Dealing with Threshold Concepts in Serious Games for Competence Development

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7528)


This paper presents an approach to integrate Threshold Concepts into a Serious Game based learning platform aimed at learning soft skills such as leadership, stakeholder involvement and negotiation. Threshold Concepts are concepts that once grasped, transform the way a learner sees a discipline, marking the difference between a novice and an expert. However, learners have difficulties when dealing with Threshold Concepts as they are counter intuitive. Therefore the design of a Serious Game needs to take into account the existence of Threshold Concept that may affect the overall learning experience of the learner, and subsequently design recovery actions when the hoped learning effect does not take place. In this paper we describe what Threshold Concepts are and how they were taken into consideration in the scope of the TARGET project when doing the design of the Game-Based learning platform.


Threshold Concepts Serious Games Game-Based Learning Competence Development 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Meyer, E., Flanagan, M.: Exploring transformative dimensions of threshold concepts (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer, J., Land, R.: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines. Technical report, Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project, Higher and Community Education, School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pang, M.F., Meyer, J.H.F.: 22. In: Modes of Variation in Pupils’ Apprehension of a Threshold Concept in Economics, pp. 365–381. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cousin, G.: Transactional curriculum inquiry: researching threshold concepts. In: Researching Learning in Higher Education: an Introduction to Contemporary Methods and Approaches. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perkins, D.: Threshold Experiences: Moving Concepts from Object to Instrument to Action (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flanagan, M., Hokstad, L.M., Zimmermann, M., Ackermann, G., Andersen, B.R., Fradinho, M.: Transformational Learning and Serious Game Design (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A.C.: Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Comput. Educ. 51(4), 1729–1743 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen, S.A., Fradinho, M., Bedek, M., Seitlinger, P., Santos, G., Campelo, F., Ekambaram, S.: D11.2 - Stakeholder Management. Technical report, TARGET project, Seventh Framework Programme (Grant Agreement N 231717) (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duin, H., Cerinsek, G.: D11.4 - Sustainable Global Manufacturing. Technical report, TARGET project, Seventh Framework Programme (Grant Agreement N 231717) (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petersen, S.A., Fradinho, M., Ekambaram, S., Zimmermann, M.: D11.3 - Social Architect. Technical report, TARGET project, Seventh Framework Programme (Grant Agreement N 231717) (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bedek, M., Petersen, S.: From Behavioral Indicators to Contextualized Competence Assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, J.H.F., Land, R., Davies, P.I.: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (4): issues of variation and variability, pp. 59–74. Sense Publishers (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dienes, Z.P.: A theory of Mathematics Learning. C. A. Jones Pub. Co. (1973)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marton, F., Pang, M.F.: On Some Necessary Conditions of Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 15(2), 193–220 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marton, F., Runesson, U., Tsui, A.B.M.: The space of learning. In: Marton, F., Tsui, A.B.M. (eds.) Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning, pp. 3–42. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CyntelixBarneveldThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.SINTEFTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations