PAULINE M ROSS, CHARLOTTE E. TAYLOR, CHRIS HUGHES,
MICHELLE KOFOD,NOEL WHITAKER, LOUISE LUTZE-MANN,
AND VICKY TZIOUMIS
10. THRESHOLD CONCEPTS:
Challenging the Way We Think, Teach and Learn In Biology
INTRODUCTION
Students generally come to tertiary institutions with misconceptions of some of the
key content and concepts in the disciplines they are studying. Their misconceptions
commonly relate to conceptually difficult or troublesome content knowledge and
can be: incomplete and contradictory; stable and highly resistant to change; and
remain intact despite repeated instruction at successively higher levels perhaps
reinforced by teachers and textbooks. Troublesome or difficult content knowledge
in Biology includes cellular metabolic processes (for example, photosynthesis and
respiration), cellular size and dimensionality (surface area to volume ratio), water
movement (diffusion and osmosis) genetics (protein synthesis, cell division, DNA)
evolution, homeostasis and equilibrium. We suggest that the threshold concepts of
Meyer and Land, (2005) in biology are the ability to work with concepts and
processes; energy, variation, randomness and probability, proportional reasoning,
spatial and temporal scales, thinking at a submicroscopic level, and that these
abilities, or lack thereof, underlie the difficult content or troublesome knowledge
causing misconceptions. Threshold concepts thus provide a powerful heuristic to
interrogate the cause of troublesome content knowledge in biology and to aid in the
development of teaching interventions, to surface the tacit knowledge within the
biology discipline.
MISCONCEPTIONS AND DIFFICULT OR TROUBLESOME CONTENT
The seminal work of Driver and Easley (1978) over thirty years ago and the subsequent research (Driver, 1983; Driver, 1985; Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien, 1985;
Osborne and Freyberg, 1985; Driver and Bell, 1986; Driver, Squires, Rushworth
and Wood-Robinson, 1994) highlighted that children possess numerous ideas that
are inconsistent with scientific knowledge even after teaching. These erroneous
ideas have been called misconceptions, alternative concepts, alternative frameworks, naTve explanations, preconceptions and pre-scientific concepts, being found
in textbooks and are also held by teachers and students at school, college and
university level (Yip, 1998). Much of the early misconception literature focused on
J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land and C. liaillie (eds.). Threshold Concepts and
Transformational Learning, 165-177.
0 2010 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
ROSSETAL
identifying misconceptions in younger students of primary and high school age and
determining their understanding of basic concepts of living, plants and animals (e.g.
Stavy, Eisen and Yaakobi, 1987; Stavy and Wax, 1989; Eisen and Stavy, 1992, 1993;
Wandersee, 1983; Wandersee, Mintzes and Novak, 1994). More recently the renewed
interest in the alternative conceptions or misconceptions of biological concepts has
occurred because even the best quality, high achieving biology students at elite institutions
(taught by universally admired academics), continue to fail to understand the conceptual
foundation in key content areas of biology after passing through multiple conventional
biology courses (Wandersee et at., 1994). This renewed emphasis in diagnosing
misconceptions has lead to the development of summative assessment tests such as the
Biology Concept Inventory (Klymkowski & Garvin-Doxas 2008).
Some authors have suggested that it may be useful to distinguish between the
misconceptions generated prior to informal instruction and those that occur during or
because of formal instruction (Yip, 1998). Misconceptions of the first type which occur prior
to formal instruction, arise through children's life experiences and indiscriminate use of
everyday language being characterised as basic biological errors e.g. living, animal, plant,
gas exchange. Yip (1998) suggested that because these misconceptions are established early
in the cognitive structures of children, they are highly stable, resistant to change, show in
students as often incomplete and contradictory understandings, are personal in nature and
can impact on the receipt of formal instructional approaches, despite repeated instruction at
successively higher levels. A wide range of previous studies have identified misconceptions
in biology (Driver, 1983; Driver Guesne and Tiberghien, 1985; Driver and Bell, 1986;
Osborne and Freyberg, 1985; Seymour and Longdon, 1991; Gabel, 1994; Songer and
Mintzes, 1994; Wandersee et al, 1994; Mann and Treagust, 1998; Alparsian, Tekkaya and
Geban, 2003) and although misconceptions in biology are personal in nature, not all such
misconceptions arise because of personal experience. Children and students have
substantially less personal experience in daily life of abstract biological content, such as the
dynamic electron transport chain (at the core of cellular metabolic processes including
photosynthesis and respiration) and the kinetic gas theory (underlying osmosis). Without a
formal school setting students have little opportunity to develop misconceptions about
biological content including such areas as the submicroscopic world of photosynthesis. The
abstract, counter-intuitive, conceptual difficulty of some biological content and the
ritualisation of knowledge may aid the development of misconceptions (Perkins, 2006). It
can be difficult within a cohort of students to determine who has misconceptions, but
identification can occur when students try and apply conceptual knowledge outside the
classroom (Perkins 2006). Regardless of how and where misconceptions arise, they have a
real influence on what and how students learn. The challenge for teachers is to change
student misconceptions into deep understandings of more scientifically accepted
conceptions (Posncr, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog, 1982; Duit and Treagust, 1998; Gabel,
1994; Tytler, 2007) and this is where the identification of threshold concepts assists.
166
THRESHOLDCONCEPTS
THRESHOLD CONCEPTS AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION
Meyer and Land (2003, 2005) recently proposed the notion of threshold concepts,
and described such concepts as akin to passing through a portal or conceptual
gateway to a previously inaccessible and initially perhaps troublesome way of
thinking about something. These conceptual gateways or thresholds are characterised
as being transformative (occasioning a significant shift in the perception of a subject),
irreversible (unlikely to be forgotten or unlearned) and integrative (exposing the
previously hidden interrelatedness of something) (Meyer and Land, 2005). This
transformed internal view is typified by a cognitive and ontological shift (Meyer,
personal communication), often accompanied by an extension of the student's use of
language (Meyer and Land, 2005). Although threshold concepts are conceptually
difficult or troublesome, being 'particularly tough conceptual nuts' (Perkins, 1999),
they are not necessarily troublesome by definition (Perkins, 2006) but they can be
content which has become ritualised by students and teachers. It is this tacit,
ritualised nature which makes threshold concepts difficult to identify within the
discipline. Difficulty in understanding threshold concepts may leave a student in a
state of liminality where they get 'stuck' (Perkins 1999; Meyer and Land, 2006). Such
liminal or 'stuck' places prevent the learner from undergoing a transformation which
may be integrative and irreversible extending their understanding of formal and
symbolic language while at the same time paradoxically characterising the change
(Meyer and Land 2005).
In the Sciences, students often encounter conceptually difficult or troublesome
knowledge (Perkins, 2006). While the literature is rife with examples of misconceptions and mistaken expectations based in physics and chemistry (Meyer and
Land, 2006), there are relatively fewer comments about conceptually difficult or
troublesome knowledge in biology. This is because it is perhaps easier in the
discipline of biology for students to achieve 'success' through learning ritual
responses to definitional questions which have become instituted and resistant to
change, while still maintaining significant misconceptions about key biological
concepts. For the notion of threshold concepts to make a significant contribution to
the learning of biology, however, teachers must first be able to identify them. This is
not an easy task, even with such a powerful heuristic (Perkins, 2006). Other authors
such as Davies and Mangan (2007), have used evidence from interviews with
experienced staff and novice students within the discipline, to develop a framework to
identify and distinguish threshold concepts as types of conceptual change, namely
'discipline' and 'procedural' from 'basic'.
It would appear that there is consensus within the biology discipline that certain
content and concept areas are difficult. Ask experienced biology academics and
beginning students to identify which biological concepts are most difficult to teach
and learn and they will state cellular metabolic processes (including photosynthesis,
respiration and enzymes), cellular size and dimensionality (surface area to volume
ratio), water movement (diffusion and osmosis) genetics (protein synthesis, cell
division, DNA) evolution, and homeostasis and equilibrium (e.g. Gabel, 1994;
Wandersee et ah, 1994; Brown, 1995; Canal, 1999, Griffard, 2001, Taylor, 2006;
Ross and Tronson, 2004; 2007; Kose, 2008; Taylor, 2008), the processes of
167
ROSS ETAL
hypothesis and null hypothesis testing (Taylor and Meyer this volume) and more broad
scale issues of thinking and practising within the discipline such as scale (spatial and
temporal) and again surface area to volume ratio, probability, uncertainty, dynamics and
change. Although these content and concept areas prove difficult for teachers and learners,
they are not necessarily threshold concepts. For example, protein synthesis is frequently
identified as a difficult troublesome content area in biology, perhaps because students need
to operate simultaneously at several hierarchical, subcellular and submicroscopic scales, but
that does not automatically make it a threshold concept. It has been suggested that to
identify threshold concepts, which may be currently tacit (Davies, 2006), we need to lift our
eyes above the particular (Perkins, 2006) to determine which concepts operate in a deep
integrating way in the discipline, while simultaneously being taken for granted, rarely being
made explicit (Davies, 2006).
Using the definitions and exemplification of the three types of conceptual change; 'basic',
'discipline' and 'procedural' described by Davies and Mangan (2007), we propose that the
threshold concepts in biology which are transformative, irreversible and integrative across
the discipline are not the troublesome difficult content of cellular metabolic processes,
genetics, evolution, protein synthesis, ecology, enzymes or osmosis alone, but the
underlying cognitive commonalities of energy, transformation, variation, probability,
proportion, predictive reasoning (hypothesis testing), randomness, linkage of the subcellular
with the macroscopic, temporal and spatial scales and equilibrium (Table 1). Further we
divide the basic conceptual change category of Davies and Mangan (2007) into pre-basic
and basic, neither of these being threshold concepts (Table 1).
The pre-basic type of conceptual change develops prior,to formal instruction, through
childrens' life experiences and indiscriminate use of everyday language. Our pre-basic type
of conceptual change differs from the basic conceptual change of Davies and Mangan
(2007) because the concepts are formed through an integration of personal experience, but
arise independently of ideas within the formal discipline. For example, very small children
have an understanding of animal, but will not often even start to equate a human as an
animal until a formal presentation of the definition of animal. Even then the idea that a
human is an animal can be simultaneously rejected for religious, social and ethical reasons.
Similarly, very small children have little idea that a seed contains a living embryo of a
plant, until this concept is introduced, generally in a formal setting. Once again this
conception can change over time (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985). The basic type of
conceptual change occurs (Davies and Mangan, 2007) once these personal experiences have
been integrated with ideas from the discipline. This constitutes the basic stage, which is
often the focus of lower school curriculum, and it is here that students start to acquire the
language of biology (Table 1).
Discipline conceptual changes (Davies and Mangan, 2007) in biology are those concepts
where there is an integration of the theoretical view within the discipline including a
transformation. For example, students might have a basic concept of chlorophyll (and a
pre-basic knowledge that plants are green), but can only integrate and transform this content
within the theoretical perspective of photolysis
168
THRESHOLD CONCi-PTS
and energy conversion occurring in the leaf. Similarly a basic conceptual change of
membranes is required to integrate and transform the processes whereby carbon is
converted from a gas (carbon dioxide) to a solid compound (sugar/starch). Although
these are integrative and transformative experiences, the acquisition of the discipline
type of conceptual change, does not require irreversibility. Irreversibility occurs at
the next step where a web of threshold concepts occurs. Such irreversibility
characterises threshold concepts. We argue that the pre-basic level occurs prior to
formal schooling while the 'basic' and 'discipline' areas become the focus of formal
schooling and it is here where many misconceptions in biology occur (Yip, 1998).
There is generally an expectation that students entering university have the
background knowledge and understanding of pre-basic, basic and discipline
content, although university lecturing staff may also anticipate that many students
are operating at levels beyond these columns in Table 1.
The irreversible and threshold-crossing step occurs when there is integration of
discipline concepts and the emergence of a commonality or web of conceptual
change. In biology, the threshold concepts equivalent to the procedural conceptual
changes of Davies and Mangan (2007) are energy, transformations, variation,
probability and randomness, proportional reasoning (surface area to volume ratio),
predictive reasoning (hypothesis and null hypothesis testing), thinking at the
subcellular level and integrating these observations with the macroscopic, temporal
and spatial scales and equilibrium (Table 1). If we take several of these troublesome or
difficult content knowledge areas (column I of Table 1) we find they have a series of
threshold concepts in common (described in column 6 of Table I). For example, the
concept of variability is key to several content areas including ecology, evolution
and genetics, while an understanding of energy transformations and dynamism are
some of the threshold concepts or 'big ideas' critical in cellular metabolic processes
including enzyme action and ecology.
Similarly, the development of the visuo-spatial concept of proportionality, space
and perspective and the ability to mentally rotate and relate two dimensional
figures into their three dimensional structures is crucial in the conceptual understanding of enzyme action and many biochemical processes. The dynamic nature
of biological systems and the energetics which drive biochemical processes also
apply broadly across abstract biological content areas such as biochemical processes,
homeostasis and equilibrium. The concepts of variability and probability underlie
understanding in genetics, evolution and a number of cross disciplinary areas (e.g.
quantum mechanics), as does the process of empirically combining factors in a
scientific investigation (hypothesis creation) or genetic recombination (Good,
1977). Scale, visuo-spatial dynamics, thinking at the submicroscopic level, variability and probability are acquired developmentally (Inhelder and Piaget, 1955 in
Good, 1977), apply broadly and combine synergistically.
The acquisition of language and understanding of language, in context, is
critical within the discipline of biology. The linguistic demands of biology, being
particularly challenging at the basic and discipline stage (Table 1) often create
barriers. For many students, the language developed to describe specific biological
conditions becomes confused with the students' natural language form (Meyer and
169
ROSSETAL
Land, 2003; 2005). For example, there is an everyday meaning to 'animal', non-human,
'live', 'living fire' or a 'live wire' and respiration, 'that's breathing isn't it?', while the
scientific construct is specific and relates to the presence of cells, cellular membranes or
cellular metabolism (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985). Also, many students, not having
completed Latin at school, tend to concentrate on acquiring the language of biology, rather
than meaning, thus facing a cognitive overload. Further, especially in genetics and
molecular biology there are often shifts from biological text to symbolic, abbreviations and
acronyms (Taylor, 2006), exacerbating and increasing the intensity of the language barrier,
and preventing a holistic viewpoint needed to acquire threshold concepts. Paradoxically,
however, language, complexity, dynamism and dimensionality are common threshold
concepts in biology. For example, thinking in three dimensions is required in ecology,
evolution, genetics, cellular metabolic processes and almost all other subject areas. In
contrast, often the teaching of biology offers the learner a plethora of two-dimensional
representations due to the inherent restrictions and visual imagery of microscopic
investigations and the abstraction of the molecular world in textbooks.
Like language, the extension of the students' use or thinking about scale, dimensionality,
variability, dynamics and energetics leads to a transformed internal view, rather like the
passage from a novice to an expert, of biology beliefs about the nature of knowledge (Perry,
1968; Schommer, 1988; 1993; McCune and Hounsell 2005). The threshold or procedural
concepts we have identified form 'epistemes' or ways of understanding, and systems of
ideas, but often receive little direct attention in the teaching of biology. They are concepts
which are unifying themes across biological systems, are less frequently explicitly taught
and which many students (even at graduate level) never get the hang of or do so only slowly
(Perkins, 2006) if they can read between the tacit lines (Davies, 2006). Yet these threshold
epistemes shape one's sense of the entire biological discipline (Perkins, 2006), by forming
the tacit knowledge within the discipline of biology. We need to emphasise that while
academics and teachers identify the content knowledge (on the left hand side of Table 1) as
troublesome or problematic, the threshold concepts (on the right hand side of Table 1),
which underlie the problematic difficult content knowledge, receive the least attention in
teaching.
170
Table 1. The relationship between content knowledge which may be conceptually difficult and troublesome, and pre-basic,
concepts, and threshold episteines
Content
Knowledge
f
Cellular
Metabolic
Processes
(Photosynthesis &
Respiration)
\
Genetics
^
Pre-basic
Concepts
Basic
Concepts
Plant, Animal,
Living,
Breathing
Gases/Air
Pigmentation, Chloroplast/
Chlorophyll, Mitochondria,
Membranes, Cells, GasesCVCOj, Wavelength,
Enzvmcs
Families,
Generation,
Inheritance,
Breeding,
Farming, Sex,
Growth
DNA, Chromosomes,
Gametes, Stage names (e.g.
centromere). Cellular repair,
Reproductive processes.
Location of genes
and units of inheritance
Farming,
Breeding
Adaptation, Physical
inheritance of
characteristics
Discipline
Concepts
Light/Dark cycles,
Photolysis, Electron
Threshold Concepts or
Procedural Conceptual
Change
i
k
Surface area to volume
ratio, drinking at
4
H
=J
Protein Synthesis
No pre-basic
&
DNA, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA.
Amino acids, Ribosomcs,
Nucleus, Cytoplasm,
Enzymes
Transport Chain, Energy
Conversion
(light-chemical), Carbon fixation
-(gas-solid), Sugar-ATP
basic, discipline and threshold
\
submicroscopic & m
subcellular level. Scale, ¥/
Energy transformations,
Thermodynamics
Web of Threshold
Concepts or
Epistcmes
Discrete characteristics,
A
l
l
e
l
e
s
G
e
n
e
s
,
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
D
N
A
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
r
e
p
l
i
c
a
Variation, Discrete
Units, Reproductive
success, Randomness,
Scale-temporal
and spatial
t
i
o
n
.
G
e
n
e
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
f physical
characteristics. Best
suited/adapted to
reproduce. Time
Duplicated chromosomes,
Transport of information,
Movement, Linkage
between DNA, mRNA and
tRNA
Dynamic, Duplication,
Thinking at
submicroscopic &
subcellular level
Reproductive success,
Variation, Probability,
Scale - temporal
o
Acquisition of Language; Dimensionality; Complexity; Dynamism
......V*"
Table 1 (Continued.). The relationship between content knowledge which may be conceptually difficult and troublesome, andpre-basic, basic, discipline and
threshold concepts, and threshold epistemes
Content
Knowledge
Pre-basic
Concepts
^
Interaction of humans with
their environment
Ecology
Discipline
Concepts
Basic
Concepts
Populations, Communities,
Ecosystems, Prey/predator,
Mean. SD, SE,
Physicochcmical factors
Threshold Concepts
or Procedural
Conceptual Change
Experimental design. Niche
succession Sampling. Variation.
Life tables
-
Rigour. Reliability, .
Models, Probability, \
Randomness, Hypothetico-/
deductive reasoning. Null
hypothesis testing
T
Animal
Systems
^
H
J
L
Plant
systems
Regulation of metabolic
ll—tK
factors
fl-.. W
Maintenance,
Hormones
Energy
transformations
Surface Area to
Volume Ratio
Homeostasis
Balance
WebofThreshold
Concepts or
Epistemes
Variation
Equilibrium
Probability
Uncertainty
Breathing,
Waste removal,
Blood, Bones,
Movement,
Responding to stimuli.
Feeding,
Heart beating,
Seeing and hearing, Disease,
Reproduction
Roots/mouth in soils.
Seeds and seed cases
Leaves - green. Bark brown. Sap
Stationary, Non-responsive
Structure and function. Cells,
Tissues, Organ systems,
Bones,
Heart, Blood vessels arteries and veins, Urinarv
system -kidneys, Central
nervous system - neurons,
Sensory systems. Hormones
Structure and function, Transport
- xylem. phloem,
Growth - cambium,
Transpiration, Translocation,
Terminology - stomata,
epidermis, mesophyll
Enzymes'aclivation energy,
Life histories. Immune
response - antigens and
antibodies. Nerve action
.
potential, Active transport,
Muscle innervation
Diffusion/Osmosis
Responsiveness to
_
Proportional
reasoning
Surface area to volume ratio
Size/scale, ^
Cellularity,
Integration V
and
complexity
Predictive
Reasoning
Hypotheses
Surface area to volume ratio i
Size/scale X Cellularitv,
Integration and complexity
Photochemical responses.
Life histories - alternation of
generations
1
Testing
Randomness
Subcellular/
Macroscopic
Scale -temporal
and spatial
Integrated systems
(••••••••••■•••••••••••••••••••••••••■I
>••••••••>
Concentration
Acquisition of Language; Dimensionality; Complexity; Dynamism
• ••••
Equilibrium
THRESHOLDCONCEPTS
THRESHOLD CONCEPTS AND EVIDENCE
There is some evidence within the science education literature to support the
identification and classification of threshold concepts described above. A number
of researchers have identified students' lack of experience in 'thinking at the
cellular level' (Songer and Mintzes, 1994), particle theory (Meyer, 2007) and scale
(spatial and temporal) as causing conceptual difficulties(Russell, Netherwood and
Robinson, 2004; Canal, 1999; Ross and Tronson, 2004; Ross, Tronson and Ritchie,
2005; Ebert-May, Batzli and Heejun, 2003; Tretter and Jones 2003; Modell,
Michael and Wenderoth, 2005; Taylor, 2006). In two recent studies (Taylor, 2006;
2008), thinking at the submicroscopic or subcellular level and scale were frequently
identified by junior and experienced academics as threshold concepts. For example:
What is the scale at which you define something ...there are so many
different scales, you have to keep redefining all the time ...with this context
in mind (Taylor, 2008 p. 188).
Biochemistry works so well because you have all these little compartments
doing different things which link together and help things work at different
levels (Taylor, 2006 p. 94).
You've got to be able to think about water moving in cells and what's going
on across membranes and then see the intercellular level, and that feeds into
action potential and then muscles come in and how you move your elbow.
Then the whole thing comes together at a level where you can actually see
something happen (Taylor, 2006 p. 93).
You cannot see things which are subcellular in most cases, but students
expect to be able to see the structure of DNA under the microscope (Taylor,
2006 p. 94)
The model proposed in this paper refines Taylor's (2006, 2008) perspective of
process and abstract concepts, often encompassed in the same threshold concept.
We argue that many difficult and troublesome biological concepts are a web of
threshold concepts. For example the same threshold processes (energetics, dynamics,
dimensionality, submicroscopic, language and scale) in cellular metabolism are
essential in the development of an understanding of the troublesome knowledge of
photosynthesis. Similarly the threshold concepts of variability, dynamics, language
and scale are essential in an understanding of evolution and a combination of the
thresholds of dynamics, thinking at the submicroscopic level, dimensionality,
probability, language and scale are necessary to prevent the content of genetics
becoming troublesome. Further, the threshold concepts of variability and
probability are inherent in experimental design and analysis (Taylor, 2008). These
threshold concepts arc found throughout the sciences including chemistry and
physics and some cross disciplines into economics - in this way they are not
bounded (Meyer and Land, 2003; 2005). The mechanism for determining a threshold
in biology thus centres on its transformative, irreversible and integrative nature
(Meyer and Land, 2003; 2005), ways of thinking and practising (McCune and
Hounsell, 2005) and is parallel with the movement from the novice to expert.
173
ROSSETAL.
The novice often has a view of the discipline as isolated pieces of content to be
memorised as handed down by authority, but this changes as the novice progresses
throughout the undergraduate degree to an understanding of the underlying
coherence and structure of the discipline (Schommer, 1988; 1993).
