact on student learning experiences.

Theoretical Frame and Assumptions

A number of recent theories extol the benefits of learning from failure and thriving on challenges. For the purposes of this research, we focused on Threshold Concepts (TC) and Growth Mindset. TC theory, popularized by Jan Meyer and Ray Land, asserts that there are a number of discipline specific “thresholds” or “portals” through which novice learners must pass in order to become developing experts (Meyer & Land, 2003). Recent literature focuses on TC’s transformative, integrative, and troublesome elements. Gaining access to new ways of understanding can be confounding because these concepts are usually counterintuitive. The troublesome nature of some transformative concepts, for example entropy in Physics, can produce frustration in learners. As we struggle with a new idea or concept, we may encounter sticking points or liminal spaces, where our old mental map of a subject no longer serves, but a new model is not yet fully formed. These bottlenecks can cause learners to act “as if” they understand without full comprehension, a phenomena known as “mimicry” in TC. For our purposes, the counterintuitive TC is sifting back through a professional failure, claiming responsibility where appropriate, or even acknowledging there was nothing more we could do, despite the discomfort or even pain such acknowledgments may cause. Thus, the open ended questions of the IDeAS process are designed to limit stock or rehearsed responses, prompt authentic analysis, and prevent mimicry.

When learners actively surpass bottlenecks or transcend bottlenecks, the potential for transformative learning is increased. If persisting in stuck places helps us learn and grow, what traits might help us navigate these uncomfortable moments with curiosity, good humor, even grace? Carol S. Dweck’s (2006) work on mindsets gives us an indication. According to Dweck, we are all a mix of mindsets; our disposition toward talent is a key factor in how we approach learning. Fixed mindsetters believe that talent is inborn and static—you have “it” to whatever degree you have “it,” and “it” cannot be developed. Growth mindsetters, on the other hand, believe that talent and intelligence can be developed, especially through hard work, deep practice, and productive feedback. Those with a growth mindset are more likely to push through the bottlenecks and get comfortable with the liminal spaces, recognizing the opportunity to learn. Growth mindset is particularly useful for us as educational developers, especially in terms of the differences in how our colleagues confront challenges, persist—or don’t—in the face of obstacles, and view feedback and useful constructive criticism. Growth mindsetters surround themselves with people who challenge them to improve. This has natural ramifications for helping people increase the number of calculated risks they take or innovative practices they enact.

Taken together, the research by Meyer and Land and Dweck provide useful keys for helping educational developers ascertain how they function in difficult situations and if their reaction to failure is preventing productive reflection and, thus, opportunities to learn and grow as professionals. The IDeAS process was inspired by these founding tenets and provides the practical steps to work through failures and challenging interactions after they occur.

The IDeAS Process

We examined multiple theories to build the IDeAS process, including those developed by Moon, Cusin, and Cannon and Edmondson. Moon’s (1999) “Reflection in Learning and Professional Development” provides an analysis of several different kinds of reflection. Reflection is an integral part of our work as educational developers in the sense that we are constantly evaluating and revamping our products. However, the reflective process needs to provide ample structure to guide educational developer, while also remaining open ended in order to generate authentic responses. Moon, Cusin, and Cannon and Edmondson crafted theories and approaches for a corporate audience less concerned with open ended responses. In addition, the “Disillusionment from Failure as a Source of Successful Learning” was also helpful to our research in that it addresses the needs of a process designed specifically for educational developers. Cusin’s (2012) four phases presented in this research are linked to behaviorist theory and urges organizations to grow from their failures. One limitation in this framework is that employees may feel drawn to dismantle a product completely and start over from the beginning when in the Storage of Knowledge Acquired phase (Cusin, 2012). This phase consists of creating an organizational memory based on learned information. It would be more effective to restructure or repurpose a project for already time constrained educational developers instead of starting over from the beginning.

Cannon and Edmondson’s (2005) article focuses on failure in the corporate workplace. Their framework stressed that “reframing failure to be associated with risk and improvement is a critical first step in the learning journey” (p. 317). Reframing failure is important, but we decided to begin the IDeAS process by identifying the problem and examining a failure or challenging interaction, and then provide the opportunity to reframe fear and begin to learn from the experience. The ability to examine these and other frameworks allowed us to develop the most efficient, productive steps in a reflective process geared specifically to educational developers.

As a result of researching these theories and frameworks, the IDeAS process was developed and field tested (Figure 1). The process is most effective when people work through it together, because conversation with an interviewer introduces a recursive element to the process. Several interviewees noted the value of revisiting incidents within the interview, as it unearths different levels of difficulty. It is a reflective practice in which the interviewee discovers a latent issue in a challenging educational development situation and tries to find a response to improve future educational development interactions. Before we launch into methods and findings, we will provide an in depth description of the IDeAS process itself.

Figure 1. The IDeAS Process Steps

The first step in the IDeAS process is to have the interviewee describe in detail a recent work related failure that he or she, individually, experienced. This failure can also be characterized as an interaction with someone or a challenging situation that did not go as planned and ended with negative feelings. This could have occurred in a consultation, workshop, meeting, or a similar environment. Details about the encounter are important to include because it allows the interviewee to completely debrief, recontextualize, and impart as much information as possible.

In one particular critical incident, an interviewee described facilitating an inherited adjunct faculty orientation within the first month of transitioning to a new position. As were most of our respondents, this professional’s role is as CTL director. The interviewee described the moment of the critical incident in terms of her perception of missed connections with participants: “There’s a moment in a workshop and you see people suddenly have a smirk on their face at an inappropriate time for them to be smiling and you wonder ‘What did I just do?’” After the interaction, the educational developer made connections with participants, but lingering feelings of doubt about the interaction were confirmed when one participant, anxious and frustrated herself, offered a warning. The interviewee shared her colleague’s assessment of the interaction this way: “‘You’re going to find it really hard here. It’s going to be really challenging for you.’ Later I could tell that the person was projecting her experience onto me, but in the moment I thought ‘This is further confirmation that I’ve failed.’”

The second step in the IDeAS process is to debrief the situation by examining what prevented the interviewee from completing the event or engaging practice. To begin this step, the interviewee identifies what the expectations were for the interaction. During this step, it is important to identify when the interaction went off track and how the interviewee could tell this had happened. The interviewee will explore the strategies he or she used to get the interaction moving in the expected direction. By identifying this, the interviewee may realize that the challenging interaction could have resulted differently, if the expectations were aligned to the emotions and feelings of the situation (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005). However, this is not always the case. We cannot predict what emotions may arise during a consultation, workshop, or meeting. We can only try to prepare for them the best way possible before the encounter.

In our critical incident example, the interviewee had to navigate thwarted expectations prior to the orientation interaction. For instance, copresenters who had more experience within the institutional context canceled at the last minute. The educational developer had experience working with this population before, but the population demographic was slightly different than her expectation.

The third step in the IDeAS process is to analyze what happened by looking at the acute and chronic parts of the failure. Initially, the interviewee reflects on his or her feelings during the interaction when the difficult moment was taking place and at the conclusion of the interaction, which usually unveils the acute version of the failure. Acute issues are small failures or experiences symptomatic of a larger problem. Once the acute issues are discussed, the interviewee should explore the ongoing misunderstandings or misperceptions informing the challenging interaction. Next, the person is asked to zoom out from the immediate challenge and focus on the chronic issue. Many times, the chronic issue is the root cause of the negative interaction, and unfortunately may be out of the sphere of the educational developer’s control. It is equally as important to identify the acute and chronic influences of the failure. According to Cannon and Edmondson (2005), by identifying small failures and not ignoring them, the “early warning signs” of difficult interactions can be identified, which should prevent or reduce similar larger failures from occurring.

In our critical incident example, the interviewee revealed that this step of the process allows professionals to recall and analyze negative moments, and that most often those moments trigger a cascade of negative thoughts and feelings: “A sense of disconnect…in that disconnected space, in my head…then I immediately had this whole series of the judger, the critic….not only what was going wrong, but all the possible negative ways that these people could be perceiving what was happening and what I could have been doing better…” This evidence brings to light one of the counterintuitive aspects of our roles as educational developers: that is, we are skilled reflective practitioners, but that skill can be a blessing and a curse, especially in critical moments of engagement with faculty and administrators. Further questioning prompted the interviewee to identify the acute issue: leading an inherited orientation in a new institutional context, as well as a chronic issue for educational developers; because our work is so varied, with many different audiences and in different settings, we need to give ourselves time to be reflective about our strengths and to prepare as fully as possible.

