{"id":97,"date":"2025-12-24T13:08:53","date_gmt":"2025-12-24T18:08:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=97"},"modified":"2026-01-30T21:08:09","modified_gmt":"2026-01-31T02:08:09","slug":"crossing-thresholds-in-practice-liminality-and-the-development-of-soft-skills-in-engineering-education","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/chapter\/crossing-thresholds-in-practice-liminality-and-the-development-of-soft-skills-in-engineering-education\/","title":{"raw":"Crossing Thresholds in Practice: Liminality and the Development of Soft Skills in Engineering Education","rendered":"Crossing Thresholds in Practice: Liminality and the Development of Soft Skills in Engineering Education"},"content":{"raw":"<h1>Abstract<\/h1>\r\nThis study investigates the experiences of engineering students as they navigate the liminal space associated with the development of soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and professional judgement. Drawing on the threshold concepts framework, the research compares students enrolled in conventional undergraduate degrees with those undertaking degree apprenticeships. Preliminary observations suggest that while both cohorts encounter similar conceptual thresholds, the degree apprenticeship model, with its embedded workplace exposure, facilitates more rapid and meaningful crossings. This paper argues that soft skills are not peripheral but are transformative and integrative components of engineering identity, and that experiential learning environments can significantly enhance their development.\r\n\r\n<em>Keywords<\/em>: engineering, work-integrated learning, soft skills, liminal\r\n<h1>Introduction<\/h1>\r\nIn the evolving landscape of engineering education, the development of soft skills, such as communication, teamwork, and professional judgement, has emerged as a critical complement to technical expertise (ABET., 2023; de Campos et al., 2020; Shuman et al., 2005). In addition, employers consider communication, teamwork, and professional responsibility as critically important, yet identify significant gaps in graduate proficiency in these areas (Hirudayaraj et al., 2021). As engineering challenges become increasingly interdisciplinary, influenced by the rapid development of technologies and more socially embedded, the ability to navigate complex human dynamics is no longer optional but essential. Yet, despite widespread recognition of their importance, soft skills often remain marginalised in curricula that privilege technical knowledge.\r\n\r\nEngineering practice increasingly relies on these 'soft skills', yet most of the time these remain marginal in many curricula. The Engineering Council and the associated professional bodies emphasise these attributes as central to becoming a competent engineer. However, within university engineering education contexts, soft skills are still too often treated as secondary to technical proficiency. This disconnect in how the university approaches soft skills affects how students approach their learning.\r\n\r\nThis paper explores the development of soft skills through the lens of threshold concepts, focusing on the experiences of students in both traditional undergraduate engineering programmes and degree apprenticeships. This work argues that soft skills represent transformative learning thresholds, conceptual gateways that, once crossed, fundamentally reshape students\u2019 understanding of what it means to be an engineer.\r\n\r\nThe study is situated within the broader context of educational innovation and partnership, particularly the rise of degree apprenticeships in the UK. These programmes integrate academic study with sustained workplace experience with a degree course with the application of concepts taught in the workplace, offering a unique advantage from which to examine the acquisition of soft skills in authentic professional contexts. Degree Apprenticeships have been designed and developed to bridge a gap of highly skilled engineers to support the national growth in infrastructure, automation, robotics, and advanced manufacturing and to offer a diversification of educational offer supporting the Widening Participation Agenda and students with non-traditional entry qualifications.\r\n<h1>Literature Review<\/h1>\r\n<h2>Soft Skills in Engineering Education<\/h2>\r\nSoft skills, also referred to as professional, interpersonal, or non-technical skills, encompass a range of competencies including communication, collaboration, adaptability, and ethical reasoning. These skills are increasingly recognised as vital for engineering graduates entering a globalised and rapidly changing workforce. Rovida and Zafferri (2022) argue that the fusion of hard and soft skills is essential for Engineering 4.0, where engineers must operate in environments characterised by automation, digitalisation, and human-machine interaction.\r\n\r\nDespite this, engineering curricula have historically prioritised technical content, often relegating soft skills to peripheral modules or extracurricular activities. This disconnect has prompted calls for more integrated approaches that embed soft skills development within core disciplinary learning.\r\n<h2>Threshold Concepts and Liminality<\/h2>\r\nThe threshold concepts framework, introduced by Meyer and Land (2003), provides a powerful lens for understanding transformative learning. Threshold concepts are characterised by being:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Transformative: They change the way a student views a discipline.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Integrative: They expose the interrelatedness of ideas.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Troublesome: They are conceptually difficult or counterintuitive.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Irreversible: Once understood, they are unlikely to be forgotten.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nCrossing a threshold involves navigating a liminal space, a state of conceptual and identity flux where learners may feel uncertain, stuck, or disoriented. This process is not merely cognitive but affective and ontological, involving shifts in self-perception and professional identity.\r\n\r\nWhile threshold concepts have been widely applied in engineering education to topics such as systems thinking and design processes, their application to soft skills remains underexplored. Male and Bennett (2015) identified \u201croles of engineers\u201d and \u201cvalue of learning\u201d as potential threshold concepts, noting that students often struggle to reconcile their technical training with the broader social and ethical dimensions of engineering practice.\r\n<h2>Work-Integrated Learning and Degree Apprenticeships<\/h2>\r\nWork-integrated learning (WIL) models, including internships, placements, and degree apprenticeships, offer promising avenues for soft skills development. These models situate learning within authentic professional contexts, allowing students to apply and reflect on their skills in real time. Jackson (2015) found that WIL enhances employability by strengthening self-efficacy, adaptability, and professional judgement.\r\n\r\nDegree apprenticeships, in particular, represent a significant innovation in UK higher education. By combining academic study with sustained employment, they offer a dual-context learning environment that may accelerate the crossing of soft skill thresholds. Apprentices are often required to engage in reflective practice, navigate workplace hierarchies, and contribute to team-based projects, which are experiences that mirror the liminal challenges described in threshold concept theory. Wintrup (2021) suggests apprentices develop professional fluency earlier, due to continuous interaction with real-world complexity. Apprentices must communicate with stakeholders, defend their decisions, and adapt to shifting priorities in a real world scenario via professional realities.\r\n\r\nDespite growing recognition of their importance, the integration of soft skills within engineering education remains limited, as curricula continue to emphasize technical and discipline-specific knowledge. Likewise, existing threshold concept literature seldom explores differences across learning pathways, such as traditional degrees and degree apprenticeships. This study seeks to address both gaps by positioning soft skills as potential threshold concepts, transformative elements that require distinct pedagogical strategies, including integration within core modules, reflective practice, and experiential learning opportunities. By comparing undergraduate and apprenticeship cohorts, the research aims to uncover not only the points at which students encounter difficulty but also the contextual factors that enable progression through these liminal spaces.\r\n<h1>Methodology<\/h1>\r\nThis study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist approach to explore how engineering students experience the development of soft skills as threshold concepts. The research design is grounded in phenomenological inquiry, aiming to capture the lived experiences of students as they navigate liminal spaces in their educational and professional development.\r\n\r\nTwenty participants were recruited offering both traditional engineering degrees and degree apprenticeships. The sample included 10 traditional undergraduates from years 2 to 3, and 10 degree apprentices from years 2 to 5.\r\n\r\nParticipants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, discipline (mechanical, civil, electrical), and prior work experience.\r\n\r\nSemi-structured interviews were conducted, each lasting approximately 45 to 60 minutes. The interview protocol included questions such as:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>\u201cCan you describe a moment when you struggled with a non-technical aspect of your engineering education?\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t<li>\u201cHow did you learn to work effectively in a team?\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t<li>\u201cHave you experienced a shift in how you see yourself as an engineer?\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nInterviews were transcribed verbatim and anonymised.\r\n\r\nThemes were identified and refined through iterative cycles of coding and memo-writing. Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke\u2019s (2006) six-phase approach, focusing on narratives of struggle, insight, and transformation.\r\n<h1>Findings<\/h1>\r\nThree major themes emerged from the data, illustrating how students experience soft skills as threshold concepts, how these experiences differ between educational models and how such threshold concepts are aligned with the threshold concept framework (Meyer &amp; Land, 2003).\r\n<h2>Liminal Struggles: Discomfort as a Catalyst<\/h2>\r\nStudents described initial encounters with soft skills as disorienting. Common experiences included:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Team conflict, where participants said how they didn\u2019t know how to tell someone they were wrong without sounding rude.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Public speaking anxiety, where participant stated that presenting to a client was terrifying, highlighting a sense on non-belonging to the context.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ethical dilemmas, where participants mentioned how when they had to choose between cost and safety, they felt that moment as a \u201cwake-up call.\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nThese moments were marked by emotional <em>discomfort<\/em>, <em>uncertainty<\/em>, and a sense of <em>inadequacy<\/em>, all hallmarks of the liminal phase.\r\n<h2>Transformative Moments: From Awareness to Integration<\/h2>\r\nParticipants identified specific events that catalysed <em>transformation<\/em>: undergraduates often cited capstone projects or group assessments as turning points, whereas apprentices referred to real-world incidents such as managing a client relationship or resolving a workplace dispute.\r\n\r\nThese experiences led to a redefinition of engineering identity. One apprentice noted, \u201cI used to think engineering was just maths and machines. Now I see it\u2019s also about people and judgement.\u201d\r\n<h2>Accelerated Threshold Crossing in Apprenticeships<\/h2>\r\nDegree apprentices consistently reported earlier and more confident crossings of soft skill thresholds. Contributing factors included\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>authentic context, where it was mentioned how being in a meeting with real consequences, learning happens fast;<\/li>\r\n \t<li>mentorship, where participants mentioned how direct interactions with supervisors were opportunities to get feedback that really stuck;<\/li>\r\n \t<li>reflection, where participant said how writing about their learning every week helps things click.