IMPLICATION FOR IDENTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD CONCEPTS IN BIOLOGY
Certainly the heuristic of threshold concepts allows insights not offered by the
misconception and constructivist literature, raising a number of questions for the
development of teaching in biology. For example, where should we be spending
our energies as teachers of biology? If we continue to spend our entire time with the
basic and discipline concepts, how will our students be able to develop the tools or
facility with threshold concepts required to develop a solid understanding of
troublesome content? Perhaps using the threshold heuristic we can devise ways to
help the students develop the crossing or portals and thereby develop a better
understanding of hitherto troublesome knowledge. What is clear from the literature, is
how difficult it has been to change students' misconceptions into more scientific
conceptions (Duit and Treagust, 1998; Gabel, 1994) perhaps because of the
assumption that learning is rational (Posner et al, 1982) and the notion that
misconceptions are stable, dependent on the context and individual orientation
(Tytler and Peterson, 2004). They may not be. Tytler (2007) suggests a focus on the
development of a mental representation of concepts and an integration of different
representational models of learning and a socio-cultural approach for shared meaning
with high quality conceptual discussion to create conceptual change. It may be that
the surfacing of the tacit threshold game within disciplines, through analytic
discussion, deliberative practice and alignment of the threshold with instructional
approaches could make a big difference to the teaching and learning within
disciplines. We do know that experts can transfer across contexts (Hesketh and
Ivancic, 2002) and perhaps we can assist students explicitly to cross these
thresholds across contexts and thus make troublesome content less troublesome.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Future work is needed to: test the hypothesis that the threshold concepts outlined in
this paper underlie difficult Biological concepts; develop intervention strategies to
improve student mastery of these processes with the aim of improving their
understanding in one or more related concept areas, (that is, to help the students
cross a conceptual threshold); and finally to test whether students can subsequently
transfer this thinking process to aid their understanding of other similarly difficult
content (that is, to see if they have learnt how to cross unfamiliar thresholds). Since
threshold concepts are meant to reflect the difference in ways of thinking and
practising between those who are inside the subject and acknowledged as experts
in the field (academics), and novices (students), we propose that future empirical
studies should focus on these underlying threshold processes with a view to
characterising and evaluating effective teaching intervention strategies.
174
THRESHOLD CONCEPTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is being undertaken collaboratively by academics from three
Universities in Australia: the University of Sydney; the University of New South
Wales; and the University of Western Sydney, funded through the Australian
Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC).
REFERENCES
Alparsian, C, Tckkaya, C, & Gcban, O. (2003). Using the conceptual change instruction to improve
learning. Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 133-137. Brown, C. R. (1995). The effective
leaching of Biology. London: Longman. Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and 'inverse respiration' in
plants: An inevitable misconception?
International Journal of Science Education, 21(A), 363-371. Davies, P. (2006). Threshold concepts:
How can we recognise them? In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.),
Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge
(pp. 70-85). Abingdon: Routlcdge. Davies, P., & Mangan, J. (2007). Threshold concepts and the
integration of understanding in economics.
Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 711-726. Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes,
UK: Open University Press. Driver, R. (1985). Beyond appearances: The conservation of matter under
physical and chemical transformations. In R. Driver, E. Guesnc, & A, Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in
science (pp. 145-169).
Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms:
A review of literature related to concept
development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, J, 61-84. Driver, R., &
Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. The
School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456, Driver, R„ Guesne, E, & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's
ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open
University Press. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making
sense of secondary
science: Research into children's ideas. New York: Routlcdge. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998).
Learning in science: From behaviourism towards constructivism and
beyond. In B. J. Eraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-25).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwcr. Ebert-May, D., Batzli, J., & Heejun, L. (2003). Disciplinary
research strategics for assessment of
learning. BioScience, 53(\2), 1221-1228. Eisen, Y., & Stavy, R. (1992). Material cycles in nature: A
new approach to teaching photosynthesis in
junior high school. The American biology Teacher, 54(6), 339-342. Eisen, Y., & Stavy, R. (1993).
How to make learning of photosynthesis more relevant. International
Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 117-125. Flavell, J. II. (1963). The developmental psychology of
Jean Piaget. Journal of Research Science Teachers
Association, 2(3), 267. Gabel, G. L. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning:
A project of the national
science teachers association. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Good, R. G. (1977). How
children learn Science: Conceptual development and implications for
teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Griffard, P. B. (2001). The two-tier instrument on
photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International
Journal of Science Education, 23(\0), 1039-1052. Hesketh, B., & Ivancic, K. (2002). Enhancing
performance through training. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.),
Psychological management of individual performance. New York: Wiley.
175
ROSSETAL.
Kose, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World
Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283-293. Klymkowski, M. W., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008).
Recognizing student misconceptions through Ed's tools
and the Biology concept inventory. PlosBiology, 6\\), 14-15. Retrieved from www.plosbiology.org
Mann, M., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students' conceptions
of breathing, gas exchange and respiration. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(2), 55-59.
McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2005). The development of students' ways of thinking and practising in
three final-year biology courses. Higher Education, 49,255-289. .Meyer, H. (2007). Is it molecules?
Again? A review of students' learning about particle theory.
Chemical Education Journal. Retrieved from http://www.juen.ac.jp/scien/cssj/cejmlE.html Meyer, J.,
& Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of
thinking and practising within the disciplines. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in
Undergraduate Courses. Occasional Report 4. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and
troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological
considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49,373-388.
Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: An introduction. In
J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold
concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 3-19). Abingdon: Routledge. Modell, H., Michael, J., &
Wenderoth, M. P. (2005). Helping the learner to learn: The role of
uncovering misconceptions. The American Biology Teacher, 67(1), 20-26. Osborne, R., & Freyberg,
P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children s science.
New Zealand: Heinemann Publishers. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11. Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In
J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.),
Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge
(pp. 33-48). Abingdon: Routledge. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and
values of students in a liberal art
college: A validation of a scheme. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A.
(1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,2\ 1-227. Ross, P. M., &
Tronson, D. (2004). Towards conceptual understanding: Bringing research findings into
the lecture theatre in tertiary science teaching. In Proceedings of scholarly inquiry into science
teaching and learning symposium (pp. 52-57). Sydney, NSW: UniServe Science. Ross, P. M., &
Tronson, D. (2007). Intervening to create conceptual change. UniServe Science Teaching
and Learning Research Proceedings, 89-94. Ross, P. M., Tronson, D., & Ritchie, R. J. (2005).
Modelling photosynthesis to increase conceptual
understanding. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 84-88. Russell, A. W., Netherwood, G. M. A.,
& Robinson, S. A. (2004). Photosynthesis insilico. Overcoming
the challenges of photosynthesis education using a multimedia CD-ROM. Bioscience Education
e-journal, 3. Seymour, J., & Longdon, B. (1991). Respiration - that's breathing isn't it? Journal of
Biological
Education, 25(3), 177-183. Schommer, Z. M. (1988). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge
on comprehension. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504. Schommer, Z. M. (1993). Comparison of beliefs about
the nature of knowledge and learning among
postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 355-370. Songer, C. J., & Mintzes, J.
J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual
changes in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 621-637. Stavy, R.,
Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 13-15 understand photosynthesis.
International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 105-115. Stavy, R., & Wax, N. (1989). Children's
conceptions of plants as living things. Human Development,
32,88-94.
176
THRESHOLD CONCEPTS
Taylor, C. (2006). Threshold concepts in biology: Do they fit the definition? In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land
(Eds.), Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge (pp. 87-99). Abingdon: Routledge. Taylor, C. E. (2008). Threshold concepts, troublesome
knowledge and ways of thinking and practising can we tell the difference in Biology? In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold
concepts in the disciplines (pp. 185-197). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Tretter, T.
R., & Jones, G. M. (2003). A sense of scale: Studying how scale affects systems and
organisms. The Science Teacher, 70, 22-25. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education:
Engaging students in science for Australia's future.
Australian Educational Review, No. 51. Australian Council for Education Research, ACER press.
Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). Young children learning about evaporation: A
longitudinal
perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4{\), 111-126.
Wandersee, J. 11. (1983). Students' misconceptions about photosynthesis: A cross-age study. In 11. Helm &
J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international seminar on misconceptions in science and
mathematics (pp. 441-463). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Wandersee, J. II., Mintzes, J. J., &
Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science.
In G. L. Gabcl (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the
national science teachers association. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Yip, D. Y.
(1998). Identification of misconceptions in novice biology teachers and remedial strategies
for improving biology learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 461-477.
' Pauline Ross
College of Health and Science University of
Western Sydney, Australia Locked Bag 1797,
Penrith South DC, 1797 Penrith South DC 1797,
Sydney, Australia Corresponding author pm.
ross@uws. edit, an
'Charlotte Taylor and Vicky Tzioumis
School of Biological Sciences University of
Sydney Sydney 2006, Australia
Chris Hughes
School of Public Health and Community Medicine
University of New South Wales Sydney, 2052, Australia
3Louise
Lulze-Mann and Noel Whitaker
School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences
University of New South Wales
Sydney, 2052, Australia
3Michelle
Kofod Australian School
of Business University of New
South Wales Sydney, 2052,
Australia
177