Dimensions

The development of the learning transfer process model began with the recognition that people interpret figured worlds (Holland et al., 1998) of the

contexts that they are part of. Figured worlds are ‘‘socially produced, culturally constructed activities’’ (Holland et al., 1998, p.40-41) that shape individuals actions and identity development. Accordingly, Holland et al. (1998) stated that figured worlds were more than a mental image, since they enabled the individual’s contribution to the construction of that same figured world. What they meant was that a figured world is never just a realistic painting of a certain reality, but rather, an ever changing representation of the individual’s perceptions upon a certain reality and of their actions within it.

My understanding of the figured world of university, for example, includes libraries, offices and students’ unions. It has classes, but also seminars, workshops or reading discussion groups. In my figured word of university, libraries are the place where books and papers are stored and where I have to go to get them. In my personal experience they are not a place for working. So, what this figured world encompasses is not only the possible features of a university, but, and more importantly, my understanding and uses of it. In this sense, figured worlds shape the individuals’ actions, much like my figured world of university shapes the way I interact and use university libraries. Other people figured worlds of university might be different from mine, but what remains is that, in any case, that individual, yet socially and mediated dialectic construction shapes our actions and the way we decide to engage with that particular figured world.

The point here was that, investigating and understanding the features and constructions of students’ figured worlds of work while they are in their placements might provide opportunities to help them shape positive constructions that would lead to a fuller and more interactive engagement with that world. Overall, the figured world can be a relevant tool for investigating educational contexts and the identities that are formed in them (Urrieta, 2007). Therefore, it is used in this research as the umbrella concept that explains how students integrate and shape all the dimensions from the learning transfer process in their understanding of the context. Figure 3.1 presents the dimensions that constitute the learning transfer model and the different aspects that could be part of individuals' figured worlds of the transition between higher education and the workplace.

Figure 3.1 – Learning transfer model

As presented in Figure 3.1, the learning transfer model is formed of three interrelated dimensions, knowledge, self and social interactions, and each of these is supported by physical and conceptual mediational means that either exist in the context or are created by the individuals. Context is also a relevant aspect of the model as it frames all the actions and further reinforces the social and contextual features of this model.

These dimensions were developed from literature on learning transfer and from an attempt to integrate relevant contributions from classical, cognitive and situated perspectives on transfer. In the next sub-sections, each dimension is described, including how they were developed and the analytical units that are used to investigate students' experiences of their one-year work- placements.

3.4.1.1 Knowledge

One concept that is immediately connected with learning and learning transfer is knowledge. Knowledge is a very generic concept (Lundvall, 1996; Eraut, 1998), but it is most often used to describe factual and codified information. Within this study, and following the learning transfer definition presented before, using knowledge regarding its factual dimension is not enough to understand students’ transitions between higher education and the workplace. Therefore, in this study, knowledge is conceptualised as know-what, know- why, know-how and know-who (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996).

Know-what refers to facts and information, and it can be divided or simplified (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). Within placements this type of knowledge might include the theoretical knowledge students learned in school and university, but also, information about the company, the sector, the products, and even the people that are part of that company or sector.

Know-why is the type of knowledge that is usually produced within universities or research institutes and refers to scientific knowledge, principals and laws that are part of nature (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). This type of knowledge is more relevant to certain sectors that others. However, in this study, its meaning will be broadened to include the processes and rules of the workplace and, following this, might include formal aspects such as working hours, trainees’ rights and duties, but also informal aspects such as lunch arrangements, coffee time, anniversary cake, and so on.

Know-how is the ability to do something and broadly refers to the necessary skills for production (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). This type of knowledge usually remains within the boundaries of one activity sector, or group or organization (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). Understanding knowing-how within placements might lead into the analysis of the use of specific software programs or specific procedures for action. Overall, there is an expectation that both know-how and know-what cross the boundary of university into the workplace, where they are used in a more practical manner.

The last type, know-who is socially embedded and refers to knowledge about who knows what and who knows how (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). This type of knowledge is not so much about knowing who are the people working in a certain institution, which would fall under know-what, but the very "specific and selective (knowledge about) social relations" (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994, p. 28) and the ability to establish them with specialized groups (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). Other way to think about know-why can be using Edwards’ (2005; 2010; Edwards and D’arcy, 2004) notion of relational agency. According to the author, relational agency “involves a capacity to offer support and to ask for support from others” (Edwards, 2005, p.168) and further “involves working together purposefully

towards goals that reflect the motives that shape the specialist expertise of each participant” (Edwards, 2010, p.61). In Chapter 5 I present a case in which Edwards’ notion of relational agency is particularly useful to understand the participants’ approach to learning in the work-placement (section 5.4.2). Additionally, the way individuals develop these types of knowledge is also relevant. While know-what and know-why can be developed through books, lectures and databases and are easily codified, know-how and know-who are the result of social interactions and practical experience (Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Lundvall, 1996). Taking these definitions to the analysis of placements meant that most students should have developed a certain level of know-what and why before going to the placement, while know-how and who, as they are "expertise(s) developed over time in handling particular kinds of problems" (Eraut, 1998, p.131) are more situated and acquired within the experiences provided within the placement (Eraut, 1998).

Overall, the aim of this conceptualization of knowledge was to encompass the knowledge that belongs to the realm of books, mostly explicit and codified knowledge (Eraut, 2004), and the knowledge that belongs to the realm of social interactions, referring to the tacit and personal knowledge that, according to Eraut (2004), is harder to develop. Figure 3.2 presents an example, taken from a movie, to show how disregarding, for example, tacit knowledge might result in misunderstandings about people's experiences. Figure 3.2 – Relevance of explicit and implicit knowledge

Consequently, in this study the dimension of knowledge includes information about the type of theoretical knowledge students need to operate the transition between university and the workplace, but also the knowledge that they acquire through being involved in the placement and engaged in its social interactions. The argument here is that only through this combination of knowledge coming from books and from "following the crowd" that the contexts can be fully understood.

3.4.1.2 Social interactions

Stating the relevance of context in the definition of learning transfer that underpins this study required the definition of some tools to understand what happens in the workplace. Part of that understanding would relate to the knowledge that is used in the workplace, but also how people operate that knowledge. Eraut’s (2004; 2007; 2011) work on workplace learning presents some clues as to what could be more relevant to frame students’ experiences. His research highlights the need to learn from other people, either from supervisors, mentors, shadowing experiences, or some combination of them (Eraut, 2004; 2007). Another aspect that would become relevant on its own but also in relation to supervision is feedback. Indeed, Eraut (2004, p.268) stressed the need for both “short-term, task-specific feedback and longer- term, more strategic feedback on general progress”. In the workplace, feedback is the most immediate way for students to understand their progress. However, students might find it difficult to understand the unstructured and mostly informal nature of feedback in the workplace, when comparing it with their previous experiences at being given feedback.

Pro-activity is also a relevant concept to mediate students’ interactions and could include aspects like asking questions, looking for information and requesting to engage in certain activities (Eraut, 2004; 2011). For example, Bransford and Schwartz (1999) emphasized the students’ ability to seek help as a fundamental part of learning transfer. Also Edwards (2005; 2010) addressed the importance of working together with others towards the development of goals. Overall, this aspect of social interactions is also related with students’ identity development and the use of negotiation in the

placement to increase participation towards achieving full-membership (Lave and Wenger, 2001).

Overall, within social interactions it is possible to understand the students’ positioning in the community of practice of the workplace and delineate the type of interactions the students are exposed to. Furthermore, through the analysis of the students’ social interactions in the work-placement might be possible to identify the most relevant type of interactions for their professional identity construction.

3.4.1.3 Self

The dimension of "self" became relevant to this work as a consequence of a closer analysis of some of the main concepts used so far. References to participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), negotiation (Lave and Wenger, 1991), membership (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and becoming (Beach, 1993; 1999; 2003; Wenger, 1998) seem to portray a dynamic view of individuals, and required some thinking on what happens to students themselves, when they move from university to the workplace or to the placement and then back to university.

Section 3.2.3 (Sociocultural perspective) highlighted that transitions may be consequential and developmental (Beach, 1999; 2003), and that the process of "becoming an experienced participant in some form of human activity" (Beach, 1993, p. 191) is actually the process of "becoming someone new" (Beach, 1999, p. 121). Consequently, within a framework of learning transfer that focuses on transition and transformation, rather than application, identity formation has to be a key concept. Looking to Lave and Wenger’s work (1991, p, 81), identity can be defined as the “way a person understands and views himself, and is viewed by others, a perception of self which is fairly constant”. Furthermore, other authors have established this connection between learning and identity. For example, Edwards and McKenzie (2005, p.290) state that they “make little distinction between learning and shifts in identity. For us identity is closely aligned with a disposition towards particular forms of action and the wherewithal to interpret and use environmental affordances to support action”.

However, despite these references, identity is still a complex concept (Haynes, 2006) with multiple interpretations and frameworks in literature (Sutherland et al., 2010), which required some boundary setting for the purpose of this study. Here, identity will be described and used in relation to the development of a professional identity (Gee, 2000; Sutherland et al., 2010; Hamilton, 2013) and will focus on the development of that identity as a consequence of the interaction between the individual and the social (Holland et al., 1998; Gee, 2000; Geijesel and Meijers, 2005; Sutherland et al,, 2010), a type of "identity-in-practice" (Lemke, 1997, p.3) that highlights individual agency as much as social interactions. Such view is in line with the overall understanding presented in this work that learning and learning transfer occur at the intersection between the individual, the knowledge and the context. Therefore, professional identity is here described as resulting from a certain position within a community, the interaction with others in that community and the individual's interpretations of those interactions (Sutherland et al., 2010). It is understood as the result of a social construction but also of an individual sense-making ability (Geijsel and Meijers, 2005), a combination, as Holland et al. (1998) would say, of the intimate and personal and the collective. The consequence of this understanding is that professional identity formation will be looked at through the framework of legitimate peripheral participation (described in section 3.2.2.1) in communities of practice (described in section 3.4.3). As a reminder, legitimate peripheral participation aims to understand how students negotiate their membership to the work-placement in order to move from newcomers to full participants, and communities of practice can be broadly defined as groups of people with a shared expertise and goal working together (Wenger and Snyder, 2000).

Another relevant aspect is that, within this research, identity is studied in the transition between two settings, the university and the work-placement, and analysed through contrasting cases in order to understand in which way being a student is different from being a professional. Contrasting cases, according to Bransford and Schwartz (1999) affect the way individuals experience and interpret new situations and therefore can highlight relevant areas or aspects within this transition that might explain how students develop their identities

within work-placements and what means are the most relevant mediators of their experiences.

3.4.2 Mediational means

Both, social interactions and professional identities are developed within the individual's figured worlds (Holland, et al., 1998) through the creation, manipulation and transformation of artefacts (Holland et al., 1998; Beach, 1999; 2003; Geijsel and Meijers, 2005). Artefacts can be described as tools, that are material objects or signs, which are abstract, symbolic representations that people can use to mediate their activities (Holland et al., 1998). Consequently, artefacts bear within themselves a certain "practice’s heritage" (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p, 101), narratives and knowledge that structures people's actions (Eraut and Hirsh, 1997).

However, not all artefacts are used to mediate one's learning and activity. Swain and Steinman (2010) argue that all artefacts bear some affordances and constraints, but that the individual must act on them or through them in order for them to become mediators. One simple example is that a key is just an object until it is used to open a door, in which case it becomes a mediator for action. The same key, however, in a different situation might be used to open a bottle, or to scratch something, therefore mediating other types of actions. That is why, when artefacts (both physical and conceptual) become mediators, it is important to consider the artefact in itself, but also, why it is used, in which way, to achieve what purpose and with what outcome (Swain and Steinman, 2010).

Other relevant aspects to consider about artefacts in the transition between university and the placement is the amount of professional knowledge necessary to use them (Eraut and Hirsh, 1997), their availability (Swain and Steinman, 2010) and individual's goals in using them (Swain and Steinman, 2010; Beach, 1993). In daily practices, artefacts carry information that newcomers need to understand and master in order to act (Eraut and Hirsh, 1997). This was the case, for example, with Lundsteen's (2011) participants’ experiences with the special software required to operate at the bank where they were interns. While some interns were eager to use the specific software, others lacked the financial industry experience that allowed them a correct

use. Ultimately, the level of professional knowledge will shape those students experiences.

On the other hand, the availability of relevant artefacts to act as mediators is also something to consider (Swain and Steinman, 2010). For example, Beach (1993, p.191) highlighted that "external aids to memory such as lists, timers, notebooks, photographs, and calendars are critical to acquiring and maintaining knowledge necessary for effective functioning in the workplace". When such artefacts are not present, individuals might produce their own or look for alternatives. This idea is also in line with Swain and Steinman's (2010) view that social interactions and people can also become mediational means. The last aspect to consider here is the individuals’ personal goals within the selection and manipulation of artefacts. According to Swain and Steinman (2010), individuals’ actions are shaped by their identities and "changing (dynamic) goals" (Swain and Steinman, 2010, p.6). This view is also supported by Beach's (1993) research into individuals’ experiences of becoming a bartender, in which the move from the individual goal of learning the drinks' names to the goal of increasing tips and interaction with customers, made them change the way they used available artefacts. For this study, what this highlights is the need to look at students’ experiences in the placement as interrelated between identity, knowledge and social interactions, while also accounting for how the context itself is framing students' experiences.

3.4.3 Context

Context is considered a relevant feature of the learning transfer model as it encompasses all the dimensions and adds to the individuals’ sense making of figured worlds. Here context is considered an integrant part of learning and of the learning transfer process. Following this view, this study looks at the context of higher education, the context of the workplace and at the transition between them. In this analysis. Two concepts were particularly relevant, namely communities of practice (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002) and intercontextuality (Engle, 2006; Engle et al., 2012).

Communities of practice are defined as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis”

(Wenger et al., 2002, p.4). In this sense, a community of practice is based on two principles; one, that people take part and share; and two, that relations are developed within the community (Wenger, 1998). Also, in the community of practice, individuals share problems and solutions, discuss and explore ideas and act in a concerted way (Wenger et al., 2000; Wenger and Snyder, 2000). They create explicit artefacts for the community such as tools, documents and standards, and tacit understandings for action (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). As a consequence, knowledge is conceived as dynamic and, “over time, they (the communities of practice) develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge, practices, and approaches” (Wenger et al., 2002, p.5), which they also regenerate within themselves (Wenger and Snyder, 2000).

Overall, the concept of community of practice shares understandings with the definition of learning transfer used in this study and the dimensions that shape the model. Communities of practice include, according to Wenger et al. (2002), three elements: (1) the domain of knowledge, including implicit and explicit; (2) the community of people, addressing issues regarding membership, individual identity, and, roles and status; and (3) the practices, including working frameworks, tools and language. Each of these enable some understanding about the common knowledge that is used in the community, the type of interaction and participation that creates the history and identity of that community and the common framework for action (Wenger et al., 2002).

The second aspect that this study focused on regarding context was intercontextuality (Engel, 2006; Engle et al., 2012). Intercontextuality is broadly defined as the connection between two or more contexts and can be promoted, according to Engle et al. (2012), by framing the learning situations in an expansive manner. Framing can be developed in terms of time and participation (Engel, 2006; Engle et al., 2012). In the first one, framing requires learning situations to be contextualized in past, present and future settings