Research-Guided Teaching Practices

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013451.026

Chapter 20 - Research-Guided Teaching Practices

Engineering Threshold Concepts as an Approach to Curriculum Renewal

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015

Sally A. Male and

Caroline A. Baillie

Edited by

Aditya Johri and

Barbara M. Olds

Show author details

Sally A. Male: Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Caroline A. Baillie: Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Aditya Johri: Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds: Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

In this chapter we introduce threshold concept theory and present the case for its use in curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in engineering education, as an example of how we might consider using theory to develop practice. The process has been developed and tested in engineering at The University of Western Australia, with collaborators at the Universities of Oxford and Birmingham and The University of Queensland.

We begin with an introduction to threshold concept theory. We then step through the stages of curriculum design using threshold concepts. At each stage, the approach, critical issues that must be considered, and examples are discussed.

Threshold concept theory is a major new theory in higher education, first developed in the United Kingdom by Jan (Erik) Meyer, Ray Land, and others (Meyer & Land, 2003). The theory developed from a large research program in which it was noted that for many disciplines there are concepts, or ways of thinking, that are transformative, opening up new ways of thinking and understanding, yet troublesome for many students (Meyer & Land, 2003). These are “threshold concepts.”

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 393 - 408

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.026 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baillie, C., & Johnson, A. (2008). A threshold model for attitudes in first year engineering students. In Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 129–141). Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense.Google Scholar

Boustedt, J. (2010). On the road to software profession (Doctor of Philosophy). Uppsala University, Sweden.Google Scholar

Bowden, J. A. (2004). Capabilities-driven curriculum design. In Baillie, C. & Moore, I. (Eds.), Effective learning & teaching in engineering (pp. 36–47). Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bowden, J. A., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar

Cameron, I. (2009). Engineering science and practice: Alignment and synergies in curriculum innovation. Strawberry Hills, NSW, Australia: Australian Learning & Teaching Council.Google Scholar

Carstensen, A.-K., & Bernhard, J. (2008). Threshold concepts and keys to the portal of understanding: Some examples from electrical engineering. In Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines (pp. 143–154). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar

Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17, 4–5.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cousin, G. (2010). Neither teacher-centred nor student-centred: Threshold concepts and research partnerships. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 1(2), 1–9.Google Scholar

Dahlgren, M. A., Hult, H., Dahlgren, L. O., Hard, H., & Johansson, K. (2006). From senior student to novice worker: Learning trajectories in political science, psychology and mechanical engineering. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 569–586.CrossRef Google Scholar

Flanagan, M. (2011). Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and professional development: A short introduction and bibliography. Retrieved from

Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 5–22.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hacker, S. (1981). The culture of engineering: Woman, workplace and machine. Women, Technology and Innovation, 4(3), 341–353.Google Scholar

Hesterman, D. C., Male, S. A., & Baillie, C. A. (2011). Some potential underlying threshold concepts in engineering dynamics. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved from Google Scholar

Holloway, M., Alpay, E., & Bull, A. (2010). A quantitative approach to identifying threshold concepts in engineering education. Paper presented at the Engineering Education 2010: Inspiring the Next Generation of Engineers, Aston University, UK.Google Scholar

Ihsen, S. (2005). Special gender studies for engineering? European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(4), 487–494.CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnston, A., King, R., Bradley, A., & O’Kane, M. (2008). Addressing the supply and quality of engineering graduates for the new century. Sydney, Australia: The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.Google Scholar

Kabo, J., & Baillie, C. (2009). Seeing through the lens of social justice: A threshold for engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 317–325.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kirk, A. (2007). Concept inventory central. Retrieved from

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRef Google Scholar

Land, R., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2010). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (5): Dynamics of assessment. In Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. A. (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 61–79). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar

Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2008). Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Male, S. A. (2010). Generic engineering competencies: A review and modelling approach. Education Research and Perspectives, 37(1), 25–51.Google Scholar

Male, S. A. (2011). Today's relevance of feminist theory and gender inclusive engineering curricula to help students overcome thresholds in engineering education. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference of Women Engineers and Scientists, Adelaide, South Australia.Google Scholar

Male, S. A. (2012). Generic engineering competencies required by engineers graduating in Australia: The Competencies of Engineering Graduates (CEG) Project. In Rasul, M. (Ed.), Developments in engineering education standards: Advanced curriculum innovations (pp. 41–63). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRef Google Scholar

Male, S. A., & Baillie, C. A. (2011a). Engineering threshold concepts. Paper presented at the SEFI Annual Conference, Lisbon. Retrieved from

Male, S. A., & Baillie, C. A. (2011b). Threshold concept methodology. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar

Male, S. A., Bush, M. B., & Chapman, E. S. (2010a). Perceptions of competency deficiencies in engineering graduates. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 16(1), 55–68.CrossRef Google Scholar

Male, S. A., Bush, M. B., & Chapman, E. S. (2010b). Understanding generic engineering competencies. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: Past, Present, Future – The ‘Keys’ to Engineering Education, Research and Practice, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from Google Scholar

Male, S. A., Guzzomi, A. L., & Baillie, C. A. (2012). Interdisciplinary threshold concepts in engineering. Paper presented at the Research and Development in Higher Education: Connections in Higher Education, Hobert, Australia. Retrieved from Google Scholar

Male, S. A., MacNish, C. K., & Baillie, C. A. (2012). Engaging students in engineering curriculum renewal using threshold concepts. Paper presented at the CDIO Conference, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses. Occasional Report 4. Retrieved from

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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (Eds.). (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.

Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning (Vol. 42). Rotterdam, Boston, & Taipei: Sense.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Davies, P. (2006). Implications of threshold concepts for course design and evaluation. In Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. In Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 195–206). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Moon, J. (2007). Linking levels, Learning outcomes and assessment criteria – EHEA version. The Centre for Excellence in Media Practice, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK. Re-trieved from

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Meyer, J. H. F. & Land, R. (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Petrucci, C. J., & Quinlan, K. M. (2007). Bridging the research-practice gap: Concept mapping as a mixed methods strategy in practice-based research and evaluation. Journal of Social Services Research, 34(2), 25–42.CrossRef Google Scholar

Quinlan, K. M., Male, S. A., Baillie, C. A., Stamboulis, A., Fill, J., & Jaffer, Z. (2013). Methodological challenges in researching threshold concepts: A comparative analysis of three projects. Higher Education, Online First. doi: .

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Scott, J., & Harlow, A. (2011). Identification of threshold concepts involved in early electronics: Some methods and results. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education Fremantle, Western Australia.Google Scholar

Scott, J., Harlow, A., Peter, M., & Cowie, B. (2010). Threshold concepts and introductory electronics. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar

Spinks, N., Silburn, N., & Birchall, D. (2006, March). Educating engineers for the 21st century: The industry view. Retrieved from

Tonso, K. L. (2007). On the outskirts of engineering. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar

Trevelyan, J. P. (2010). Reconstructing engineering from practice. Engineering Studies, 2(3), 21.CrossRef Google Scholar

World Chemical Engineering Council. (2004, September). How does chemical engineering education meet the requirements of employment?, Retrieved from

Zander, C., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Mostrom, J. E., Ratcliffe, M., & Sanders, K. (2008). Threshold concepts in computer science: A multi-national empirical investigation. In Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Smith, J. (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 105–18). Rotterdam & Tapei: Sense.Google Scholar