Progress Review – Report€¦ · Web viewWord count – 4,950 excluding references) Contents....
Transcript of Progress Review – Report€¦ · Web viewWord count – 4,950 excluding references) Contents....
Progress Review – Report
A Chat analysis of Associate Students in transition from college to university.
Julia Fotheringham Supervised by Prof Richard Edwards
School of EducationUniversity of Stirling
August 2014
Word count – 4,950 excluding references)
Contents
1. Introduction to research topic 1
2. Policy framework 2
3. Aims of research 3
4. Research questions 3
5. Critical literature review 4
6. CHAT as a theoretical foundation and methodological approach 6
7. Data generation 9
8. Data analysis 11
9. Variance from original plan 12
10. Access to data and ethical considerations 13
11. Doctoral training 13
12. Relevant presentations to date 14
13. Future plans and timetable for completion 14
14. References 18
15. Progress and Plan of Study 20
2
1. Introduction to research topic
By the year 2016/17, and providing the Scottish Government targets are met, there will be
approximately seven and a half thousand students with a Higher National qualification who
will enter 2nd or 3rd year at university each year in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2014).
Universities, partner colleges and their funders (primarily the Scottish Funding Council) are
all concerned to ensure that students make effective transitions in respect of their retention
and academic progression in order to achieve economic and other targets.
The focus of this study is student transition from further to higher education. This focus will
be explored in the context of students in transition to third year of degree study at
university from college along an articulation route known as 2+2 (Scottish Government,
2013). In particular, the study focuses on transition support practices and the ways in
which transition support activities are mutually shaped by interactions amongst students
and staff in college and university. The study adopts a socio-cultural perspective in its
exploration of student and staff transition support practice in college and in university. I use
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engestrom, 2001), and related theoretical
constructs (Beach, 2003, 1999) to explore the complexity and dynamic interplay of the
various elements of activity systems in order to better understand the collective transition
space.
I hope, by means of my research to prise open the black-box which contains a series of
normative assumptions in which articulation is viewed, at least in policy terms, as primarily a
matter of curriculum planning (Scottish Government, 2011) involving the alignment of
content and level of study, all of which is viewed as essentially unproblematic for students
and institutions. Such assumptions underpin Scottish Government policies which are
intended both to widen and to increase participation in university, enabling student
transition into university through initiatives designed to ease and smooth ‘learner journeys’
(Scottish Government, 2011).
Page 1
2. Policy framework
This study is situated in the broad policy context of widening participation in higher
education (HE) which aims to recruit student groups who might otherwise not have gone to
university. The current Scottish Government policy discourse in this area endorses an
individualistic and deficit model of participation which revolves around a particular way of
conceptualising lack of participation and of barriers (unknowingly) put in place by universities.
Policy makers in the past and present have offered a depoliticized account of the reasons why
for some groups of students, university participation seems to perpetuate disadvantage rather
than reduce it. Broader socio-structural inequalities beyond the walls of educational
institutions, such as housing and health, are seldom acknowledged.
The latest Scottish expression of policy intention to widen participation is the Post-16
Education (Scotland) Act 2013 which encourages the development of articulation routes for
students from college to university and recognizes the significance of intersectoral
institutional relationships in achieving national HE participation targets. These relationships
have not previously been the subject of such significant policy direction. Since 2012,
universities have been required to negotiate outcome agreements with the Scottish Funding
Council, setting targets and criteria for funding. In 2013, the Scottish Funding Council
introduced further criteria requiring universities to support additional places for students to
progress from college to University by way of ‘guaranteed articulation’ (Scottish Funding
Council, 2013) and there are financial penalties for failure to meet these agreed targets.
There are variations in articulation routes which this scheme supports, but in the context of
my study, Associate Students begin their Higher National qualification at College with the
knowledge that if they meet the outcomes and requirements of their HN course and meet
the University’s specified level of achievement in the HN graded unit, they have a
guaranteed place entering with full advanced standing in 3rd year into a named
undergraduate programme. This shared model of delivery is known as a 2+2 model
(Scottish Funding Council, 2013) and enables students to enrol not only on a College
programme, but also simultaneously to enrol as Associate Students of the university to
which they will eventually progress in 3rd year. This model is underpinned by the Scottish
2
Credit Qualifications Framework in that it enables students to move from one type of
qualification to another with no loss of time.
The Post-16 Transitions Policy and Practice Framework (Scottish Government 2012), details
universities’ responsibilities to work with colleges in the design of courses to support
‘seamless’ progression on to degree levels or study, and to provide student support enabling
students to make a ‘smooth’ transition into university. Policy treatment of articulation
from college to university sees this progression as generally unproblematic although there is
recognition that universities have a responsibility to try to ‘ease’ such transitions as they
see it, and that individuals may require particular types of student support. There is
however little acknowledgement of the differentiation of the two sectors, and of the
potential epistemological and ontological differences that underpin pedagogic practice in
college and university. Neither is there any acknowledgement of the differential quality
across sectors and institutions.
3. Aim of Research The overall aim of this PhD study is to further understanding of practice relating to student
transition from college to university. In this study, Studentship practices are conceived of as
separate activity systems in college and in university, with the transition space being located
at the boundary between these systems. My research seeks to understand the tensions
and contradictions emerging within and between associate studentship practice activity
systems in college and in university. By understanding how transition is enacted by people
and artefacts in these activity systems, my research creates potential to point to affirmative
ways in which to intervene, disturb or amplify these networks of interaction (Fenwick,
2014).
4. Research Questions
1. What are the practices through which students are supported to transition from
further education (FE) to higher education (HE)?
2. What transition support practices are stable (or durable) and which are not?
3. How are transition support practices enacted through the curriculum?
4. How do these practices impact upon transition for students?
3
5. How are the people and artefacts engaged in these practices shaping and being
shaped by transition support activities?
5. Critical literature review
Scholarly interest in transitions can be traced back Van Gennep’s accounts of the three
stages of age related rites of passage published in 1909. The imprint of this tripartite
structure can be seen to underpin many contemporary accounts of life course transition
(Bridges 2004, Ecclestone et al, 2010), including transition into university. There is no
shortage of literature which focuses on academic transitions, and in particular upon
transition from further to higher education along various types of articulation routes. Many
of these studies offer accounts of small scale institutional interventions designed to ‘ease’
and ‘smooth’ transitions for students (Knox, 2005, Pike and Harrison, 2011, Crabtree et al.
2007). Although these types of practice narratives are useful for disseminating information,
their relevance to my research is limited since they offer almost entirely individualistic and
certainly under-theorized accounts of practice and of learning transfer. Accounts in the
literature of students’ experiences of transition are also interesting in that they highlight
common transition related issues that students report, particularly in relation to
independent learning (Christie et al. 2013, Chan, 2013), engaging with study support
initiatives (Hallet, 2012), student expectations and shifting identity (Barron and D’Annunzio-
Green, 2009, Christie et al. 2008, ) but these are most often considered in isolation from any
structural or historical socio-cultural issues which are likely to impact upon the experiences
being reported. The positioning of the researchers is not addressed in any of these accounts
of ‘student voice’ and there is no suggestion as to how the authors might take account of
their own otherness in relation to the students upon whose experience they report.
The literature relating to socio-cultural theoretical perspectives and related empirical
research into academic transitions has proved to be far more useful in underpinning and
framing this research project.
Socio-cultural conceptions of transition as transfer
Tuomi-Gröhn and Engeström (2003) provide a categorization of current perspectives on
learning transfer which include cognitive, situated, socio-cultural and activity theoretical
4
conceptions. These conceptions share the use of ‘transfer’ as a common metaphor to
describe a process of transition. Sociocultural conceptions provide a relational
understanding of learning transfer while activity theoretical perspectives, being also
sociocultural in their position, place learning transfer in the context of a collective activity
system in which the individual’s learning and engagement with the activity system results in
a change to that system (Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom, 2003). Transfer metaphors with
their ‘one time one direction’ overtones contrast with the concept of boundary crossing
which reflects continuing interactions involving a multiplicity of participants (Akkerman and
Baker, 2011).
Other conceptions of transitions
In many studies, the idea of transition remains undefined and under-theorized (Ecclestone,
Biesta and Hughes, 2010), and yet varying conceptions of transitions are likely to give rise to
different ways of researching, supporting and enabling transitions (Gale & Parker, 2014).
Gale and Parker (2014) define transition as ‘the capability to navigate change’ offering a
typology of three different ways – induction, development and becoming - in which
transition is conceptualized in research, policy and practice. This perspective is one which
concentrates on the individual rather than on the broader collective sociocultural context
and is accordingly less relevant for my study. Significantly though, Gale and Parker (2014)
recommend that researchers should name how they intend to theorize transitions, and I
have found Beach’s typology of consequential transitions to be useful in this regard being
well aligned with perspectives associated with Cultural Historical Activity Theory.
Beach (1999) proposes the concept of consequential transitions which explains how active
construction of new knowledge involves the transformation (as opposed to transfer) of
something which has been learnt elsewhere, resulting in the development of identities, new
ways of knowing and of positioning oneself in the world (Tuomi-Gröhn and Engeström,
2003). For Associate students who are the focus of my study, a consequential transition
would involve learning to be an undergraduate and to practice as one, as well as to learn
about undergraduateness. Four types of consequential transition are identified by Beach
(1999); lateral (predictable or desirable movement between two historically related
activities), collateral (movement between historically related activities, but not necessarily
5
developmental), encompassing (changing participant’s activities, but within the same
boundary) and mediational (simulated involvement in an environment that has not yet been
experienced). Beach’s (1999) interpretation of transfer moves the discussion from being
one about the individual and their cognitive development to one about relations between
activity systems, such as those encountered in college and in university. Beach’s portrayal
of transition as a site of struggle contrasts with Scottish government policy (Putting Learners
at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for post-16 education, 2011) and research studies
which describe measures to ‘ease’ or to ‘smooth’ transitions. There is of course a danger of
framing transition negatively by anticipating discord and difficulties when we know that
many students give very positive accounts of the ‘life-changing’ transformations which
occurred when they embraced the opportunities presented as part of degree study (Christie
et al, 2008). Furthermore, Ecclestone (2009, p23) observes that where transitions are
excessively pathologised, educative aims involve managing transitions in ways that are
intended to minimise the risk and anxiety for students and can potentially overlook the
complexity of this process.
Beach’s consequential transitions invite a research methodology which incorporates the
idea of ‘developmental coupling’ (Beach, 2003, p47) . Newall et al. (2009) provide a
particularly relevant example of a longitudinal study of transition from university to work.
They deploy a conceptualisation of transition which although not specifically defined, is
closely aligned with sociocultural perspectives using Beach’s consequential transitions and
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) in its analysis. Despite the obvious limitations of
the use of only one research participant, this study provides an example of the theoretical
and methodological approach which I intend to adopt in my study.
6. CHAT as a theoretical foundation and methodological approach
6.1 Overview
CHAT provides a relevant theoretical framework as well as methodological approach for the
analysis of two activity systems in my study; Associate Studentship in college, and
Studentship as a direct entrant in University. CHAT provides a vehicle for understanding
how students’ practices on these programmes mutually shape the components of an object-
6
oriented activity system. Engeström (2001) portrays these components as comprising the
mediated relationship between subject, object , instruments (tools and artefacts), rules,
community and division of labour and outcome. Typically, a triangle is heuristically adopted
to depict the six relational elements of an activity system in which the human subject’s
orientation towards a goal or object is mediated by cultural artefacts. Figure 1 (below)
illustrates these elements in the context of the Associate studentship activity system which I
plan to explore in my research.
Figure 1 – Basic elements of college associate studentship activity system
6.2 Contradictions
Contradiction is a key concept associated with Engeström’s representation of activity
systems. The components of an activity system are neither static nor fixed, instead they
represent the dynamic interplay of historical and structural tensions arising from the
interaction of the different elements in the system. The result of this fluidity is an ongoing
disruption of the balance in the system so that contradictions arise which create
opportunities for the system to rebalance. Engeström explains (2001) that contradictions
can lead to innovation and transformation which change the collective activity system.
7
Transitioning to University
Community (fellow students, staff, family)
Object ready to transition to University
Division of labour (roles and responsibilities for staff, students)
Rules (regulations, assessment regimes, lab protocols)
Subject (Associate student)
Tools (language, curriculum, texts, technologies, classrooms, labs)
Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008) note that change can be denied and inhibited in
any activity system. Contradiction in this instance can herald the reversal of practices which
are unbalancing the system and likely to lead to its transformation. However, a CHAT
analysis will allow me to bring to the surface (through observation, and focus groups) the
contradictions and tensions at play within and between the two studentship activity systems
that are framing this study. I recognize that not all learning and change may be brought into
play by contradiction and so a CHAT analysis will be used to frame but not to limit my
research and findings. Furthermore, data may be generated in my study which does not
naturally align with any of the six elements of Engeström’s representation of an activity
system, in which case the finding will be noted separately rather than excluded or forced
into the activity system framework.
