Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T02:59:08.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 20 - Research-Guided Teaching Practices

Engineering Threshold Concepts as an Approach to Curriculum Renewal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Sally A. Male  and
Caroline A. Baillie
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
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
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
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.)

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×