Threshold concepts were “critical points in a student’s learning” (Barradell, 2012; p268). Despite the growing popularity of the Threshold Concept theory since its conception a decade ago, it was critiqued for its lack of maturity (Tight, 2014b). Due to the focus of the threshold concept theory to disciplinary content, its application to outcome-based curricula was considered to be strained. Recent efforts were made to better integrate the threshold concept into current curriculum design
approaches.
First advocated by Meyer and Land (2003), threshold concepts “can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something” (Meyer & Land, 2003; p1). Based on the concept of ‘troublesome knowledge’, thresholds might be linked to ‘transformative’, ‘irreversible’, ‘integrative’, ‘bounded’ and ‘troublesome’ advances in a student’s learning process (Meyer & Land, 2003). The criteria ‘discursive’ and ‘reconstitutive’ were added a
decade later (Barradell, 2012; Land, Rattray & Vivian, 2014). Central to the threshold concept theory was that learners might be in a state of liminality before they understood and crossed the threshold. Liminality is the condition in which learners took note of the threshold concept without yet being able to grasp or fully understand it, it relates to a transitional or initial stage of a process and people occupy a state of liminality at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold. This cognitive block might cause anxiety. The crossing of the threshold, the point of understanding, might include a shift in the learner’s perception and world-view (Land, Rattray & Vivian, 2014; Meyer & Land, 2003).
It was argued that the benefit of using the thresholds concept as the framework for curriculum design might facilitate a more efficient and succinct curriculum that was mindful of the non-linear nature of learning and the need to allow students time to comprehend certain concepts fully (Cousin, 2006). While thresholds primarily addressed the content of the teaching, the underlying objective of the threshold theory was the provision of optimum support of the student’s educational experience that extended the theory into teaching practice (Barradell, 2012).
Criticisms of Thresholds concept Theory
Critics of the thresholds concept theory found the arbitrariness and the lack of rigour in the
identification of thresholds problematic (Barradell, 2012; O'Donnell, 2010; Tight, 2014b). As many of Meyer and Land’s (2003) criteria for threshold concepts had been accompanied by the terms
‘probably’ or ‘potentially’ , and as the seven criteria had not been weighted, critics found fault with the vagueness in expression and claimed that the criteria offered little guidance for the identification of thresholds. Tight also questioned the validity of thresholds when they were defined by educators (Tight, 2014b). A more robust and universal approach to identifying threshold concepts was called for (Quinlan et al., 2013). Barradell (2012) proposed a ‘transactional curriculum inquiry’ that included all stakeholders, i.e. teaching staff, students and external stakeholders.
By reviewing examples of thresholds concept applications in the literature, Tight (2014b) also sensed a second problem in the diversity in which thresholds had been applied, namely to specific,
disciplinary processes (e.g. recording of a complete dental jaw registration), cognitive processes (e.g. systems thinking) or generic processes (e.g. writing). Researchers also questioned the underlying assumption of the universality of thresholds for all students and in all contexts (Rowbottom, 2007; Tight, 2014b). Lastly a review of published adoptions of threshold concept theory in higher education found that it was not clear if and how the identification of threshold concepts had changed existing delivery methods (Tight, 2014b).
It should be noted that thresholds are distinct from core competencies. The teaching of core competencies is a continuum that is paced throughout the curriculum as manifested in progressive year level learning outcomes. Curricula which are designed around thresholds focus on a few points in time in the cognitive learning process. These may not occur at regular intervals and the timing may vary from one student to the next. Both approaches aim for the gradual improvement of the student. However, a curriculum based on the gradual development of core skills may lend itself better to the temporal planning of teaching and learning of knowledge. The timing of teaching threshold concepts could be at regular intervals in order not to overburden the student, or could be heaped within one period with other periods being devoid of them. A discussion of the appropriate timing of teaching threshold concepts is missing in the literature.
