Skip to main content

Modular Approach and Innovations in an Engineering Program Design

  • Chapter
Threshold Concepts in Practice

Part of the book series: Educational Futures ((EDUFUT))

Abstract

The review and restructure of the undergraduate Engineering program at Macquarie University created an opportunity to consider the basic structures and intentions of the degree program. The opportunity to move away from the traditional standard approach of large, disconnected units with little overlap or continuity and the potential for redundancy and duplication within the curriculum, was informed by an increasing awareness of and exposure to the principles of threshold concepts in contemporary education theory.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AQF Council. (2013). Australian qualifications framework (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.aqf.edu.au/

  • Bolsius, J., & Williams, B. (2013). ‘Bridging that Gap’ between foundation degrees and top-up to honours level: The transition experiences of students entering level 6 at the University of Worcester. University of Worcester Academic Development and Practice Unit Research Document. Retrieved from http://www.worc.ac.uk/adpu/documents/Briony_Williams_Bridging_the_Gap.pdf

  • Bradley, A. (2008). Engineers Australia Accreditation Criteria Guidelines (Document G02 30/8/08). Engineers Australia, (2011) Stage 1 Competency Standard for Professional Engineer. Retrieved from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/about-us/program-accreditation

  • Carstensen, A-K., & Bernhard, J. (2013, September 16–20). To learn a complex concept is to keep more than one concept in focal awareness simultaneously – An example from electrical engineering. 41st SEFI Conference, Leuven, Belgium. Retrieved from http://www.sefi.be/conference-2013/images/179.pdf

  • Flanagan, M. (2013). Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and professional development a short introduction and bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education. Final Report, ALTC Senior Fellowship Program. Retrieved from http://fyhe.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Kift-Sally-ALTC-Senior-Fellowship-Report-Sep-092.pdf

  • Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H. F., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. Improving Student Learning – equality and diversity. Oxford: OCSLD

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, C., & Carden, R. (2010). Learning leaps: Making the transition from foundation degreeto BA/BSc Top-Up in HLST subjects. Higher Education Academy Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Project Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge – Linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning – Ten years on. 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. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of liminality. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 19–32). London & New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A., & McGill, D. (2009). Top-down synthesis of an engineering program of study. Proceedings of AaeE, Adelaide (pp. 1063–1068).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A., & McGill, D. (2014). Modularisation of learning outcomes in terms of threshold. Waikato Journal of Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Waikato, 19(2), 105–114. Retrieved from http://wje.org.nz

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., & Harlow, A. (2012). Identification of threshold concepts involved in early electronics: Some new methods and results. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), 18(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., Harlow, A., Peter, M., & Cowie, B. (2010). Threshold concepts and introductory electronics. Proceedings of AaeE, Sydney, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., Peter, M., & Harlow, A. (2012, August 20–23). An electronics threshold-concept inventory: Assessment in the face of the dependency of concepts. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE) 2012, Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Parker, A., Mcgill, D. (2016). Modular Approach and Innovations in an Engineering Program Design. In: Land, R., Meyer, J.H.F., Flanagan, M.T. (eds) Threshold Concepts in Practice. Educational Futures. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8_14

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-512-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics