Medical Science Educator

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 673–684 | Cite as

Analysis of Alternative Strategies for the Teaching of Difficult Threshold Concepts in Large Undergraduate Medicine and Science Classes

  • Sven K. DelaneyEmail author
  • James Mills
  • Anne Galea
  • Rebecca LeBard
  • John Wilson
  • Karen J. Gibson
  • Geoff Kornfeld
  • Bill Ashraf
Original Research



Threshold concepts have a transformative effect on student understanding and are often difficult or ‘troublesome’. Students in undergraduate Medicine and Science must understand many threshold concepts, but are often presented with these ideas in large introductory classes with limited individual assistance. Effective approaches for the teaching of threshold concepts have not been evaluated in this context.


Students in two large introductory Medicine and Science classes at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) were taught a genetics threshold concept (the Hardy-Weinberg law) using a lecture-based simulation, small group tutorials, computer simulation and a variety of learning resources. Student knowledge of the concept was then assessed using a test and an examination. A survey and exploratory factor analysis were used to assess student responses to the different teaching methods.


Factor and survey response analysis showed that students in both Medicine and Science were divided in their preference for either small group tutorials or lecture-based simulations when learning difficult concepts. Medicine students showed a stronger preference for tutorials than Science students, and a proportion of Medicine students were anti-simulation. In contrast, Science students were more likely to report that the simulation improved their understanding. Students used all of the learning resources provided, but few students preferred computer simulation.


Students in large Science and Medicine classes are polarised in their preferences for the teaching of difficult threshold concepts. This suggests that introductory courses will only effectively teach difficult concepts if they use a variety of teaching approaches. This has important implications for course design and resourcing and provides a foundation for the improved teaching of threshold concepts in undergraduate Medicine and Science.


Threshold concept Genetics Medical education Science education Undergraduate Hardy-Weinberg 



The authors would like to thank the many UNSW students and members of staff who assisted with this study. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following people to the organisation of the tutorial classes and the conduct and filming of the live simulation: Marie Kidd, Vanessa Huron, Pejhman Keshvardoust, Katie Taylor, Abigail Greenfield, Jessica Groen, Brett Hoppenbrouwer and Michael Rampe. We are also grateful to Professor Lambert Schuwirth (School of Medicine, Flinders University) for advice on data analysis.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study received ethics approval from UNSW (reference number HC12217) and Flinders University of South Australia (project OH-00041).

Statement on Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40670_2017_453_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (95.1 mb)
ESM 1 (MP4 97,399 kb)
40670_2017_453_MOESM2_ESM.docx (153 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 152 kb)


  1. 1.
    Meyer JHF, Land R. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. High Educ. 2005;49(3):373–88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer J, Land R (2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Enhancing Teaching-Learning (ETL) Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
  3. 3.
    Flanagan MT, Smith J. From playing to understanding: the transformative potential of discourse versus syntax in learning to program. In: Land R, Meyer JHF, Smith J, editors. Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2008. p. 91–104.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Land R, Meyer JHF, Baillie C. Editors’ preface: threshold concepts and transformational learning. In: Land RM, Meyer JHF, Baillie C, editors. Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2010. p. xi–xli.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flanagan MT (2017) Threshold concepts: undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, professional development and school education. A short introduction and a bibliography. Accessed 25 April 2017.
  6. 6.
    Neve H, Wearn A, Collett T. What are threshold concepts and how can they inform medical education? Med Teach. 2016;38(8):850–3. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1112889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barradell S, Peseta T. Putting threshold concepts to work in health sciences: insights for curriculum design from a qualitative research synthesis. Teach High Educ. 2017;22(3):349–72. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1248390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ross PM, Taylor CE, Hughes C, Kofod M, Whitaker N, Lutze-Mann L, et al. Threshold concepts: challenging the culture of teaching and learning biology. In: Meyer JHF, Land R, Baillie C, editors. Threshold concepts: from theory to practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2010. p. 165–78.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quinnell R, Thompson R, LeBard RJ. It’s not maths; it’s science: exploring thinking dispositions, learning thresholds and mindfulness in science learning. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol. 2013;44(6):808–16. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2013.800598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adams DJ. Current trends in laboratory class teaching in university bioscience programmes. Biosci Educ. 2009;13(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelbart H, Brill G, Yarden A. The impact of a web-based research simulation in bioinformatics on students’ understanding of genetics. Res Sci Educ. 2009;39(5):725–51. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9101-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hickey DT, Kindfield ACH, Horwitz P, Christie MAT. Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Am Educ Res J. 2003;40(2):495–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pukkila PJ. Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes. Genetics. 2004;166(1):11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sved JA. Genetics computer teaching simulation programs: promise and problems. Genetics. 2010;185(4):1537–40. doi: 10.1534/genetics.110.116640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonwell CC. Enhancing the lecture: revitalizing a traditional format. New Dir Teach Learn. 1996;67:31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(23):8410–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee SWY, Tsai CC. Technology-supported learning in secondary and undergraduate biological education: observations from literature review. J Sci Educ Technol. 2013;22(2):226–33. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9388-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beneski JT (2017) Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. beneski/projects/webplots/applets/HW-model/hw.html. Accessed 30 April 2017.
  19. 19.
    MacDonald P. Power, type I, and type III error rates of parametric and nonparametric statistical tests. J Exp Educ. 1999;67:367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Winter JCF, Dodou D. Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2010;15(11):1–16.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: SAGE; 2013.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meterko M, Restuccia JD, Stolzmann K, Mohr D, Brennan C, Glasgow J, et al. Response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality: results from a national survey of senior healthcare leaders. Public Opin Q. 2015;79(1):130–44. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfu052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Balasooriya CD, Hughes C, Toohey S. Impact of a new integrated medicine program on students’ approaches to learning. High Educ Res Dev. 2009;28(3):289–302. doi: 10.1080/07294360902839891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hutcheson G, Sofroniou N. The multivariate social scientist. London: SAGE; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Joolingen WR, De Jong T, Dimitrakopoulou A. Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. J Comput Assist Learn. 2007;23(2):111–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horn C, Snyder BP, Coverdale JH, Louie AK, Roberts LW. Educational research questions and study design. Acad Psychiatry. 2009;33(3):261–7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.33.3.261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven K. Delaney
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • James Mills
    • 1
    • 4
  • Anne Galea
    • 1
  • Rebecca LeBard
    • 1
  • John Wilson
    • 1
  • Karen J. Gibson
    • 2
  • Geoff Kornfeld
    • 1
  • Bill Ashraf
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular SciencesUniversity of New South Wales (UNSW)SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Medical SciencesUniversity of New South Wales (UNSW)SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Flinders School of MedicineFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia
  4. 4.Department of (Neuro) Pathology, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Learning and Teaching EnhancementCanterbury Christ Church UniversityKentUK

Personalised recommendations