Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 913 de 957
the first regional workshop, designing open questions for the evaluation form, and
analysing these forms. A debrief was held with the project team, collaborators, and the
process facilitators following the first regional workshop.
Different groups of participants provided different kinds of data. For example, academics
raised high level concepts such as “Abstraction”. In contrast, students raised specific
difficulties such as the “k axis”. Tutors identified misunderstandings among first year
students, sources of these, and how it can feel for a student to be baffled by a
misunderstanding arising from a subject in which they previously enjoyed prowess.
Overcoming these misunderstandings would be epistemologically transformative.
An achievement of the methodology has been gaining trust among academics. This is
critical to curriculum development. Academics were initially wary of developing curricula
based on new rather than established methods. Shifts in attitude were apparent during
interviews. Our experience fits Cousin’s (2010) experience that threshold concepts engage
academics. We also found that the suggestion of threshold capability theory alleviated
some concerns. It weakened the significance of a definition of a “concept”, and provided a
way to help students overcome thresholds.
At the regional workshops, facilitators at the tables were valued by participants in the
feedback. Process facilitators’ notes were consistent with the following observations made
by Bowden, which also note the shift from skepticism, and the significance of variation
theory.
Initially, some participants were somewhat defensive and dismissive… Quickly the
discussions became more constructive… There was considerable cross-disciplinary
questioning and this was aided by the contributions of the process leader and
content leader assigned to each table. Their role was commented on favourably in
the evaluation reported later. (Bowden, 2011, p.3)
[After the break] there was still some difficulty in coming to an agreement about
just what was the threshold in any particular case or whether the stated threshold
on the list actually comprised more detailed sub-concepts that were the candidates
for the actual threshold concepts. In contrast there were groups that had focused
on over-arching thresholds that might not be threshold concepts but that are tools
through which we see the world. “Vectors” was suggested (Bowden, 2011, p.4)
This illustrates how the Integrating Phase allowed negotiation of thresholds. “Vectors” was
considered to underlie previously identified potential threshold concepts such as:
acceleration in curvilinear motion, and representing angular motion as a vector using the
axis of rotation. Additionally, “Conservation Principles” was seen to overarch conservation
of energy, mass, momentum and charge.
Conclusions
We have developed and tested a method of identifying and investigating threshold
concepts in a broadly defined course. The method entails interviews, focus groups and
workshops with students, tutors and academics in two stages: a Diverging Phase in which
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011