This article revisits the notion that to facilitate quality learning requires teachers in higher education to have pedagogical content knowledge. It constructs pedagogical content knowledge as a teaching and learning space that brings content and pedagogy together. On the content knowledge side, it suggests that threshold concepts, akin to a portal that opens up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about a subject, are useful in quality learning. On the pedagogy side, it employs student engagement as a useful proxy for identifying what happens in a learning environment to achieve quality learning. This article asks what fresh insights might this particular conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge afford teacher education and teacher development in achieving quality learning in higher education. After outlining characteristics of threshold concepts and student engagement, it brings together the contributions these concepts make to pedagogical content knowledge before detailing some fresh insights afforded by the synthesis.
ÅkerlindGCarr-GreggSFieldR. (2010) A threshold concepts focus to first year law curriculum design: Supporting student learning using variation theory. In: Presentation at 13th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education (FYHE) Conference, 27-30 June, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
2.
Australian Council for Educational Research (2008) Attracting, engaging and retaining: New conversations about learning. Australasian student engagement report. Camberwell, VIC, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
3.
BarnettR (2008) A Will to Learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
4.
BlackieMCaseMJawitzJ (2010) Student centeredness: The link between transforming students and transforming ourselves. Teaching in Higher Education15(6): 637–46.
5.
BrysonCHandL (2007) The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International44(4): 349–62.
6.
CousinG (2006) An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet17: 4–5.
7.
DaviesP (2006) Threshold concepts: How can we recognize them? In: MeyerJLandR (eds) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge. London: Routledge, pp. 70–84.
8.
DavisBSumaraD (2008) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching and Research. London: Routledge.
9.
DeciERyanR (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry11(4): 227–68.
10.
EntwistleN (2003) Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning the ETL project. Occasional Report 3, Enhancing teaching–learning environment in undergraduate courses. Available at: http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport3.pdf
11.
EntwistleN (2010) Taking stock: An overview of key research findings. In: HughesJCMightyJ (eds) Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Montreal, QC, Canada and Kingston, ON, Canada: McGill-Queens’s University Press, pp. 45–81.
12.
FredricksJBlumenfeldPParisA (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74(1): 59–109.
13.
HockingsCCookeSYamashitaH. (2008) Switched off? A study of disengagement among computing students at two universities. Research Papers in Education23(2): 191–201.
14.
HuSKuhG (2003) Maximizing what students get out of college: Testing a learning productivity model. Journal of College Student Development44(2): 185–203.
15.
IrvineNCarmichaelP (2009) Threshold concepts: A point of focus for practitioner research. Active Learning in Higher Education10(2): 103–19.
16.
JamesRKrauseK-LJenningsC (2010) The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
17.
KinzieJ (2010) Student engagement and learning experiences that matter. In: HughesJCMightyJ (eds) Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Montreal, QC, Canada and Kingston, ON, Canada: McGill-Queens’s University Press, pp. 139–54.
KuhGKinzieJSchuhJ. (2005) Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
LandRCousinGMeyerJ. (2006) Conclusion: Implications of threshold concepts for course design and evaluation. In: MeyerJLandR (eds) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge. London: Routledge, pp. 195–207.
21.
LucasUMladenovicR (2007) The potential of threshold concepts: An emerging framework for educational research and practice. London Review of Education5(3): 237–48.
22.
MasonM (2008) What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change?Educational Philosophy and Theory40(1): 35–49.
23.
McDanielRJrJordanM (2009) Complexity and postmodern theory. In: JohnsonJ (ed.) Health Organizations: Theory, Behavior, and Development. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, pp. 63–84.
24.
McInnisC (2003) New realities of the student experience: How should universities respond?Paper presented at the European Association for Institutional Research 25th Annual Conference, Limerick.
25.
MearnsKMeyerJBharadwajA (2007) Student engagement in human biology practical sessions. In: Refereed paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Forum, 30–31 January, Curtin University of Technology. Available at: http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2007/refereed/mearns.html
26.
MeyerJLandR (2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within disciplines. Occasional Report 4, Enhancing teaching–learning environment in undergraduate courses. Available at: http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf
27.
MeyerJLandR (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education49(3): 373–88.
28.
MishraPKoehlerM (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record108(6): 1017–54.
29.
MoranEGonyeaT (2003) The influence of academically-focused peer interaction on college students’ development. British Journal of Educational Psychology75(3): 373–390.
30.
PascarellaETerenziniP (2005) How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
RogersC (1983) Freedom to Learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
32.
SchuetzP (2008) A theory-driven model of community college student engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice32: 305–24.
33.
ShulmanL (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher15(2): 4–14.
34.
ShulmanL (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review57(1): 1–22.
35.
TownsendLBrunettiKHoferA (2011) Threshold concepts and information literacy. Portal: Libraries and the Academy11(3): 853–69.