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nCollectively, these findings demonstrate alignment with the defining criteria of threshold concepts within engineering education. The reported struggles with team conflict, public speaking, and ethical decision\u2011making exemplify the troublesome and liminal nature of soft skills, marked by uncertainty and discomfort. Transformative experiences during capstone projects and workplace encounters reveal the transformative and integrative dimensions, as learners reconceptualised engineering as a socio\u2011technical practice involving judgement and interpersonal engagement. The redefinition of professional identity illustrates the reconstitutive quality of threshold crossing, while apprentices\u2019 earlier confidence reflects accelerated movement through liminality facilitated by authentic, reflective, and mentored learning contexts.\r\n<h1>Discussion<\/h1>\r\nCommunication emerged as a key threshold concept. Undergraduate students tended to view it in a narrower way, often equating communication with giving a PowerPoint presentation or writing a report. Majority of apprentices, however, recognised communication as central to influencing decisions, navigating conflict, and building trust, as this is the experience they get from their workplaces. One apprentice remarked, 'If I can\u2019t explain the design clearly, the client won\u2019t buy it.' This shift in understanding reflects a transformation in the student\u2019s professional identity, from competent presenter to persuasive engineer.\r\n\r\nTeamwork was another area where threshold experiences differed. Traditional students often spoke about troublesome with arbitrary group work and unequal contribution. One said, 'Group work feels like a box-ticking exercise, and there is always someone who does not contribute.' In contrast, apprentices experienced teamwork in high-stakes contexts. They described moments of tension where (especially apprentices in later years) they had to negotiate priorities, learning to listen, and resolving conflict. One apprentice shared how it wasn\u2019t until a site issue transformed the whole approach that they realised what teamwork actually meant.\r\n\r\nProfessional judgement, perhaps the most abstract of the soft skills, was also experienced differently. Undergraduates often described uncertainty, relying on lecturers\u2019 cues to validate their decisions. In contrast, apprentices faced real ambiguity: incomplete data, budget constraints, competing stakeholder needs. Eraut (2004) emphasises that such tacit, situational knowledge is often only developed through practice. For apprentices, professional judgement is more a necessity than a concept.\r\n\r\nA key insight here is that the workplace seems to accelerate movement through liminal spaces. Apprentices are continually exposed to professional complexity, and their actions have real consequences. They receive feedback from multiple sources such as line managers, clients, colleagues and reflect in real time. Billett (2011) argues that workplace opportunities for participation and responsibility shape how and when learning occurs.\r\n\r\nAnother divergence was in students\u2019 relationships with educators. Undergraduates often described a passive role: 'I wait for the lecturer to explain.' Apprentices, however, described more dialogic, co-constructive interactions, both with academic tutors and workplace mentors, and are also more willing to share feedback more openly and in a constructive way. They asked questions, challenged decisions, and received immediate feedback.\r\n\r\nIdentity is a key element. Apprentices consistently described themselves in professional terms: 'I\u2019m the civil engineer on that site' or 'It was my decision to recommend the design.' These identity markers reflect confidence and internalisation. In contrast, undergraduates more often deferred identity, separating more their being students and being engineers, and this suggests that context, not capability, may be the limiting factor in threshold crossing. The apprenticeship structure enables earlier identity formation by embedding students within real professional communities.\r\n\r\nIf soft skills are threshold concepts, they must be embedded properly into the curriculum. We need to move beyond 'skills online course' or \u2018skills modules\u2019. Communication, judgement, and teamwork should be scaffolded in all years more strongly, with increasing complexity and autonomy. Palmer et al. (2019) argue for deliberate curriculum design that builds reflective, identity-focused learning. Assessment tasks should simulate professional realities, and students should be encouraged to reflect on failure and ambiguity. This requires not only curriculum change but a shift in institutional culture. In line with the observations from Jackson (2015) that WIL enhances employability by strengthening professional skills, academic curriculums (both \u2018conventional\u2019 and degree apprenticeship) must therefore include meaningful WIL such as industry-based projects, presentations targeted to specific types of audiences or online courses similar to those that employees have to complete as part of their Continuous Professional Development. This would allow students to begin the transformative process taking them from being an <em>engineering student<\/em> to being an <em>engineer<\/em>.From apprenticeships, we can draw valuable lessons as well. Even within traditional programmes, we can introduce authentic, practice-rich learning: live briefs, industry shadowing, dual mentoring. Co-teaching with practitioners or involving students in consultancy-style projects can simulate threshold experiences. Guile and Young (2003) argue that boundary-crossing pedagogies are essential for vocational and professional education because they enable learners to move between academic and applied contexts. They emphasize that learning is not simply about transferring knowledge but involves negotiating identities and practices across different communities. This approach supports the development of adaptive expertise and professional fluency by creating opportunities for learners to engage with authentic tasks, collaborate with practitioners, and reflect on experiences that bridge theoretical and practical domains.\r\n\r\nEducators play a crucial role in supporting students through liminal spaces. This requires a shift from transmission to facilitation. We must normalise discomfort, uncertainty, and emotional struggle as part of learning. Existing literature already stresses on the affective dimension of thresholds, and the need for compassionate, dialogic pedagogy.\r\n\r\nEducator development is also key. We must equip ourselves to recognise signs of \u2018stuckness\u2019, and to create conditions for safe exploration. This is not about lowering standards, but about enabling transformation. Also, apprentices themselves may become educators for UG students once the liminal space is crossed, via opportunities of peer learning and peer support.\r\n\r\nThe findings support the argument that soft skills function as threshold concepts in engineering education. Their development is not linear but involves iterative movement through liminal spaces. The degree apprenticeship model appears particularly effective in supporting this process, offering authentic contexts that make the relevance of soft skills explicit and urgent.\r\n\r\nThis has implications for curriculum design in traditional programmes. Embedding more experiential learning opportunities such as industry placements, simulations, industry involvement in the delivery of the curriculum and reflective practice could help replicate some of the benefits observed in the apprenticeship model.\r\n<h1>Conclusion<\/h1>\r\nSoft skills are not peripheral but fundamental to shaping an engineer\u2019s professional identity and capability. They underpin the ability to communicate effectively, collaborate across disciplines, and exercise sound judgment in complex, uncertain environments. Recognizing these competencies as threshold concepts reframes them from optional attributes to transformative gateways that redefine what it means to \u201cthink and act\u201d like an engineer. This perspective enables educators to design learning experiences that actively support students through the liminal spaces of professional development, spaces often characterized by discomfort, ambiguity, and identity negotiation.\r\n\r\nDegree apprenticeships provide a compelling model for this integration. Their structure embeds learners in authentic workplace contexts, where soft skills are continuously practiced and refined under real-world constraints. These experiences accelerate threshold crossings by combining technical knowledge with interpersonal and ethical dimensions of engineering practice. Importantly, the principles underpinning apprenticeships such as situated learning, reflective practice, and dialogic mentoring are not exclusive to vocational routes. They can inform innovative pedagogies across all forms of engineering education, including traditional degree programmes. Embedding these principles ensures that graduates are not only technically competent but also professionally fluent, capable of navigating the social, ethical, and collaborative challenges that define contemporary engineering.\r\n<h1>References<\/h1>\r\nABET. (2023). <em>Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2024\u20132025<\/em>. ABET.\r\nhttps:\/\/www.abet.org\/accreditation\/accreditation-criteria\/\r\n\r\nBillett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.\r\n\r\nBraun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77\u2013101. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1191\/1478088706qp063oa\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1191\/1478088706qp063oa<\/a>\r\n\r\nde Campos, D. B., de Resende, L. M. M., &amp; Fagundes, A. B. (2020). The importance of soft skills for engineering. Creative Education, 11(8), 1504\u20131520. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4236\/ce.2020.118109\r\n\r\nEraut, M. (2004). Practice-based evidence. In G. Thomas &amp; R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in education (pp. 91\u2013101). Open University Press.\r\n\r\nGuile, D., &amp; Young, M. (2003). Transfer and transition in vocational education: Some theoretical considerations. In T. Tuomi-Gr\u00f6hn &amp; Y. Engestr\u00f6m (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 63\u201381). Pergamon.\r\n\r\nHirudayaraj, M., Baker, R., Baker, F., &amp; Eastman, M. (2021). Soft skills for entry\u2011level engineers: What employers want. Education Sciences, 11(10), Article 641. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/educsci11100641\r\n\r\nJackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350\u2013367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03075079.2013.842221\r\n\r\nMale, S. A., &amp; Bennett, D. (2015). Threshold concepts in undergraduate engineering: Exploring engineering roles and value of learning. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 59\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7158\/D14-006.2015.20.\r\n\r\nMeyer, J. H. F., &amp; Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. ETL Project Occasional Report 4. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk\/docs\/ETLreport4.pdf\r\n\r\nPalmer, S., et al. (2019). Liminality and student learning: Threshold concepts in higher education. Routledge.\r\n\r\nShuman, L. J., Besterfield\u2011Sacre, M., &amp; McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET \u201cprofessional skills\u201d: Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41\u201355. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x\r\n\r\nWinberg, C., Winberg, S., &amp; Engel-Hills, P. (2019). Threshold concepts in engineering education: Perspectives from South Africa. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(6), 882\u2013899. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03043797.2019.1620666\r\n\r\nWintrup, J. (2021). Degree apprenticeships and professional fluency: A new model for work-integrated learning. Journal of Vocational Education &amp; Training, 73(4), 567\u2013584. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13636820.2021.1893472","rendered":"<h1>Abstract<\/h1>\n<p>This study investigates the experiences of engineering students as they navigate the liminal space associated with the development of soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and professional judgement. Drawing on the threshold concepts framework, the research compares students enrolled in conventional undergraduate degrees with those undertaking degree apprenticeships. Preliminary observations suggest that while both cohorts encounter similar conceptual thresholds, the degree apprenticeship model, with its embedded workplace exposure, facilitates more rapid and meaningful crossings. This paper argues that soft skills are not peripheral but are transformative and integrative components of engineering identity, and that experiential learning environments can significantly enhance their development.<\/p>\n<p><em>Keywords<\/em>: engineering, work-integrated learning, soft skills, liminal<\/p>\n<h1>Introduction<\/h1>\n<p>In the evolving landscape of engineering education, the development of soft skills, such as communication, teamwork, and professional judgement, has emerged as a critical complement to technical expertise (ABET., 2023; de Campos et al., 2020; Shuman et al., 2005). In addition, employers consider communication, teamwork, and professional responsibility as critically important, yet identify significant gaps in graduate proficiency in these areas (Hirudayaraj et al., 2021). As engineering challenges become increasingly interdisciplinary, influenced by the rapid development of technologies and more socially embedded, the ability to navigate complex human dynamics is no longer optional but essential. Yet, despite widespread recognition of their importance, soft skills often remain marginalised in curricula that privilege technical knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>Engineering practice increasingly relies on these &#8216;soft skills&#8217;, yet most of the time these remain marginal in many curricula. The Engineering Council and the associated professional bodies emphasise these attributes as central to becoming a competent engineer. However, within university engineering education contexts, soft skills are still too often treated as secondary to technical proficiency. This disconnect in how the university approaches soft skills affects how students approach their learning.<\/p>\n<p>This paper explores the development of soft skills through the lens of threshold concepts, focusing on the experiences of students in both traditional undergraduate engineering programmes and degree apprenticeships. This work argues that soft skills represent transformative learning thresholds, conceptual gateways that, once crossed, fundamentally reshape students\u2019 understanding of what it means to be an engineer.<\/p>\n<p>The study is situated within the broader context of educational innovation and partnership, particularly the rise of degree apprenticeships in the UK. These programmes integrate academic study with sustained workplace experience with a degree course with the application of concepts taught in the workplace, offering a unique advantage from which to examine the acquisition of soft skills in authentic professional contexts. Degree Apprenticeships have been designed and developed to bridge a gap of highly skilled engineers to support the national growth in infrastructure, automation, robotics, and advanced manufacturing and to offer a diversification of educational offer supporting the Widening Participation Agenda and students with non-traditional entry qualifications.<\/p>\n<h1>Literature Review<\/h1>\n<h2>Soft Skills in Engineering Education<\/h2>\n<p>Soft skills, also referred to as professional, interpersonal, or non-technical skills, encompass a range of competencies including communication, collaboration, adaptability, and ethical reasoning. These skills are increasingly recognised as vital for engineering graduates entering a globalised and rapidly changing workforce. Rovida and Zafferri (2022) argue that the fusion of hard and soft skills is essential for Engineering 4.0, where engineers must operate in environments characterised by automation, digitalisation, and human-machine interaction.<\/p>\n<p>Despite this, engineering curricula have historically prioritised technical content, often relegating soft skills to peripheral modules or extracurricular activities. This disconnect has prompted calls for more integrated approaches that embed soft skills development within core disciplinary learning.<\/p>\n<h2>Threshold Concepts and Liminality<\/h2>\n<p>The threshold concepts framework, introduced by Meyer and Land (2003), provides a powerful lens for understanding transformative learning. Threshold concepts are characterised by being:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Transformative: They change the way a student views a discipline.<\/li>\n<li>Integrative: They expose the interrelatedness of ideas.<\/li>\n<li>Troublesome: They are conceptually difficult or counterintuitive.<\/li>\n<li>Irreversible: Once understood, they are unlikely to be forgotten.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Crossing a threshold involves navigating a liminal space, a state of conceptual and identity flux where learners may feel uncertain, stuck, or disoriented. This process is not merely cognitive but affective and ontological, involving shifts in self-perception and professional identity.<\/p>\n<p>While threshold concepts have been widely applied in engineering education to topics such as systems thinking and design processes, their application to soft skills remains underexplored. Male and Bennett (2015) identified \u201croles of engineers\u201d and \u201cvalue of learning\u201d as potential threshold concepts, noting that students often struggle to reconcile their technical training with the broader social and ethical dimensions of engineering practice.<\/p>\n<h2>Work-Integrated Learning and Degree Apprenticeships<\/h2>\n<p>Work-integrated learning (WIL) models, including internships, placements, and degree apprenticeships, offer promising avenues for soft skills development. These models situate learning within authentic professional contexts, allowing students to apply and reflect on their skills in real time. Jackson (2015) found that WIL enhances employability by strengthening self-efficacy, adaptability, and professional judgement.<\/p>\n<p>Degree apprenticeships, in particular, represent a significant innovation in UK higher education. By combining academic study with sustained employment, they offer a dual-context learning environment that may accelerate the crossing of soft skill thresholds. Apprentices are often required to engage in reflective practice, navigate workplace hierarchies, and contribute to team-based projects, which are experiences that mirror the liminal challenges described in threshold concept theory. Wintrup (2021) suggests apprentices develop professional fluency earlier, due to continuous interaction with real-world complexity. Apprentices must communicate with stakeholders, defend their decisions, and adapt to shifting priorities in a real world scenario via professional realities.<\/p>\n<p>Despite growing recognition of their importance, the integration of soft skills within engineering education remains limited, as curricula continue to emphasize technical and discipline-specific knowledge. Likewise, existing threshold concept literature seldom explores differences across learning pathways, such as traditional degrees and degree apprenticeships. This study seeks to address both gaps by positioning soft skills as potential threshold concepts, transformative elements that require distinct pedagogical strategies, including integration within core modules, reflective practice, and experiential learning opportunities. By comparing undergraduate and apprenticeship cohorts, the research aims to uncover not only the points at which students encounter difficulty but also the contextual factors that enable progression through these liminal spaces.<\/p>\n<h1>Methodology<\/h1>\n<p>This study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist approach to explore how engineering students experience the development of soft skills as threshold concepts. The research design is grounded in phenomenological inquiry, aiming to capture the lived experiences of students as they navigate liminal spaces in their educational and professional development.<\/p>\n<p>Twenty participants were recruited offering both traditional engineering degrees and degree apprenticeships. The sample included 10 traditional undergraduates from years 2 to 3, and 10 degree apprentices from years 2 to 5.<\/p>\n<p>Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, discipline (mechanical, civil, electrical), and prior work experience.<\/p>\n<p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted, each lasting approximately 45 to 60 minutes. The interview protocol included questions such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cCan you describe a moment when you struggled with a non-technical aspect of your engineering education?\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cHow did you learn to work effectively in a team?\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cHave you experienced a shift in how you see yourself as an engineer?\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Interviews were transcribed verbatim and anonymised.<\/p>\n<p>Themes were identified and refined through iterative cycles of coding and memo-writing. Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke\u2019s (2006) six-phase approach, focusing on narratives of struggle, insight, and transformation.<\/p>\n<h1>Findings<\/h1>\n<p>Three major themes emerged from the data, illustrating how students experience soft skills as threshold concepts, how these experiences differ between educational models and how such threshold concepts are aligned with the threshold concept framework (Meyer &amp; Land, 2003).<\/p>\n<h2>Liminal Struggles: Discomfort as a Catalyst<\/h2>\n<p>Students described initial encounters with soft skills as disorienting. Common experiences included:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Team conflict, where participants said how they didn\u2019t know how to tell someone they were wrong without sounding rude.<\/li>\n<li>Public speaking anxiety, where participant stated that presenting to a client was terrifying, highlighting a sense on non-belonging to the context.<\/li>\n<li>Ethical dilemmas, where participants mentioned how when they had to choose between cost and safety, they felt that moment as a \u201cwake-up call.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>These moments were marked by emotional <em>discomfort<\/em>, <em>uncertainty<\/em>, and a sense of <em>inadequacy<\/em>, all hallmarks of the liminal phase.<\/p>\n<h2>Transformative Moments: From Awareness to Integration<\/h2>\n<p>Participants identified specific events that catalysed <em>transformation<\/em>: undergraduates often cited capstone projects or group assessments as turning points, whereas apprentices referred to real-world incidents such as managing a client relationship or resolving a workplace dispute.<\/p>\n<p>These experiences led to a redefinition of engineering identity. One apprentice noted, \u201cI used to think engineering was just maths and machines. Now I see it\u2019s also about people and judgement.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2>Accelerated Threshold Crossing in Apprenticeships<\/h2>\n<p>Degree apprentices consistently reported earlier and more confident crossings of soft skill thresholds. Contributing factors included<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>authentic context, where it was mentioned how being in a meeting with real consequences, learning happens fast;<\/li>\n<li>mentorship, where participants mentioned how direct interactions with supervisors were opportunities to get feedback that really stuck;<\/li>\n<li>reflection, where participant said how writing about their learning every week helps things click.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Collectively, these findings demonstrate alignment with the defining criteria of threshold concepts within engineering education. The reported struggles with team conflict, public speaking, and ethical decision\u2011making exemplify the troublesome and liminal nature of soft skills, marked by uncertainty and discomfort. Transformative experiences during capstone projects and workplace encounters reveal the transformative and integrative dimensions, as learners reconceptualised engineering as a socio\u2011technical practice involving judgement and interpersonal engagement. The redefinition of professional identity illustrates the reconstitutive quality of threshold crossing, while apprentices\u2019 earlier confidence reflects accelerated movement through liminality facilitated by authentic, reflective, and mentored learning contexts.<\/p>\n<h1>Discussion<\/h1>\n<p>Communication emerged as a key threshold concept. Undergraduate students tended to view it in a narrower way, often equating communication with giving a PowerPoint presentation or writing a report. Majority of apprentices, however, recognised communication as central to influencing decisions, navigating conflict, and building trust, as this is the experience they get from their workplaces. One apprentice remarked, &#8216;If I can\u2019t explain the design clearly, the client won\u2019t buy it.&#8217; This shift in understanding reflects a transformation in the student\u2019s professional identity, from competent presenter to persuasive engineer.<\/p>\n<p>Teamwork was another area where threshold experiences differed. Traditional students often spoke about troublesome with arbitrary group work and unequal contribution. One said, &#8216;Group work feels like a box-ticking exercise, and there is always someone who does not contribute.&#8217; In contrast, apprentices experienced teamwork in high-stakes contexts. They described moments of tension where (especially apprentices in later years) they had to negotiate priorities, learning to listen, and resolving conflict. One apprentice shared how it wasn\u2019t until a site issue transformed the whole approach that they realised what teamwork actually meant.<\/p>\n<p>Professional judgement, perhaps the most abstract of the soft skills, was also experienced differently. Undergraduates often described uncertainty, relying on lecturers\u2019 cues to validate their decisions. In contrast, apprentices faced real ambiguity: incomplete data, budget constraints, competing stakeholder needs. Eraut (2004) emphasises that such tacit, situational knowledge is often only developed through practice. For apprentices, professional judgement is more a necessity than a concept.<\/p>\n<p>A key insight here is that the workplace seems to accelerate movement through liminal spaces. Apprentices are continually exposed to professional complexity, and their actions have real consequences. They receive feedback from multiple sources such as line managers, clients, colleagues and reflect in real time. Billett (2011) argues that workplace opportunities for participation and responsibility shape how and when learning occurs.<\/p>\n<p>Another divergence was in students\u2019 relationships with educators. Undergraduates often described a passive role: &#8216;I wait for the lecturer to explain.&#8217; Apprentices, however, described more dialogic, co-constructive interactions, both with academic tutors and workplace mentors, and are also more willing to share feedback more openly and in a constructive way. They asked questions, challenged decisions, and received immediate feedback.<\/p>\n<p>Identity is a key element. Apprentices consistently described themselves in professional terms: &#8216;I\u2019m the civil engineer on that site&#8217; or &#8216;It was my decision to recommend the design.&#8217; These identity markers reflect confidence and internalisation. In contrast, undergraduates more often deferred identity, separating more their being students and being engineers, and this suggests that context, not capability, may be the limiting factor in threshold crossing. The apprenticeship structure enables earlier identity formation by embedding students within real professional communities.<\/p>\n<p>If soft skills are threshold concepts, they must be embedded properly into the curriculum. We need to move beyond &#8216;skills online course&#8217; or \u2018skills modules\u2019. Communication, judgement, and teamwork should be scaffolded in all years more strongly, with increasing complexity and autonomy. Palmer et al. (2019) argue for deliberate curriculum design that builds reflective, identity-focused learning. Assessment tasks should simulate professional realities, and students should be encouraged to reflect on failure and ambiguity. This requires not only curriculum change but a shift in institutional culture. In line with the observations from Jackson (2015) that WIL enhances employability by strengthening professional skills, academic curriculums (both \u2018conventional\u2019 and degree apprenticeship) must therefore include meaningful WIL such as industry-based projects, presentations targeted to specific types of audiences or online courses similar to those that employees have to complete as part of their Continuous Professional Development. This would allow students to begin the transformative process taking them from being an <em>engineering student<\/em> to being an <em>engineer<\/em>.From apprenticeships, we can draw valuable lessons as well. Even within traditional programmes, we can introduce authentic, practice-rich learning: live briefs, industry shadowing, dual mentoring. Co-teaching with practitioners or involving students in consultancy-style projects can simulate threshold experiences. Guile and Young (2003) argue that boundary-crossing pedagogies are essential for vocational and professional education because they enable learners to move between academic and applied contexts. They emphasize that learning is not simply about transferring knowledge but involves negotiating identities and practices across different communities. This approach supports the development of adaptive expertise and professional fluency by creating opportunities for learners to engage with authentic tasks, collaborate with practitioners, and reflect on experiences that bridge theoretical and practical domains.<\/p>\n<p>Educators play a crucial role in supporting students through liminal spaces. This requires a shift from transmission to facilitation. We must normalise discomfort, uncertainty, and emotional struggle as part of learning. Existing literature already stresses on the affective dimension of thresholds, and the need for compassionate, dialogic pedagogy.<\/p>\n<p>Educator development is also key. We must equip ourselves to recognise signs of \u2018stuckness\u2019, and to create conditions for safe exploration. This is not about lowering standards, but about enabling transformation. Also, apprentices themselves may become educators for UG students once the liminal space is crossed, via opportunities of peer learning and peer support.<\/p>\n<p>The findings support the argument that soft skills function as threshold concepts in engineering education. Their development is not linear but involves iterative movement through liminal spaces. The degree apprenticeship model appears particularly effective in supporting this process, offering authentic contexts that make the relevance of soft skills explicit and urgent.