Abstract

Academic and professional organisations across Australia have committed to ensuring that engineers understand and account for First Nations Australian value systems, perspectives, and Knowledges (ACED, 2017; Universities Australia, 2022). Both the Australian Council of Engineering Deans, and Universities Australia acknowledge that transforming curricula to reflect this commitment is crucial for ethical and responsible engineering practice. Such transformation is essential to engineers’ sociotechnical capabilities, and to ongoing reconciliation.  Educators working to centre First Nations Australian engineering alongside dominant engineering curricula struggle with knowing where to begin and how to develop relationships with appropriate stakeholders (Goldfinch et al., 2017). To guide educators working toward this curriculum transformation, our team of First Nations Australian and non-Indigenous engineering educators focuses on identifying threshold learning   in First Nations Australian engineering. Threshold learning draws upon threshold concept theory (Meyer & Land, 2003, 2005) and the Threshold Capability Integrated Theoretical Framework (Baillie et al., 2013) to describe the concepts, capabilities, and values that students find most transformational, troublesome, integrative, and reconstitutive.

Threshold learning in First Nations Australian engineering has not previously been described. Gomeroi/Kamilaroi scholar Niki Moodie proposed five threshold concepts in Indigenous Studies more broadly (Moodie, 2019). Wyllie-Runner et al. (2023) outline how the threshold concepts framework is appropriate when considering decolonisation in engineering education, but specific threshold concepts, capabilities, and values have not yet been described.

Throughout the research process, we are collaborating with a Yugambeh, Quandamooka, Kabi Kabi, Yuggera, Kombumerri, Yiman, Goreng Goreng, Ballardong, Whadjuk, Wurundjeri, and Boon Wurrung Elders (Elders advisory council) to ensure cultural validation and integrity in the research design, methods, analysis, and interpretation.

We are working with four main participant groups: a First Nations Australian community of interest (Elders, Knowledge holders, educators, and engineers), industry organisations, academic institutions (engineering educators who weave First Nations engineering elements into  their courses, and students who have experienced these courses) , and engineering accreditation bodies (Engineers Australia). During the diverging interview phase (Male & Baillie, 2011), we have been gathering diverse perspectives from the first three stakeholder groups to identify proposed threshold learning elements. After completing the diverging phase over approximately nine months,  we will move into an integrating focus group phase (Male & Baillie, 2011) where stakeholders come together to negotiate the proposed threshold learning elements into a threshold learning element inventory.

Here we present preliminary findings from interviews with engineering educators and students. While educators and practitioners are typically considered experts who identify threshold concepts that students must learn in a given discipline, our preliminary findings suggest that educators themselves are in pre-liminal and liminal spaces in this context  of First Nations Australian engineering. This paper discusses potential thresholds of recognising the relevance  of First Nations Australian value systems, perspectives, and Knowledges to engineering, and learning together  in a liminal space. We hope that understanding of these thresholds will contribute to a framework that helps transform engineering education to centre First Nations Australian engineering value systems, perspectives, and Knowledges.

Keywords: engineering education, decolonising, First Nations Australian

Context & Positionality

First Nations Australian engineering value systems, perspectives, and Knowledges are essential for responsible engineering education and practice in Australia (ACED, 2017; Universities Australia, 2022). To develop engineers who acknowledge and account for this in practice, engineering education must transform. Over the past decade, engineering educators across Australia have begun working toward such transformation. To grow and deepen this work, further research must   describe key elements in First Nations Australian engineering for responsible engineering practice, and how learners come to understand these elements (Kutay et al., Yugambeh, 2024, Focus of Book section). Our research focuses on describing threshold learning in First Nations Australian engineering education.

While threshold concepts were initially conceived in relation to student learning and behaviour (Meyer & Land, 2003), our preliminary findings suggest that engineering educators and practitioners are still in pre-liminal and liminal spaces in relation to centring First Nations Australian engineering. This paper focuses on engineering educators’ experiences of thresholds in this space and potential impacts on student learning.

Our research team brings together a Ngemba|Wayilwan and Wiradjuri computer science practitioner, researcher, and educator, a Worimi engineering researcher and educator, two non-Indigenous Australian engineering educators, and a Chinese American PhD candidate in engineering education. We are committed to transforming engineering education so graduates will understand and appropriately account for  First Nations Australian engineering value systems, perspectives, and Knowledges in engineering practice. This involves acknowledging how First Nations Australian approaches enhance engineering solutions through deep, place-based understanding. Application in engineering practice also involves meaningful connection with First Nations Australian stakeholders to understand how to appropriately approach engineering design solutions. As part of respecting ethical protocol in this space, our research process prioritises First Nations leadership throughout the research design (Baynyi, 2020). We collaborate with Yugambeh, Quandamooka, Kabi Kabi, Yuggera, Kombumerri, Yiman, Goreng Goreng, Ballardong, Whadjuk, Wurundjeri, and Boon Wurrung Elders on an Elders advisory council to ensure cultural validation and integrity throughout the process.

Connection to Existing Threshold Concepts Literature

In the broader context of Indigenous studies in education, Moodie (Gomeroi) (2019) proposed threshold concepts of race, relationality, policy, evidence, and Country. The concept of Country involves much more than land and place. For First Peoples, Country relates “to the cultural group and land to which they belong, [and is] also their place of origin in cultural, spiritual and  literal terms” (Hromek (Budawang/Yuin), 2020, p. 29). Additionally, it “includes not only the land but also waters and skies, and incorporates the tangible and intangible, knowledges and cultural practices, identity and reciprocal relationships, belonging and  wellbeing” (Hromek (Budawang/Yuin), 2020, p. 29).

Wyllie-Runner et al. (2023) began extending Moodie’s work to consider threshold concepts around decolonising engineering education. Based on findings from two secondary data accounts of students’ experiences, Wyllie-Runner et al. (2023) recommended additional research to better understand threshold concepts relating Indigenous Knowledges and engineering education to facilitate student learning and a decolonised (Male & Baillie, 2011) curriculum. Our work seeks to deepen this understanding.

In describing threshold learning, we draw upon threshold concept theory (Meyer & Land, 2003, 2005) and the Threshold Capability Integrated Theoretical Framework (Baillie et al., 2013). Threshold learning elements refer to the concepts, capabilities, and values that students find most transformational, troublesome, integrative, and reconstitutive. Rather than focusing on cognitive concepts, we are interested in the threshold learning elements—including values and affective components—that shift the way engineers think about their responsibilities in engineering practice in relation to First Nations Australian engineering. We are particularly interested in the transformative, troublesome, integrative, and reconstitutive characteristics of threshold learning to better understand how to transform perceptions about the relationship between First Nations Australian engineering and engineering practice.

Methods

Weaving together a yarning approach to data collection (Bessarab, Bard/Yindijibarndi & Ng’andu, 2010)with Male and Baillie’s (2011) methodology for identifying thresholds, we are connecting with Elders, Knowledge holders, engineers, students, and educators in two phases: a “diverging” interview phase and an “integrating” focus group phase (Male & Baillie, 2011, pp. 910–911).

We are currently in the diverging interview  phase, which involves gathering diverse perspectives on thresholds from this variety of participants (Male & Baillie, 2011). The first author has interviewed one Arrente Knowledge holder, three First Nations Australian engineers, 12 students from two universities, and 14 educators across 10 universities in Australia. We have additional interviews with Elders and Knowledge holders planned for the coming months.

After approximately nine months of completing the diverging phase interviews and identifying possible thresholds through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022), we will bring together participants from each group in the integrating focus group phase. During this phase, participants will discuss the proposed thresholds to develop a threshold learning  element ‘inventory’ (Male & Baillie, 2011, p. 914).

Preliminary Findings

Although we initially sought to identify threshold learning elements for students, participants’ experiences suggest that there are thresholds for academics and practicing engineers as well. This section describes potential thresholds for educators and possible impacts on student learning. We also discuss the idea of educators and students learning together in a liminal space.

Recognising the Relevance in Engineering Education

A key step toward meaningfully centring First Nations Australian engineering alongside engineering education is to ensure that engineering educators recognise the relevance of this curriculum shift. As one engineering educator noted:

“I think that the biggest threshold really [that’s] creating trouble for us getting Indigenous content into the curriculum is our academics … I think the biggest challenge for them is seeing the relevance … we’re facing a challenge, because for a lot of them, they just don’t see it. They don’t see how it fits” (Educator Participant 6).

This description of educators not seeing the relevance suggests that some engineering educators find even the idea of centring First Nations Australian engineering to be troublesome. More specifically, it may be troublesome in the ‘foreign’ sense that Perkins (1999) describes as “coming from a perspective that conflicts with [their] own”(p. 10). As Educator Participant 6 explained, some educators may:

“have preconceived notions about Indigenous culture[s] … and Knowledge systems, and [not] value them. Or maybe they value them, but treat them kind of like religion, right? And when you get scientists to think about religion, they’re kind of like, ‘Oh, actually, I don’t think that fits,’ you know? And so … mentally, if you put Indigenous Knowledges in the same category as religion, then you’re going to get scientific-minded people pushing back hard against incorporating that into curriculum.”

Shifting this mindset will require academics to transform and reconstitute their understandings of the relationship between Indigenous Knowledges and engineering. Such shifts are critical, “because until they see it and understand why it’s important and relevant, you’re not going to get them actually presenting it in a meaningful way to the class” (Educator Participant 6). Similarly, another educator noted “it’s not just the challenge or the barriers for the students, it’s also the barriers for the educators,” describing an experience when another academic:

“came up to me one day when we were talking about trying to embed … a touch point every year … and he just came up and was like ‘It won’t be in my unit’ … you know, like really ignorant sort of statements … not at all interested in learning or engaging with it as a concept … putting all this colonialism on display, I guess. But you know, just straight up [saying], like, ‘there’s, there’s no way I can connect this with physics’” (Educator Participant 7).

Here again we see resistance to the idea of shifting engineering curricula to value Indigenous Knowledges. This educator’s account of another academic refusing to see how he might “connect [Indigenous Knowledges] with physics” shows how the idea can be troublesome and conflict with academics’ conceptions of what counts as science or engineering. Educator Participant 7 also suggested that:

“the mixed messaging the students are going to get across different staff members is probably going to be a barrier for students as well. Because … some staff members are going to have strong opinions for it. Some are going to have strong opinions against … its relevance, just like they had strong opinions for and against all professional skills … anything other than … the technical knowledge. I think that is a barrier for the students.”

Our interviews with students support this concern. Multiple students described perceived tokenism and tick-box approaches from educators as barriers to learning and understanding in this space (student participants 2, 3, 4, and 12). Student participant 2 remarked that:

“it feels like they don’t necessarily want to be presenting, as bad as that sounds … Yeah it always feels like, ‘Oh, [scoff] I have to include this like this is so annoying …’ and I don’t know. I find it quite disrespectful. And then, um, everyone in the lecture also, like the vibe in the lecture, is not very respectful, and that, that kind of annoys me. But yeah. So I always feel like it’s not necessarily like we’re even … learning. They’re just sort of shoving in like … whatever they can to tick a box.”

Here we see a potential impact of perceived tokenism and educator reluctance to consider First Nations Australian engineering. If students perceive educators as signalling that they “don’t necessarily want to be presenting” these ideas, it can set a “vibe in the lecture” that comes across as “not very respectful” (Student Participant 2). Such an environment can prevent students from connecting with the content.

Student Participant 3 explained the impact of lecturers’ attitudes on their learning experience:

“it really depends on the lecturer … whether they care or not … I’ve had lecturers that really care, and you can tell that they’re really trying to incorporate it in a really good way. And then others, it kind of just feels like box ticking … it can feel a little bit like this doesn’t relate. But if you’ve got a lecturer that does really care, and you can really see that, I think it’s really good.”

As with the previous student, Student Participant 3 describes how perception of whether the lecturer acknowledges the relevance—“whether they care or not”—can then impact students’ understanding; when the approach comes across as “box ticking,” “it can feel a little bit like this doesn’t relate.” Student Participant 12 noted that some of their classroom experiences were “very much just, ‘tick the box and move on,’ which … can sometimes result in some peers thinking that it’s a box to tick rather than going further deep into it.” Here again, we see how students’ perceptions of educators’ attitudes set the tone for the learning environment. These student experiences reinforce the educators’ statements around the importance of educators themselves crossing a threshold to recognise the relevance and understand First Nations Australian engineering in engineering education and practice. If students perceive educators as not recognising this relevance, they may find it challenging to cross the threshold themselves. Educators who have not crossed this threshold may create barriers for students approaching the threshold.

Educators and Students Together in a Liminal Learning Journey

It is important to acknowledge that many educators, including those participating in this study, do recognise and appreciate the relevance and understand First Nations Australian engineering value systems, perspectives, and Knowledge systems in engineering education. Multiple educators shared that a key idea they emphasise with students is a mindset of learning together and not having all the answers (educator participants 2, 4, 6, 8, 12). Such an approach aligns with Indigenous concepts of Knowledge and learning.

Educator Participant 2 described the importance of:

“demonstrating that I personally am still on my own learning journey as well, and … even though I’m an educator, and, you know, I’m their academic, often they look to us academics as, “oh, you have all the answers.” Demonstrating that I don’t, in this space, I think, is also really important. And kind of role modelling … that actually, I don’t know … what’s happening in this particular space. We’re going to learn that together.”

Here the educator describes that she role models for students that she doesn’t “have all the answers” in this space, and encourages a mindset of learning together. Similarly, Educator Participant 4 described how this “can be a strength, because it’s like, I’m learning with you.” Another educator noted:

“I’m very big on getting the students to recognise that they’re not experts in this. This is all kind of a learning journey we’re going on together. I don’t expect them to be perfect, and, you know, know everything, but we all are coming with a … base level respect … and, you know, understanding, and I think that helps students feel more comfortable with having these kinds of conversations” (Educator Participant 12).

These educators’ experiences suggest that the idea of being on a learning journey together with respect to First Nations Australian engineering is an important one to emphasise, both for themselves and their students. Rather than positioning themselves as experts, the educators acknowledge that they are still learning, thereby creating space for students to understand this uncertainty as part of an engineer’s role. While educators and practitioners typically define threshold concepts for students, in this context, it appears that educators are in a liminal space with students. Additionally, the educators suggest that making this explicit is an important factor in facilitating student understanding.

Linked to this idea of “learning together” and “not having all the answers,” which connects with Indigenous approaches to learning, is the notion of shifting engineering mindsets. Educators encourage students to rethink their role as engineering experts coming in with predetermined solutions, and instead be open-minded consultants, genuinely seeking community collaboration. As Educator Participant 2 noted,

“I think one of the biggest threshold … concepts for engineers is to go in there with an open mind … without these preconceived ideas.” She further explained thinking around: “how are those engineers actually … going to engage with those Traditional Owners, and maybe don’t necessarily have all of the ideas going forward, so that you can listen and let that shape your design, rather than walking in there with a design and going, ‘Okay, this is it. What do you think?’ … So, it’s trying to take that step back and go, ‘Okay, how do we actually have meaningful engagement to shape the engineer’s role and what the engineers are actually doing,” rather than coming in with all these preconceived … ideas.”

Here we see the educator expanding the notion of not coming in with “all these preconceived … ideas” beyond the educational setting to an engineering practice context. Perhaps becoming comfortable with such a liminal space is a threshold for engineering educators, students, and practitioners.

Limitations

Our interviews with First Nations Australian Elders and Knowledge Holders are not yet complete. This paper focuses on a subset of the participants (educators and students). Additionally, student interview participation was voluntary. It is therefore reasonable to imagine that these students are especially interested in First Nations Australian engineering, and may be further along in their understanding than students who did not volunteer. In future work, we hope to  gather perspectives from students who resist learning in this space to better understand earlier threshold stages and liminal spaces.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Our preliminary analysis suggests that engineering educators themselves encounter thresholds in the process of centring First Nations Australian engineering alongside dominant curricula. Educators describe colleagues’ resistance to recognising the relevance as a threshold before beginning the work and taking a meaningful approach. Additionally, students’ experiences suggest that they perceive this resistance, which may impede their learning (and that of their peers) in the space.

We will continue our thematic analysis of interviews with Elders, Knowledge holders, educators, students, and engineers to better understand threshold learning in First Nations Australian engineering. We will also complete additional interviews with Elders and Knowledge holders. We will then hold focus groups with participants to develop a threshold learning element inventory and framework. This inventory and framework will describe learning elements, as well as both barriers and factors that facilitate understanding. We hope to this work will contribute to answering Yugambeh engineering educator Cat Kutay’s prompt: “at the end of this, what I hope you can come out with is: how do we train staff to get over the threshold?”

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the unceded lands on which we live and work, including, but not limited to, the Yugambeh, Quandamooka, Kabi Kabi, Yuggera, Kombumerri, Yiman, Goreng Goreng, Ballardong, Whadjuk, Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung, and Boon Wurrung peoples. We recognise that these lands were stolen, that injustice persists, and reconciliation is ongoing. We pay our respects to Elders past, present, and emerging. We also wish to thank all interview and focus group participants for their time and thoughtful contributions to this research. Without their valuable reflections, this research would not be possible.

References

ACED. (2017, August). Position Statement—Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives into the engineering curriculum. http://aced.edu.au/index.php/features/position-statements

Baillie, C., Bowden, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2013). Threshold capabilities: Threshold concepts and knowledge capability linked through variation theory. Higher Education, 65(2), 227–246.

Baynyi, W. (2020). AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. AIATSIS. http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research/code-ethics

Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning About Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v3i1.57

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.

Goldfinch, T., Prpic, J. K., Jolly, L., Leigh, E., & Kennedy, J. (2017). Australian engineering educators’ attitudes towards Aboriginal cultures and perspectives. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1328588

Kutay, C., Boye, T., Payne, D., Harriden, K., Boase, J., Devarapu, S. R., McArdle, P., Bertei, S., Roman, C., Burton, T., & Leigh, E. (2024). Engineering with Country. Charles Darwin University. https://doi.org/10.25913/4wk2-jv63

Male, S., & Baillie, C. (2011). Threshold capabilities: An emerging methodology to locate curricula thresholds. Research in Engineering Education Symposium Book of Proceedings, 907–915.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On (pp. 412–424). Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development. https://www.sun.ac.za/english/Documents/Language/Threshold_Concepts__and_Troublesome_Knowledge%201_by_Ray_Land.pdf

Moodie, N. (2019). Learning about knowledge: Threshold concepts for Indigenous studies in education. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00309-3
Perkins, D. (1999). The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), Article 3.

Universities Australia. (2022). Indigenous Strategy 2022-25. Universities Australia. http://universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UA-Indigenous-Strategy-2022-25.pdf

Wyllie-Runner, J., Cicek, J. S., & Zacharias, K. (2023). Towards Defining Threshold Concepts for Student Learning around Decolonizing Engineering Education. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/17072