Finally, step four in the IDeAS process has the interviewee strategizing responses for future meetings that go off track or end poorly. This helps the interviewee identify ways to curtail potential issues in the future. Now that the acute and chronic issues have been identified, the interviewee will discuss what he or she would have done differently. These may take the form of “deliberate experimentation” (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005), where an innovative idea may lead to failure or a negative outcome, but that is acceptable. Also, the interviewee can think about how he or she expects the situation to go next time when a similar encounter takes place. Finally in step four, the interviewee will strategize ways to maximize his or her impact as an educational developer. It is important for the interviewee to recognize the level of power or control that he or she has to change the situation.

In our example, the interviewee had several strategies both for reflecting on the situation and preparing for future success. She started with reframing the situation using theoretical tools such as stereotype threat. She talked of the importance of sharing the incident as a funny story, even one in which you are the “butt of the joke.” The interviewee discussed the importance of linking up with a trusted reflective partner outside of the profession as a means to help her generate objective distance. Finally, thinking about reframing the adjunct orientation by revising and revising the goals and the format of the session helped her prepare for future success.

After an individual moves through the IDeAS process, he or she may need some time to consider his or her answers to the prompts. Perhaps, some of the process questions prompted the individual to think about the difficult situation in a new way; thus, it is productive to interrogate potential sticking points, or bottlenecks, the process may have engendered (Meyer & Land, 2005).

Below, in Figure 1, is the IDeAS process handout. This tool can be used by the interviewee to move through the steps of the IDeAS process independently. The interviewee uses the questions below each main step to prompt him or her to reflection. The large rectangles adjacent to the main steps are also color coded to identify where the interviewee should be recording the information.

Methods and Process

The IDeAS process was implemented in three main ways: interviews, online surveys, and in a large group setting. The individual interviews were performed either face to face or via Skype. The interviewee was walked through the IDeAS process and asked questions with the opportunity to reflect and respond. Many of these sessions were recorded, all with permission. One downside to the interviews was the fact that the interviewee was required to answer immediately. There was not as much processing time for the person who was going through the process live, compared to those who participated in the online survey. However, at this point in our research, we were testing the process and the questions, so the interview data collected were “anecdotal” and not included in the data below. The large group participated in the IDeAS process during the 2013 POD Network Conference and although we had large group discussions, no formal data were collected at that time.

In August 2013, we distributed an online survey to the following educational development listservs: POD Network, Southern Regional Faculty Instructional Development Consortium, and Georgia CTL, as well as to individual colleagues in the field. The online survey included demographic questions and the IDeAS process steps organized as a list of questions (see below). Of the 23 survey participants, 19 answered the demographic questions.

Online survey demographic data collected:

• Years of experience in the field:

  • ○ Eleven of the respondents had 0–3 years of experience in the field

  • ○ Four had 4–6 years experience

  • ○ Four had 7–10 years experience.

• Roles of respondents related to educational development:

  • ○ Two of the respondents were from the Administration role

  • ○ Eleven from the Director role

  • ○ Two from the Faculty role

  • ○ Three from other types of staff at a teaching and learning center.

The online survey and interviews asked the same questions and started by prompting the respondent to identify and reflect on a challenging faculty development interaction that did not unfold as expected. These questions are listed below and divided in the specific steps related to the IDeAS process.

1. How long have you been a faculty developer?

2. What is your current role/title in the field?

Identify

• Describe a recent faculty development interaction that didn’t go so well. What happened? Walk us through it step by step.

Debrief

• What were your expectations for the interaction?

• At what point could you tell if it had gone off track? When did you realize that sticking point? How could you tell?

• What strategies did you use to try to get it back on track?

Analyze

• How did you feel during the interaction? At the conclusion of the interaction? Then after some time passed? What was the dominant emotion? Any physiological reactions?

• Did you reflect after the experience? How? What strategies did you use?

• If you were in a different role in this interaction, would that have an impact on your job or this challenge?

• You’ve identified the acute issues (the immediate challenge). Could you zoom out and identify a chronic issue (the ongoing misunderstanding/misperception informing the challenge)?

• What (within your sphere of influence) would help you maximize your efficacy as a faculty developer?

Strategize

• Now that time has passed, what would you have done differently, if anything? What do you want to happen the next time?

