Skip to main content
Log in

Methodological challenges in researching threshold concepts: a comparative analysis of three projects

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Threshold concepts were introduced nearly 10 years ago by Ray Land and Jan Meyer. This work has spawned four international conferences and hundreds of papers. Although the idea has clearly gained traction in higher education, this sub-field does not yet have a fully fledged research methodology or a strong critical discourse about methodology. This paper seeks to begin such a dialogue by analysing three projects carried out by the authors, each focused broadly on identifying and understanding threshold concepts in engineering. Each of the projects used interviews with students and academics, but differed in six main ways that seem to make a difference to the research outcomes. This paper considers the gaps in the research and why they matter, briefly outlines the methods used in each of the three case study projects, and then discusses differences in project goals, researchers’ backgrounds, curricular context, participants’ experiences, negotiated or independent knowledge and degree of comprehensiveness sought in the studies. The implications of these six differences are explored. The authors argue that research in this sub-field of higher education pedagogical research needs to be clearer and more explicit about the methods that are used They conclude that the field would benefit from bringing together researchers who have been developing complementary research methods to compare and contrast these approaches and to develop more rigorous protocols for research on threshold concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boustedt, J. (2010). On the road to software profession. Sweden: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

  • Carmichael, P. (2010). Threshold concepts, disciplinary differences and cross-disciplinary discourse. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 7(2), 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, P., Burchmore, H., Tracy, F., Johnstone, K. (2007) Threshold concepts: An emerging interdisciplinary research agenda in higher education research. In D. Good, S. Greenwald, R. Cox & M. Goldman (Eds.), University cooperation for innovation: Lessons from the Cambridge-MIT institute. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Undergraduate Science Education National Research Council. (1997). Misconceptions as barriers to understanding science. In Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook (pp. 27–32). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Concept Inventory Hub. (2011). A community for concept inventory developers, researchers, faculty, and student. Accessed July 16, 2012, from http://cihub.org/.

  • Threshold concepts portal. Web resource by Michael Flanagan. Accessed March 19, 2012. www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html..

  • Davies, P. (2012). Threshold concepts in economics education. In G. M. Holt & K. M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The international handbook on teaching and learning in economics (pp. 250–256). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., & Mangan, J. (2007). Threshold concepts and the integration of understanding in economics. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 711–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., & Mangan, J. (2010). Assessing progression of students’ economic understanding: The role of threshold concepts. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 193–206). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, M. T., & Smith, J. (2006) Threshold concepts: Troublesome topographies for the Google generation. Paper presented at beyond boundaries: New horizons for research into higher education, annual conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education, Brighton, December 12–14, 2006.

  • Harlow, A., Scott, J., Peter, M., & Cowie, B. (2011). ‘Getting stuck’ in analogue electronics: Threshold concepts as an explanatory model. European Journal for Engineering Education, 36(5), 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. (2011). Visualising knowledge structures in biology: Discipline, curriculum and student understanding. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, R. (2010) Threshold concepts and issues of interdisciplinarity. Featured lecture given at the third biennial threshold concepts symposium: Exploring transformative dimensions of threshold concepts. The University of New South Wales in collaboration with the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, July 1–2, 2010.

  • Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H. F., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learningEquality and diversity. Proceedings of the 12th improving student learning conference. Oxford: OCLSD.

  • Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J., & Davies, P. (2006). Implications of threshold concepts for course design and evaluation. In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Male, S. A. (2012). Integrated engineering foundation threshold concept inventory. Accessed August 9, 2012, from http://www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/research/engineering-threshold-concepts.

  • Male, S. A., & Baillie, C. A. (2011a). Engineering threshold concepts. Paper presented at the SEFI annual conference. Accessed February 10, 2012, from http://www.sefi.be/?page_id=24.

  • Male, S. A., & Baillie, C. A. (2011b). Threshold concept methodology. Paper presented at the research in engineering education symposium.

  • Male, S. A., Guzzomi, A. L., & Baillie, C. A. (2012). Interdisciplinary threshold concepts in engineering. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia conference.

  • Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (1): Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning theory and practice—10 years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: OCSLD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Davies, P. (2008). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (4): Issues of variation and variability. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 59–74). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, E. J., & Light, G. (2010). Identifying a potential threshold concept in nanoscience and technology: Engaging theory in the service of practice. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 259–279). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, K. M. (2012). Exploring engineering thresholds at level 4: What happens in the Oxford tutorial? In M. Harrison, I. Moore, H. Igarashi, S. Somani (Eds.), Enhancing engineering higher education: Outputs of the national HE STEM programme (pp. 89–94). London: Royal Academy of Engineering. Accessed at www.raeng.org.uk/eehe.

  • Quinlan, K. M., Male, S., Fill, J., Jaffer, Z., Stamboulis, A., & Baillie, C. (2012) Understanding thresholds in first year engineering: Digging beneath Mohr’s circle. 4th international symposium on engineering education, The University of Sheffield, July 18–20, 2012. Accessed at http://isee2012.group.shef.ac.uk/proceedings.html.

  • Reimann, N., & Jackson, I. (2006). Threshold concepts in economics: A case study. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student learning: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 115–133). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, P. M., Taylor, C. E., Hughes, C., Kofod, M., Whitaker, N., Lutze-Mann, L., et al. (2010). Threshold concepts: Challenging the way we think, teach and learn in biology. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 165–177). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2009). Issues regarding threshold concepts in computer science. In M. Hamilton & T. Clear (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh Australasian computing education conference (pp. 139–145). CRPIT.

  • Schwartzman, L. (2010). Transcending disciplinary boundaries: A proposed theoretical foundation for threshold concepts. In J. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 21–44). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., Harlow, A., Peter, M., & Cowie, B. (2010). Threshold concepts and introductory electronics. Paper presented at the 21st conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education.

  • Shanahan, M., Foster, G., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2006a). Operationalising a threshold concept in economics: A pilot study using multiple choice questions on opportunity cost. International Review of Economics Education, 5(2), 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M. P., Foster, G., & Meyer, J. F. (2006b). Operationalising a threshold concept in economics: A pilot study using multiple choice questions on opportunity cost. International Review of Economics, 5(2), 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamboulis, A., Jaffer, Z., & Baillie, C. (2012). Uncovering threshold concepts in first year engineering courses and implications for curriculum design. In M. Harrison, I. Moore, H. Igarashi, S. Somani (Eds.), Enhancing engineering higher education: Outputs of the national HE STEM programme (pp. 106–110). London: Royal Academy of Engineering. Accessed at www.raeng.org.uk/eehe.

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. E. (2006). Threshold concepts in biology: Do they fit the definition? In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 87–99). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. E., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2010). The testable hypothesis as a threshold concept for biology students. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 179–192). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., et al. (2010). Threshold concepts in computer science: An ongoing empirical investigation. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 241–258). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, C., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Mostrom, J. E., Ratcliffe, M., et al. (2008). Threshold concepts in computer science: A multi-national empirical investigation. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 105–118). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge grant funding that made this work possible. The Royal Academy of Engineering in the United Kingdom provided grants from its National HE STEM Programme to support the University of Birmingham and University of Oxford projects. The Australian Learning and Teaching Council supported the project at the University of Western Australia. We also acknowledge a collaboration grant from the University of Western Australia that supported collaboration between the University of Western Australia and the University of Oxford. The authors also appreciate the contributions of the many participants, project partners within the programmes being studied and the academics and students who contributed to these projects. Finally, we wish to thank Eric Meyer for his input on an earlier draft of this paper and two anonymous reviewers who provided critique and feedback that improved the final version.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. M. Quinlan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quinlan, K.M., Male, S., Baillie, C. et al. Methodological challenges in researching threshold concepts: a comparative analysis of three projects. High Educ 66, 585–601 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9623-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9623-y

Keywords

Navigation