6.3 College studentship and University studentship activity systems
The two activity systems being analysed in this study are those that represent ‘Associate
studentship in College’, and ‘studentship as direct entrant in University’. The subject in
both activity systems is the Student. The object in the college studentship systems is the
achievement of a ‘readiness for university’ and the outcome is ‘transitioning out’ of college
and into university. In the university studentship activity system the object is ‘transitioning
in’ to University as a direct entrant and the outcome is ‘engaging in studentship practices
associated with degree level study’ (BEng Energy & Environmental Engineering or BEng Civil
Engineering) . The transition space to some extent envelops both of the studentship
activity systems although the ‘problem space’ is represented by the boundary between the
college and university studentship systems. Transition in this study is not a singular event
which occurs at the end of Associate Students’ second year at college, because the
collaborative study days create opportunities for staff and students to cross the boundary
between activity systems at various points over two years and to begin to shape and be
shaped by these interactions.
6.4 Using the enacted curriculum to explore Associate Studentship.
The enacted curriculum provides a relevant context which narrows the scope of the
research project, but makes it more manageable given the constraints of part-time PhD
study. Blank et al. (2001) distinguishes between intended, enacted, assessed and learned
8
curricula. The intended curriculum relates specifically to academic content and includes the
topics to be taught and tested, whereas the enacted curriculum relates to decisions that
teachers and students take about how much time to spend on a particular topic, what
content to cover in that time, to what standard of achievement and using what pedagogic
approaches and learning activities. I intend to explore transition support practice through
the lens of the enacted curriculum in two related cases: BEng Energy & Environmental
Engineering and BEng Civil Engineering degree programmes. Although both of these
programmes belong to the engineering discipline, they have been chosen as the most
contrasting from amongst the suite on offer to Associate Students in the School of
Engineering and the Built Environment (SEBE). Students study on these programmes first of
all at Higher National level in three different partner colleges, and then as 3rd and 4th year
degree programmes in one post-92 Scottish university.
7. Data generation
I will use a combination of non-participant observation, photo-elicitation interviews and
focus groups to surface and point to contradictions and tensions within and between the
two activity systems. As this study adopts a socio-cultural approach, non-human objects
such as digital artefacts, software applications, places and spaces will play an important part
in the data generation process.
Since this is a longitudinal study, data will be collected in 2 stages. Stage 1 represents the
period from October 2014 – June 2015 when the Associate Students are studying HNs in
College and engaging in transition support activities facilitated by University staff. Stage 2
represents the period from September 2015 – June 2016 when the students have become
direct entrants to year 3 of the relevant undergraduate programme at University.
Table 1 (below) provides a brief overview of the data generation methods to be deployed
during each of the stages.
9
Data generation approach Stage 1Oct 2014 – June 2015
Stage 2 in UniversitySept 2015 – June 2016
Non-participant observation of studentship practice in class
Observe the enacted curriculum in at least 2 time-tabled HND classes in all 3 partner colleges, on each degree programme.Use observation sheets to capture data at 10 minute intervals. Record what is being taught, how, what are students doing, what artefacts are deployed how and for what? Field notes will supplement observation sheet records.
To observe the enacted curriculum in at least 2 time-tabled 3rd year classes in on both degree programmes.Use of observation sheets and field notes as per Stage 1.
Non-participant observation of transition support activities followed by focus group with 5 – 8 students.
Observe university-led transition support activities in October, November 2014 and February, March 2015 using photographs and field notes. Photo-elicitation focus groups of 5 – 8 student participants scheduled on same day. Focus groups will explore the elements of the Activity system (Figure 1) such as community, roles and responsibilities, regulations in college and at University.
Observe transition support activities if scheduled. Photo-elicitation focus groups as per Stage 1.
Photo-elicitation one to one interviews or focus groups with staff.
Interview with at least one member of academic staff from each college and each degree programme. The focus of the interview will be drawn from the elements that comprise the Studentship Activity System.
Interviews with academic staff on both degree programmes and with transition support staff.
I will keep the data that I have generated on a password protected hard disc drive to which
only I have access.
10
Table 2 (below) summarises how each of these approaches relate to my research questions.
1. What are the practices through which students are supported to transition from further education (FE) to higher education (HE)?
Non-participant observation in Stage 1 (college) and Stage 2 (university)
2. What transition support practices are stable (or durable) and which are not?
Photo-elicitation focus groups with students and interviews with academic and transition support staff
3. How is transition support practice enacted through the curriculum?
Non-participant observation in Stage 1 (college) and Stage 2 (university)
4. How do these practices impact upon transition for students?
Focus groups and interviews
5. How are people and artefacts engaged in these practices shaping and being shaped by transition support activities?
Non-participant observation in Stage 1 (college) and Stage 2 (university), focus groups and interviews
8. Data Analysis
Data analysis will be carried out as an on-going and iterative process throughout the 18
months of data generation and beyond. Initially, descriptive codes will be assigned to all
records that have been generated providing basic information about the research
participant or the context of the observation. Then topic coding will identify what topics
are being referred to or discussed. I may use autocoding software to support this process,
but the details of that decision are still outstanding. Finally, analytic coding comes into play
at which point three particular theoretical perspectives suggest categories which may be
drawn through my data in order to analyse the changing relation between individuals and
their social contexts. First of all, the dimensions of CHAT (see Figure 1) will suggest certain
categories for analysis which may or may not be observable in the data. Secondly, Beach’s
(1999) consequential transitions could provide a useful analytical tool to identify different
types of consequential transitions that are occurring within and between the activity
systems. Finally, Beach’s (2003) concept of developmental coupling provides a mechanism
11
for considering the way in which different activity systems (Associate Studentship in College
and Associate Studentship in University) mutually shape each other.
9. Access to Data and Ethical considerations
I recognize that my experience as a Senior Lecturer (Academic Practice) in a University and
informal contact with university and college staff over a period of many years mean that I
bring certain biases which inevitably shape my engagement with this study which could
have a limiting effect on the knowledge produced. The design of my study, and the data
generation approaches that I have proposed are intended to take account of these
considerations and to minimise their negative effect on my study.
I will access existing informal relationships with staff in the partner Colleges and in
University to try to secure invitations to come to speak to staff and students about my
research during their timetabled classes. During these sessions, I intend to distribute and
discuss Research Information Sheets including information about what is involved in being a
participant, respect and confidentiality to be afforded to participants, the risks involved in
participation, details of research data storage, information about the right to withdraw from
the study and the limits of anonymity in analysis and subsequent publication. I will
distribute consent forms and invite students and staff to indicate their consent to
participating in the study and to being observed during teaching and learning activities in
class. The Consent form will also enable participants to indicate whether or not they would
be interested in participating in subsequent photo-elicitation focus groups or interviews
when they attend the University for transition support activity days.
There are no significant risks to participating in this research project, although college
students and staff may feel some sense of obligation to participate since I am a member of
staff at the University with which the college is in partnership and to which the students
intend to articulate. This potential risk is brought about because of my role as a member of
academic staff at the University which gives me status as an ‘insider’ researcher (Adler &
Adler, 1994) which attracts benefits as well as disadvantages. The most notable advantage
in my research context relates to my knowledge and familiarity with the culture, sensitivities
and politics in colleges and university, but I am aware that I should try to mitigate the
12
disadvantages of this researcher role, in particular the tendency to overlook certain routine
activities, to make assumptions about the meanings of events and failing to seek
clarification (Unluer, 2012). However, in my case the distinction between outsider and
insider researcher is a dappled one since I previously taught in Colleges and now I teach in
University. I anticipate that staff in the School of Engineering and Built Environment at
University would regard me as partly ‘outsider’ (since I have no disciplinary knowledge and
am not well known in the School) and partly ‘insider’ because of my role in the University as
an academic developer and fellow academic.
I recognize that other conflicts may arise during the course of this study, if for example staff
or students reveal negative or potentially harmful practices in the University which in my
non-researcher role would warrant intervention to change or disrupt them. Furthermore,
there is some limited risk that participants may reveal highly sensitive personal information
which is beyond the intended scope of a focus group or interview. I will ensure that
appropriate support mechanisms are in place prior to data generation activities so that
participants are able to access relevant support as soon as possible. In both of these sorts of
eventualities I will seek guidance from the ESRC Framework for Research Ethics (2012) and
from my research supervisor in the School of education.
10. Variance from original plan
Although the focus and context for my study have remained broadly consistent since I
started on the doctoral programme, my research questions have changed significantly to
reflect the fact that I am adopting a socio-cultural approach to my research, deploying CHAT
as a theoretical and methodological framing.
11. Doctoral Training Writing in the First Year of Your PhD – April 2014
Vitae Part-time Researcher Conference, University of Glasgow, August 2013
University of Stirling, School of Education Doctoral Conference, May 2013.
13
PhD workshops: 2 March 2013; 19 (Induction) & 20 April 2013 (thinking critically, social
theory); 2 & 3 August (governmentality, interviewing & observation); 8 & 9 November
(Bourdieu and data analysis); 28 February & 1 March 2014 (Writing practices); 16 & 17 May
2014 (Derrida and Cultural Historical Activity Theory)
12. Relevant presentations to date
A CHAT analysis of Associate Students in transition from college to university, presentation
at University of Stirling, School of Education Doctoral Conference, May 2014.
Associate Students: Out of Sight but not out of mind. Poster presentation at Edinburgh
Napier University Staff Conference, June 2014
Partnership and preparation: A new model of transition from college to university. May
2014, Presentation at Attainment for All Conference (paper to be published in Conference
Proceedings later in 2014).
13. Future plans and timetable
The areas where I most specifically need to develop expertise relate to conducting non-
participant observation, focus groups and data analysis. I intend to pilot my observation
sheets working with an entirely different student group in the university where I work and I
am presently exploring how I can gain some practice of conducting focus groups. I have a
reasonable amount of qualitative interviewing experience, although I would like to pilot the
types of questions that I intend to ask.
Please see next page for the timetable for my research.
14
Timeline: Stage 1 September 2014 – Aug 2015 Data Generation and analysis
August/September October November December January February March April May June Jul August
Ethics Approval1 Continue to engage with literature and develop data generation and analysis knowledge, understanding and practice
Design Stage 1 Research Information Sheet, Consent forms and go to colleges to recruit participantsDevelop non-participant observation sheets and pilot classroom observations
Set up college observation dates
Conduct classroom observations
Analysis of observations from classroom (ongoing)
Conduct classroom observations in colleges
Analysis of observations from classroom (ongoing)
Meet with University faculty and transition support staff to discuss observation
Observe and photograph student transition support day
Pilot focus groups with colleagues
Observe and photograph student transition support day and conduct focus group with 5 – 8 student participants
Observe and photograph student transition support day
Observe and photograph student transition support day and conduct focus groups
Analysis of observations from transition support day and focus groups (ongoing)
Pilot focus group and interviews
Interviews (or focus group) with
Transcribe interviews Interviews (or focus group) with College staff
Transcribe interviews
1 University of Stirling and Edinburgh Napier University
15
Timeline: Stage 2 September 2015 – Aug 2016. Data generation and analysis
September October November December January February March April May June Jul August
Second stage for Ethics Approval2
Continue to engage with literature and develop data generation and analysis knowledge and understanding
Holid
ay
H
olid
ay
H
olid
ay
Hol
iday
Hol
idayFinish transcription and analyze Stage 1 College staff interviews, (ongoing
from Stage 1)Start writing (presenting)about data and findings from Stage 1 (ongoing)
Analyse observations and photographs from classroom and transition support days and focus groups, (ongoing from stage 1)
Draft Stage 2 Research Information Sheet, Consent forms and recruit participantsDevelop Stage 2 non-participant observation sheets
Set up University observation dates
Conduct University lectures (or lab) observations
Conduct photo-elicitation focus groups with students
Analysis of observations from lectures and focus groups (ongoing)
Conduct University lecture (or lab) observations and final student focus group
Analysis of obs. and focus groups (ongoing)
Transcription and analysis of University lecturer interviews
Conduct final interviews (or focus groups) with University academics
Transcription and analysis of interview(ongoing)
2 University of Stirling and Edinburgh Napier University
17
Timeline: September 2016 – August 2017 Analysis and Thesis preparation
September October November December January February March April May June Jul August
Continue with data analysis for Stage 1 and Stage 2 data
Holid
ay
Continue to engage with literature
Start writing (presenting)about data and findings from Stage 1 & 2
Timeline: September 2017 – August 2018 Thesis preparation and prep for viva
September October November December January February March April May June Jul August
Writing first draft
Continue to engage with literature Writing Final draft
Viva Amends
18
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Akkerman, S. and Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research, (Vol. 81 (2), pp 132 – 169.
Barron, P. and D’Annunzio Green, N. (2009). A smooth transition? Education and social expectations of direct entry students, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 10 (1) pp.7 – 25.
Beach, K. (1999) Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education: Review of Research in Education, Vol. 24, pp101-139.
Beach, K. (2003) Consequential transitions: A Developmental View of Knowledge propagation Through Social organizations. Chapter 3 in: T.Tuomi-Gröhn and Y.Engeström (Eds.) Between school and work: new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Bridges, W. (2004) Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s Changes, Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
Crabtree, H. Roberts, C and Tyler, C (2007) Understanding the problems of transitions into higher education. Available online at www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/35_07.pdf (last accessed 3rd August 2014).
Chan, V. (2001) Readiness for Learner Autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6 (4), pp. 505-518.
Christie, H., Barron, P. & D'Annunzio-Green, N. (2013) Direct entrantsin transition: becoming independent learners, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38 (4), pp. 623-637.
Christie, H, Tett, L. Cree, V. Hounsell, J. and McCune, V. (2008) ‘A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions’: learning to be a university student’, Studies in Higher Education Vol. 33 (5) pp.567 -581.
Ecclestone, K. (2009) Lost and found in transition: educational implications of concerns about ‘identity’,’ agency’ and ‘structure’, in Field, J., Gallagher J. and Ingram, R. (Eds.), Researching Transitions in Lifelong Learning, London: Routledge.
Ecclestone, K, Biesta, G and Hughes, M (2010) Transitions and learning through the lifecourse, London: Routledge.
Engestrom, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14 (1), pp. 133-156.
Fenwick, T. (2014) Sociomaterial approaches in ethnographic research, ProPEL matters website. Available online http://propelmatters.stir.ac.uk/2014/06/04/sociomaterial-approaches-in-ethnographic-research/
19
Gale, T. and Parker, S. (2014) Navigating change: a typology of student transitions in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39, (5) pp. 734 – 753.
Hallett, F. (2012) Study support and the development of academic literacy in higher education: a phenomenographic analysis. Teaching in Higher Education.
Knox, H. (2005) Making the transition from further to higher education; the impact of a preparatory module on retention, progression and performance. Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 29, (2), pp. 103 – 110.
Murphy, E, and Rodriguez-Manzanares, M (2008) Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, , Vol.24 (4), pp. 442-457
Parker, J. (2003) Reconceptualising the curriculum: from commodification totransformation, Teaching in Higher Education, 8:4, 529-543.
Pike, A and Harrison, J (2011) Crossing the FE/HE divide: the transition experiences of direct entrants at Level 6, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 35 (1), pp.55 - 67
Blank, R., Porter, A. and Smithson, J. ( 2001) New Tools for Analyzing Teaching, Curriculum, and Standards in Mathematics & Science, Results from the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum ProjectFinal Report, Available online at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458275.pdf) (Last accessed 4th August 2014).Prosser, J (2011) Visual Methodology: Toward a More Seeing Research, in Eds. Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Scottish Funding Council (2013) Guidance: Additional articulation places scheme for partnership between colleges and universities. Available online at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/19178/ (last accessed 3rd August 2014)
Scottish Government (2011) Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for post-16 Education. Available at www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/15103949/2 (last accessed 11th November 2012)
Scottish Government (2013) Post 16 education (Scotland) Act 2013 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/12/contents
Scottish Government (2014) Wider Access to Study, Scottish Government Website, Available online at http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Wider-access-to-study-c7f.aspx
Tuomi-Gröhn, T & Engeström,Y (Eds) (2003) Conceptualising transfer: from standard notions to developmental perspectives. Chapter 2 in: T.Tuomi-Gröhn and Y.Engeström (Eds.) Between school and work: new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Unluer, S. (2012) Being an Insider Researcher While Conducting Case Study Research, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 17, Article 58, pp. 1-14. Available online at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/unluer.pdf
20
Progress and Plan of Study
This year I have worked at identifying a focus, drawing up research questions and exploring the theoretical and conceptual basis for my study and producing the Progress Review. I am able to confirm that my study is one of academic transitions; and in particular transitions from College to University. My context is students studying Engineering courses in College who are intending to articulate with advanced standing to third year of study at University along the 2 + 2 articulation route (described in the Progress Review). I intend to try to answer the following questions:
1. What are the practices through which students are supported to transition from
further education (FE) to higher education (HE)?
