Skip to main content

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

Medical Science Educator volume 27, pages 673–684 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.

  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. 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. Flanagan MT (2017) Threshold concepts: undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training, professional development and school education. A short introduction and a bibliography. https://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html. Accessed 25 April 2017.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Adams DJ. Current trends in laboratory class teaching in university bioscience programmes. Biosci Educ. 2009;13(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pukkila PJ. Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes. Genetics. 2004;166(1):11–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sved JA. Genetics computer teaching simulation programs: promise and problems. Genetics. 2010;185(4):1537–40. doi:10.1534/genetics.110.116640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonwell CC. Enhancing the lecture: revitalizing a traditional format. New Dir Teach Learn. 1996;67:31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Beneski JT (2017) Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. http://darwin.wcupa.edu/ beneski/projects/webplots/applets/HW-model/hw.html. Accessed 30 April 2017.

  19. MacDonald P. Power, type I, and type III error rates of parametric and nonparametric statistical tests. J Exp Educ. 1999;67:367–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: SAGE; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hutcheson G, Sofroniou N. The multivariate social scientist. London: SAGE; 1999.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Sven K. Delaney, James Mills, Anne Galea, Rebecca LeBard, John Wilson & Geoff Kornfeld

  2. School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Karen J. Gibson

  3. Flinders School of Medicine, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia

    Sven K. Delaney

  4. Department of (Neuro) Pathology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    James Mills

  5. Learning and Teaching Enhancement, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK

    Bill Ashraf

Authors
  1. Sven K. Delaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Galea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebecca LeBard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karen J. Gibson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Geoff Kornfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bill Ashraf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven K. Delaney.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(MP4 97,399 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 152 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delaney, S.K., Mills, J., Galea, A. et al. Analysis of Alternative Strategies for the Teaching of Difficult Threshold Concepts in Large Undergraduate Medicine and Science Classes. Med.Sci.Educ. 27, 673–684 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0453-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0453-x

Keywords

  • Threshold concept
  • Genetics
  • Medical education
  • Science education
  • Undergraduate
  • Hardy-Weinberg