Application of Thresholds concept
The thresholds concept theory has been applied in disciplines including the sciences, health care, literature business, law and social studies (Tight, 2014b). While it would be beyond the scope of this paper to review all applications, one Australian example in engineering education is presented here. An Australian team of educators at the University of Western Australia combined the threshold concept with capability and variation theory into the Threshold Capability Integrated Theoretical Framework (Baillie et al., 2012a). For Bailie et al. (2012) the thresholds concept had the advantage of making apparent implicit learning concepts which facilitated the focus on the most important steps in the students’ learning progress, the most appropriate educational experience and the best
assessment methods (Baillie et al., 2012a). Capability theory is concerned with teaching students capabilities to deal with unforeseeable future events and problems (Bowden, 2004). Capabilities were merged with the threshold concept as the elements that were deemed troublesome were not always
disciplinary concepts but included capabilities to cope with new situations (Baillie, Bowden & Meyer, 2013). While in the threshold concept theory the disciplinary knowledge content is driving the
structure of a curriculum, curriculum design based on capability theory focusses more on situational and progressive learning and the requirement of fundamental cognitive attitudes that are seen to be essential in becoming successful professionals (Åkerlind, McKenzie & Lupton, 2014; Bowden, 2004). Based on the Threshold Capability Integrated Theoretical Framework the following questions guide a curriculum design process:
1. “What should the learner be capable of doing at the end, given the need to deal with an unknown future?
2. What threshold concepts are important to understand to enable the development of such capability?
3. What kinds of learning experiences and in what combination would best assist the learner to develop interim threshold capabilities and ultimately build on them to develop the capability to handle the unknown future after graduation?
4. How can the learning environment be best arranged to provide access to those optimal capability development experiences?
5. How can the differing needs of individual students be catered for?
6. What, specifically, is the role of teachers in supporting such learning by students?
7. What kinds of assessment of student learning will motivate learning of the kind desired and authentically measure the levels of achievement of the intended learning outcomes?”(Baillie, Bowden & Meyer, 2013, p237).
The Threshold Capability Integrated Theoretical Framework was used to develop a curriculum of a two-year engineering foundation course at the University of Western Australia (Baillie et al., 2012a). The need for a curriculum renewal was the high rate of attrition of engineering students (Baillie et al. 2012a).
The curriculum development process was iterative and took a phenomenographic action research design approach (Åkerlind, McKenzie & Lupton, 2014). The first step in the curriculum development process was the identification of learning outcomes by academics of the school. These were used as the basis to develop threshold concepts with consultation of a “reference group, project consultant, project evaluator”, international educators with expertise in threshold concepts, students and
teachers. The threshold concepts were linked logically as some capabilities were found to necessitate pre-requisite. For example, communication skills were considered a pre-requisite for team work (Baillie et al., 2012b).
These concepts were then grouped into the sequential categories for ‘learning to become an engineer’, ‘thinking and understanding like an engineer’ and for ‘shaping the world as an engineer’. The origins of these three sections were not explained in any of the publications. They did not refer to year level outcomes but seemed to sit across all year levels. The Integrated Engineering Foundation Threshold Concept Inventory was a graphic illustration of the thresholds and capabilities mapped into the three sections (Baillie et al., 2012b). The previously identified learning outcomes were then assigned to thresholds. Several workshops assisted in the validation, confirmation and revision of thresholds. Finally thresholds were mapped to the courses and delivery methods, and delivery and assessment methods were recommended (Baillie et al., 2012b). The implementation of the new curriculum included the training of the educators of the courses on threshold concept theory (Baillie et al., 2012a) and communication of the definition of thresholds and in the course guides. The new curriculum was introduced in 2012. While teachers reported to have gained better understanding of
the threshold concept itself, of the students’ perspective of learning the disciplinary content and of more effective teaching techniques, there was no conclusive evidence that the new curriculum improved student learning (Åkerlind, G, McKenzie & Lupton, 2014).
A further extension of the threshold concept was the integrative model developed by Barradell and Kennedy-Jones (2013). In this model the elements of threshold concepts, student learning and
curriculum were combined, and the outcomes of ways of thinking and practising, liminality, meaningful learning and meta-learning were seen to happen at the intersections of the elements. The
researchers argued that only the integration of the content-focussed thresholds into the other essential constructs of education, namely desired learning outcomes and learning processes, would provide students with the necessary educational foundation for their future professional life (Barradell & Kennedy-Jones 2013).