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

with colleagues

College staff

Ho lid

16

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