Search results

If the core purpose of transformative education is to challenge and reposition knowledge through a range of opportunities, then surfacing and attending to forms of student misconceptions (for example, through confusion, disequilibrium) are a necessary part of learning and teaching. We have come to understand that arriving at a clear view of a concept may involve a process of working through a range of misconceptions about a phenomenon or experience that may or may not create a threshold experience in a learner. We argue that the journey through conceptual change and thresholds requires a more nuanced emphasis on liminal spaces, where misconceptions and thresholds may reside. We offer a revised thresholds concept generic model that helps to identify student misconceptions as cycles within and through pre-liminal, liminal and post-liminal spaces. Two practice examples demonstrate the application of this model: (1) teaching and learning botanical literacy through a technology-rich, real-time mobile app and (2) embedding and measuring cultural competence as a graduate learning outcome in Australian universities. Each context offers a specific emphasis on highlighting the need to make all liminal learning spaces safer, as learners surface and engage with conceptual change. The conclusion suggests that conceptual change in student learning offers a form of threshold misconception.

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.