Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology
Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology
Ben Morris 1 * , Jonathan Glazzard 2
More Detail
1 School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science and Education, Leeds Trinity University, United Kingdom
2 Rosalind Hollis Professor of Education for Social Justice, University of Hull, United Kingdom
* Corresponding Author
Open Access Full Text (PDF)
ARTICLE INFO

Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, Online First, pp. 1-13
https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505

Article Type: Research Article

Published Online: 24 Oct 2025

Views: 65 | Downloads: 22

ABSTRACT
The present work seeks to assess whether threshold concepts can be transitioned through by integrating content from different domains of Psychology. The work expounds issues surrounding threshold concepts and its relationship to student achievement in a Research Methods activity embedded within a Personality and Intelligence module. The specific threshold concepts focused upon in the present work is the contextual understanding of human intelligence, psychological assessment, statistical analysis and interpretation of findings. The paper emphasises the importance of the context in which learning takes place to not only meet learning outcomes but enhance student experience. The present study used a between subject mixed methods approach utilising a quasi-experimental design. Qualitative feedback indicated that the student experience to embedding content was received positively. Cohort grade averages were also improved, demonstrating an improvement in student outcomes compared to the typical way that these topics are taught. The paper recommends the exploration of integrating topics in Psychology to better suit the student learning experience and outcomes. These findings carry significant implications for undergraduate curriculum design in Psychology and potentially other disciplines. Integrating research methods into subject-specific modules could be an effective strategy for bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application.       
KEYWORDS
drawing test embedding research intelligence research methods threshold concepts
In-text citation: (Morris & Glazzard, 2025)
Reference: Morris, B., & Glazzard, J. (2025). Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Morris B, Glazzard J. Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2025. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Morris B, Glazzard J. Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2025. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505
In-text citation: (Morris and Glazzard, 2025)
Reference: Morris, Ben, and Jonathan Glazzard. "Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology (2025). https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505
In-text citation: (Morris and Glazzard, 2025)
Reference: Morris, B., and Glazzard, J. (2025). Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505
In-text citation: (Morris and Glazzard, 2025)
Reference: Morris, Ben et al. "Embedding research methods as a technique for contextualising learning and understanding to overcome threshold concepts in Psychology". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2025. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202538505
REFERENCES
  • Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746
  • Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796714
  • Charlton, J. P., Barrow, C., & Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2006). Attempt to predict withdrawal from higher education using demographic, psychological and educational measures. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 11(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596740500507904
  • Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2006.00170004
  • Dale, V., Tasler, N., & Sánchez-Jáuregui, L. (2022). Object-based learning: Active learning through enquiry. In T. Betts & P. Oprandi (Eds.), 100 Ideas for Active Learning (pp. 566–574). University of Sussex Library.
  • Davies, P. (2019). The construction of frameworks in learners’ thinking: Conceptual change and threshold concepts in economics. International Review of Economics Education, 30, 100135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.05.002
  • Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1, 33–43.
  • Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
  • Furedi, F. (2010). Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as a consumer. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 1-8). Routledge.
  • Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  • Goodenough, F. L. (1963). Goodenough-Harris drawing test. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Gunn, V., & Fisk, A. (2013). Considering teaching excellence in higher education: 2007–2013: A literature review since the CHERI report 2007. Higher Education Academy.
  • Gynnild, V., Leira, B. J., Holmedal, L. E., Mossige, J. C., & Myrhaug, D. (2021). From teaching as transmission to constructive alignment: A case study of learning design. Nordic Journal of STEM Education, 4(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsteme.v4i1.3402
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
  • Hanfstingl, B., Arzenšek, A., Apschner, J., & Gölly, K. I. (2021). Assimilation and accommodation. European Psychologist, 27(4), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000463
  • Jackson, D. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2010). Students as consumers of knowledge: Are they buying what we’re selling? Innovative Higher Education, 35(5), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9151-y
  • Jeno, L. M., & Diseth, A. (2014). A self-determination theory perspective on autonomy support, autonomous self-regulation, and perceived school performance. Reflecting Education, 9(1), 1–20.
