Models of Education-Work Transitions

• In Event: Roundtable Session 4
  In Roundtable Session: Preparation for Working Life: Utilizing Workplace Experiences to Support Initial Occupational Preparation

Abstract

Purpose: This paper will contrast two models of education-work transition – the connective and recontextualisation model. The common theme between the two models is that they both accept that there is a mediated relationship between the organisation of work, the opportunities made available to learners and the opportunities learners' negotiate for themselves to participate in work practice, and the programme of study in which they are involved.

Perspective: The difference between the models is that whereas the connective model attempted to pre-describe the phases, stages and outcomes of this mediated relationship in an attempt to identify each likely facet of the work experience, because it was based on the application of the principles of Weberian typology to work experience, the recontextualisation model is based on new directions in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory that emphasise the co-construction of activity, expertise and identity. From this perspective, it is possible to specify expressions of recontextualisation – content, pedagogy, workplace, learner – and to explore the extent to which they are enacted or engaged with by experienced others and learners contextually.

Method: The method adopted in the case of the former comprised a review of literature from historical, anthropological, sociological and educational sources that addressed conceptions of the transition between education and work, and skills required in a knowledge economy, supplemented by empirical investigation through interviews with staff working in academic and vocational schools of work experience in five countries; and in the case of the latter, a review of literature from the same sources but focusing on the iterative relationship between theory and practice and empirical investigation through observation and interview of the transition of Pharmacy students and interns in the Creative and Finance sectors, into work.

Findings: The presentation will identify that the limitation of the connective model is that it treated work experience as a generic process that varied according to country. The result was that the forms of knowledge that constituted the curriculum were, inadvertently, treated as a black box that were acquired and then applied to practice. In contrast, the recontextualisation model is sensitive to series of decisions that are made to support knowledge from disciplines or a vocation/profession becoming part of a curriculum, facilitate learner engagement with that knowledge in educational institutions, facilitate learner engagement with workplace practice and the way in which that process influences their use of knowledge acquired in educational settings as a resource for their work practice; and the dual challenge learners face – to develop academically to gain a qualification and vocationally to develop occupationally-specific expertise.

Significance: The conceptual significance is that: (i) the connective model was developed to map relationships but this overlooks the complex curriculum decisions and pedagogic processes, involving educational institutions, workplaces and learners, that influence the extent to which learning occurs; and (ii) the recontextualisation model has been designed to explicitly take account of this oversight. The empirical significance is that the recontextualisation model allows researchers to start their investigation of education-work transition from three perspectives: education, work or learner.

Author

• David Guile, Institute of Education - London