Findings

The above online survey and interview questions were coded in the following ways for each interviewee: role at CTL, years of experience in the field of educational development, challenging problem or issue, stuck point for TC, scope (institutional or individual), and acute or chronic issue. We found that the respondents were likely to face challenging situations and/or failures in consultations (32% of respondents), workshops (36% of respondents), and meetings/other requests (32% of respondents). Because most educational developers provide support in these ways, we can identify that many aspects of an educational developers responsibilities are challenging. And as we know, often amid the stress of trying to balance all these interactions and obligations, it is easy to slip back into a fixed mindset. Recent studies on “stress mindsets” highlight that our response to stress (whether we see it as a “enhancing” or “debilitating”) can have serious effects on how we face present and future challenges (Crum, Salovey, & Achor, 2013). In order to maximize, we have to be cognizant of the possibility of reverting to a fixed mindset and mindfully persist in a growth mindset. Anecdotally, interviewees admitted at the conclusion of the interviews that the process helped them make peace with the failure on which they were reflecting; more data collection is necessary to definitively show that moving through the process helps people enhance or refine their growth mindset.

The survey queried participants about reflective strategies they used, if any, after the challenging experience concluded. We identified two subgroups of reflective strategies: collaborative and individual. In the first subgroup of strategies, participants identified a number of collaborative reflective strategies in which they reviewed the critical incident with other colleagues. Those who chose reflective collaboration as a strategy debriefed with colleagues or scheduled a follow up consultation with individuals involved in the interaction, either immediately after the event or within a few days. Yet another collaborative strategy was to deliberately choose a reflective partner outside educational development; this professional distance helped educational developers cultivate their own healthy psychic distance from the event.

The second subgroup, individual reflection, included a variety of materials or memories aided individual recapitulation of the critical incident. For instance, one participant reviewed workshop materials and handouts to pinpoint where and how the interaction was derailed. Yet another relied on memories of the event to recall what happened to determine if there was a way to prevent a similar less than positive outcome in the future. Working to “re write the story” in his or her mind to mitigate negative feelings in future retellings of the event is a hybrid strategy: born “individual” in the reframing phase, it becomes “collaborative” in the retelling phase.

These reflective strategies are important because they show a growth mindset reaction to the failure and/or challenge. The respondents saw that their interaction could have had an alternative outcome and that there is opportunity for improvement in the future. Rather than avoid the situation again out of fear, many survey participants were primed and energized to try again, using language that suggested a growth mindset. For instance, one survey respondent noted “I’m not sure that a ‘challenging situation’ means something went off track. Challenges are a part of our work.” Another framed the interaction as a “learning event” (rather than an “experience,” or a “debacle”), suggesting that the interaction was an opportunity to grow.

During the Anchor Session at the 2013 POD Network Conference, participants embraced the IDeAS process with creative approaches to making time and space to reflect on failure, both for themselves and their constituents. One colleague shared about recently hosting a social “My Favorite Failure” event with her closest friends and shared the power of connecting with others to reframe disappointment as an opportunity to learn and grow. On a professional level, participants at the session were excited about exporting the process to their campuses and working with diverse groups to analyze failure as a way to build a campus culture dedicated to productive risk, rather than measured mediocrity.

Several IDeAS participants identified the acute and chronic issues that affected their difficult interactions, some of which may sound familiar because of our shared profession. For instance, one respondent noted faculty resisting participation in required development programs. The larger issue, however, is a perception of educational development as a less than valuable use of time. Another reported of a disruptive participant in a workshop. In a discussion about learning objects, a faculty member wondered why the insistence “on giving confusing names to things she was already doing?” Although the needs of the larger group remained the focus, continued interruption threatened to derail the interaction for the entire group. Our research indicates that many acute issues require immediate attention, but overlay and obscure the chronic problem, some of which are associated with the nature of our profession, such as confidentiality and limited administrative influence to suggest institutional changes.

There were also instances that might be interpreted as failures no matter how one reflects on them. One participant was asked by a supervisor to work with a colleague who had low student ratings of instruction. Despite the educational developer’s concerns that the colleague “needed professional counseling as a result of the stress of [the] situation,” they were “told by my supervisor that I was not allowed to suggest anything of the sort.” In this case, the ethical standards of educational development were in direct conflict with the supervisor’s orders.

