Context Specific Language: Critical to Student Learning

  • Ian FrostEmail author
  • Emma Gronow
Part of the Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management book series (THEM)


This chapter explores the challenges of recontextualising discipline and vocationally situated knowledge into the academic curriculum. Two case studies are presented that whilst discussing contrasting perspectives are characterised by language that may be particularly complex to learn. The first of the case studies considers the recontextualising of accounting discipline knowledge to a vocationally applied context and the second case study explores the codification of experience and knowledge of wine studies for the academic curriculum. Threshold concepts literature is reviewed as a framework for this recontextualisation to identify that which is troublesome to learn. Understanding the nature of knowledge as tacit and explicit and the space in which knowledge is created provides further insight into transformative points in the student learning experience. Both case studies found that language and vocabulary and the influence of the students’ biography to this were significant to the student learning experience. Practical implications for pedagogy are to provide the experience for which students may attach meaning to the language of the subject and thereby enhance their learning.


Threshold concepts Accounting Wine studies Tacit knowledge Curriculum Pedagogy 


  1. Akerlind, G., McKenzie, J., & Lupton, M. (2011). A threshold concept focus to curriculum design: Supporting student learning through application of variation theory. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.Google Scholar
  2. Andrade, M. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayers, A. (1963). Can there be a private language? The concept of a person: And other essays. London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, M. (2006). Vocational knowledge and vocational pedagogy. In M. Young & J. Gamble (Eds.), Knowledge, curriculum and qualifications for South African further education (pp. 143–157). Pretoria: HSRC Press.Google Scholar
  5. Charters, S. (2003). Perceptions of wine quality (Doctoral dissertation). Edith Cowan University, Perth.Google Scholar
  6. Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2005). Is wine consumption an aesthetic experience? Journal of Wine Research, 16(2), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17(1), 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J., Docherty, C. A., & Dowling, K. (2016). Design thinking and innovation: Synthesising concepts of knowledge co-creation in spaces of professional development. Design Journal, 19(1), 117. Scholar
  11. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Maryland: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
  12. Engemann, K. (2017). Knowledge management. In S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Sage encyclopedia of industrial and organisational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 844–849). University of North Carolina, Charlotte: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Gascoigne, N., & Thornton, T. (2013). Tacit knowledge. Durham: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, E. (2008). An investigation into pedagogical challenges facing international tertiary-level students in New Zealand. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(3), 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karunaratne, P. S. M., Breyer, Y. A., & Wood, L. N. (2016). Transforming the economics curriculum by integrating threshold concepts. Education+Training, 58(5), 492–509. Scholar
  16. Lucas, U., & Mladenovic, R. (2006). Developing new ‘world views’: Threshold concepts in introductory accounting. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 148–159). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Lucas, U. (2000). Worlds apart: Students’ experiences of learning introductory accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11(4), 479–504. Scholar
  18. McIlveen, P. (2008). Autoethnography as a method for reflexive research and practice in vocational psychology. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(2), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: An introduction. In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 3–18). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines (ETL Project Occasional Report No. 4). Retrieved from
  21. Meyer, J. H. F., Knight, D. B., Baldock, T. E., Callaghan, D. P., McCredden, J., & O’Moore, L. (2016). What to do with a threshold concept: A case study. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & M. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold concepts in practice (pp. 195–209). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Muller, J. (2009). Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba, and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  28. Puusa, A., & Eerikäinen, M. (2010). Is tacit knowledge really tacit? Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 307–318.Google Scholar
  29. Rodger, S. & Turpin, M. (2011). Using threshold concepts to transform entry level curricula. In Krause, K., Buckridge, M., Grimmer, C., & Purbrick-Illek, S. (Eds.), Research and development in higher education: Reshaping higher education (Vol. 34, pp. 263–274). Gold Coast, Australia, July 4–7, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 148–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Shay, S. (2013). Conceptualizing curriculum differentiation in higher education: A sociology of knowledge point of view. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(4), 563–582. Scholar
  34. Silby, A., & Watts, M. (2015). Making the tacit explicit: Children’s strategies for classroom writing. British Educational Research Journal [serial online]. October 1, 41(5), 801–819. Accessed October 26, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management [serial online]. 5(4), 311. Available from: Emerald Insight, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 26, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young, M. (2010). The future of education in a knowledge society: The radical case for a subject-based curriculum. Pacific-Asian Education, 22(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
  37. Zappavigna, M. (2013). Tacit knowledge and spoken discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.William Angliss InstituteMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations