Results (Method 7) Individual 1-1 Interviews

Having initially transcribed 1-1 interview data (by hand), due to the range of resultant outcomes, I thought incorporating analyses software (NVIVO) might further assist the analyses process by helping to shape my interpretation of data extracted but also to gain a broader picture of skills usage across the cohort. For further clarity, personalised student outcomes (based on one-to-one transcription data) are tabulated in Appendix 30.

A step closer…

• All participants were able to articulate and identify ‘key moments’ which we came to describe as personalised situated ‘scenarios’ to communicate their experiences whilst on the BTEC Extended Diploma Media Production course and to extrapolate specific transferable skills embedded and articulated as having developed during the research timeframe.

• It appears the tracker is viewed a tool to help participants as multiple and frequent responses used terms like ‘help me’ ‘increased confidence’ and ‘independence.’

• All participants related at least one scenario to client-led projects, (e.g. ‘Saltscape’) or other body, in an attempt to anchor transferable skills

articulation and consequently illuminate their understanding/ knowledge. It is worth noting that only two participants actually made reference to client-led or external work as a transferable skill in and of itself.

• 6 participants referred to technical challenges within their stated scenarios yet did not list technical skills as one of their key transferable skills, only one participant did.

The observations suggested mobilisation had taken place, transferable skills were beginning to be articulated with a greater sense of autonomy and confidence. In response to our second research question, ‘how can student articulation be

evidenced across the timeframe to demonstrate progression?’ in this respect more

progressive contextualised articulations were becoming evident.

As a result of student interview data, the frequency of transferable skills referred to, from our revised top 5 list (as agreed amongst participants in Methods 5 and 6) was collated to demonstrate cohort spread.

2 participants made direct reference to all five skills as listed on the tracker. 5 participants made direct reference to four skills as listed.

3 participants made direct reference to three skills as listed. 1 participant made reference to only two skills as listed.

Further collation of the data (Appendix 31) then allowed me to rank skills

referenced relating to frequency of usage (across the various participant contexts/ experiences encountered):

Independence was referenced by 10 out of 11 participants.

Teamwork was referenced by 9 out of 11 participants.

Organisation was referenced by 8 out of 11 participants.

Communication & Time-Management were each equally referenced by 7 out of

11 participants.

Generally, the data demonstrates a high percentage of participant coverage regarding articulated experiences (associated with particular skills) and includes a broad spread regarding participant reference and articulation across all listed transferable skills identified. Clear evidence of mobilised articulations across participant experiences in production over the six-month timeframe becoming apparent. Given our second research question, any effective and useful evaluation would mean that analyses would need to be realigned to the individual and not the cohort. The extent to which participant articulated accounts graduated over

time would require a conscious turn away from cohort data towards presenting data through personalised articulations, as unique to each

student. It is at this point in the research process where data analyses made more

sense when thinking about it as a student profile or cross-section of methods. Thus, interpretations were best viewed through a post-structural lens as student

interpretations and articulations on their transferable skills become increasingly more aligned with a redefining process as opposed to arriving at any single fixed definition.

To illuminate the idea of viewing individual outcomes as post-structural,

articulations further diversified with context, as the ‘key moments’ category (see Appendix 32) indicate.

The evident variables in Appendix 32 can be attributed to the idea that as each participant drew on their own diverse production context(s) their articulations became more personalised, thus evidencing participant diversification away from and outside of the tracker. This proved beguiling for one key reason. The

participants had sought to reduce the list (during methods 5 and 6) at this stage all participants agreed that the tracker needed to be (MED8) ‘more concise.’

Interestingly however, when articulating ‘key moments’ during the 1-1 interviews, the majority of participants actually diverted from the listed skills and introduced additional transferable skills (that were not previously evident on their trackers). This step change in articulating skills not on the list demonstrated a sense of

discursive confidence not witnessed during Phase One. It seemed that reducing the list of TS, inadvertently resulted in a proliferation of others, reaffirming our

observations that transferable skills themselves come to perform somewhat rhizomatically. In providing a de-centred reappraisal of TS, we came to view them as connected to every aspect of our lives and experiences both inside and outside educational institutions. In this respect, project findings take us further to

substantiating the idea that TS are not external from the lived experience of the individual student.

As illuminated in Appendices 31 and 32, equally compelling is that even though only two participants made direct reference to all five transferable skills on the tracker (and a further four students only made reference to three or less skills), this reduction can be counterbalanced by the range of ‘Unexpected Skills’ (those not on the list) that emerged as a consequence of the variant contexts identified above. For reader clarity, I have tabulated ‘unexpected skills’ articulated by students (see Appendix 33).

To summarise, the majority of ‘unexpected skills’ were minimally referenced with three additional unexpected skills emerging as most prevalent:

Working with a Client: 8 participants referenced a total of 19 times.

Adaptability: 8 participants referenced a total of 15 times.

The data here was beginning to make connections with Method 3 outcomes; the unexpected TS identified here were closely aligned with the ex-media student narratives, particularly their emphasis on ‘scenarios.’ Although never an intention, ex-media data informed our actions. The integration of scenarios and translating that into game format would not only serve to eradicate the mundane nature of mapping in the way that we were (with the PTST) at the time but it would enable students to both exercise and articulate their thinking on TS in a more informal, dialogic way. In creating scenarios, students would be able to learn from one another’s learning experiences, thus add value to the learning process itself. In isolation, the co-devised tracker became evidently flawed, however at the same time as this became apparent, somewhat surreptitiously a road opened (as a result of students from the past). Again, for transparency this was communicated with the students who were by then eager to articulate in different ways. The PTST was proving too rigid as it did not allow students to move outside of it. The tracking tool became more akin to Deleuze and Guattari’s description of ‘tracing’ except this was the exact opposite of what CEP originally intended.

A map has multiple entryways, as opposed to the tracing, which always comes back to “the same” (Deleuze and Guattari, 2013, p.12).

If the tracker was perceived as ‘a chore’ then our actions would need to respond accordingly. We preferred the notion of mapping student TS as this facilitates greater autonomy and freedom for articulations to cross pollinate transferable skills; modification contingent on the person articulating them.

Having said this, the PTST proved useful as an initial step towards nurturing confidence to articulate, however the timeframe for usage should not extend beyond two months (see Section 7.6). For this reason, it remains a founding

method of our IMADE Model towards employability (Step 2: Map). The past and the present were becoming unified at an intersection; only at this point, I was the one who could see it. This reaffirmed the rationale to integrate key excerpt audio (edited version) of clips as method 8b. I felt it was important for participants to be able to hear audio extracted from prior students in order to reflexively make their own

mobilising their thinking and articulations as they exited the course. Method 8 signalled the end to the project and data collection phase but it is only the

beginning of their future, I hoped the audio might resonate in their thoughts as they made their way home that day, as an ‘and… and… and’ process (Deleuze and Guattari, 2013, p. 26).

At this point in the project, the obvious breadth of transferable skills articulated through student practice(s) evidenced that participants had already begun to map their own terrain. As a form of self-canonisation; their articulations were coming to represent a more personalised sense of knowledge creation. They were creating an employability language of their own.

The rhizome is an antigenealogy. It is a short-term memory, or antimemory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots. Unlike the graphic arts, drawing or photography, unlike tracings, the rhizome pertains to a map that must be

produced, constructed, a map that is always detachable, connectible, reversible, modifiable, and has multiple entryways and exits and its own lines of flight (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, p. 21 cited in Cormier 2008).

Interview data supports the idea of the rhizomatic learning model suggested in ‘A Thousand Plateaus’ by Deleuze and Guattari (2013). However diluted and diverse transferable skills became; participant articulation(s) depicted expansion across a multitude of transferable skills, they were ultimately determining their (Ibid., 2013) ‘own lines of flight’ whilst becoming expert articulators of themselves. Given the nature of our PAR steps and post-structural analytical framework, validation of the data derived from student articulations themselves and not pre-determined by a benchmark on which to judge progression, as evidenced across the timeframe. Participants were demonstrating that they were now in possession of a newly

developing skill; mobilisation had taken place. Participants were now demonstrating clear ability and capacity to extrapolate transferable skills as mobilised from their experiences; wherever they found them.

CEP never set out to establish criteria upon which to judge project outcomes, the PTST came to symbolise a supportive strategy only, it was never going to

represent the end outcome. Articulation of participant transferable skills is evident in the interview data extracted and the trackers simply mobilised participants towards that junction.

A sense of personalised and internalised knowledge creation can be drawn from observations made on ‘Personal Development.’ It became apparent in the one-to- one interview transcripts that a somewhat unanticipated sense of self-reflection also transpired specific to transformation of the self as a consequence of project engagement. All participants, equating to a total of 19 references were made in relation to changing perceptions of themselves and/or their own behaviour(s). This led into our finding that TS are deeply personal. The ‘personal development’ element of learning behaviours was not the focus of our study but raises an interesting question on their relationship, constituting a specific research field that requires further investigation.

Individual student progression can be evidenced more clearly in ‘Student

Graduated Articulations’ (Section 6.3) where visual representations of the various articulated accounts are presented and enable individual progression to become more visible. Thus, we provide a response to our second research question. By using an employability language that students understood, they learnt to act and speak differently.