2. What transition support practices are stable (or durable) and which are not?
3. How are transition support practices enacted through the curriculum?
4. How do these practices impact upon transition for students?
5. How are the people and artefacts engaged in these practices shaping and being
shaped by transition support activities?
The particular relevance of my study is that it attends first of all to a new government initiative for widening participation (known as the 2 + 2 articulation route) and to the even more over-arching topic of inclusive pedagogies which is a further reason why I intend to keep a pedagogic focus rather than taking a more holistic view which includes more general student support practice.
How am I progressing as a researcher ?
I have looked at the Researcher Development Framework, and identified two domains (A and B) which are the most relevant to my progress this year.
Knowledge and intellectual abilities – Domain A
In outlining my progress in this domain, I reflect first of all upon the two overlapping strands of research activity; PhD Cohort workshops, and writing for supervision meetings.
Aside from the motivational aspects of the Cohort Workshops led by Profs Tara Fenwick and John Ianson which have been unbelievably positive, I have particularly valued the way that we have been introduced to various philosophical perspectives through prescribed reading, presentation and discussion. I’m not sure that I would ever have managed the degree of engagement and enthusiasm that I now have for exploring more and more philosophical perspectives. Foucault, Bourdieu and Derrida have particularly inspired me to read more thoroughly and to consider how their writing and ways of seeing the world could inform my own research. I know that I have only just dipped my toe in the water and there is still plenty to be done, but I feel well equipped to make progress in an area with which was almost entirely ignorant and with which I had no experience. In March 2013, I started with a picture book which sought to explain Foucault and this year I’ve progressed through and past a curious book named Pooh and the Philosophers, and thankfully I am now able to make some headway with the philosophers’ own writing.
As part of the workshop activities, we have engaged with readings relating to a wide variety of qualitative research methods and practiced one or two techniques. I realise that I have a very great deal to learn in respect of undertaking data generation activities and I have included in my research
21
timetable what I hope will be sufficient time to undertake piloting of non-participant observation and of focus groups.
Preparation for workshops for supervision meetings and ultimately the drafting of the progress review has given me the greatest sense of progress this year. I started writing about theoretical perspectives on boundary crossing and transitions, then tackled a piece on activity theory followed a few months later by an overview of key theoretical concepts associated with Cultural Historical Activity Theory. Most recently I’ve had a couple of attempts to write about the policy framework in which my study sits, and through a process of trial and error, I may be gradually getting the hang of thinking and writing a little more like a researcher and less as a practitioner. The feedback that I receive is sometimes challenging, but always extremely useful prompting me to rethink, to be more analytical, to read wider and to become more critical as I engage with the literature. Making audio-recordings of my supervision sessions, and then writing these up has proved to be one of the most useful strategies in changing the way that I think and write. But the transition from practitioner to researcher is not an easy one.
Personal Effectiveness – Domain B
I think that I have made some progress on B1 (personal qualities) and B2 (self-management), but not as much as I would like to. My confidence still wavers, and I often lack conviction that I can achieve what is required. However my enthusiasm, interest and commitment have really never faltered since I started although balancing the needs of my practitioner role with PhD study is never easy. I enjoy writing for my researcher blog (http://juliapractice.wordpress.com), but I’m daunted by having an audience, and I need to find a way to make more progress on this front next year.
In terms of time management, having got off to a shaky start, I now have dedicated time put aside on evenings and Saturday – usually only about 10 dedicated hours of study per week, but I take every opportunity to work with college students and to engage with the literature throughout the week as part of my practitioner role which certainly increases my time on PhD related activities. Before supervision, or before the Cohort workshops, I generally spend 20 hours or so in preparation, on top of my existing study routine. I have also developed my skills with Mendelay which I use to organise my literature and with Evernote where I keep a system of notebooks and notes which support my reading and preliminary research activities. I do still have some work to do in terms of my personal organisation in order to become more consistent in record keeping and the filing of electronic notes that I make. There are so many cloud based choices, and I am often tempted to try out new tools with the result that I regularly find myself unsure about what I have filed where and using which tool. I believe there is still time to become more consistent once I am satisfied that I am using a process that works for me.
22