title: Threshold concepts and introductory electronics

authors: Scott, Jonathan B.

subjects: Threshold Concepts

abstract: Electronics and circuit theory are acknowledged as troublesome subjects when  
first introduced to students. This leads to low student retention into later electronics courses, especially in universities that offer a common first year where students are free to change streams after the first year. We report on a detailed study of the application of Threshold Concept Theory to an introductory electronics course. We identify some Threshold Concepts, explicit and tacit. We postulate that a high density of Threshold Concepts accounts for the reputation for troublesome learning in, and low retention following, these courses. We further suggest that the bimodal distribution of marks that is commonly observed in electronics teaching is a hallmark of a Thresold Concept. This may have significant impact on assessment.

text: Threshold concepts and introductory electronics Electronics and circuit theory are acknowledged as troublesome subjects when  
first introduced to students. This leads to low student retention into later electronics courses, especially in universities that offer a common first year where students are free to change streams after the first year. We report on a detailed study of the application of Threshold Concept Theory to an introductory electronics course. We identify some Threshold Concepts, explicit and tacit. We postulate that a high density of Threshold Concepts accounts for the reputation for troublesome learning in, and low retention following, these courses. We further suggest that the bimodal distribution of marks that is commonly observed in electronics teaching is a hallmark of a Thresold Concept. This may have significant impact on assessment.

year: 2010

title: Editorial

authors: Coleman, Claire

abstract: Frequently marginalised and maligned, the arts in education are often positioned as a nice-to-have “extra” for students but not academically vital or significant (Ross, 1975). However, as artificial intelligence replaces the traditional workforce in numerous industries, creativity, and the arts, often seen as a conduit for creativity, have attracted renewed interest. Many educators consider the arts essential for their ability to engage and activate responsive critical thinking, possibility thinking and develop flexible learners ready to adapt to an unknown job market. National and international research documents the transformative potential of embedding quality arts processes and learning experiences across the curriculum (Biesta, 2013; Catterall, 2009; Ewing & Saunders, 2018). Recent enthusiasm for 21st-century skills has seen the arts welcomed into STE(A)M (science, technology, engineering, arts, and maths) education as part of a drive to remain economically competitive in an increasingly automated world (Geisinger, 2016; Land, 2013).

text: Editorial Frequently marginalised and maligned, the arts in education are often positioned as a nice-to-have “extra” for students but not academically vital or significant (Ross, 1975). However, as artificial intelligence replaces the traditional workforce in numerous industries, creativity, and the arts, often seen as a conduit for creativity, have attracted renewed interest. Many educators consider the arts essential for their ability to engage and activate responsive critical thinking, possibility thinking and develop flexible learners ready to adapt to an unknown job market. National and international research documents the transformative potential of embedding quality arts processes and learning experiences across the curriculum (Biesta, 2013; Catterall, 2009; Ewing & Saunders, 2018). Recent enthusiasm for 21st-century skills has seen the arts welcomed into STE(A)M (science, technology, engineering, arts, and maths) education as part of a drive to remain economically competitive in an increasingly automated world (Geisinger, 2016; Land, 2013).

year: 2022

title: Land/seascapes of exclusion: social order on the coastal margins

authors: Ryks, John

abstract: The hegemonic discourse of coastal planning and development has an impact on the social ordering of Aotearoa/New Zealand’s coastal communities in a number of ways. One way in which social order is controlled and maintained is through the (ab)use of boundaries. Boundaries constructed and maintained under the authority of government and/or funded by development dictate where people may or may not live. In many cases these boundaries are used as instruments of exclusion. Boundaries constructed by hegemonic groups exclude those who define the coast according to other criteria. The hegemonic deployment of boundaries and the domination of coastal people and place generally is explored through an analysis of discourse. This analysis is structured according to differences in social order, coded as places of Otherness (heterotopia), Euclidean coasts, and places in transition reflecting images of both the former and the latter.
Drawing on a number of coastal communities, including the Northland community of Otia (otherwise known as the Seaweed Pickers), Taylor’s Mistake, Whitianga and the wealth enclave of Pauanui, it is shown that the land/seascape of coastal Aotearoa/New Zealand is gradually being disciplined through the design of coasts that are accommodating of a particular patronage. These ‘exclusive’ coasts appear in stark contrast to those places where an alternative social ordering takes place. Here, in the absence of a Euclidean spatiality, uncertainty and liminality feature in the social construction of the coast. Residents of these places mark out and define the coast in a way that is quite different from the accepted norm, a fact that determines a particular ‘cartographic anxiety’ on the part of the dominant. This anxiety is instrumental in the construction of Otherness and the (re)production of exclusion.

text: Land/seascapes of exclusion: social order on the coastal margins The hegemonic discourse of coastal planning and development has an impact on the social ordering of Aotearoa/New Zealand’s coastal communities in a number of ways. One way in which social order is controlled and maintained is through the (ab)use of boundaries. Boundaries constructed and maintained under the authority of government and/or funded by development dictate where people may or may not live. In many cases these boundaries are used as instruments of exclusion. Boundaries constructed by hegemonic groups exclude those who define the coast according to other criteria. The hegemonic deployment of boundaries and the domination of coastal people and place generally is explored through an analysis of discourse. This analysis is structured according to differences in social order, coded as places of Otherness (heterotopia), Euclidean coasts, and places in transition reflecting images of both the former and the latter.
Drawing on a number of coastal communities, including the Northland community of Otia (otherwise known as the Seaweed Pickers), Taylor’s Mistake, Whitianga and the wealth enclave of Pauanui, it is shown that the land/seascape of coastal Aotearoa/New Zealand is gradually being disciplined through the design of coasts that are accommodating of a particular patronage. These ‘exclusive’ coasts appear in stark contrast to those places where an alternative social ordering takes place. Here, in the absence of a Euclidean spatiality, uncertainty and liminality feature in the social construction of the coast. Residents of these places mark out and define the coast in a way that is quite different from the accepted norm, a fact that determines a particular ‘cartographic anxiety’ on the part of the dominant. This anxiety is instrumental in the construction of Otherness and the (re)production of exclusion.

year: 2002