  • Kaminskienė, L., Žydžiūnaitė, V., Jurgilė, V., & Ponomarenko, T. (2020). Co-creation of learning: A concept analysis. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9(2), 337–349.
  • Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903067930
  • Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768
  • Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bovill, C. (2021). Do students experience transformation through co-creating curriculum in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 28(7), 1744–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928060
  • Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277–300.
  • McGowan, S. (2016). The career of threshold concepts in a large-lecture history course: An examination of uptake of disciplinary actions. In J. H. F. Meyer, R. Land, & M. T. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold concepts in practice (pp. 39–52). Sense Publishers.
  • Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge 1 – Linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning – Ten years on (pp. 412-424). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
  • Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
  • Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of liminality. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 19–32). Routledge.
  • Miller, A. J., & Daniel, A. (2019). Scaffolding space to speak: Student storytelling as long-term strategy for developing faculty cultural competence. Journal of Faculty Development, 33(2), 63–72.
  • Morris, K. V. (2022). Consumerist views of higher education and links to student wellbeing and achievement: An analysis based on the concept of autonomy as depicted in self-determination theory. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(6), 836–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.2011842
  • Morris, B., & Glazzard, J. (2025). Transitioning pedagogies: The role of developing the story during higher education psychology teaching. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 7(2), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202533280
  • Neary, M. (2016). Student as producer: The struggle for the idea of the university. Other Education: The Journal of Educational Alternatives, 5(1), 89–94.
  • Neary, M., & Hagyard, A. (2011). Pedagogy of excess: An alternative political economy for student life. In M. Nixon & R. Scullion (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 209–224). Routledge.
  • Oates, J., Carpenter, D., Fisher, M., Goodson, S., Hannah, B., Kwiatkowski, R., Prutton, K., Reeves, D., & Wainwright, T. (2021). BPS code of human research ethics. British Psychological Society.
  • Office for Students [OfS]. (2023). About the TEF. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/quality-and-standards/about-the-tef/
  • Omland, M., Hontvedt, M., Siddiq, F., Amundrud, A., Hermansen, H., Mathisen, M. A. S., Rudningen, G., & Reiersen, F. (2025). Co-creation in higher education: A conceptual systematic review. Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01364-1
  • Perkins, D. (2005). The underlying game: Troublesome knowledge and threshold conceptions. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33-47). Routledge.
  • Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and his school: A reader in developmental psychology (pp. 11–23). Springer.
  • Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2001). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  • Quality Assurance Agency [QAA]. (2025, August). Subject benchmark statement: Psychology. Author.
  • Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st-century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916
  • Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936
  • Sandelowski, M. (2010). What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
  • Smith, L. M. (2020). Diversifying the discourse of progression to higher education: Digital storytelling methodology in widening participation practice. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 22(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.22.1.79
  • Tarı Kasnakoğlu, B., & Mercan, H. (2020). Co-creating positive outcomes in higher education: Are students ready for co-creation? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1825031
  • Tate, A., & Glazzard, J. (2024). Immersed in the transitioning higher education sector: The impact of transitions in the higher education sector in England on staff and students. International Journal of Educational and Life Transitions, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijelt.77
  • Thornton, S. (2020). Threshold concepts in primary school maths and science: An investigation of some underlying ideas of STEM. In K. J. Kennedy, H. J. Jetton, & C. R. Bronson (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum: Early childhood to senior secondary (pp. 233–247). Springer.
  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003548313194
  • Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy.
  • Willis, D. G., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K., & Zichi-Cohen, M. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38, 1185–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916645499
  • Winn, J., & Lockwood, D. (2013). Student as producer is hacking the university. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 218‑229). Routledge.
  • Zarandi, N., Soares, A., & Alves, H. (2022). Strategies, benefits and barriers – A systematic literature review of student co-creation in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(2), 895–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2134956
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.