<\/p>\n<p>This has implications for curriculum design in traditional programmes. Embedding more experiential learning opportunities such as industry placements, simulations, industry involvement in the delivery of the curriculum and reflective practice could help replicate some of the benefits observed in the apprenticeship model.<\/p>\n<h1>Conclusion<\/h1>\n<p>Soft skills are not peripheral but fundamental to shaping an engineer\u2019s professional identity and capability. They underpin the ability to communicate effectively, collaborate across disciplines, and exercise sound judgment in complex, uncertain environments. Recognizing these competencies as threshold concepts reframes them from optional attributes to transformative gateways that redefine what it means to \u201cthink and act\u201d like an engineer. This perspective enables educators to design learning experiences that actively support students through the liminal spaces of professional development, spaces often characterized by discomfort, ambiguity, and identity negotiation.<\/p>\n<p>Degree apprenticeships provide a compelling model for this integration. Their structure embeds learners in authentic workplace contexts, where soft skills are continuously practiced and refined under real-world constraints. These experiences accelerate threshold crossings by combining technical knowledge with interpersonal and ethical dimensions of engineering practice. Importantly, the principles underpinning apprenticeships such as situated learning, reflective practice, and dialogic mentoring are not exclusive to vocational routes. They can inform innovative pedagogies across all forms of engineering education, including traditional degree programmes. Embedding these principles ensures that graduates are not only technically competent but also professionally fluent, capable of navigating the social, ethical, and collaborative challenges that define contemporary engineering.<\/p>\n<h1>References<\/h1>\n<p>ABET. (2023). <em>Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2024\u20132025<\/em>. ABET.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CG3IjJY2dZ\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.abet.org\/accreditation\/accreditation-criteria\/\">Accreditation Criteria &amp; Supporting Documents<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" id=\"oembed-1\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" style=\"position: absolute; visibility: hidden;\" title=\"&#8220;Accreditation Criteria &amp; Supporting Documents&#8221; &#8212; ABET\" src=\"https:\/\/www.abet.org\/accreditation\/accreditation-criteria\/embed\/#?secret=Pl8KTzoobg#?secret=CG3IjJY2dZ\" data-secret=\"CG3IjJY2dZ\" width=\"500\" height=\"282\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.<\/p>\n<p>Braun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77\u2013101. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1191\/1478088706qp063oa\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1191\/1478088706qp063oa<\/a><\/p>\n<p>de Campos, D. B., de Resende, L. M. M., &amp; Fagundes, A. B. (2020). The importance of soft skills for engineering. Creative Education, 11(8), 1504\u20131520. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4236\/ce.2020.118109<\/p>\n<p>Eraut, M. (2004). Practice-based evidence. In G. Thomas &amp; R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in education (pp. 91\u2013101). Open University Press.<\/p>\n<p>Guile, D., &amp; Young, M. (2003). Transfer and transition in vocational education: Some theoretical considerations. In T. Tuomi-Gr\u00f6hn &amp; Y. Engestr\u00f6m (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 63\u201381). Pergamon.<\/p>\n<p>Hirudayaraj, M., Baker, R., Baker, F., &amp; Eastman, M. (2021). Soft skills for entry\u2011level engineers: What employers want. Education Sciences, 11(10), Article 641. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/educsci11100641<\/p>\n<p>Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350\u2013367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03075079.2013.842221<\/p>\n<p>Male, S. A., &amp; Bennett, D. (2015). Threshold concepts in undergraduate engineering: Exploring engineering roles and value of learning. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 59\u201369. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7158\/D14-006.2015.20.<\/p>\n<p>Meyer, J. H. F., &amp; Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. ETL Project Occasional Report 4. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk\/docs\/ETLreport4.pdf<\/p>\n<p>Palmer, S., et al. (2019). Liminality and student learning: Threshold concepts in higher education. Routledge.<\/p>\n<p>Shuman, L. J., Besterfield\u2011Sacre, M., &amp; McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET \u201cprofessional skills\u201d: Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41\u201355. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x<\/p>\n<p>Winberg, C., Winberg, S., &amp; Engel-Hills, P. (2019). Threshold concepts in engineering education: Perspectives from South Africa. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(6), 882\u2013899. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03043797.2019.1620666<\/p>\n<p>Wintrup, J. (2021). Degree apprenticeships and professional fluency: A new model for work-integrated learning. Journal of Vocational Education &amp; Training, 73(4), 567\u2013584. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13636820.2021.1893472<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1929,"menu_order":6,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["elia-gironacci"],"pb_section_license":"cc-by-nc-sa"},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[76],"license":[57],"class_list":["post-97","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-elia-gironacci","license-cc-by-nc-sa"],"part":25,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/97","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1929"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/97\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":110,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/97\/revisions\/110"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/25"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/97\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=97"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=97"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thresholdconceptsconference\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=97"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}