Abstract
The threshold concepts approach to student learning and curriculum design now informs an empirical research base comprising over 170 disciplinary and professional contexts. It draws extensively on the notion of troublesomeness in a ‘liminal’ space of learning. The latter is a transformative state in the process of learning in which there is a reformulation of the learner’s meaning frame and an accompanying shift in the learner’s ontology or subjectivity. Within the extensive literature on threshold concepts, however, the notion of liminal space has remained relatively ill-defined. This paper explores this spatial metaphor to help clarify the difficulties that some teachers observe in the classroom in regard to their students’ understanding. It employs a novel and distinctive approach drawn from semiotic theory to to provide some explanatory insight into learning within the liminal space and render it more open to analysis. The paper develops its argument through four distinct phases. Firstly it explores the spatial metaphor of liminality to gain further purchase on the nature of this transformative space. The second section introduces semiotic theory and indicates how this will be used through a series of graphical and visual devices to render the liminal space more open to analysis. The third section then employs semiotic analysis to nine dimensions of pedagogical content knowledge to gain further insight into what may characterise student conceptual difficulty within the liminal state. The fourth and concluding section emphasises the role of context in conceptual discrimination before advocating a transactional curriculum inquiry approach to future research in this field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ayer, F. (1956). The problem of knowledge. London: MacMillan.
Baillie, C., Kabo, J., Reader, J. (2012). Heterotopia: Alternative pathways to social justice. Winchester and Washington: Zero Books.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive developmental pedagogy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., Strauss A. L. (2005). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Transaction publishers. Reprint of the 1961 edition published by the Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cousin, G. (2008). Threshold concepts: Old wine in new bottles or new forms of transactional curriculum inquiry? In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
Flanagan, M. (2013). Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and professional development. A short introduction and bibliography. London: University College. Available at: http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html. Accessed 29 June 2013.
Gomm, R. (2004). Social research methodology: A critical introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
HLGMHE (High Level Group for the Modernisation of Higher Education). (2013). Report to the European commission on improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Luxenbourg: Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union.
James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. Being the clifford lectures on natural theology delivered at edinburgh 1902–1902. London and Bombay: Longmans, Green and Co.
Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P., & Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: A new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 388–396.
Kerdeman, D. (2003). Pulled up short: Challenging self-understanding as a focus of teaching and learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(2), 293–308.
Kloss, R. J. (1992). A nudge is best: Helping students through the perry scheme of intellectual development. College Teaching, 42(4), 151–158.
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 learning 12: Diversity and inclusivity (pp. 53–64). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77(3), 293–300.
Lucas, U. (2000). Worlds apart: Students’ experiences of learning introductory accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11(4), 479–504.
Lucas, U. (2008). Being “pulled up short”: Creating moments of surprise and possibility in accounting education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(3), 383–403.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 373–388.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.
Orsini-Jones, M. (2006). Identifying troublesome concepts and helping undergraduates with crossing grammar thresholds via assessed collaborative group work, Threshold Concepts within the Disciplines Symposium, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 30 Aug–1 Sept 2006.
Pace, D., Diaz, A., Middendorf, J., Shopkow, L. (2012). Mastering a threshold concept through decoding the disciplines. Paper delivered at 5th Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference, Trinity College, Dublin, 28th June 2012.
Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge in: Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, edited by Jan H. F. Meyer and Ray Land, (pp. 33–47) London and New York: Routledge.
Proust, M. (1900). On reading ruskin. In prefaces to la bible d’Amiens and sesame et les lys with selections from the notes to the translated texts. Translated and Edited (1987) by Jean Autret, William Burford, Phillip J. Wolfe, with an introduction by Richard Macksey. Newhaven CT: Yale University Press.
Ross, J. (2011). Unmasking online reflective practices in higher education. Unpublished Ph. D thesis. University of Edinburgh.
Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. C., Bally, Sechehaye, A. (eds) with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger, Lausanne and Paris: Payot; trans. W. Baskin, Course in General Linguistics, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1977.
Scheja, M. (2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase: Students’ perceptions of their study situation. Higher Education, 52(3), 421–445.
Schwartzman, L. (2010). Transcending disciplinary boundaries: A proposed theoretical foundation for threshold concepts. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 21–44). Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Taylor, C. E. (2008). Threshold concepts, troublesome knowledge and ways of thinking and practising. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishing.
Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnson, R. (2002). Self and experience in adult learning. In R. Harrison (Ed.), Supporting lifelong learning: Perspectives on learning (pp. 78–90). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Vivian, P. (2012). A new symbol based writing system for use in illustrating basic dynamics. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Coventry University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Land, R., Rattray, J. & Vivian, P. Learning in the liminal space: a semiotic approach to threshold concepts. High Educ 67, 199–217 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9705-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9705-x