The realization that our positions might prevent us from enforcing change did not dishearten participants; however, acknowledging that they had no control over changing was a powerful exercise in and of itself. That is, we may not be able to generate solutions for those things over which we have little sway. But there is strength in knowing more about the situation through reflection, recognizing when there is nothing more to be done, and releasing mental and emotional resources from the situation.

In our research, we identified additional strategies for dealing with challenges and failures. One is the active process of “deliberate experimentation” (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005). Experimentation can be uncomfortable because in many cases, it forces us to fail before we succeed. However, deliberate experimentation is more than turning what might have been a failure into a learning experience; it is intentionally increasing the likelihood of failure by trying novel and innovative things. Once we become comfortable enough with failures and challenges and how to process them, we are not afraid to take an “offensive approach.” Experimentation is the key. People with a fixed mindset will keep doing what they have been doing, and they will continue to get the same results. But in order to grow and push the boundaries, we must try something new. We must experiment.

It is important to remember that accepting you may fail is not expecting to fail. Positive thinking, planning, and preparation are crucial when we experiment. Sim Sitkin identifies five characteristics of strategic and thoughtful failure. Sitkin (1992) says thoughtful failures:

1. result from thoughtfully planned actions

2. have uncertain outcomes

3. are of modest scale

4. are executed and responded to with alacrity

5. take place in domains that are familiar enough to permit effective learning.

Adopting a version of this approach is not reckless but essential. “Best practices” cannot be developed without that first foray into unmapped pedagogical territory. Deliberate experimentation, in a measured way, helps keep educational developers vital, vibrant, active, and curious—traits we need to continue to cultivate if we are to demonstrate our value in the face of uncertain economic futures.

The IDeAS Process and Your Campus

As mentioned earlier, the IDeAS process can be utilized by the educational developer and also by faculty and administrators. Our campus, like corporate organizations, will continue to make small mistakes, but it is through pursuing a goal, even more than once, that the failure can be overturned (Lounamaa & March, 1987). On an individual campus, it can be helpful to start with specific departments, programs, or groups of people who may need a “time out” to reflect on what is happening in their working life, or groups of people who are energized about transforming campus culture.

The idea of structuring the process for each individual campus came from our Anchor Session presentation at the Annual POD Network Conference in 2013. We wanted to make the process more relevant to each participant and create a useful tool that any type of campus could use, whether they were one of growth or fixed mindset. In Figure 2, participants will move through a flow chart answering questions that will help them devise a plan about how to bring the IDeAS process to their campus and, in particular, to one specific group of their choosing.

Figure 2. The IDeAS Process and Your Campus

If the campus has a more fixed mindset about failures and risk when approaching professional growth, the interviewee will consider questions such as (a) Are there people or groups I can work with who might be receptive to using the IDeAS process? (b) What particular challenges do I anticipate? (c) Identify particular strategies for working with these potential challenges, and (d) Identify one small action step that can help me to “flip the mindset” on my campus or at your CTL (Dweck, 2006). By identifying potential challenges first, you may be able to avoid small failures. If a campus has a growth mindset about professional advancement, then there should not be much pushback when implementing the IDeAS process, and their focus will be more about continuing the positive momentum on the campus. By keeping an open dialogue on your campus about learning from failure, you and your colleagues will begin to become more comfortable with openly discussing missteps in daily work, “while examining small failures to avoid large catastrophic ones in the future” (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005, p. 301).

References

• Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve. Long Range Planning, 38(3), 299–319. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2005.04.005
• Clayton, C. D. (2007). Curriculum making as novice professional development practical risk taking as learning in high stakes times. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 216–230.
• Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733.
• Cusin, J. (2012). Disillusionment from failure as a source of successful learning. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 29(2), 113–123. doi:10.1002/CJAS.227
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: A new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
• Flaherty, C. (2014, May 30). A ‘growth’ field [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/30/some teaching and learning centers have closed after recession field growing over
• Hodges, L. (2006). Preparing faculty for pedagogical change: Helping faculty deal with fear. In S. Chadwick Blossey & D. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol. 24, pp. 121–134). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Lounamaa, P., & March, J. (1987). Adaptive coordination of a learning team. Management Science, 33(1), 107–123.
• Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: University of Edinburgh.
• Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (Eds.) (2005). Overcoming barriers to student understanding. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning & professional development: Theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266.