| Figures | ||
| 4.1 | A framework for studying dimensions of threshold concepts using mixed methods. | 48 |
| 4.2 | Integrative analytical strategies. | 52 |
| 7.1 | Toothless wolf. | 97 |
| 7.2 | Swinging girl. | 98 |
| 9.1 | Catalog nr. 342. | 127 |
| 9.2 | Catalog nr. 359. | 127 |
| 9.3 | Catalog nr. 366. | 128 |
| 9.4 | Catalog nr. 151. | 129 |
| 9.5 | Catalog nr. 316. | 129 |
| 9.6 | Catalog nr. 146. | 130 |
| 9.7 | Catalog nr. 309. | 131 |
| 9.8 | Catalog nr. 091. | 131 |
| 9.9 | Catalog nr. 145. | 132 |
| 9.10 | Catalog nr. 144. | 133 |
| 9.11 | Catalog nr. 085. | 133 |
| 9.12 | Catalog nr. 358. | 134 |
| 9.13 | Catalog nr. 311. | 134 |
| 9.14 | Catalog nr. 149. | 134 |
| 9.15 | Catalog nr. 091. | 136 |
| 9.16 | On the beach. | 137 |
| 10.1 | The hero’s journey and the threshold concept (adapted from Vogler, 2007; Meyer, Land, and Bailie, 2010, p. IX). | 141 |
| 10.2 | Adaption of ‘The hero’s journey’ figure (Vogler, 2007) and the threshold concept (Meyer, Land, and Bailie, 2010, p. IX) with student and staff reflections. | 150 |
| 11.1 | Systems influence diagram: Students’ learning in the TC tutorial programme. | 158 |
| 11.2 | Dimensions of transformation. | 165 |
| 12.1 | A learning taxonomy (Ciccone, 2018, p. 21). | 176 |
| 13.1 | Thematic relationships of identified stimuli. | 191 |
| 13.2 | Thematic relationships of identified moderators. | 193 |
| 13.3 | Matrix illustrating the relationship of the coding framework to the workplace sectors. | 200 |
| 17.1 | Design and procedure of the study. | 263 |
| Frequency distribution of the 48 different TC s mentioned by the students, with the top 4 mentioned by name. | 295 | |
| 19.2 | Degree of insight in environmental-scientific issues related to physics concepts. | 299 |
| 20.1 | BMELTEVEP participants by institution. | 314 |
| 20.2 | BMELTEVEP participants by L1 (first language). | 315 |
| 20.3 | BMELTEVEP pre-project survey – question ‘I am a bit worried about using technology to teach English’. | 318 |
| 20.4 | BMELTEVEP post-project survey – question ‘I am a bit worried about using technology to teach English’. | 318 |
| 24.1 | Depiction of students’ negotiation with the threshold of trustworthiness in the authentic translation project. | 391 |
| 25.1 | Initial model of scholarly teacher development. | 401 |
| 25.2 | Revised model of scholarly teacher development. | 404 |
| 25.3 | Drivers and restraints. | 404 |
| 27.1 | Simplified comparison and contrast of phenomenography to a threshold concept. | 440 |
| 27.2 | The learning steps through the threshold concept of interprofessionality. | 441 |
| 28.1 | An example to illustrate the visualisation of the plot of Taylor series approximation of cos (x) up to the 15th Degree. | 461 |
| 28.2 | Plotting the stationary points on 3D function showing local maxima, minima and saddle points. | 461 |
| 28.3 | Application example to Taylor series approximation. | 462 |
| 28.4 | Example of reflection on obtained results. | 463 |
| 30.1 | Adinkra symbol of Sankofa. | 479 |
| Tables | ||
| 2.1 | Assessment of student learning in threshold concepts-oriented teaching and learning. | 21 |
| 4.1 | Motivating questions for inquiry regarding threshold concepts. | 47 |
| 4.2 | Qualitative and quantitative evidence for a threshold concepts study. | 50 |
| 4.3 | Broad integration strategies in mixed methods designs. | 52 |
| 5.1 | Metacategories and categories of the study. | 62 |
| 5.2 | Researcher as a subject. | 63 |
| 5.3 | Subjectivity as the core of meaning generation. | 64 |
| 5.4 | Objectivity understood as intersubjectivity. | 65 |
| 12.1 | Positivist or constructivist? (Berenson, 2018, p. 44). | 176 |
| Interview participant demographics. | 190 | |
| 13.2 | Survey participant demographics. | 195 |
| 13.3 | Chi squared analyses of associations between teaching practices, and learning strategies with field (Business and Economics, Education, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Science). | 196 |
| 16.1 | Summary of themes resulting from thematic analysis of interviews and reflective writings. | 245 |
| 16.2 | Analysis of Theme 3, Student-centered instruction, with illustrative quotes and researcher memos. | 248 |
| 16.3 | Analysis of Theme 4, Teacherly presence, with illustrative quotes and researcher memos. | 251 |
| 17.1 | Y1 and Y4 participants at ASU and CRU. | 261 |
| 17.2 | Y4 Interviewees at ASU and CRU. | 261 |
| 17.3 | Potential threshold concepts at ASU. | 264 |
| 17.4 | Potential threshold concepts at CRU. | 265 |
| 17.5 | Potential threshold concepts in teacher education. | 266 |
| 18.1 | Distribution of the number of applicable characteristics according to the students. | 280 |
| 18.2 | The applicability of the six characteristics. | 280 |
| 19.1 | Physics TC s as identified by students, in descending frequencies and percentages, clustered per physics area (represented in bold). | 296 |
| 19.2 | Physics TC s: frequencies and percentages of the five characteristics of the mentioned TC s. | 297 |
| 19.3 | Ways students used to master a TC, as reported by themselves. | 299 |
| 20.1 | BMELTEVEP project outline. | 313 |
| 21.1 | Experiential threshold concept: Becoming an online student. | 336 |
| 23.1 | The analogy between threshold concepts modes and SDT’s types of motivation. | 363 |
| 23.2 | Interpreting competence development rubric. | 365 |
| 23.3 | Students’ transformation in interpreting competence. | 367 |
| 26.1 | Proposed course outline: information literacy professional learning. | 424 |
| 26.2 | Detailed sample module: identifying student bottlenecks. | 425 |
| 27.1 | Students describing threshold moments. | 439 |