Work-based learning: ‘student’ and ‘learner’

roles and identities

The formation of a ‘student’ or ‘learner’ identity is a key issue in relation to all three research questions. ‘Learner’ and ‘student’ identities have been the subject of much debate in academic literature due to the significance attached to retention in higher education and the successful integration of students by HEIs. However, there is a danger of conflating ‘student’ and ‘learner’ and the differences are important to this study. A useful

clarification is offered by Thunborg et al (2013) (section 1.4).

Solomon’s article on vocational learning is helpful in exploring the language of ‘learner’ for work-based learners. He discusses the relationship between being both a learner and a worker and the conflation of the two identities using the term ‘learner-worker’ to signify the hybrid identity (2005).

Solomon argues that the positioning of ‘learner’ first rather than ‘worker’ in the sequence indicates the location of the learner and their purpose and anticipated practices (2005). Crisp and Maidment (2009) also found that the language of ‘student’/’learner’ is significant as work-based learners resented having to assume a ‘student’ identity perceived by them as derogatory. Askham (2008) suggests that there is also a contradiction for mature learners in the simultaneous states of ‘adult’ and ‘student’. He suggests that:

78

‘the adult identity is autonomous, responsible and mature whereas that of the student identity is incomplete, dependent and in deficit’ (2008:90).

In contrast to this construct O’Shea, in her study at an Australian university of women who were ‘first in the family’ entering higher education, suggests there is an idealised student being presented (2014). This ‘ideal’ student is an independent learner who will take responsibility for themselves and is self-reliant managing the educational expectations of university (O’Shea, 2014). O’Shea argues that this type of student is a product of a neo-liberal discourse of higher education. Furthermore, this concept is problematic for many higher education students due to the subjectivities and complexities of students’ lives and the diverse student population. Leathwood argues that this discourse is a male construct and assumes that students are

‘unencumbered by domestic responsibilities, poverty or self-doubt’ (2006:615).

The development of a student identity has been explored in a range of literature (Collier, 2000; Warmington, 2002; Crossan et al, 2003; Johnston and Merrill, 2004; Yielder, 2004; Chapman, 2012-13 McSweeney, 2012; Daniels and Brooker, 2014; O’Shea, 2014). Drawing on a structural symbolic interactionist perspective of identity McSweeney argued that success in higher education was dependent upon the formation of a ‘viable student or learner identity’ (2012:366). In her study of social care

practitioners and work-based learning in Ireland, she found that the

development of a ‘viable student identity’ necessitated students to adapt to the requirements of a new role and ‘successfully’ accommodate the new

79

identity (McSweeney, 2012). This has been portrayed in some literature (Collier, 2000; Daniels and Brooker, 2014) as a linear process. According to Daniels and Brooker developing a student identity occurs over time as the student enters and moves through the stages of university:

‘Student identity emerges through this developmental journey: firstly as a ‘new’ student, then by moving into and through new spaces of

learning and sharing knowledge, critiquing and reflecting on new and unfamiliar ideas’ (2014:69).

This suggests a trajectory of development occurring over time echoing the concept of ‘transition as development’ (Gale and Parker, 2014) (section 2.3.1). This linear development however, does not reflect the complexity of accommodating multiple identities spanning multiple domains.

The impact on learner identities of prior experiences of education and biography has been addressed in other literature (Collier, 2000;

Warmington, 2002; Crossan et al, 2003; Johnston and Merrill, 2004; Yielder, 2004; Ahlgren and Tett, 2010; Chapman, 2012-13). For many ‘non-

traditional’ learners re-entering education means ‘returning to a site with past associations of marginalisation and truncated progress’ (Warmington, 2002:584). O’Shea suggests that for ‘non-traditional’ students (mature students and ‘first in family’ students) the higher education environment is incompatible with existing identities and can sometimes be contradictory to the social contexts within which previous identities have been constructed (2014). O’Shea suggests that these contradictions can result in a

80

symbolic interactionism Collier argues that students use their learner identity from previous education experiences and when this fails to match the new expectations they attempt to readjust this to achieve a better match (2000). Becoming accomplished in the recognised and valued tasks associated with the student role is central to achieving a better match and developing a ‘viable’ student identity (Watts and Waraker, 2008; McSweeney, 2012).

When a student has a lack of cultural capital (section 2.3.2) or the ‘wrong’ cultural capital (Beagan, 2007) coming to university can be experienced as a dislocation or ‘imposter phenomenon’ (Clance and Imes, 1978:241).

‘Imposter phenomenon’ was termed by Clance and Imes and describes a state of vulnerability regarding learner identities that can be experienced by participants in all learning environments. Borrowing from Clance and Imes’ study (1978), Chapman’s study of mature students found that all students to varying degrees suffered feelings of being an imposter in higher education, describing this as ‘imposter syndrome’ (2012-13:48). This she stated ‘can lead to, at best, a feeling of lack of entitlement but at worst a fear of

exposure’ (2012-13:48). O’Shea found in her study that women who were first-in-family students who were undertaking degrees following a period of absence from education were at higher risk of seeing themselves as imposters in higher education (2014). Whilst work-based learning routes offer a legitimate route into higher education that might not be accessible otherwise, at the same time this can enhance the vulnerabilities of those students classed as ‘non-traditional’ learners.

81

A number of studies consider the relationship between social class, the construction of an identity as a learner and perceived alienation from university culture (Bowl, 2001; Reay et al 2010; Howard and Davies, 2013; Thunborg, 2013). Reay et al (2010) consider the concept of alienation and identifies the difference between universities in terms of the social class of students who enrol on programmes. They suggest that students’

experiences of adapting to the higher education environment and

developing a stronger identity as a learner were dependent upon a range of factors including gender, location, university resourcing, and other

competing commitments (2010). The complex relationships between these factors meant that on some levels some students can feel more integrated into higher education than on others, impacting on the salience of a student identity (Reay et al, 2010). One student in their study for example felt they ‘fitted in’ socially but not academically (ibid). Howard and Davies (2013) suggest that people can construct a ‘non-learner’ identity which creates a barrier to integration into the student community. There are also cognitive risks associated with this due to feeling that they have a deficit in terms of the necessary academic attributes (ibid). However, the context of higher education does contribute to the formation of an ‘authentic’ student identity (Esmond, 2012).

Much of the literature focuses on individual identity of students. Howard and Davies (2013) however, identified a shared social identity amongst a student group as one of the themes to emerge from their study of mature students on two higher education programmes. The social identity was based upon ‘background, goals and challenges’ (Howard and Davies,

82

2013:780). Group membership was described as ‘critical’ as the construction of a social identity formed the basis of a support network enabling students to overcome the challenges of higher education (Howard and Davies, 2013). Work-based learners in this study highlighted group membership as an important factor in their experiences of higher education suggesting the formation of ‘learning communities’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991) (section 2.3.3).

Whilst an identity as a learner may initially be fragile this is also liable to change as the student becomes more embedded in the ‘routines and rituals’ (Martin et al, 2014:204) of higher education. Context and commitment to roles (Stryker, 2008) become important issues and are helpful in

understanding the challenges experienced by work-based learners in this study straddling multiple domains with multiple identities resulting from these.